This is an area that is near and dear to my heart. I have always credited my, ahem, expansive vocabulary and metalinguistic abilities for my academic success. I believe strong vocabulary facilitates test taking (I may not know answers on content, but I can analyze the language in the question until I create meaning for myself and tie it back to some frame of reference for which I have schema), provides an advantage when writing (enabling me to be clear and concise, though I am rarely either), and encourages comprehension in content areas (approaching unfamiliar content-area language by looking for morphemes that convey meaning).

The chapter addressed something that I think is overlooked frequently: the importance in identifying what vocabulary is worthwhile and what vocabulary is for labeling purposes. This is not to discount labeling vocab - it's handy - but it's easy and it's something usually easy to infer from context. I believe time is better spent on conceptual vocabulary. The chapter says "Students....benefit from instruction on the differences between concept and label words because it can prevent them from getting bogged down in minutia at the expense of big ideas," which I thought was a lot of fun, since I imagined lots of people reading that passage and trying to come up with a meaning for "minutia."

Focusing on words with multiple meanings is how I got my French minor. (I know the chapter is talking more about things like "run" but I believe expanding to this area is a logical leap and I like to talk about it, so). Strong knowledge of cognates (based in a good foundation of understanding of Germanic languages and specifically Romance languages) allows me to "get the picture" when I read in Spanish, French and Italian, even though I've only studied French. The ability to generalize and recognize cognates is invaluable, in my opinion, and is something I believe should be explicitly taught as it can help students create meaning even when faced with unfamiliar subject matter.

If it were up to me, students would learn Latin from a young age. It's probably the most conservative educational belief I hold, but Latin provides a framework for understanding (truly understanding) the English language and by extension all Romance languages, as well as heavily influencing content language across the curriculum - government, law, math, all the sciences - simply put, Latin is everywhere. I know this is impractical, so I would instead focus on metalinguistic instruction in my own class - how to break words into parts and teach meaning from that end, giving students the ability to generalize language knowledge.