Bob,

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. There are, however, many issues and much
terminology in common when it comes to discussing language, whether among
native, non-native, or a mixed company of speakers.

Perhaps the topics found in ESL grammar texts do often diverge from those in
texts meant for native speakers, but haven't you often wished, for example,
that our native students could learn about countable and uncountable nouns -
perhaps they then would refrain from (or at least pause after) saying things
like, "There's less students in my class than yours." How should we teach
them such concepts?

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

Where do we draw the line? I, for one, find such sweeping generalizations
dangerous.

Paul E. Doniger
The Gilbert School
"Reason enslaves all whose minds are not strong enough to master her." - G.
B. Shaw


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Yates <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, January 07, 2000 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Teaching grammar (the ESL angle)


>I wish we would not confuse teaching grammar to non-native speakers to
>teaching grammar
>to native speakers.
>
>"William J. McCleary" wrote:
>>
>> As for ESL, wasn't it the work of somebody named Krashen that suggested
>> that studying grammar doesn't work in ESL any better than it does for
>> native speakers of English? I think he said that it was the use of
English
>> rather than the study of English that really helped people learn English.
>
>Bill, Steve Krashen has said many things and most of them are wrong.  I
>have
>had several exchanges with him recently on a list devoted to foreign
>language
>teaching.  There is an overwhelming amount of  evidence that the only
>way to develop competence in a second language is explicit focussing on
>form.  Perhaps the most recent
>review of this literature can be found in
>
>Doughty, C. & Williams, J (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form.
>In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.) (p 197-261) New York: Cambridge.
>
>I have tried publically to have Krashen consider the implications of
>Platt, E. and Troudhi, S. (1997).  Mary and her teachers: A
>Grebo-speaking child's place in the mainstream classroom.  Modern
>Language Journal, 81, 28-49. This article reports on the "learning" of a
>young girl submerged in an content classroom with a teacher who followed
>a Krashen-inspired pedagogy.  He hasn't.
>
>However, we must keep in mind that native speakers come into the
>classroom already knowing a great deal about English.  By definition,
>non-native speakers do not.  The kinds of problems which native speaker
>have with the grammar of English is fundamentally different than the
>problems that non-native speakers have.  One of the ways to look at this
>difference is to examine a grammar handbook written for native speakers
>and one written for non-native speakers.  For example, I have never seen
>a grammar book written for native speakers that deal with do-support,
>the article system, much-many distinction, etc.
>
>Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University
>