Implementing Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Elements into the Composition Classroom:
Re-inviting Grammar into the Writing Curriculum.
by
Andrea Harvey
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirements
for the Degree of
Master ofArts
in the
English
Program
Youngstown State University
March, 1999
Implementing Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Elements into the Composition Classroom:
Re-inviting Grammar into the Writing Curriculum.
Andrea Harvey
I hereby release this thesis to the public. I understand this thesis will be housed at the
Circulation Desk of the University Library and will be available for public access. I also
authorize the University or other individuals to make copies of this thesis as needed for
scholarly research.
Signature:
March 9, 1999
Approvals:
March 9, I 999
Steven Brown, Committee Member
J mes Schramer, Committee Member
March 9, 1999
March 9, 1999
March 9, 1999
ABSTRACT
This thesis proposes a rejoining ofprocess and product in the writing curriculum.
As writing teachers, we have to acknowledge that there comes a time when we have to
evaluate a written product. Before teachers can evaluate a product, however, they must
first teach their students how to write better products using the writing process. To make
this possible, teachers have to accept that because editing is a part ofthe writing process,
grammar instruction has a rightful place in the composition classroom. Instead ofusing
past approaches to grammar instruction that were difficult for both teachers and students,
I present a new student-friendly grammar instruction that teaches students grammar in the
context ofseveral grammar concepts. In this grammar, I limit grammatical terminology
and focus on helping students understand the concept rather than the terminology. In
addition to the limiting ofjargon, I use speech as a tool to help students further
understand the grammar they are trying to learn. I offer applications for both native and
nonnative students, and to illustrate more specifically how teachers can utilize this new
grammar, I use restrictive and nonrestrictive elements, one ofthe more difficult
grammatical concepts students have to learn.
111
Introduction
As the debate about grammar instruction in the composition classroom rages on,
writing teachers find themselves in a difficult situation. The goal ofthe composition
teacher is to teach and improve various writing skills that students can call upon in their
everyday writing tasks as well as in academic settings, but no one can decide what role
grammar plays in this instruction. When they find themselves confronting a grammatical
problem in students' writing, teachers must decide how they will deal with the problem or
ifthey will deal with the problem at all.
Anti-grammar advocates present study after study that seems to prove that
grammar instruction is not useful to students. However, what type ofgrammar
instruction are these studies analyzing? Grammar advocates present counter studies that
prove grammar instruction is effective to some degree. How can both claims be true, and
how are composition teachers supposed to determine which theory is correct?
As more and more research is conducted on grammar and its role in composition,
researchers like Rei Noguchi and Constance Weaver have opened the world of
composition up to a joining ofprocess and product that is considered a post-process
movement. The post-process movement acknowledges that there comes a time when
teachers have to evaluate a product, and therefore, instruction has to reflect this. Yes,
grammar is difficult, but it is not the grammar that fails students; it is the grammar
instruction that fails students. There must be a way to implement grammar into the
composition classroom that allows students both to learn the concepts and apply them to
their writing and that enables teachers to present the grammar in a manner that does not
require them to be the absolute authority on every grammar rule ever written.
1
Because editing is a part ofthe writing process, and post-process theorists
challenge to the process/product split, grammar should be a part ofthe process-centered
writing classroom. While it is noble to allow our students to grow as writers through the
implementation ofthe writing process, as teachers, we do our students a great disservice
by ignoring that there must eventually be a product that is evaluated. Ultimately, our
goal should be to teach the writing process to enable our students to write better products.
We have an obligation to teach our students grammar within the context oftheir writing
process.
To do this, however, we must work through the grammatical jargon oftraditional
grammar in order to develop a foundation ofgrammar that we can present to our students.
Ifwe can work through the jargon and develop definitions and terms that are more
student-friendly, then grammar instruction will not be so intimidating for teachers or
students. Only then will grammar be able to take its rightful place in the writing
curriculum.
In the first chapter ofthis thesis, I present a history ofgrammar instruction and
address the movement away from implementing grammar into the composition
classroom. This analysis will lead up to my theory that a new type ofgrammar
instruction is needed, similar to what Noguchi and Weaver propose. This new instruction
eliminates the aspects ofgrammar that were ineffective to students in the past and works
toward helping students learn only the grammar relevant to their writing goals. I am not
suggesting that we tum composition classes into the cliched red pen grammar classes.
Instead, I ask that teachers acknowledge that grammar instruction invites itselfinto the
composition classroom because students are working with language to express meaning
2
in written fonn. As teachers, we must be willing and able to provide our students with a
better understanding ofgrammatical concepts that present themselves. The key is in the
presentation ofthe grammar and how the presentation allows students to internalize the
grammar concepts. Ifteachers can feel comfortable enough with the grammar, they will
be more willing to present the grammar to their students. Thus, ifgrammar can be
addressed in a non-intimidating way, both the teachers and students reap the rewards.
In chapter two, I use restrictive and nonrestrictive elements to illustrate the type of
student-friendly instruction I am talking about. I analyze the different areas that have
made this grammatical concept so difficult in the past. First, I work through various
classifications used when explaining restrictive and nonrestrictive elements in order to
develop one comprehensive explanation ofthis grammatical concept that students and
teachers will be able to understand more easily. Then, I analyze how five different
grammars handle restrictive and nonrestrictive elements. Each grammar represents a
different approach to grammar instruction prominent throughout this century, and I
explain why each approach to grammar is ineffective and unuseful to both students and
teachers. Finally, I present what I consider to be the ideal way to approach restrictive and
nonrestrictive elements in the composition classroom based on the growing trend in
grammar instruction.
The third chapter is dedicated to intonation. My new theory ofgrammar not only
requires a minimal use ofgrammatical jargon, but it also allows students to use speech as
a tool for learning grammar. Just as we encourage our students to use speech to aid in
proofreading, I propose that speech can be a useful tool when dealing with grammar.
3
Again, I use restrictive and nonrestrictive elements as an example ofhow speech, more
specifically intonation, can be used in the composition classroom.
Since second language writing instruction is also process centered, a lot ofthe
same issues pertaining to grammar and its place in instruction have become a part ofthe
ESL curriculum. Thus, in the fourth and fifth chapters, I briefly review the movement in
ESL calledfocus on form, which is close to the post-process movement in composition
that tries to reunite process and product, and I offer suggestions about how grammar can
be implemented into a meaning-centered ESL classroom. While the approach to
grammar I present earlier in my thesis can be used for ESL students, I offer additional
suggestions geared specifically at the problems ESL students would have learning
grammar and, more specifically, how to use restrictive and nonrestrictive elements. This
more specific approach will be more appropriate in a class made up ofall non-native
speakers, whereas the previous approach addresses typical freshman students in a
composition classroom.
Together, these chapter work toward fostering a new attitude about grammar and
its rightful place in writing classrooms. Ifteachers are willing to take the time to lean this
new approach to grammar and implement it into the editing stages ofthe writing process,
they can develop a writing curriculum that balances both process and product in a
productive way, presenting a more comprehensive approach to writing instruction for
students. As writing teachers, we should not only see this as our goal, but as our
obligation.
4
Chapter 1
A BriefHistorical Overview ofGrammar Instruction and the Rise ofa New Era
While a complete overview ofgrammar instruction would trace its origins back to
ancient Rome, this overview is not quite that ambitious. Instead, I focus on grammar
instruction in England and America, since the former strongly influenced the latter. I
start my overview in the 1800s because educators' attitudes toward grammar and the shift
in this attitude at the tum ofthe last century have been the most dramatic shifts seen in
grammar instruction. This attitude affects grammar instruction today; thus, instead of
providing a complete overview, I try to provide an overview that is most relevant to
grammar instruction as it is today and uncover why the place ofgrammar in written
instruction has been heavily debated by educators for decades.
GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION FROM 1835 TO 1895
Reflections on the time period between 1835 and 1895 bring forth images ofa
classical education where students were taught reading, writing, and arithmetic. In
today's American education system, where the beliefs oftraditional grammarians and
anti-grammarians spark debates about grammar's place in formal instruction, many
educators call for a movement back to the standards ofthis nineteenth-century period
when a knowledge ofgrammar was considered an invaluable tool. During this period,
grammarians provided three arguments for the inclusion ofgrammar into the curriculum:
? grammar IS a SCIence
? grammar aids personal growth and development
5
? grammar ensures national stability
Grammar as a Science
The idea that grammar is a science was the most prevalent argument used by
grammarians to warrant its inclusion into the education system. S.W. Clark declares
grammar as a science in the first line ofhis First Lessons in English Grammar (1857).
Keeping with this traditional view ofgrammar, Clark calls for implementing this
important science into schools: "While the science oflanguage in its higher and more
abstruse developments, has much in common with Science ofMind, and taxes the
energies ofminds matured, yet its more practical features may be clearly exhibited to
children" (3). This concept ofeducating children in the science ofgrammar reinforces its
importance. The sciences are considered complex anomalies that require years to master,
yet children need the information. As with all ofthe sciences, the earlier children start
learning grammar, the better they will be able to master it.
