Craig,

You write statements about theories of grammar that you really haven't examined yourself.

More seriously, you write things like the following:

   Cognitive grammar may be easy to disdain if you try to reduce it to
some sort of shallow position. You should learn about it first and then
measure it later. It is not very likely that will happen because you
clearly are satisfied with a formal approach and not at all open to
other possibilities, which you seem poised to attack, not curious about
understanding. My main concern about that is that it will shut off talk
on list and deny us the chance to explore alternative approaches.
   People have taken the time to privately tell me they want me to
continue. If that's not a widespread view, I'll stop.

You have no idea what I have read and haven't read.  My concern, and I assume the concern of everyone on this list,
 is trying to understand the development of writing.   

I have tried to share how my understanding of language helps me to understand how developing writers do what they do.

As best as I remember, your claims about cognitive grammar rest on the claim it is an alternative to formal approaches.  I would expect someday to read how assumptions of cognitive grammar help teachers understand why their students do what they do.  So far, your contributions here rest at such a high level of generality I have no idea what insights cognitive grammar provides to teachers.

Of course, we agree on the following:

   Where you and I agree, I think, (we should do that more, by the way),
is that language users will use structures awkwardly when they are
first using them. 

But I go further.  Developing writers, either for lack of knowledge or constraints on cognitive capacity, not only use "structures awkwardly" but create innovative structures.  Mixed constructions, from the writer's perspective, are not a "performance error" but the result of various principles.  Jim Kenkel and I have several papers describing what those principles are to explain various innovative structures in developing writer texts.  As I noted in my last post, you teach where the student is and not where you think this student should be.

Complex noun phrases in the SUBJECT position show up late for a variety of reasons and anything you cite from a cognitive or functional perspective would be the same as from an innate perspective.  Jim Kenkel and I have tried to use this fact for understanding why a writer produces mixed constructions.  

   The fact that complex noun phrases don't show up until 11 or 12 may be
easier to explain from a cognitive or functional position than it would
from an innatist view. Functional grammar, in fact, makes a great deal
of that. They are certainly far more prevalent in writing than they are
in speech, very important in the technical disciplines, and they make
large cognitive demands on the language user.
. . . 
   Cognitive grammar is not going to go away, even if I explain it
awkwardly or if you explain why you have reservations about it.   
****

Again, please understand my comments here.  If cognitive grammar must  be considered, then provide us with specifics on how it is useful in understanding what developing writers do.  It is the lack of specificity in your claims (and this post is one more example), that leads me to write what I do.  

Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/