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