Clark also claims that the adults are responsible for ensuring children get this
education. He insists it is not enough to simply allow parents to educate children about
uses ofgrammar. When parents, and even teachers, do so, they usually rely on the
teaching of"the right use ofthe language" as it applies to oral speech (3). A true
education allows students to thoroughly examine all aspects ofgrammar, from individual
words to complete sentences.
George Marsh also argues the importance ofgrammar in Lectures ofthe English
Language (1859). Marsh stresses a comprehensive understanding ofthe language. The
lectures take students through the history ofEnglish and lay a firm historic foundation
6
that eventually leads into more specific explanations ofimportant grammatical concepts
like nouns, verbs, and adjectives.
Despite grammar's obvious importance, Marsh concludes that that grammar is
absent from later formal instruction due to the assumptions that grammar is an integral
part ofearly schooling; thus, the teachers at this advanced level assume the knowledge is
present when students come to the higher levels ofschooling. In addition, Marsh
explains that without grammar instruction, all other instruction is useless since the study
oflanguage serves as "an indispensable preparation for the reception ofacademic
instruction" (2). Since grammar is excluded from higher education, Marsh feels the
public deserves a better understanding ofwhy such exemptions occur in addition to
apologies for the exemptions.
Goold Brown, in The Grammar afEnglish Grammars (1864), also stresses
grammar's equality to other sciences, making it an essential part ofan individual's
education. Brown insists that grammar "is the first ofwhat have been called the seven
sciences, or liberal branches ofknowledge; namely, grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic,
geometry, astronomy, and music" (21-22). Grammar is inseparable from the other
sciences in creating the well-rounded scholar. Therefore, despite grammar's elusive
nature, which makes language "peculiar to man," Brown bids the reader to be patient as
he would be in learning all ofthe sciences:
some may begin to think that in treating ofgrammar we are dealing with
something too various and changeable for the understanding to grasp; a
decoding Proteus ofthe imagination, who is ever ready to assume some
new shape, and elude the vigilance ofthe inquirer. (22)
7
The reader must approach the topic with an open mind and desire to learn in order to
understand the complexities ofthis evolving science.
Albert Raub addresses his placement ofgrammar with the other sciences in a
much more cautious manner in A Practical English Grammar: For the Use ofSchools
and Private Students (1880) and is the first author to acknowledge that there is a growing
resistance to the teaching offormal grammar. As surprising as this fact seems to a
modem reader, Raub argues that resistance to grammar is wrong:
Many earnest teachers exclaim against the teaching oftechnical grammar,
forgetful ofthe fact that it is not the science itself, but the mode of
presenting it to the pupil, which is at fault. What the beginner needs is
lessons in English to form for him correct habits ofspeech. These lessons
should be given prepatory to any instruction in the science ofGrammar.
(3)
Raub is the first grammarian to question where the difficulty in learning grammar comes
from. He insists that the problem is inherent in the instruction and not the grammar.
Therefore, Raub is defending the credibility ofthe science by assaulting the ineffective
teaching strategies.
Once he establishes that the fault with learning grammar lies with poor
instruction, Raub brings his argument back to why individuals need to learn grammar.
He insists that the "rules or laws [ofgrammar] are the standard by which every speaker or
writer must judge, and test the correctness ofhis own speech" (3). By allowing students
to learn how to test their grammar against the standards, teachers allow students to
inevitably better themselves; this desire for betterment should be enough to warrant the
8
need for grammar instruction in the schools. Raub admittedly believes that just because
grammar is difficult does not mean teachers should dismiss it. After all, all ofthe
sciences are difficult, but no one would call for their removal from education.
In Higher Lessons in English (1895), Alonzo Reed and Brainerd Kellogg also
address a growing movement away from the teaching ofgrammar. They conclude that
this movement is led by those individuals who "joined in the hue and cry mainly because
it is popular to denounce the old and hail the new" (3). Such a movement symbolizes a
trend ofuneasiness with traditional grammar, and anti-grammar advocates emphasize
success without rigid standards. Reed and Kellogg, however, resist this movement.
Reed and Kellogg play to the sensibility ofteachers, who are assumed to
ultimately have the power to include or exclude grammar in the classroom. The authors
insist that "practical teachers have never doubted the utility ofthe study ofEnglish
grammar" but instead labor through inadequate textbooks and persevere through lesson
after lesson for the good ofthe students (3). Hence, Reed and Kellogg parallel Raub's
reasoning that the actual grammar is not at fault but rather the method ofpresentation
causes the difficulty in learning the essential concepts involved in mastering the
language.
Once Reed and Kellogg establish the problems with the current methods of
teaching grammar, they move on to imply, as all ofthe previous authors have, that
grammar is indeed a science, but it has been ineffectively addressed:
From our own extended experience and from the nature ofthings, we are
convinced that the oral instruction, the composition writing, and the
studies in literature that are offered as substitutes for the study of
9
grammar, invaluable as they are in themselves, fall short oftheir greatest
possible good, are more or less loose and erratic, unless based upon the
science oflanguage, upon those principles that underlie the structure ofthe
sentence; and that, on the other hand, the study oftechnical grammar,
divorced, as it too generally has been, from practical language work,
although not without value as a mental discipline, is hardly deserving ofa
place in the common school. (4)
The solution to this problem is to address the science with the same applicable approach
used with other sciences in order to "make the Science ofthe Language, ofwhich all the
essentials are thoroughly presented, tributary to the Art ofExpression" (4). Nothing is
more important to the education ofan individual than the ability to use the language and
use it well. This continuing connection to science made grammar a necessary part of
learning, and grammarians needed to emphasize the connection between clear expression
and meaning to ensure grammar remained in the curriculum.
Grammar as a Means ofIndividual Growth
In addition to connecting grammar with the sciences, grammarians were able to
ensure a high opinion ofgrammar by connecting it to personal growth and development.
William Cobbett followed and stressed the beliefthat grammar was a fundamental part of
an individual's education. Cobbett wrote A Grammar ofthe English Language (1832) as
a series ofletters to his son James. In these letters, Cobbett takes the reader through the
aspects ofthe English language from pronouns and punctuation to syntax and etymology.
This thorough examination alone reflects the importance ofthe topic, for to get a
10
complete understanding ofthe English language, one must master all aspects that make
up the language.
A firm understanding oflanguage, according to Cobbett, "gives, in proportion to
its extent and usefulness, the possessor a just claim to respect" (8). Language is what
helps separate the masses. A master oflanguage rises above the less educated speakers
and writers and commands the respect ofothers. While all knowledge is important,
Cobbett emphasizes that certain knowledge is superior to other knowledge and that
knowledge ofgrammar is imperative:
... for though knowledge in every art an science, is, ifproperly applied,
worthy ofpraise in proportion to its extent and usefulness, there are some
kinds ofknowledge which are justly considered as ofsuperior order, not
only because the possession ofthem is a proofofmore than ordinary
industry and talent, but because the application ofthem has naturally a
more powerful influence in the affairs and on the condition ofour friends,
acquaintances, neighbors, and country. (8)
The idea that knowledge is power, and that knowledge ofthe language ensures more
power, underlies Cobbett's rationale; thus, his push for his son to acquire such knowledge
makes sense.
Brown, like Cobbett, hails grammar as the medium through which men can ensure
knowledge is transferred. In keeping with the beliefthat grammar works to better the
individual, Brown calls for education on this subject to prevent disaster. He asserts that
"Iffor a moment we consider the good and evil that are done in the world through the
medium ofspeech, we shall with one voice acknowledge, that not only the faculty itself,
11
but also the manner in which it is used, is ofincalculable importance to the welfare of
men" (22). Good grammar, therefore, allows knowledge to be more clearly and
accurately presented since language is the vehicle through which thoughts are expressed.
Again, knowledge is power, and he who can convey his thoughts in an accurate manner
possesses the power since he then has the power to influence others.
Brown also addresses the connection between grammar and respect. In order to
be a true gentleman, one needs to have a commanding knowledge ofgrammar, which
allows one to use the language to separate himselffrom others who are lowlier and not
respectable. Brown emphasizes that everyone desires to be considered educated by his
peers or those he considers his intellectual superiors, but too often the limits ofone's
knowledge ofthe language reflect a more uneducated persona, and "who can tell how
much ofhis own good or ill success, how much ofthe favour or disregard with which he
himselfhas been treated, may have depended upon that skill or deficiency in grammar"
(94-95). The only sure way to prevent such ill fortune is to learn to apply grammar
correctly to both written and verbal communication.
The responsibility to learn grammar, however, does not fall solely on the
shoulders ofthe individual. Again, there are people in power, although not necessarily
possessing political power, who are responsible for ensuring that grammar takes its place
in the basic education ofall. Teachers, parents, and guardians "have a certain degree of
influence upon the public mind; and the popular notions ofthe age, in respect to the
relative value ofdifferent studies, will doubtless bias many to the adoption or the
rejection ofthis" (95). Since students are impressionable, they need the most guidance,
and adults have the power and obligation to give the students the education that will
12
allow the students to grow into respectable individuals in the community. Those in
power have a duty to the subordinates.
