ATEG Archives

January 2000

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Wollin, Edith" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 9 Jan 2000 10:09:24 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (101 lines)
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
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2