Don, I'm not sold yet on the comparative, noncomparitive distinction. Comparative and superlative are identifying (or limiting) functions of their own, are they not? "He was the tallest of his class." "He ate nothing but the reddest, smoothest apples." I'll be scratching my head for awhile on the prepositional phrase point. I'm usually slow to come around. I like to point out that common nouns and abstract nouns almost cry out for restriction. Unless it's a "proper noun", nounness simply means "member (or members) of a class", and this can be undifferentiated (a cow, cows) or identified in any of a number of ways. (My cow. Your cow. A wild cow. "Some of the strangest cows I have seen at the county fairs...") In subject slot, that simply means fine-tuning what you are bringing into focus. I also like the cognitivists' view that the prototypical noun is a 'bounded entity", but that we extend that "solidity" to many abstract concepts. So many (murder, lecture, contact, flow) are both nouns and verbs in almost equal weight. Meanings also build radially, so that "coat of paint" makes sense to us by metaphoric extension of its original meaning. "Heart" implies "center," so we have "heart of darkness. Heart of discourse." I love what Christensen says about a restrictive statement implying its opposite. All of this brings grammar right smack into the heart of discourse, with "error" clearly linked to a failure to build and convey significant meaning. So much gets lost with textbook sentences, out of context of discourse. I think you're right to link grammar to the books your students are reading; I immediately started to do more of that the day after I left the conference. Whatever we do with scope and sequence, we shouldn't imply that schools and teachers shouldn't go beyond that. The "all we need is X" mentality is an anti-grammar mentality, even when it parades itself as an approach to grammar. As Phil points out, we don't make those restrictions in any other field. Craig First, sorry, folks, about the double posting—I got myself a new email > program! > > Craig, > > You are right that the distinction between identifying and describing is > sometimes blurred. Often we identify by describing. I guess that’s why, if > we are going to make use of the two terms—limiting (or identifying) and > descriptive—it helps to define them the way I mentioned, by whether they > can > be made comparative and superlative. > > An interesting aside about prepositional phrases is that most of them do > not > describe at all. Telling me that the birthday present is in the drawer, or > under the table, or on the shelf merely tells me its position, as the word > “preposition” implies. But if you tell me about the birthday present with > the silver ribbon, you have really described (and identified) it. “With” > and > “without” are about the only ones that really describe things. > > As for your question about Christensen, he had a whole essay in Notes > Toward > A New Rhetoric called “Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Modifiers Again.” > Here > are three relevant excerpts: “The problem of restrictive-nonrestrictive > goes > beyond adjective clauses; the principle applies to all adjectival > modifiers, > to apposi-tives, and to some adverbial modifiers, at least to final > adverbial clauses.” “The best way to frame the problem is to ask, why do > we > set off nonrestrictive modifiers?” “The purpose of all nonrestrictive > punctuation [is] to head off unwanted im-plications. Conversely, when the > modifier is restrictive, the sentence makes one statement and implies its > oppo-site; and what it implies is just as important as what it states.” > 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/ > 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/