Grammar as a Means ofNational Stability
Building on the idea ofindividual growth, grammarians tied individual growth to
the growth ofthe entire country. Thus, ifa person improved through the study of
grammar, then the entire country would improve as a result. Cobbett does not argue
strictly for the acquisition ofknowledge ofthe English language for individual growth;
he also stresses its ability to serve the communal good. In dedicating his book to the
Queen ofEngland, Cobbett argues that those who oppose the crown do so out of
ignorance, so knowledge, particularly knowledge ofEnglish grammar, must be brought to
the "Labouring classes ofthe community." Similarly, Cobbett pushes for recognition of
grammar's place in government:
To the functions ofstatesmen and legislators is due the highest respect
which can be shown by man to any human .... Here the matters to be
discussed and decided on, are peace and war, and the liberty or slavery,
happiness or misery, ofnations. Here a single instance ofneglect, a single
oversight, a single error, may load with calamity millions ofmen, and
entail that calamity on a long series offuture generations. (9-10)
These men, especially, need to have a keen sense oflanguage ifthey are to represent the
country. Such leaders have an obligation to provide people with knowledge that enables
the people to be loyal citizens. This quest for knowledge takes many forms and follows
many paths, but "GRAMMAR is the gate ofentrance to them all. And, ifgrammar is so
13
useful in the attaining ofknowledge, it is absolutely necessary in order to enable the
possessor to communicate, by writing, that knowledge to others" (10). The key to all
knowledge is grammar; without grammar, the people would be completely ignorant. As
Cobbett has already established, an ignorant population would be detrimental to the
leaders. The leaders would be unable to fulfill their duties ifthey, too, were ignorant of
the language. Thus, the leaders must keep order by ensuring everyone is educated.
The strong objection Marsh has to the absence ofgrammar closely follows
Cobbett's rationale for the need to know grammar, for a firm knowledge ofgrammar
ensures a strong country. This nationalistic connection makes it necessary for every
member ofsociety to learn to utilize the language. The people are empowered by
language, and, therefore, the whole country benefits. Marsh urges that grammatical
studies provide
the surest safeguard ofnational independence and national honor-an
intelligent comprehension, namely, ofwhat is good and what is great in
national history, national institutions, national character .... The zeal with
which these studies are pursued is a high expression ofintellectual
patriotism, a security against the perils ofabsorption and centralization
which are again menacing the commonwealth ofthe Eastern continent. (7)
The desire to rise above the other nations and improve the American lifestyle serves as a
powerful argument to encourage the study ofgrammar, and the argument was more than
likely hailed and accepted by the American people as they sat on the edge ofa period of
great advancement.
14
This idea ofadvancement also plays an important role in Marsh's arguments for
the importance ofgrammar. With technological advancement, Americans were afforded
more opportunities that lead to the cliched American dream where the poor laborer is able
to make a better living for himselfand his family. This dream ofbetterment was filled
with a hope ofentering a new social class and earning a respectable place in society.
Thus, Marsh insists,
Every man is a dabbler, ifnot a master in every knowledge. Every man is
a divine, a statesman, a physician, and a lawyer to himself, as well as a
counsellor to his neighbors, on all the interests involved in the sciences
appropriately belonging to those professions. We all read books,
magazines, newspapers, all attend learned lectures, and too many ofus,
indeed, write the one, or deliver the other. (15)
While this advancement seems reflective ofan educated society, the image was adored by
all Americans. In short, advancement cannot continue without knowledge ofthe
language. Along with this advancement, Americans "still need, with our multifarious
strivings, an encyclopedic training, a wide command over resources ofour native tongue"
(16). Without a firm basis in the grammar ofthe language, advancement will inevitably
cease.
Knowing the language, according to Marsh, also makes the country strong by
allowing the people to be more politically active. Since language is not stagnant, people
must keep themselves updated on the changes that occur. However,
it is by no means easy to discriminate, at all times, between positive
corruptions, which tend to the deterioration ofa tongue in expressiveness
15
or moral elevation ofvocabulary, in distinctness ofarticulation, in logical
precision, or in clearness ofstructure, and changes which belong to the
character 0 f speech. (644)
These changes, nonetheless, are important because they reflect changes in the individuals
ofsociety. Ifthe people change for the better, then the language changes in a positive
way by becoming stronger and more refined. On the other hand, ifthe people take a tum
toward evil ways, they act in a more ignorant fashion, causing the language to deteriorate
and take on a less educated appearance. There is a clear connection between the people
and their language. Thus, Marsh concludes that by studying the language, "Mere
corruptions ... which arise from extraneous or accidental causes, may be detected,
exposed, and ifnot healed, at least prevented from spreading beyond their source, and
infecting a whole nation" (644). Since language allows for communication and is used,
for example, in politics, a knowledgeable individual can serve the country better by
preventing widespread decay ofthe morals ofthe people.
Raub continues the emphasis on individual improvement through grammar, but he
more readily connects the individual's knowledge to the well being ofothers. He attests,
"The close accurate habits ofthought engendered by the critical analysis ofthe English
sentence, and the cultivation ofkeen perception in the correction and criticism oferrors
in speech, are ofincalculable value to the learner as a thinking citizen ofthe future" (3).
Echoing Cobbett's assertion that an educated citizen is a loyal citizen, Raub emphasizes
that there is more involved than individual growth in learning grammar, for one person's
knowledge about the language ultimately affects everyone.
16
The majority ofthe population was willing to accept these three arguments as
enough to warrant the inclusion ofgrammar into the curriculum; however, by 1880,
members ofthe education system started to question these arguments. By this time,
women were becoming more numerous in the classrooms both as teachers and students.
Since grammar was considered a science and women were being welcomed into the
classrooms, a change in attitude toward grammar instruction would allow women to teach
and learn grammar, for permitting women to learn a science was inappropriate. Sciences
were too difficult for women to learn, and young women had no need to learn science
since tradition warranted women to stay at home and raise the family. By the tum ofthis
century, researchers started to disprove the effectiveness ofgrammar instruction, leading
the next generation to carryon the debate concerning grammar's place in education.
The theories behind teaching grammar were all accurate and worthy of
acceptance. Knowing how to utilize the language does make someone a better person. If
a person can present his ideas clearly, he or she will be better offthan a person who
cannot construct a coherent sentence. Meaning is important, but meaning amounts to
very little ifthe errors in language usage prohibit the meaning from coming through.
This is why individuals who know grammar are better individuals and better citizens. Ifa
person can present his or her ideas clearly, people will listen, and even ifthe public does
not agree, the individual will know that it is not because he or she presented the ideas in
an illiterate manner.
It is important to note that before the tum ofthis century, the majority ofgrammar
instruction was traditional. Students memorized rules from a grammar, completed
exercises, and moved on to the next grammar concept. The amount ofgrammar
17
application to students' own writing was minimal at best, and the instruction was as
formal and dry as grammar instruction could be. Educators started to question why the
grammar instruction was ineffective and blamed teachers, while others questioned the
grammar. Granted, teachers taught the grammar, but they were teaching the only
grammar they knew. Educators never attempted to develop a more effective grammar.
The grammar instruction was not working, so the grammar must be faulty. Regardless of
the truth behind the theories originally used to implement grammar instruction, grammar
was omitted from teaching because ofthe ineffective approach to grammar that was used.
Instead offinding an alternate approach, teachers moved away from teaching grammar
altogether. This travesty would become more prevalent during the next century.
GRAMMAR IN THE 1900s
By the tum ofthe century, grammar's place in formal instruction, and more
importantly in writing classes, was at the center ofdebate. Rei Noguchi explains that
studies began by at least 1906 that helped shift the dominant attitude for grammar
instruction toward an anti-grammar attitude (2). Constance Weaver acknowledges that
when the Curriculum Commission ofthe National Council ofTeachers ofEnglish
concluded in 1936 that teaching grammar had no useful impact on students, NCTE
established that grammar should be excluded from writing instruction, and this attitude
toward grammar and its place in the writing classroom continued to be a part ofthe
writing curriculum well into the following decades (9-10).
In 1947, W.J. Macauley conducted a study in Scotland among elementary and
secondary school students. Although the study was conducted outside ofthe United
18
States, Macauley's findings had a profound impact on the attitude toward grammar both
in his own country and in the United States. Macauley looked at students' performance
in grammar after almost five years ofgrammar instruction. After their grammar
instruction was complete, students took tests on the parts ofspeech. Macauley's study
provided the following conclusions:
? No domestic or technical class scored above 40 percent on the whole
test.
? The only classes scoring 50 percent or above on all five parts of
speech were the two classes studying foreign language.
? The overall mean for the top boys' class and the top girls' class
increased from 46.5 percent in the first year to 62 percent in the third
year.
? By the third year, when more than halfthe senior secondary students
had left school, still only 41.5 percent ofall the remaining students
scored 50 percent or higher on the total test. (Weaver 19)
These conclusions seem to support the NCTE's assertion about grammar instruction. As
a result ofstudies like Macauley's, researchers tried to find alternatives to traditional
grammar that would be more effective.
