On Mon, 27 Oct 1997 16:13:09 -0400 EDWARD VAVRA said:
>   I would further suggest that this knowledge of basic
>concepts is fundamental to many of the items on the
>hierarchy which Martha presents. Take, for example,
>language acquisition. Much of the research on this
>topic has little relevance to teaching in that it concerns
>development from birth to age 5. It may be fascinating
>to note that children at a specific age develop -- on
>their own -- the ability to distinguish the difference
>between "The doll is easy to see" and "The doll is
>eager to see." But how does this affect what we do in
>the classroom? Most studies of language acquisition
>beyond age five involve the development of clauses,
>appositives, etc. Can teachers understand what is
>going on here if they cannot identify clauses,
>appositives, etc?
 
Ed raises important issues about teachers' knowledge.  To
answer his rhetorical question, of course, they can.  They
would say that a student who uses appositives, especially,
in the subject position, writes more complex structures than
a student who doesn't.  I don't think we should be satisfied with
such a response.
 
If you are interested in issues of the acquisition of writing
at the sentence level, I strongly recommend Perera, K. (1988).  Language
acquisition and writing.  In P. Fletcher and M. Garman (eds.) Language
acquisition.  Cambridge: CUP.  (This appears to be a summary of her
1984 text.)
 
Bob Yates