I think we need to be clear about a couple of things.

EDWARD VAVRA wrote:
>
> "In CA, for example, very specific objectives for grammar have been set =
> for each grade. Subject/verb agreement, for example, comes up for the =
> first time in grade 3. In grade 7, appositives and prepositional phrases =
> are targeted.
>      We certainly DO need to coordinate this and at least come up with a =
> suggested scope and sequence, which is what the ATEG committee is all =
> about. But we should definitely do this not only on the basis of what we
> think kids need to know and be able to do, but on what they are cognitively=
>  and linguistically ready for."
>
> Teaching appositives to seventh graders is probably harmful. I base that =
> conclusion on the studies of Hunt, O'Donnell, Loban, and on the work of =
> Vygotsky and Piaget, and on the work of George Miller, among others. =
> Determining what students "are cognitively and linguistically ready for" =
> requires not just research, but also a theory of how language develops =
> between third and twelfth grade. As I explain in more detail in TGLA, =
> there is good evidence, both in research and theory, that appositives and =
> gerundives (participles) develop as reductions of subordinate clauses.

I have just come from observing some ESL classes in the public schools
in Sedelia, Missouri.  I was struck by a text the teacher used.  It was
from material designed for native-speakers in 6th grade.  I was struck
in a text that was a times incoherent because of the minimal amount of
subordination, yet there were two appositives.

I wonder what it means to say 1) that students are not cognitively and
linguistically ready for appositives, 2) to teach appositives.

Oh, the appositives were in the object position, not in the subject.
That is important.  As I understand the research on little kids learning
to write (see Perera (1984, 1988), heavy subject NPs come in very late
(12 years old +) in little kid writing.  Such structures are very rare
in the oral language.

When we talk about sequencing a particular structure, shouldn't we care
about where that structure occurs in the clause?

> There is even more research that shows that students master subordinate =
> clauses in grades seven through nine. Logically, therefore, it makes no =
> sense to teach a class about appositives before they have mastered =
> subordinate clauses.

Again, what does that mean?  I strongly suspect, and I have seen it in
early kid writing, that subordinate constructions headed by when and
because are present very early in little kid writing (from the
beginning?) Clearly such constructions are in their oral language.  This
is not the case with although, which comes in much later (10-12 year +).

I am also confident that kids writing stories, even those who
beginners,  will have noun clauses as objects of report verbs (say, tell
etc.).

Now, kids who have done a lot of reading of stories will use such report
verbs with inversion of the object.  Such inversion is very rare in the
oral language.

For example,

"I will blow and blow and blow your house down," said the big, bad wolf.

However, do we really want to "teach" such inversion?

One of the things I will do in the next month is summarize Perera's
summary of research on the development of kid writing.

Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University