Interesting examples, Janet! More prepositional phrases trying to function as sentence subjects!
 
I only have informal information about this sort of construction. I've spent time with students discussing their writing, and I've used two methods. If I had the luxury of working with a student one-on-one, I asked the student to think aloud during sentence construction. It takes a while to get the student comfortable with this, but eventually the student begins voicing ideas before writing and then figuring out ways to put the idea on paper. The other method, used with larger classes, is to put student sentences on the overhead (no author identification of course) and ask the class to discuss it--what do they think the author wanted to express and why do some things sound "funny."
 
Overall, I learned some interesting things from this kind of discussion. In think-aloud writing, I was amazed at how many times the student would SAY a perfectly good sentence and then WRITE an amazingly awkward sentence (akin to your examples). Even in group discussions, many students expressed a sense of alienation from the written genre; they thought of written prose as so far removed from spoken language that it seemed "foreign" to them. One time I gave them the definition of "stilted," and there was a resounding, "Yes! That's what writing is supposed to be!"
 
Of course, students who have a strong background in reading, being more exposed to many genres of written language, seem to be much more comfortable with crafting prose. Because they have experience with written language, they see writing for what it is--a different register of the language they speak fluently--rather than as a stilted foreign language.
 
My approaches to teaching writing always include an emphasis on reading and language manipulation (I do like Don Kilgallon's work on sentence composing). However, when tackling sentence constructions like the ones you cite, I like to start with workshops where we all write in the plainest language possible. Once we've expressed our ideas simply, then we look at how to enhance our writing with modifiers, transformations/shifts, discourse connections/information structuring, etc. When we work from the ground up like this, I encounter less mistakes like the one you gave.
 
So, while I'm sure there are tons of theories and texts about these kinds of writer constructions, my experience points towards a lack of literacy in that genre of language (and I mean literacy in the Paul Gee sense just as I lack literacy in the language of screenwriting or technical manuals). A good dose of truth about language and society, registers of language, and the basic goals of writing goes a long way to kick start the learning process.
 
John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Castilleja, Janet <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I spend a lot of time reading placement and course-exit essays at our
small university.  Almost daily, I see problem sentences of the sort
mentioned at some point in this thread.  Below are some examples from
yesterday:


'In the first passage by Elizabeth Wong talks about her childhood being
taken from her and replaced by schooling.'

'In the article, "A Dangerous Fat and Its Risky Alternatives" by Michael
Mason, talks about the chances we take when eating at a restaurant.'

'In the article "A Dangerous Fat and Its Risky Alternatives," by Michael
Mason, gives us information about restaurants and their hazards, but
says they don't compare to the danger of trans fats in partially
hydrogenated vegetable oils.'

'As the article entitled "Don't Judge Me by My Tights" written by Sascha
Radetsky emphasizes importance of stepping outside your comfort zone.'

It's probably obvious that we are trying to teach them to write
attribution sentences. These sentences sound so clearly wrong to my ear
(as well as violating rules of traditional grammar - but that wouldn't
matter to me if it worked), but I see this type of error so frequently,
even after extensive teaching, that it seems to me that there must be
something about it that seems correct. Or is it simply a matter of
students who have not yet mastered a structure being in a transitional
learning stage?

While a discussion of theories of why this happens is interesting, are
there ideas about how to help students get past this?

Janet Castilleja
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Yates
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 9:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Quick note on education and linguistic theory (was RE:
Correct)

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/

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/