I can't resist saying GREAT POINTS, Johanna . . . as always.
Connie Weaver
Johanna Rubba wrote:
> David Mulroy writes:
>
> "My impression is that ignorance of grammar has caused a
> serious decline in writing ability among college students and has made it
> impossible for most of them to learn a foreign language. (In this
> respect, my campus is typical. With the possible exception of Spanish,
> the foreign language departments are all dying.) ... There are schools
> that teach grammar systematically from the third grade on. Anecdotal
> evidence suggests that
> their students do extremely in all aspects of the language arts."
>
> With David, I root for a return of systematic grammar instruction to the
> earlier grades. But we need to remember that the value of direct grammar
> instruction in learning language, whether mastering a native formal
> style or a foreign language, is still disputed among language-learning
> experts. We know that immersion in the target language with practice
> that happens in real communicative contexts -- _doing_ things with
> language -- is very effective in promoting language acquisition, even
> without explicit grammar instruction. This is especially true for
> younger children, but not only for them. Older learners can acquire
> quite a lot this way as well. I believe that anyone who wants to make a
> case for grammar as a language-learning tool had better review the
> literature on language acquisition -- first- and second-language
> acquisition -- before making claims about grammar's value. I studied
> lots of French and German grammar in high school and college, but began
> to approach fluency when using the language for real communication every
> day. No doubt the grammar provided a foundation, but it sure didn't do
> the whole job. And these were second languages. Children bring a
> developed subconscious grammar to native-language instruction that the
> foreign-language learner lacks.
>
> As to the anecdotal evidence, there may be several reasons for these
> children's success in language arts. Grammar instruction may be one, but
> is it the strongest factor? This is speculation, but I am convinced that
> _reading_ is what best helps children acquire formal standard English.
> Generous exposure to the kind of language a child is to acquire, coupled
> with a motivating context, can go a very long way towards promoting
> acquisition. I believe grammar is a support to this learning, but not
> the central instrument. I would bet that, if we examined the curricula
> of these schools, we would find not only grammar, but also lots of
> reading and lots of writing practice, and a general promotion of
> analytical and critical thinking. Another thing I am convinced of is
> that 80% of the trouble students have with writing is trouble with
> thinking, not language. They are not being asked to think in
> disciplined, analytical, critical ways. Hours and hours of TV, poor
> rhetorical models in public debate, advertising and political
> propaganda, shift of focus from learning for the sake of cultivating the
> mind to learning for the sake of being economically productive ... all
> of these are, I feel, major contributors to the troubles we see in
> writing -- not to mention other college subjects. I am amazed at my
> students' inability and reluctance to solve linguistics problems in any
> kind of efficient, systematic way. I hear similar anecdotes from
> professors across the liberal arts curriculum.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Johanna Rubba Assistant Professor, Linguistics
> English Department, California Polytechnic State University
> One Grand Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
> Tel. (805)-756-2184 • Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone. 756-259
> • E-mail: [log in to unmask] • Home page: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
> **
> "Understanding is a lot like sex; it's got a practical purpose,
> but that's not why people do it normally" - Frank Oppenheimer
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
