Stephen ■Krashen is not enemy to bilingualism. His thousand letters maybe did not squash ■Proposition 227 beforehand, but they certainly did contribute to the climate, and the air of understanding may give as water drops that drill the rock: stone does not really have a chance. Proposition 227 yielded in 2016.
Let me render the matter of language and state in terms linguistically neutral. Please do not be outraged. The purpose is to present human motivation.
A person comes and says, I want the California seal different; I can’t see why the woman should be always at war; the bear is either disproportionate, or a malnourished cub; the sails are some olden ■armada; the pickaxe looks no good on agrarian soil — why not have a smith? — and the house on water makes sense no better than a lighthouse on a hill.
Do not get me wrong on bears, please. I would put them all in controlled areas or, well, do away with them, and I feel the same about sharks and such. It is malnourishment or disproportion to tease my esthetics for emblematic worth, because I do not like either.
Lighthouses were praised by Franklin for a good reason; but well, whoever has read his memoir will know, saying I want can sound arbitrary in contexts where people vote.
I am sure influenced with my translating ■Thoreau now, I do not agree with him on all or everything, but this much can go for a fact: propositions as 227 are as the state saying, I want. Again, my purpose is not to have the reader readily outraged, please, like at a state attempting to decide citizen tongue. May the reader think about the ground for the wanting.
To reckon on a landscape, things that are not war, that are good-rounded and proportionate, even preferably smith, solid foundation, but not heavy or cumbersome — American English should be the official language of the United States. Proposition 227 was a pang of conscience.
The few hundred years, it would be time to make it official, though it’s neither marriage nor affairs. Jill Stewart may have described the “Krashen Burn” as “wedded to the monied interests of a multi-million-dollar bilingual education industry” (■Wikipedia), but it would be providence as by the United States entire to opportune individual states rolling, and well, there has not been the ceremony.
Like a smith, I do not criticize legal income. It is a right, and Ms. Stewart legally as well might be remarked, it is a multi-million-dollar bilingual education of honest and attractive income, and it has been honest and attractive multi-million dollar for monolingual English as well, so to say “monied”, you imply you do it only for the money… Really? I do not know if it is even possible, to gain a vast knowledge of language without intellectual interest in it. Maybe it is not.
There is nothing wrong with people following their mind linguistic predilection and making good cash. You don’t forbid good money to plumbers or car mechanics: just such a bend of mind. The only problem in context — there is no acknowledgment for American English by the American Union.
People make contracts to trade, fulfil legal obligations, word about property or work conditions, whereas the country does not have a language of reference to verify all that human penning and talk. American English is the official language in California, but it is not the acknowledged country standard, as by Washington D.C. for all the folks within and without.
Ms. Stewart used American English to work for a publication, and earned with it too — and she has not campaigned to honor the language standard. There is altogether no business without language — will there be a language tax, to pay a little bit of tribute at least?
In case, I explain on the official language. It is quite an honorable practice, and not at all totalitarian. With an official language, your legal matter is recognized according to the standard. It does not require a regulator (a bad experience from Poland has brought the ■Commatoform disorder.
A corpus is enough, and no playing is possible anymore, as “it’s a local phrase in Alaskan”, to turn legal obligations around. To prepare your contract, you state on the matter in English. The law does not forbid other languages, but the official language is the binding form. You can have a few languages of such recognition, if you like. People tend to learn official languages, because this means being legally able.
My idea for strong language skill remains all along that for a proficient style. You could read my translation of Thoreau “drab state” at a formal dinner (he wrote when there was slavery in the USA, which might excuse his, but no other such “excursion”; he never meant living in literally a woman of sort, anyway).
„Niecny stan, brud posrebrzany
Co świtę hołubi, a duchem skalany.”