During the 1950s and 1960s, structural grammar, introduced by linguists,
attempted to take a more "as-it-is-now" approach to grammar rather than relying on
older, more traditional rules. This approach tried to develop rules that governed the
English language at the moment, and the overall idea seemed to spark much enthusiasm.
However, research proved that the structural approach to grammar was no more effective
19
than the very grammar it was trying to replace (Weaver 11). Structural grammar ended
up being just as difficult for students to comprehend and utilize in their writing.
Replacing traditional grammar with structural grammar would not solve any ofthe
problems prevalent in grammar instruction. Instead, the substitution would just open
structural grammar up to the same well-deserved criticism that traditional grammar has
endured through the years.
Overlapping the rise and fall ofthe structural approach, the 1960s and 1970s saw
the development ofanother linguistic approach to grammar called transformational
grammar. This approach "emphasized how surface structures can be generated from
hypothesized deep, underlying structures, and how underlying structures can be
transformed into different stylistic variants" (Weaver 11). Early research on
transformational grammar conducted by D Bateman and F. Zidonis indicated positive
results. As more researchers like John Mellon and Frank O'Hare conducted their own
research on transformational grammar, however, it became evident that exercises in
sentence combining provided the same rate ofimprovement as instruction utilizing
transformational grammar (Weaver 11-13). Thus, this approach to grammar was not the
saving grace to grammar instruction that some had hoped it would be.
In the late 1970s, Mina Shaughnessy published Errors and Expectations,
and once again, theory around grammar instruction changed. Shaughnessy identified
common errors found in basic writing and concluded that the errors students make are not
random or the result ofan ignorance ofrules. Instead ofwriting students offas poor
writers, teachers need to understand what is affecting the students' writing at a deeper
level. Ifteachers look deep enough, they can find the patterns that students use when
20
creating error and use the pattern to teach students how to fix errors. While Shaughnessy
focused on the errors prevalent in basic writing, she nonetheless contributed to field of
composition and developed a theory pertaining to grammar and error that is still prevalent
in writing curriculums today. Her approach to error analysis was the first indication that
perhaps students did learn grammar to some degree, even ifthey were applying the rules
incorrectly.
Additional research in the 1980s continued to prove that grammar instruction has
no useful effects on students. F. McQuade studied his 11 th and 12th grade students,
believing that grammar instruction would improve the students' performance on college
entrance examinations. The class reviewed basic grammar, and while students had a
positive attitude toward the class, the end results were not so positive. Students'
performance on the exams did not improve. In fact, students who had not taken the
grammar class performed just as well as the students who had taken the class, proving
what previous research had concluded (Weaver 22-23). Without positive results, it was
clear to educators in the field ofwriting that grammar instruction was to remain outside
ofthe limits ofthe writing classroom.
All ofthis research, however, only proves two things: traditional grammar
instruction is not effective, and a more effective approach to grammar has not been
developed. No one can deny these conclusions, for the research almost unanimously
supports these very points. These conclusions, though, do not end the debate; they only
end the past debates pertaining to the grammar theories that have already been developed.
The most successful attempt at trying to find an alternate method to traditional
grammar instruction came from Mina Shaughnessy and her error analysis theory.
21
Unfortunately, it is difficult for teachers to pick up on error patterns because most
teachers instruct students for only ten to fifteen weeks. In this short period oftime,
teachers cannot even truly begin to know their students' writing or the pattern oferror
that may be underlying the grammatical mistakes. While error analysis is valid and
beneficial to, for example, high school teachers who instruct the same students for an
entire school year, error analysis is difficult to utilize in a short-term writing class.
Expecting teachers to utilize error analysis effectively under the time constraints is not
realistic. By the time error can be placed into a pattern, the class is over, and the students
are gone.
Another problem with error analysis is that unless a teacher has a strong
background in grammar, he or she will not be able to pick up on the error pattern. It is
easy to identify that something is wrong with a grammatical structure, but it is much
more difficult to identify what the exact problem is and how the problem can be fixed.
Error analysis is dependant on teachers being able to identify that there is an error,
classify the error, note the pattern ofmisapplication, and suggest ways to correct the
error. Realistically, a lot ofteachers cannot do this, especially ifthey have been trained
within the process-centered paradigm. There must be a way to implement grammar back
into the writing curriculum without teachers having to go back and learn grammar from
the beginning.
THE PARADIGM SHIFT AND NEW ERA OF WRITING INSTRUCTION
While researchers were looking for an alternative to traditional grammar
instruction, by the 1960s, the largest and most prominent shift in attitude pertaining to
22
grammar occurred as a result ofthe shift from a product-centered writing curriculum to a
process-centered writing curriculum. Maxine Hairston, in "The Winds ofChange:
Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching ofWriting," traces this revolution and
explains its effects on the field ofcomposition.
Hairston explains that Thomas Kuhn developed the concept ofthe paradigm shift
in order to explain why scientific revolutions occur. According to Kuhn, once theories
are developed, they become the standard beliefsystem for everyone in the scientific field.
Eventually, individuals start to discover holes in the old theory, and a new theory is
developed. Although the new theory is not universally accepted at first, most individuals
will accept the theory when proofofits superiority is provided. Hairston noted the
similar paradigm shift occurring in composition as a result ofthe process-centered
approach to teaching that is still emphasized.
Before the 1960s, the old paradigm focused on the product, often placing
emphasis on style and error correction formulas. This product-based theory ofwriting
assumed that writers had preconceived topics and ideas, and all writers needed to do was
squeeze their topics into the required style. Another problem was that this theory treated
writing as a linear process that smoothly passed through prewriting, drafting, and revising
stages.
During the 1960s, the paradigm changed. Theorists like Noam Chomsky who
stressed process over product paved the way for others. Also, the Anglo-American
seminar on the teaching ofEnglish challenged the old paradigm in 1966, when the
conference shifted attention from product to process. This process-centered approach led
writers through the stages ofa recursive writing process (planning, drafting, and
23
revising). The emphasis was on the ideas and how working through a writing process
allows writers to express ideas and feelings they would otherwise not know how to
express in writing. Grammar instruction was inconsistent with the process pedagogy
because it focused on product, a secondary concern in the overall curriculum.
The most prominent sign ofthe paradigm shift in composition was represented by
the research being conducted on the writing process. This research found that writing
helped the writer find what it is he or she wants to write about. Also, the research
emphasized that writing is non-linear; writers toggled from stage to stage. In addition to
concentrating on the writing process, the new paradigm included instruction on finding
topics. The product was evaluated based on how well it fulfilled the writer's plan, and
the writing process was seen as recurring (Hairston 113-126).
Within this paradigm shift, other researchers have voiced their theories about why
most grammar instruction is ineffective. Glynda Hall tells us that writing "remains more
or less constant across ages 9, 13, and 17," and she goes on to explain that "there are,
after all, differences in the kinds oferror that students ofvarious ages can correct" (239).
Ifthis is true, then the strategies for incorporating grammar into a writing classroom vary
according to the grade level. This makes perfect sense. Ofcourse, students in the third
grade will not be able to utilize grammar or writing the same way a student in high school
will; however, how much grammar instruction do students actually get at any given age,
and what type ofinstruction do they get? Some theorists want teachers to believe that
students cannot learn grammar after a certain age. Ifindividuals do not continue to work
on a skill, they lose it. Grammar is no exception. Ifwe allowed students to continue
improving their grammar, they would not forget the rules or how to apply the rules.
24
Patrick Hartwell addresses why grammar instruction has limited effects on
writing. He explains, "The romantic position [ofgrammar] is that stylistic grammars,
though perhaps useful for teachers, have little place in the teaching ofcomposition, for
students must struggle with and through language toward meaning" (124). Granted,
traditional grammar is difficult, but grammar is an integral part ofcomposition. Yes,
students are learning to look for and create meaning, but how are they supposed to
express that meaning iftheir writing is laden with error? Ifwe are going to teach
students to express themselves, we need to ensure they express themselves as clearly as
they can. Ofcourse teachers cannot spend the entire term teaching every grammar
concept there is, but there are some grammar concepts that create problems for a large
number ofstudents; thus, teachers should address these problems to better students'
writing.
GRAMMAR INSTRUCTION POST-PROCESS: FOSTERING A NEW ATTITUDE
It has now been over twenty years since the process-centered approach was
introduced. Although process is still central to writing theory, a post-process movement
is occurring. Post-process theory acknowledges that there has to be a product at the end
ofthe process. This is exemplified in current writing handbooks by the inclusion of
publishing as the final stage ofthe writing process. Ifthere is a product, then grammar's
place in the writing curriculum must be reexamined, and with this reexamination comes a
new type ofgrammar instruction that incorporates grammar into its rightful place in the
writing process and that eliminates the grammatical jargon that makes traditional
grammar so difficult.
25
Post-process theory, although still new, is illustrated by Constance Weaver's
Teaching Grammar in Context. Weaver calls for a rethinking ofthe way writing is
taught. She insists that teachers have to "reexamine, refine, and expand [their] thinking
about what aspects ofgrammar need to be taught to writers, along with the related
questions ofwhy, when, and how" (xi). In her approach, Weaver ensures that process
and content receive the most attention, but grammar is never ignored. Grammar is dealt
with in mini-workshops that last long enough to correct the misapplication or explain a
rule in as basic terms as possible. The students are then directed back to their own
writing; thus, the grammar instruction is presented in the least intrusive manner as
possible.
