Part of the problem here is that grammatical
constructions that look the same on the surface are not identical and are
not learned in the same way. Geoff, for example, assumes that since very
young children can produce "My dog, Spot, . . ." that they are "fully fluent"
in appositives. Several others who responded to my post assumed the same
thing and gave other, usually similar, examples. The research suggests,
however, that not all appositives are the same. By "research," I have in
mind primarily the work of Hunt, Loban, and O'Donnell. O'Donnell presents,
but unfortunately does not develop, the concept of "formulas" -- set phrases
that contain what look like advanced grammatical constructions, but which
are probably learned as variable lexical strings. In the case of "My dog,
Spot," I would suggest that that string is "My ____ [name]" -- "My brother
Bill," My Aunt Jennie," My friend Tom," etc. which can easily be extended
to "My dog, Spot." These appositives are almost definitely not the same
as that in "Mary, a biologist, studies marine life." The latter involves
a mental series of transformations, reducing "Mary is a biologist" and
embedding it into "Mary studies marine life." I have no doubt that young
children can produce the first type of appositive -- with no instruction.
But instruction in appositives, in every case I have seen, makes no distinction
in the types of appositives, and thus tries to force students, prematurely,
to produce the second type of appositive. Such instruction is probably
harmful because it simply confuses many students in the class, especially
the weaker ones. (Loban's study is particularly interesting, not only because
he studied the students over a long period of time, but also because he
divided them into three groups -- weaker, random, and strong. The results
he explains literally show the weaker group developing subordinate clauses
later than the strong students.)
Formulas also probably account
for most, if not all, of the subordinate clauses that others who responded
noted in the speaking, and even the writing, of young children. It would
seem to me that those who think that subordinate clauses should be taught
before seventh grade have the responsibility of explaining the rapid, natural
growth of such clauses between seventh and ninth grades, reported in the
studies of Hunt, Loban, and O'Donnell. All three of these researchers suggest
that subordinate clauses bloom starting in seventh. In following their
lead, I am simply arguing that this means that seventh grade is when, for
most students, a transition occurs from subordinate clauses that are formulas,
to adult-like subordinate clauses that are fully produced through the adult-like
transformational process.
There is still a lot that we should
learn about the transition from "formula-based" to "transformational-based"
advanced constructions, but I can't see any need to teach these advanced
constructions before their proper time. If students can already produce
"My dog, Spot," why do we need to teach them appositives? If they can produce
formula-based subordinate clauses, why do we need to teach them subordinate
clauses before the time that the research suggests that they blossom naturally?
Another part of my disagreement, of course,
is that I view the entire current approach to teaching grammar to be ineffective.
Students are, for example, given a "unit" on subordinate clauses, or a
"unit" on appositives, year after year, none of which sinks in. Then they
hit my college composition course and many of them are still writing fragments,
run-ons, comma-splices, etc. And most of them cannot consciously remember
ANY of the grammatical instruction that they have studied. In fact, most
of my college Freshman cannot even identify verbs. What good is the instruction
they have received?
I have mentioned my study of the writing of
31 seventh graders before on this list. It is available on the web. The
main page is at:
http://curie.pct.edu/courses/evavra/ED498/R/1986/W7/W7Stats_TOC.htm
There is also a general, short essay about the study at:
http://curie.pct.edu/courses/evavra/ED498/R/1986/W7/Essay.htm
And there is an "Essay on Errors" at:
http://curie.pct.edu/courses/evavra/ED498/R/1986/W7/Errors.htm
The study includes analyzed transcripts of the students' writing, available
on the web. As I note in the two essays mentioned above, the thing that
struck me most in this study were the fragments, comm-splices, etc., most
of which resulted from the students' writing two main clauses that adults
would tend to punctuate with a colon, semicolon, or dash. To me, this study,
and the work of Hunt, etc., suggests that, instead of trying to teach seventh
graders to recognize (or produce), appositives (or participial phrases),
we ought to be helping them identify clauses (in their own writing), and
teaching them how to use a colon, semicolon, and dash. In the KISS Curriculum,
I suggest that clauses, subordinate and main, should be the primary focus
of grades seven, eight, and nine. If, during those years, we focus on clauses,
students would have learned how to identify subjects, verbs, and complements,
as well as clauses. (The reason for that is that, in the KISS Approach,
students identify clauses by first identifying finite verbs, their subjects,
and their complements.) That would leave grades ten, eleven, and twelve
for such things as participles and appositives. Actually, within the KISS
Curriculum design, students will have been presented with every construction
they need to explain the syntactic function of almost every word in any
sentence by grade eleven. And, since the curriculum builds on previous
knowledge, students would not, as they do now, forget everything that they
have been taught. Thus, I don't understand the rush to teach constructions
early. In fact, I have to wonder if those who do so are doing so for the
benefit of the students, or simply because they like to teach the grammar.
I mentioned the KISS List in my last post.
There appears to be a problem with it. I sent out a message, but didn't
get a confirmation. Some of you have already requested to be added to the
list, and I will do so as soon as I can get the problem fixed. I might
note that I'm finding something interesting. As some of you know, I started
Syntax in the Schools in the hope of getting feedback on my own
ideas. That never really happened within the newsletter, or within ATEG.
Some of you have expressed interest in the approach, but have noted the
problems of getting the curriculum accepted by your peers and school systems.
Soon after setting up the basic list, I sent messages to people who have
asked me questions, and invited them to join the list. I was surprised
to receive, two days after sending out about a dozen messages, more than
twenty requests to be added, mainly from home-schoolers. It appears that
there are even some groups of home-schoolers that are working to use the
approach. I'm finally getting some of the kind of feedback that I have
been looking for. It will be interesting to see how (and what) these people
do. They may provide the information and support that is needed to get
the KISS Approach into the traditional classrooms. (Dream on, Vavra,
dream on.)
Ed V.