"Paul E. Doniger" wrote:

> I am puzzled by your recent posting. Do any of us not realize that there is
> a world of difference between first and second language acquisition and
> learning? I think we do.

I recommend a reading of the following Krashen, S. (1994). The input
hypothesis and its rivals.  In N. Ellis (ed.) Implicit and explicit
learning of languages  (pp. 45-78).  San Diego: Academic Press for an
example of someone who mixes evidence from first language acquisition
and second language acquisition to make important claims about second
language acquisition.   It has apparently gotten even worse.  Just this
week on flteach-l, Krashen made claims about chimp acquisition of
language to support his input hypothesis. I refer to the following post:

[Krashen post
Date:    Sun, 2 Jan 2000 07:50:46 -0800
From:    Stephen Krashen <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Nonhuman language acquisition via comprehensible input

Dick Russell's speculation that primates acquire via natural
methodology is supported by Fouts' observations on Washoe and other
chimps, in his book Next of Kin. Washoe and other chimps acquired an
impressive amount of sign language, including some syntax.

There was no correction, but lots of comprehensible input:

Washoe was picking up
signs left and right by seeing us use them . We used only sign language
around her, which gave her plenty of opportunity to imitate us, even if
she did so according to her own timetable" (p 78).

........                                        end Krashen post.]

Apparently, Krashen believes that human language acquisition and chimp
"language acquisition" is comparable.  (I did not make this up.)

>
> Regarding Krashen, it seems to me that the body of a person's work should
> not be summarily dismissed as "wrong" without some detailed evidence. Do you
> mean, for example, that his "input hypothesis" is completely wrong?

I am dismissing his entire body of work as "wrong."  Last year, Krashen
admitted on the same list that White (1987) was right.  It is not
COMPREHENSIBLE input that causes a restructuring of a learner's
interlanguage but INCOMPREHENSIBLE input.  I can share with you these
posts if you wish.  I recommend to anyone interested in second language
acquisition and why the comprehensible input hypothesis is fundamentally
flawed the following White, L. (1987) Against comprehensible input: the
Input Hypothesis and the development of L2 competence.  Applied
Linguistics, 8, 95-110.

> And is
> he also wrong about Free Voluntary Reading (Would you dismiss the notion
> that reading is the most powerful tool in language arts education?)?

Free Voluntary Reading is wonderful.  Can't we account for these effects
from time on task?

> Do you
> think he is wrong in dismissing the notion that television is responsible
> for the apparent "literary crisis" in America?

Yes, I do.  I don't know what the apparent "literary crisis" in America
means. Clearly, what it means to be literate has changed over the past
hundred years.  The Civil War is interesting for historians because of
the widespread literacy among the common soldiers, especially among
those who fought for the Union.  Have you ever read any of the unedited
letters the common soldier wrote?  By today's standards, these
supposedly "literate" people would be consider illiterate.
>
> Where do we draw the line? I, for one, find such sweeping generalizations
> dangerous.

I find sweeping generalizations dangerous, too.  As someone who has to
teach about Krashen to pre-service teachers, I am appalled at his
sweeping generalizations about second language learning based on no
careful examination of the literature and an apparent disregard for the
facts.  Please see the post above about comprehensible input and chimp
language learning as a typical example of the kind of evidence in the
writings of Krashen.  I am prepared to cite others if you wish.

Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University