My theory is closely related to this post-process movement. I believe that
grammar is as important as the grammarians in the 1800s claimed it was. Ifstudents can
use the language effectively, they can express their thoughts clearly, helping them to
become members ofsociety. Maybe students will not be engaging in politics as the
grammarians in the 1800s stressed, but students will be joining society as lawyers,
doctors, and business people. It is important that students know how to express their
thoughts coherently, and as writing teachers, we promise our students that we will help
them do that. They willieam in our classrooms and leave better writers. Knowing
grammar plays a role in this writing evolution.
I also understand the importance ofthe writing process. The ideal writing class
would consider both process and product equally important, for my goal in teaching is to
teach the process in order to help students produce a better product. To do this, I
acknowledge that within the writing process grammar has a distinct place. No matter
26
how much we want to emphasize process, there comes a time when we have to evaluate
product. Just like all ofthe other stages in the writing process, editing deserves deep
consideration as to how it affects students' writing. Teachers cannot be blind to the fact
that there will come a time in all writing when readers evaluate a product, and in order to
serve our students, we have to be willing to provide them with the resources and
information that allow them to become the best writers that they can become.
To aid in teaching students, the elements in the editing process need to be clear
and simple. Grammatical jargon should be limited, as should the amount ofgrammar
presented. Ifgrammar instruction is to be effective, however, teachers have to learn a
basic foundation in grammar that they can break down into simple, student-friendly
terms. Doing this aids teachers in their learning ofthe grammar and in their presentation
ofthe grammar, which in tum benefits the students in the same way. This acceptance of
grammar as a part ofthe process and the simpler instruction are the first steps in
welcoming grammar back into the writing classroom.
It is also beneficial to make a connection between spoken and written language.
Although written language is more formal than spoken language, written language can be
tested through spoken language. Thus, speech becomes a valuable tool in grammar
instruction and can aid students in their study ofthis seemingly difficult subject, as
Chapter 3 will explain further.
As I stated above, it is important to remember that the post-process movement and
my theory ofgrammar instruction work with the writing process, not against it. The
writing process, in its most familiar form, involves four stages: planning, drafting,
revising, and editing (as noted above, publishing follows editing as the final stage in
27
current models). While there is proofthat these stages are actually recursive rather than
linear, the basic premise ofprocess-centered instruction is to allow students to
concentrate on different aspects oftheir process at different times. Grammar instruction,
by the nature ofthe breakdown ofthe writing stages, has a distinct place in the
composition classroom. Therefore, once students have learned to prewrite, write, and
revise, teachers should teach students how to edit, using this time to teach grammar. This
is when teachers can conduct workshops on errors that seem to be consistent for the
majority ofthe class, and the students who do not have the same errors can aid during
such lessons, promoting a collaborative environment. For example, commas will almost
always pose some problems in students' writing, so teachers can give a comma
workshop. The workshop will be standard: explain the rules, give examples, and have
students analyze the rule for a basic understanding ofthe underlying concept. While this
procedure seems to be the same ineffective pattern that teachers already use, it is the next
stage that makes this process effective.
In order to truly grasp a concept, students will have to learn how to apply the rules
to their writing. All editing activities will focus mainly on their writing. Anyone can fill
in a workbook exercise, but the true test is to seek and correct error in writing where error
may not be so easy to find or to rewrite a sentence in order to correct the error. If
students can complete such tasks, they understand the grammar concepts; ifthey still
cannot find their errors, other steps will have to be taken. Teachers will have to explain
concepts in a different way or teach students different strategies for finding error in order
to provide students with a broader base ofapproaches to draw from. For example,
28
spoken language often aids students in their search for error since concepts such as
sentence fragments or run-on sentences become more evident to the writer's ear.
One ofthe main reasons that traditional grammar instruction is ineffective is
because all students learn differently, and traditional grammar allows for little flexibility.
Barry M. Kroll and John C. Schafer explain that teachers have to be willing to accept that
not all students will grasp grammatical concepts, so teachers have to be able to explain
rules in numerous ways (247). Some students will be able to understand grammatical
jargon, but other students will not. Therefore, teachers will have to be able to explain
grammar in an array ofways. Sarah D'Eloia takes this idea a step further when she
writes,
Ifthe instructor is familiar with several schools ofgrammar, he will be better able
to practice an informed eclecticism, picking and choosing from a variety of
explanations, possible presentations, and "discovery procedures" those that are
most likely to shed light for the student on his error, to tell him exactly what to do
exactly where in order to be correct, to give him a "mechanical" way to both
produce and correct forms and proofread for correctness. (6)
D'Eloia's assertion presents two other problems, however, which lead to some ofthe
most prevalent problems with the inclusion ofgrammar in the classroom.
Some teachers do not have a strong foundation in grammar. Teachers' lack of
training in this area creates a reluctance to focus on anything product centered. Most
writing teachers are not trained to be writing teachers; instead, they are trained in
literature. Administrators do not believe that there are enough trained specialists to fill
all ofthe positions for writing teachers. All too often, in order to curb this so-called
29
shortage, a Ph.D. in literature or, at most institutions, an MA stands as enough training to
teach writing. Since traditional grammar is so difficult and few teachers have had
training in grammar instruction, many teachers feel limited in their ability to teach
grammar to their students. Also, ifteachers have trouble understanding and applying
grammatical concepts, how can students learn the same concepts?
Another problem lies within the idea oflearning different schools ofgrammar.
While the suggestion that teachers learn various schools ofgrammar is noble and
attempts to take the students' needs into consideration, the various schools ofgrammar all
pose the same problem that traditional grammar poses; they are too complicated for
teachers and students. In chapter two, I analyze five different grammars that represent
five different schools ofgrammar that use five different approaches to teaching grammar.
This analysis illustrates the difficulty ofthe majority ofapproaches that already exist in
this field. By learning from the "mistakes" ofpast grammar instruction, teachers can
easily develop a new approach to grammar that covers all ofthe basic concepts students
will need to know. This new approach digs into the heart ofthe traditional grammar in
order to simplify it into a more user-friendly grammar.
It would be more effective for teachers to develop a basic foundation in grammar
and create clear and simple lessons to get the grammar across to students. The solution is
to break through traditional grammar that is laden with jargon to develop a new approach
that simplifies grammar. This can be done by using a limited number ofterms and
combining related topics into the same workshops. It is important to note, however, that
the selection ofthe grammar topics to be covered is actually dictated by the students'
needs. Teachers need to develop basic categories to classify errors and deal with the
30
errors that are the most invasive to students' writing. Doing as little as developing basic
categories ofgrammar, as Noguchi argues, allows for grammar instruction without taking
time away from the more immediate goal, teaching students to write (60). Below is a list
ofterms and a grouping ofconcepts that illustrate the simplified approach I propose. The
list will become clearer in the next chapter when I actually present an approach to
teaching restrictive and nomestrictive elements:
Termsl
Phrase
Independent Clause
Coordinating Conjunction
Fragment
Groupings
Independent vs. Dependent Clauses:
Fragments
Run-onl Comma Splice
Commas:
Phrase
Independent Clause
Clause
Dependent Clause
Subordinating Conjunction
Run-onl Comma Splice
Clause
Dependent Clause
1 Noguchi suggests a basic category that consists of"Sentence" and "Nonsentence." Under "Nonsentence,"
Noguchi lists fragments, subjects, and verbs (34). I do not include tenns such a noun, verb, adjective, and
adverb because these are tenns relatively familiar to students who are in a college freshman composition
class. Doing so would imply little confidence in students' knowledge. The students' knowledge is not in
question; the method ofteaching grammar is in question.
31
Coordinating Conjunction Subordinating Conjunction
These labels provide an overview ofthe basic concepts that teachers and students need to
know in order to teach and learn grammar. The terms, when accompanied with brief
explanations, provide a foundation that students can call on when they are trying to learn
grammar because these basic terms run throughout the grammar concepts that students at
the college level may use incorrectly. Thus, teachers can use the concepts in the
groupings to develop editing workshops that can be conducted during the lessons that
focus on editing when it is that time in the writing process. This strategy allows for the
most comprehensive coverage ofas many grammar concerns that can be covered in a
week that is devoted to editing.
32
Chapter 2
Implementing Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Elements into the Composition
Classroom: A New approach to an Old Concept
My theory ofgrammar instruction, as presented in Chapter 1, breaks through the
grammatical jargon to present a basic understanding ofgrammatical concepts. The way
teachers learn grammar is the way they teach grammar. By utilizing the terms and
categories I present in Chapter 1, teachers are making grammar easier to learn for both
themselves and their students. Ifgrammar is easier to learn, then it is easier to teach.
Both teachers and students should feel comfortable with the grammar ifit is to be
implemented into the writing process.
