Bob, since we share 98.2 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees (they are our
closest living relatives), why is it totally preposterous to assume that
they would acquire a language of communication very much as we do?
Edith
> ----------
> From:         Bob Yates[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Reply To:     Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> Sent:         Friday, January 07, 2000 10:29 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Teaching grammar (the ESL angle)
>
> "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
>