Ania's comments on paper. (was "Nettiquette")
Ronald Sheen
deserves a response in spite of John's suggestion that we move on
and discuss other matters. She says in reference to her and Andrew
Lian's paper (her comments being numbered)
1. As I said before and got a reply to everything other than what truly
>mattered: show me, in any of those "reputable" or "not-reputable" works,
>the places where the case is taken with those who have problematised
>meaning: i.e. from the perspective of perception not production.
**But as there was a need for such problematizing in the context of
the paper, it would have been useful had the authors addressed this
central issue, showing its essential relevance for their proposals
and demonstrating the failure of the field to do so?
2. It seems that if all literature on L2-pedagogy has been about
>comprehension, it would be worthwhile to look at comprehension from the
>perspective of the "form" that is to generate it and which we are dying to
>teach (the kind of "facts of language").
** Could Ania help by giving some examples of the "form"/"facts of
language" which generate comprehension.
3. But I now know that Derrida (or the like) is *not* on the list of
respected references in applied linguistics (unless the censorship of
this list acknowledges his value).
**I must admit that I had never thought of Derrida as being an applied
linguist. Would he, himself, I wonder? As to the charge that there is
"censorship" on this list, it would be helpful to know to what Ania is
is referring?
4.the lack of knowledge as to what applied linguistics is evident
in statements which equate it with language pedagogy.
**I wonder who Ania thinks has equated applied linguistics with language
pedagogy? I have always thought of applied linguistics as a sort of
umbrella field of which SLA was a sub-field, the practitioners of which
may or may not consider its findings as being relevant to L2 pedagogy.
5. This is why the discussion on the Shaolin was not about *form* (although
the paper was) but about things that the couple of people involved felt,
it should have been.
**However, it was up to the Lians to demonstrate that the criticisms
John and I made separately were invalid. Ania did, after all, agree
to the paper's being the subject of discussion. Just to take one point I
raised, the paper did propose an innovative approach to a form of
individualisation in language learning. This being the case, one might
reasonably have expected the authors to address the degree of success
achieved by other such innovations. They did not. Somewhat ironically,
doing so may have well supported their proposal.
(See Lightbown & Halter1992 & 1993) and Boyd-Bowman, Flickinger, Papalia
& Ramussen (1973)
Ron Sheen U of Quebec in Trois Rivieres, Canada.