One ofthe most difficult concepts to master in writing is restrictive and
nonrestrictive elements, and that is why I have chosen this grammatical topic to illustrate
the new type ofgrammar instruction I propose. A complete understanding ofthis
grammatical concept involves a complete understanding ofseveral other grammatical
concepts-phrases, clauses, adjectives, etc.-and punctuation. Punctuation becomes an
issue because the absence or presence ofcommas will alter the meaning ofthe sentence.
For example, consider the different meanings elicited by the following sentences in each
ofthe following pairs2 :
la. Susan's brother, who works at a bank, quit his job.
lb. Susan's brother who works at a bank quit his job.
2 I number my own examples; however, I do not number the examples I cite from other authors in order to
be true to the original text.
33
2a. College students, who drink a lot ofcoffee, have a high risk ofstomach
problems.
2b. College students who drink a lot ofcoffee have a high risk ofstomach
problems.
Both sentences in each pair are identical in wording, but the (a) sentences use commas to
set offthe relative clauses, completely changing the meaning ofthe sentence. In la,
Susan only has one brother, so there is no need to identify him, so the relative clause adds
unessential information about him. In 2a, all college students are being generalized
about. On the other hand, in 1b, Susan must have more than one brother, so the relative
clause is necessary to identify which brother is being referred to. In 2b, the relative
clause identifies which college students have the high risk ofstomach cancer.
As noted in the previous chapter, it is possible that many college composition
teachers may not feel comfortable with their knowledge ofgrammar, not to mention the
specifics ofthis particular grammatical concept, but grammar claims an important role in
the composition classroom. As teachers, then, we are obligated to present this sometimes
perplexing grammatical concept in a manner that will allow our students to utilize this
knowledge in their own writing. Ifteachers can work through the grammatical jargon
themselves, they will be able to understand grammar and present it to their students. If
this grammatical concept, which is extremely prevalent in academic writing and therefore
important for students to master, can be broken down into a more students-friendly
presentation, then any grammatical concept can be taught using this new style. Once the
concept is simplified, anyone can understand it, as is true with all grammar.
34
In this chapter, I will first work through various classifications used when
explaining restrictive and nonrestrictive elements in order to develop one simple and
comprehensive explanation ofthis grammatical concept. This section will show how to
break through the difficult terminology ofmost grammar in order to develop terms that
are leamer-friendly, which is the first step in effective grammar instruction.
Then, I will analyze how five different grammars handle restrictive and
nonrestrictive elements and the effectiveness ofeach grammar's attempt. I chose a
random sampling ofgrammars that reflect the type ofgrammar instruction prominent
throughout this century in order to illustrate how past approaches to grammar have been
difficult and to illustrate how different my new approach to grammar is from these past
models.
Finally, I present what I consider to be the ideal way to approach restrictive and
nonrestrictive elements in the composition classroom. I utilize simple and limited
terminology and approach the concept in relation to the other grammatical concepts I
presented in Chapter 1. These concepts build offofeach other and will help teachers and
students understand restrictive and nonrestrictive elements.
DEVELOPING A CLEAR DEFINITION
Before I go any further, I want to take the time to offer a clear definition that will
enable the reader to understand restrictive and nonrestrictive elements before I raise other
points in this chapter.
Restrictive elements deliver important information. A technical definition that
can be found in several traditional grammars would explain that these elements restrict
35
the meaning ofthe noun being modified. As it stands, the definition does not really
explain what this concept is. Basically, this means that the information is necessary to
identify the noun, and ifthe information is not a part ofthe sentence, the meaning ofthe
sentence is altered. For example, look at the following sentences:
2a. The book that is on the table needs to be returned
2b. The boy wearing the green sweater broke the window.
2c. Cars with air bags are dangerous for children.
2d. Students who don't attend class usually fail.
The restrictive element in (2a) is that is on the table. This phrase identifies the particular
book that needs to be returned. Without this information, the reader ofthe sentence
would be left with the noun book but would not know exactly which book was the book
in question; thus, the elimination ofthe phrase would cause confusion. The same is true
for (2b), (2c), and (2d) as well. The restrictive elements identify which boy broke the
window, which cars are dangerous for children, and which students don't pass. Ifthis
information is left out, the reader is left with the general terms boy, cars, and students.
Nomestrictive elements, on the other hand, do not provide important information.
The information is not necessary to identify the noun it modifies; instead, the modifier
simply provides additional information that may be left out ofthe sentence without
changing the meaning in any way. Thus, the information is set offwith commas:
3a. Susan Jones, who lives on my street, is a successful politician.
3b. My brother, who always sleeps in, was late for school.
3c. The cat, running wildly through the hallway, slid right into the door.
3d. John, wearing a new suit, went for a job interview.
36
The set-offmaterial in (3a), for example, does not add necessary information about Susan
Jones, and ifthe information were left out ofthe sentence, the meaning ofthe sentence
would not be affected. The sentence would still convey the central message: Susan Jones
is a successfulpolitician. In (3b), the nonrestrictive element is not necessary to identify
which brother; therefore, the speaker must only have one brother. The same is true for
the number ofcats in question in (3c). Ifthere were several cats to identify, the
nonrestrictive element would become restrictive in order to identify the particular cat.
However, the commas in (3c) indicate that there must only be one cat to refer to. In (3d),
John does not have to be identified by what he was wearing. Instead, this is just
additional information that may be omitted without changing the meaning ofthe
sentence: John went on ajob interview.
BREAKING THROUGH THE TERMINOLOGY
As I have stated, the first step in effective grammar instruction is to develop
terminology that is simpler than past grammar theories have presented. For restrictive
and nonrestrictive elements, there is no consistent use ofterminology. Thus, problems
arise when we try to classify restriction. Some like to use individual terms to reference
restriction to different types ofspeech; for example, a teacher would talk about restrictive
and nonrestrictive adjective clauses while talking about adjectives or restrictive and
nonrestrictive relative clauses when talking about relative pronouns. Others have
attempted to deal with restriction by grouping the parts ofspeech together and developing
one term for all restriction. While this strategy works better, the terms developed are still
too difficult and confusing for both teachers who have to teach the grammatical concept
37
and students who have to use the concept in their writing. Linguists often present counter
examples that tear at the various classifications. Since teachers are dependent on
linguists to present the most comprehensive approach to teaching grammar, teachers are
dependent on the terminology developed in linguistics. To teach grammar effectively,
however, teachers need to start moving away from the more scientific terminology used
by linguists, working through all ofthese different counter explanations to develop a
more accurate classification.
A common classification for restrictive elements is restrictive and nonrestrictive
modifiers. The very concept ofmodification relies on the act ofdescribing, so
accordingly, we assume that restrictive and nonrestrictive modifiers describe. Domenico
Parisi and Francesco Antinucci explain restrictive and nonrestrictive modifiers in a
manner that is consistent with the accepted definitions:
when the modifier indicates to the listener which particular x the speaker
has in mind, the modifier has a restrictive function. When, on the other
hand, the modifier simply has the function ofgiving extra information
about x, without identifying x for the listener, we say that the modifier has
a nonrestrictive function. (102)
This explanation is very traditional and acceptable according to the basic understanding
ofrestriction. Similarly, Rene Dirven and Gunter Radden, in a manuscript oftheir book
Cognitive English Grammar, use very similar criteria to explain relative clauses, which
act as modifiers. Dirven and Radden use the terms "selective" to identify restrictive
clauses and "characterizing" to identify nonrestrictive clauses (169). The assigned terms
identify how a clause functions. In the following sentences,
38
4a. Her brother who enjoys making fun ofpeople wants to be a comedian.
4b. Her brother, who enjoys making fun ofpeople, wants to be a comedian.
The relative clause in (4a) selects which brother wants to be a comedian, while the
relative clause in (4b) characterizes the brother but doesn't identify him in any way.
Because ofthe descriptive nature ofmodifiers, it seems that the classification of
restrictive and nonrestrictive modifiers is an acceptable one; however, this is not the case.
Nigel Fabb presents an interesting explanation ofrestrictive and nonrestrictive relative
clauses that creates a rather large hole in the restrictive and nonrestrictive modifier
classification. According to Fabb, when explaining the differences between restrictive
and nonrestrictive relative clauses, "there is no need for construction-specific stipulations
which distinguish between them. The differences arise from the fact that the [restrictive
relative clause] is a modifier, while the [nonrestrictive relative clause] is not, and in fact
has no syntactic relation to its host/antecedent" (57). Ifa nonrestrictive relative clause
does not function as a modifier, it cannot rightfully be labeled a modifier. Fabb's claim
makes the modifier classification questionable because it just is not reliable in relation to
the concept in question. Therefore, there must be another classification that doesn't have
such a discrepancy.
Another classification that is commonly used when discussing restriction and
nonrestriction is closed and open apposition. Apposition, as defined by David Crystal, is
a grammatical term used "for a sequence ofunits which are constituents at the same
grammatical level, and which have an identity or similarity ofreference" (24). Close
apposition is restrictive; thus, the phrase restrictive apposition may be used
39
interchangeably. Open apposition is nomestrictive and can be replaced with the phrase
nonrestrictive apposition:
5a. The radio, which is in the living room, needs to be repaired.
5b. The radio that is in the living room needs to be repaired.