Multilingualism thrives with official languages, because it is then no “blurry area” to occasion bias. The official language always has room at school. It is quite some expectation on a teacher or linguist however, to answer if the ■Declaration of Independence or the ■Constitution were written in a language acknowledged by the United States. The language certainly can be transcribed or plainly up to date (at the preceding links, for example), so I may only ask you to forward the question to the Capitol Hill: I have no idea why there has not been the recognition for American English as the official language of the USA.
Well, a word as ■shepherdess could make a movie, whereas womanity does not require invention, and all critique should be constructive. I have looked up UCLA for a menu, ■Mallorca Lamb (I exclude potatoes, I really think they are not health food) — with a glass of Californian wine.
Finally, bilingual education has merits. The teacher may face a simple choice: to provide language exposure the students may get elsewhere, via the media or in a library — teaching in the target tongue, English in this case; or to provide language guidance that is most effective and fastest in advancing student progress towards language independent comprehension — teaching about the target tongue in the native speech, Spanish or another.
You may become display for your wonderful English in front of people who say they don’t have the gift.
You can talk their tongue and help them make potentially as wonderful, or honest progress at least.
I cannot agree with Mr. Krashen on his ■input hypothesis. It is only when the student makes own intellectual input for oneself that the learning process may hold. ■”Interlanguage” may never occur, or it depends on the learning idea, I do not know and do not consider it an issue. Language acquisition and learning cannot be strictly separate as ■pursuit of patterns for valid behavior to be of reflection in the neural reality by the brain.
I do not know what the monitor hypothesis is to mean, as it is against experience. Wikipedia reports, “The monitor hypothesis states that consciously learned language can only be used to monitor language output; it can never be the source of spontaneous speech”. I believe I heard about the theory ■when I studied, and to be honest, I thought it was some Cold War. A language of the mind is of course capable of thought expression, as it partakes in thought formulation.
The natural order is actually pragmatics. A human being learns what he or she wants to say; work on how to say comes a bit, but later. Verbs are natural to begin a language course.
The affective component never is emotion alone, already with the natural, early acquisition of speech sounds. Awareness of purpose and thus orientation towards goal may only come with memory reflection on select qualities of language (■Chapter 2). Abuse in classroom is justifiably forbidden, so it does not belong with my picture at all.
Subconscious theories on language mystify the learning process rather than do any good. Humans do not have insight into the neural lifework for language, whether that language is “first”, “second”, or “twentieth” — what does “bilingual” mean? We don’t have to be subconscious about language. We may learn about Selinker, Krashen, Buddha, and Moses: do we get to have “Selinker”, “Krashen”, “Buddha” or “Moses” neurons in own unaware brain?
My principium has remained Bruce Derwing’s “no other, special mechanisms or secret abilities are necessary for learning language than learning anything else”. ■Conscious introspection along with ■variables that make translation for own inner grammar redundant — are more than likely to appeal to the mind language economy: against many theories, brains have impressed me for very pragmatic organs (and I have never blamed the student).
My example here can be the ■Modal Net, I believe a result of human cognition. Even if a born American would say he or she does not have any such idea, just as we wouldn’t be seeking “Selinker” or “Moses” neurons in any heads — because brains make mindsets rather than allocate space, or so it looks — we can lay the thing out as the Net and importantly, ends are more than likely to meet in practice, though there might be no one to know what exactly this is that works.
Further support to my pragmatic brain theory may come with the ■Detail on Modal structures: the brain would keep cognitive map real time also with modality, and this is why we would ask Didn’t you have to rather than mustn’t you have: objectively, there’s nothing difficult about a form as mustn’t you have.
It would be the pragmatic brain that allows the “seamless blend” for speech sounds, when exercised with those of a language of choice (first or second, or maybe third). From my experience, language learning is best as neither plain emotion, nor sheer contingency (■BOOKS AND COURSE INFORMATION), and conscious (medically at least), leaving what nobody knows for nobody to know, that is, without digging and “explaining”. Language practice needs to be effective, and not so much “scientific”.
Well, the timing now is not the best for me, as I am refurbishing my websites, but I hope to be back with an update soon.