Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT REM.ME ED 113 735 CS 202 321 a AUTHOP Hunt-, Kellogg' W. TITLE Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels. NCTE Research Report No. 3. INSTITUTION c National Council of Teachers of English, Champaign, '.;11; SPONS AGENCY Off ice of Education ( DREW),- Washington, D.C. ,Cooperative Research Prograrm. PUB DATE -65 NOTE 176p.; Revision of CRP No. 199& EDRS PRICE NE-$.0.76 HC-$9.51- Plus Postage DESCRIPTORS *Composition (Literary) ;Elementary Secondary Education; English Instruction;, AGrammar; *Language pevelogment; Language Research; Language Skills; *taugualje Usage; *Sentence Structure; Syntax;' Writing Written Language . A-BSTRACT The purpOses thit study were (1) to provide a method for the quantitative -study of grammatical: (syntactic) . structures which is coherent, tystematic,,and- broad, yet capable of refinement to-accbmmOdate.-detaila, and (2) topearch for the developmental trends in the frequency of variousgrammatical structures written by students of average intelligenceArQs ranging from 90-110) in the fourth, eighth, and tWelfth grades. Nine boys and Aline girls were selected from each of thethree grades, and close to 1O0( Wordt of writing were obtained:from. each 'student. The writing was done in -plats without alteration by anyone other than the writer, and the subject-matter irat-not Controlled by the investigators-1 In addition to, sentence length, clause length, subordination ratio, and the -kinds of clauses, tee, study analyzesstructures within a clause: coordinated structures, notinals, the verb autiliary, main verbsand complements, modifiers of verbs, and predicate adjectives. The resuitt of this study are discusied at length, and tables proVide additional information about the procedures used and' data obtained. This report was written for two grdupt: the teacheror supervisor of English and the res(iarcl)er in language development.(RB) ti **********************4;******************************Ii**************#* '* .Documents acquired by.',ERIC include many informal unpublished * materials not available from other sources. ERIC makea every effort * * to obtain the best copy available. Neverthelessitems of marginal * * reproducibility,are-often encountered and this Affect's the quality * 30 of the microfiche-and hardcopy. reproductions ERIC makes available * * via:the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS'it not *' * respontible for the luaIity of the original document. Reproductions * *supplied by EDRS are the best that Scan be made from the original. * *******************4c*************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE --NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION THIS' DOCUMENT HAS /SEEN REPRO DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY GRAMMATICAL ST_ RUCTURES- WRITTEN AT THREE GRADE LEVELS 0 by KELLOGG W. HUNT NCTE Research Report No. 3 O a NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH 508 South Sixth Street, Champaign, Illinois 61822 iv 6.2 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH Committee on Publications James R: Squire,-NCIE;Exec_utive Secretary,Chairman Glenn Leggett, Grinnell College Virginia_M_ReikOakland-Public Schools, California Frank E. Ross, Oakland County Public Schools, Pontiac,_MiLhigan. Enid M. Olsbn, NCTE Director of Publications Consultant Readert Marvin L. Greene, Detroit Public Schools, Michigan J. N..Hook, University of Illinois Sumner-Ives, Syracuse University Albert H.,Marckwardt, PRnceton University David.H. Russell, University of California, Berkeley O Copyright 1965 : National Council of Teachers of English 'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY. RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BF National Council of Teachers of English TO ERIC AND ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING UNDER AGREEMENTS WITH.Tilk NATIONAL IN STITUTE OF EDUCATION FURTHER REPRO. RUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM RE. QUIRES PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNER7 PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY This study provides, for the quantitativestudy of 'grammatical (syntactic) structures, a method of procedure which is coherent,systematic, broad, yet capable of refinement to accommodate details. The study was a search for developmentaltrends in the-frequency of various grammatical structures written by studentsof average IQ in the fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades. Eachstudent provided a 1,000- word sample of writing. The study analyzes (in addition tosentence length, clause length, subordination ratio, and kinds of subordinate clauses)structures within a clause: coordinated structures, nominals, the verb auxiliary, main verbs, ana complements, modifiers of verbs, predicate. adjectives. National