According to the above explanation ofapposition, (5a) is an example ofopen or
nomestrictive apposition because ofthe nomestrictive element. Similarly, (5b) is close or
restrictive apposition because it contains a restrictive element.
This classification, however, poses two problems. First, teachers and students
will most definitely be deterred by the term apposition. Second, and more importantly,
this classification really doesn't work either. Crystal explains that it is hard to develop a
clear definition ofapposition (24). Charles Meyer elaborates on the problems when he
explains that while some agree that restrictive apposition exists, others do not. Some
argue that the relationship between the two items is really modification, while others
disagree with the overall analysis ofrestrictive appositive structures (147). Essentially,
individuals within the fields ofEnglish and Linguistics cannot even agree ifthe concept
ofapposition exists.
In an attempt to salvage the concept ofapposition, Donald Lee tries to clarify the
confusion close apposition creates by discussing the relationship between remoteness and
unfamiliarity within the patterns ofclose opposition (270). While his handling ofthe
topic seems extensive, it is not the end ofthe discussion. Einar Haugen counters Lee's
approach:
I find such vague criterion unsatisfactory and fear that it would not be very
helpful in guiding a foreigner or a student in his learning ofEnglish. Nor
40
do I believe that it is correct, at least in its present fonnulation. I am
convinced that [Lee] has overlooked several important fonnal aspects of
the construction which may go much farther toward describing its actual
position within the structure ofEnglish. (165)
Once again, controversy surrounds the classification, making its reliability questionable.
I prefer to use the classification restrictive and nonrestrictive elements and will do
so throughout this paper. This classification seems to offer the fewest number of
objections. An element is simply a smaller part ofsomething larger. The phrases and
clauses that may be incorporated into a sentence to identify a noun or that may be set off
with commas to illustrate their nonrestrictive purpose are smaller parts ofthe larger
sentence. There can be no objection to this since this is the criteria we base our
understanding ofthe sentence and its constituents on. In addition, it is the category that is
most student friendly and requires less technical tenninology. There is no built-in
tenninology that causes students to fear the concept, unlike the tenns modifier and
apposition. Thus, this is the most effective classification we can present to students.
GRAMMARS' HANDLING OF RESTRICTIVE AND NONRESTRICTIVE ELEMENTS
Equally important to deciding on a classification is finding the right approach to
use when implementing restrictive and nonrestrictive elements into the composition
classroom. The following five authors handle the concept differently throughout their
grammars:
1. Roberts, Understanding Grammar (1954)
2. Eschliman, Jones, and Burnett, Generative English Handbook (1968)
41
3. Jacobs & Rosenbaum, English Transformational Grammar (1968)
4. Quirk and Greenbaum, A University Grammar (1973)
5. Liles, A Basic Grammar ofModern English (1987)
This random selection allows for a representation ofthe schools ofgrammar theory that
have been prevalent at some point in history. The grammars' purposes are to teach
readers, whether teachers or students, to use grammar based on what the authors deem the
most effective manner. Even ifteachers and students are not the intended audience, these
groups are affected by the various types ofgrammar instruction since most people learn
the theory ofgrammar instruction that is dominant during their schooling. Ifteachers
learn a particular style ofgrammar instruction, then that is the instruction they present to
their students.
Analyzing just the sections pertaining to restrictive and nonrestrictive elements, it
will become clear that the majority ofthe authors present complicated approaches to this
grammatical concept. I am not saying that anyone author's analysis ofthe language is
wrong but that the approach to the language is more difficult than either teachers or
students need grammar to be. Also, it is important to note that all ofthe authors dedicate
the same amount ofspace to restrictive and nonrestrictive elements. This allows for a
fairer comparison.
Roberts (1954)
Paul Roberts' Understanding Grammar deals with restrictive and nonrestrictive
elements in different sections ofhis grammar, depending on the specific classification of
42
the element-adjective clauses, adverb clauses, appositives, and participle phrases. This
separation does not allow the reader to get an overall understanding ofrestrictive and
nonrestrictive elements. Instead, the reader must make his or her own connection
between the parts ofspeech and how each functions in a sentence as a restrictive or
nonrestrictive element. The connections are made even more difficult to find as a result
ofRoberts' difficult language and ineffective definitions.
Roberts introduces the reader to restrictive and nonrestrictive elements in a
section that explains relative pronouns. He explains that "Ifthe subordinate clause points
out which ofseveral possibilities is meant, it is restrictive" (72). He goes on to explain
that nonrestrictive clauses give added information about the antecedent and are set off
with commas. Then Roberts breaks down how who and which can be used in restrictive
or nonrestrictive clauses, but that can only be used in restrictive clauses (72-73). To
compliment the explanations, Roberts provides sample sentences that illustrate the proper
use ofeach relative pronoun.
The next restrictive and nonrestrictive elements Roberts explains are appositives.
A restrictive appositive is considered "a close appositive" while a nonrestrictive
appositive is considered "loose" (255). These explanations, which are not explained any
more than this, are followed by four sets ofsentences that show one loose and one close
appositive. However, nowhere in the section does Roberts explain the punctuation of
nonrestrictive appositives; thus, the reader must remember the rules for punctuating
restrictive and nonrestrictive adjective clauses from earlier in the book or be able to pick
up on the punctuation from the examples.
43
Next, some fifty pages later, Roberts once again attempts to explain restrictive
and nonrestrictive adjective clauses. The explanations simply distinguish the clauses in
the following way: "An adjective clause is either restrictive (identifying the substantive
as one ofseveral possibilities) or nonrestrictive (describing the subject but not identifying
it)" (314). While the definition is consistent with the definition he provides in the section
concerning relative pronouns, the mere separation ofthe two sections causes confusion,
for Roberts should have combined the sections. After the definitions, Roberts once again
provides sample sentences and explains that commas are used to set offthe nonrestrictive
clauses but are not used in restrictive clauses. This is the first time, however, that
Roberts actually acknowledges that punctuation is important in identifying nonrestrictive
clauses in written work. In addition, he explains that "the presence or absence ofthe is
the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive" (315). The author quickly goes on
to explain when who, which, and that can and cannot be used in restrictive and
nonrestrictive clauses, which is already covered on pages 72 and 73 when Roberts
explains relative pronouns.
The discussion ofrestrictive and nonrestrictive adverb clauses is the most
confusing Roberts offers. He simplifies restrictive adverb clauses by classifying them as
essential to the meaning ofthe sentence. The difficulty arises in his discussion of
punctuation. According to Roberts, "The punctuation ofadverb clauses is not entirely
dependent on whether the clause is restrictive or nonrestrictive" (331). Roberts states that
commas are used to set offrestrictive clauses at the beginning ofsentences (However, he
does not explain that the comma is the result ofthe clauses' function as an introductory
element). Roberts' explanation, then, causes more confusion than it does clarification.
44
While the discussion ofrestrictive and nonrestrictive adverb clauses is the most
confusing, the discussion ofrestrictive and nonrestrictive participle phrases is the
sparsest. The only real explanation Roberts offers is a reference back to adjective
clauses: "Like adjective clauses, appositive participle phrases may be either restrictive or
nonrestrictive" (349). The concept ofpunctuation takes on an additional role since it
"may indicate not only whether the phrase is restrictive or nonrestrictive but also which
ofthe two substantives it goes with" (350). Roberts then provides the following
examples:
The man reprimanded the boy talking with his mouth full. (Boy is the implied
subject oftalking.)
The man reprimanded the boy, talking with his mouth full. (Man is the implied
subject ofTalking.) (350)
While the term "substantive" makes the definition a bit overwhelming, the examples and
their breakdown makes Roberts' point for him.
Roberts' division ofthe different types ofrestrictive and nonrestrictive elements
makes the reader understand that there are many types ofrestrictive and nonrestrictive
elements but does not offer a clear picture ofhow one should deal with these elements.
The various terms used to describe restrictive and nonrestrictive elements--elose, loose,
essential, etc.-are confusing because each element is assigned a modifier, but each
modifier can be used to refer to the various restrictive and nonrestrictive elements.
Roberts' best explanation ofrestrictive and nonrestrictive elements can be found in the
glossary. Under "nonrestrictive," Roberts provides his most clear definition: "A term
used for a modifier that describes but does not limit the application ofthe word it
45
modifies" (507). Roberts goes on to explain that such modifiers are set offwith commas,
but he never gives a complete definition ofa restrictive modifier in the glossary. Instead,
he simply states within the nonrestrictive definition that restrictive modifiers are not set
offby commas. Therefore, while Roberts' discussion ofrestrictive and nonrestrictive
elements can be considered comprehensive because he identifies and explains, or
attempts to explain, each type, his discussion is far from effective.
Eschliman et al (1968)
Herbert Eschliman, Robert Jones, and Tommy Burnett, in Generative English
Handbook, also separate their discussion ofrestrictive and nonrestrictive elements. The
difference, however, is that Eschliman et al designate only two sections for this concept.
Nonetheless, the discussions are rather distant from each other, so it is still difficult for
the reader to make the necessary connection.
