Bill, (also a reply to Craig below)

I can see why your students would have trouble with relative vs. nominal 
clauses, but isn't it pretty easy for them to see that the nominal ones 
don't have a head noun that they modify?

Here's a strategy that I intend to employ in my book which I think can 
help with grammar instruction both as a longitudinal strategy over years 
and compressed into one term for college students: Always start with the 
most prototypical form of a construction with CONCRETE examples and 
simple elements, then move on to (1st) more-abstract meanings and (2nd) 
  more-syntactically-complex elements. For example, if we are going to 
introduce sentence patterns, I believe we should start with the 
transitive pattern. It may not be the simplest syntactically, but it is 
probably the mental prototype for a sentence, rather than an 
intransitive or linking pattern.

As to a notion like direct object, I start with concrete scenarios like 
"The girl kicked the ball", move to fake perception transitives like 
"The pilot saw a UFO", keeping the DO a simple NP. Then I move on to 
clauses as DO.

For noun modification, I start with an attributive adj. before the noun, 
  then move to a prep. phrase after the noun, then on to relative clauses.

I believe the best way to approach this would be in a spiral, moving to 
another grammar topic, then returning to the next step in the 
noun-modification progression in complexity.

I haven't experimented with the spiral yet, but I have with the 
progression (see, for example, my "Syntax: Terms & Concepts" web pages at


http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba/syn/SyntaxT&C.html

Crucial to this approach is the form/function distinction, which you 
will see on the first page of that site. Only by seeing DO as a 
functional slot can you make clear that the different elements that fill 
the slot are constructions of different types -- noun phrases, clauses, etc.

Most of my students pass my tests on these topics at the end of a 
10-week course. How much they retain is another matter, but many of my 
students tell me that they keep my manuscript as a useful resource for 
their later encounters with grammar.

In response to Craig's post -- I think we are actually in near total 
agreement on what we would like to see happen in grammar pedagogy. But 
we are going to have to be patient, and respect the needs of current 
teachers, who do, after all, have the immediate need of helping their 
students pass standardized tests. Whatever help we can give them by 
posting tips that relate grammar to meaning and discourse will, I'm 
sure, be appreciated as long as it is straightforward enough for them to 
understand and adapt to their particular grade and ability range. We 
know that these kinds of tips will work better for the students than 
traditional pedagogy, so the way to sell them is to prove that by having 
them work in real classrooms. This will be a major step forward for our 
program: we can create demand among a crucial constituency of 
stakeholders -- teachers, testing moguls, and parents -- when they see 
success in their students' scores and writing in general.

You must have noticed that, every time there is a query about which 
usage is "correct", at least a few people post messages that raise the 
issue of why we care about correctness so much, and what the position of 
science-based grammarians is on the issue. This is, of course, one way 
of hoping they will see the need for reform in grammar instruction.

When you talk about some DO's "extending the range of the verb", you are 
talking about plugging a phrase into a complement slot. The DO doesn't 
really extend the meaning of the verb; rather it makes more specific a 
meaning that is there "schematically" -- understood in general but not 
named in particular. The verb "play", at least in the sport/game sense, 
implies a sport or game that is played; cog. grammar would say this is 
part of the VERB's semantics. Naming "football" with a noun phrase just 
"elaborates" (to use the CG term), or declares specifically which 
game/sport is in question on the particular occasion.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue  • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184  •  Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone.  756-2596
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] •      Home page: 
http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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/