Council of Teachers of English Research Report No. 3 1n 1962, the Executive Committee of theNational Council of Teachers of English establishedan award to be given annually to a research study-that makesa- significant contribution to the teaching of English. The first committee appointedto make recommendations for such an award unanimously recommendedthe Kellogg .Hunt study, Grammatical Structures Written at-Three GradeLevels,and presented the award at the tinnual,Councilconvention in 1964. After examining a number of studies, the committee felt that the Hunt studymore than others provided new tools for languageresearch and suggested new objectives in language teaching that might wellprove.to be-of -major significance. Teachers have long known that the languageperformance of younger children is different from that of mature people. Shrewd guesses had been made to pinpoint the differences andvarious -studies had tended to confirm -theguesses without really adding great enlight- enment or understanding of 'the process of change. Part ofthe diffi- culty lay' in the grammatical systems being usedto analyze, language structures. They seemeq as crude as yardsticks for measuring milli- meters. PurthermOre the classific4tion ofa language structure used, by children depended upon the subjective judgment ofthe investigator, sometimes only after the investigator had changed theactual language the child had written: Like many of the more significant research studies thathave pointed,real directions, Hunt's study is limited in-theamount of raw data from which 'he 'worked. But thisvery limitation made possible a far more detailed analysis than might have been possible withmasses of data. Using understandings fromnewer linguistic methods, Hunt- has worked out a scheme for the analysis ofwritten work thatseems to minimize the subjective -interpretations and .arbitrary classifications that earlier investigators haye ultimately hadto use. His construction of the T-unit; for example, overcomes the problem ofwhat is or is not a sentence and therefore establishes a base unit that can be systemat- ically investigated. The consistency of patterns-of change-fromone grade level to,the next begins to suggest a source of teaching objectives. The fact that Hunt establishes even further changes in thesame direction in the 05) work finature professional -ion 4111g-suggests-that there is such a thing as iguistic matinity" -quite apart from mere stylistic choices and cons derations. -- .Objectives for the teaching of language hen e been somewhat fu \\lien they are stated as 'gaining control over one's nativ e Ian- gj age" or :using language that is comfortable for tilt user and the leeiv er," they offer little piecisC direction to the indiv idual teacher or curriculum maker faLed with thc,job of teaching boys and girls at a bit en grade lc el. Fin thermure, they offer little help in evaluating the pflicienc'y of instruction. hunt's study offers a kind of operational definition of language objectives. for the school. the -schours progi am should facilitate the student's 'no\ ing in the direction of mature writing patterns. Tablk; 55 provides a neat summaiy of the changes that repre,sent grow th directions. Hunt points out that his study has no direct implications for prob- lems of methodology and curriculum. It dues not discuss whetheror not students should be giv en a conscious knowledge of_zrammatical structures ,they are using, of the possible impact of dr ills asking stu- dents for expansions or reductions of sentence patterns, of providing a rich expiessional program when. students have a wealth of opportu- nities to express ideas and experiences of importance to them, or of the relativ e emphasis- to be given to oral and m ritten language prac- tices. Such problems, basic_ to establishing a curriculum in English, remain matters of armchair speelation because the profession:has not had a really v ali,i way Of measuring w hat is achieved as the result of different kinds of instructimal programs. Hunt's study does offer- the possibility of establishing objectix e criteria for measuring language change that may make the testing of curricular theories possible. C. ROBth CARLSES `University of Iowa 0 vi 0 6 e- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This stud) has been possible mil), because of the help provided by many people. The staff of the Florida StateUniversity School administered the tests to the students and collected thepieces of student writing.Ronald Cou Heaton, and Daniel Howell assisted w ith the gamatical anal)sis.Robert Clark and Tarry Swcmgo both checked ex ery piece of analysis. Howard Stoker and Isaiah Moyel took care of the statistical analysis. JuliaLawson wrotet-144progiam to soi t the nominal structures. In orderto free the Project Di(or, Francis Townsend has performedmany extra