JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language.http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 13 Dec 2014 05:51:31 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REVIEWS REVIEWS ently, Fisher refers to his remedial students as learning a new dialect). Neither is very satisfactory. The Gallup poll technique almost never reveals unanimity; it thus presents us with the alternatives of putting optional rules in the grammar or recognizing the existence of parallel, equally valid, grammars. Carried to a logical extreme, the dialect solution would give us a multiplicity of dialects, differing in only very small ways. There seems room for a third possibility: that the success with which a person generalizes and internalizes a grammar of his language varies with conditions, both external and internal. Certainly children whose external circumstances supply them with an inadequate corpus to work with are unable to generalize as complete a grammar as those who have more raw material available. It seems equally likely, though I have seen no well-demonstrated proof, that some innate factor (we don't dare call it 'intelligence' any more) may limit the child's ability to learn a grammar, or may make the grammar he learns a cumbersome and inelegant one. If so, he might be said to 'make errors' in the sense that he cannot find his way around in his own grammar as readily as others and is on that account more often faced with the necessity of making do with expedients that, given more time and perhaps stronger motivation, he might reject in favor of more 'correct' alternatives. As Peter Matthews has pointed out,1 we have no real basis for assuming that the internalized grammars possessed by native speakers are either uniform or optimally efficient.The notion of grammatical error is thus a complex one-more complex than is provided for in this book. At the least, it encompasses marginal stylistic choices, unedited discrepancies between competence and performance, interference of one system of the language with another (Fisher classes some of his grammatical errors as actually phonemic and others as orthographic), dialectal difference, and, perhaps, inadequate grasp of grammar due to environmental circumstances or innate lack of ability. Paradoxically, this last, which is the least well-substantiated of all, is the only one which theoretically justifies the direct and unmodified application of pattern practice and other techniques of foreign language teaching. Otherwise, in spite of Fisher's success in getting his colleagues to accept the products of his experiment as remedied cases, we cannot accept the double...