First, in a section called "Adjective Transformation," the authors explain how
relative clauses function in sentences. The problem, however, is that the terms restrictive
and nonrestrictive never appear in this section. Instead, the authors state that modifying
clauses begin with that and are not set offwith commas, and descriptive clauses do not
begin with that and are set offwith commas. Then, Eschliman et al go on to explain that
the purpose ofmodifiers is to "limit" the noun phrase, while the purpose ofdescriptives is
to give descriptive information that does not limit (35). Examples follow the
explanations, and the authors move on to point out that nouns can be limited by words or
phrases. Finally, the authors ensure the reader is clear about the function ofeach clause
by walking the reader through an example and explaining how one can test ifa modifier
46
is required by putting "it in the post-NP position in a relative clause introduced by that"
(36). In the following examples,
The sky that was bright and blue
the bright blue sky
the first sentences is not acceptable, but the second sentence is acceptable since there is
only one sky that needs no limiting as the first example suggests (36).
Next, some seventy pages later, the authors explain noun modifiers. This is where
the authors utilize the terms restrictive and nonrestrictive. They state, "Descriptives and
adverbs are the traditionally labeled nonrestrictive elements in a sentence. They are,
with the exception ofthe adverb at the end ofthe sentence pattern, always utilized" (108).
The authors continue by explaining that restrictive elements are noun modifiers, and
commas should never be used to set them off. Again, there are tests to check which
concept is being utilized. Noun modifiers begin with that and can be placed in the pre 
noun phrase position. The authors end by emphasizing that modifiers distinguish the
noun phrase, while descriptives provide non-limiting information. All in all, the reader
can get an idea ofthe concept and the rules for punctuation that go with it, but the tests
will not be too useful until the reader has a much stronger knowledge base.
Even though Eschliman et al separate their discussion into two sections, their
handling ofthe material is less confusing than the previous authors. This grammar is not
filled with a lot ofjargon, which will allow students to understand the explanations.
However, there is not a clear use ofthe terms restrictive and nonrestrictive in the first
section I analyzed, which seems crucial since a lot ofthe foundation is set there.
Eschliman et al explain the concept without actually identifying it by name, so the reader
47
may be confused and assume this section does not deal with restriction. Also, the authors
ofthis grammar do not use enough examples. In all, the authors use less than a dozen full
sentences to illustrate their points. Ifthey insist on not using the terms, they definitely
need to use at least twice as many examples to get the message across. Roberts at least
used ample examples.
Jacobs and Rosenbaum (1968)
Unlike the previous grammars, Roderick Jacobs and Peter Rosenbaum keep their
discussion ofrestrictive and nonrestrictive elements in one section in English
Transformational Grammar. In a section pertaining to conjunction, they discuss that in
the example
John, who is lazy, went to the store,
who is lazy requires "non restrictive clause transformation" (259). The authors define a
nonrestrictive clause as a sentence within a sentence. Then, they state that the reader
should be able to distinguish the difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses
from the following examples:
professors who enjoy poetry are idealistic.
professors, who enjoy poetry, are idealistic. (259)
Jacobs and Rosenbaum go on to explain the difference in the two sentences by declaring
that the first example makes "a single assertion about a certain subclass ofprofessors,
only those who enjoy poetry. The assertion is that such professors are idealistic" (260).
They go on to explain that the second sentence makes an assertion about all professors.
48
In addition, this assertion could stand as an independent clause, and the meaning ofthe
sentence would not be altered:
professors are idealistic and professors enjoy poetry. (260)
This is not true for a restrictive clause. Removing a restrictive clause alters the sentence's
meaning. While the discussion up to this point is relatively easy to follow, things get
more complicated.
At this point, Jacobs and Rosenbaum discuss the actual transformation ofthese
clauses. According to the authors, restrictive clauses are noun phrases embedded in
another noun phrase, but nonrestrictive clauses are actually two independent clauses in
which one is embedded in the other following the noun phrase. These clauses serve as
"afterthoughts," but for the most part, Jacobs and Rosenbaum address that there are many
questions about nonrestrictive clauses that have yet to be answered. Thus, they spend the
remainder ofthe section outlining those questions. In the end, after in-depth linguistic
explanations and tree illustrations that attempt to explain this concept, the authors leave
the reader with the idea that this concept is not clear nor should the reader be too
concerned.
By keeping the information together, Jacobs and Rosenbaum seem to be
attempting to offer an explanation that covers the underlying concepts that encompass all
restrictive and nonrestrictive elements. Unfortunately, their discussion works against
itselfwhen they offer few examples outside ofthe tree diagrams and present problems
that do not provide the reader with any information important to their needs. Teachers
and students do not need to know what has not been identified about nonrestrictive
clauses; they need to know how to utilize this concept in their writing. Part ofthe larger
49
problem here is that Jacobs and Rosenbaum never discuss how punctuation applies to this
concept, which is a rather important detail to leave out. Therefore, the overall approach
is ineffective.
Quirk and Greenbaum (1973)
In their grammar entitled A University Grammar, Randolph Quirk and Sidney
Greenbaum also discuss restrictive and nonrestrictive elements in various sections
throughout the book. Again, such a separation forces the reader to make the connection
on his or her own, but Quirk and Greenbaum use a lot more jargon than Roberts does.
This jargon inhibits the reader from truly getting to the heart ofthe basic explanations.
All ofthis seems counter-productive in a grammar intended, at least by its title, for use in
a university setting.
Quirk and Greenbaum first discuss restrictive and nonrestrictive elements in
section 9.44 under "structures relating to coordination," where they explain that
coordinate clauses and nonrestrictive relative clauses are considered equal on a semantic
level. Then, they use the following examples to illustrate their point:
John didn't go to the show, which is a pity.
John didn't go to the show, and that is a pity. (275)
However, Quirk and Greenbaum do not go a step further and actually walk the reader
through the differences, nor do they present any definition ofnonrestrictive relative
clauses previous to this analysis; thus, the reader has no foundation to build on at this
point.
50
Next, after section 9.45, which explains apposition, the reader is supposedly
introduced to restrictive and nonrestrictive apposition in section 9.46. Quirk and
Greenbaum explain that "The appositives in non-restrictive apposition are in different
information units, and the two appositives have different information value, one ofthem
being subordinate in distribution ofinformation" (277). They go on to identify the use of
punctuation in nonrestrictive apposition and illustrate the point with examples:
Mr. Campbell, the lawyer, was here last night.
Mr. Campbell the lawyer was here last night (i.e. Mr. Campbell the lawyer as
opposed to any other Mr. Campbell we know). (277)
While they clearly try to illustrate their point by analyzing the difference between their
example sentences, Quirk and Greenbaum do not offer a clear explanation that teachers
or students would understand. The overall explanation is too complicated.
Interestingly, the authors cover nonrestrictive apposition by itselfin sections 9.49
through 9.55. The first section sets the stage by providing a visual outline that represents
how different types ofnonrestrictive apposition are related to each other. Basically, there
are three main types ofnonrestrictive apposition: equivalence, attribution, and inclusion.
Equivalence has four parts; however, in order to understand equivalence in
general, the reader must understand section 9.47, which explains that there may be more
than one apposition in a sentence (277). Then, the discussion ofequivalence, at least the
concepts ofequivalence, appears to make more sense. Below are summaries ofthe four
equivalence sub-classes and examples the authors actually use:
Appellation: Both appositives are usually definite. The second
appositive is usually a proper noun and a finite clause.
51
The company commander, who was Captain Madison, assembled his men
and announced their mission.
Designation: While both appositives are usually definite noun phrases,
the first appositive is more specific than the second.
Captain Madison, (that is to say) the company commander, assembled his
men and announced their mission.
Identification: Unlike appellation and designation, the appositives are not
equivalent. The first appositive is less specific, and the first appositive is
usually an indefinite noun phrase.
We-(that is to say) John and I-intend to resign.
Reformulation: The second appositive rewords the first appositive.
He drew a triacontahedral, or thirty-sided, figure. (278-80)
Attribution is the next type ofapposition Quirk and Greenbaum cover, but there
are no sub-concepts that make up attribution. According to the authors, "attribution
involves predication rather than equivalence" (281). They then go on to discuss three
constructions common to attribution. First, the second appositive may lack an article as
in "Robinson, leader ofthe Democratic group on the committee, refused to answer
questions" (281). Second, the second clause may contain an adverbial appositive: "Your
brother, obviously an expert on English grammar, is highly praised in the book I am
52
reading" (281). Third, "The second appositive has an internal structure ofsubject and
either complement or adjunct. The particle being can be inserted between the two
constituents ofthe appositive: Jones and Peters, both (being) ofunknown address, were
charged with the murder ofWilliamson" (281).
The final nonrestrictive apposition is inclusion. In this type ofnonrestrictive
apposition, the second appositive contains a reference to the first. In the first type of
inclusion, exemplification, "the second appositive exemplifies the more general term in
the first appositive" (282). The authors then go on to explain that there are markers that
signal exemplification, likefor example. Quirk and Greenbaum move on to identify that
terms like especially mark the second type ofinclusion, particularization. However, a
clear explanation is never given. In fact, each section under nonrestrictive apposition is
filled with bare-bone definitions and few examples, so the reader is most likely not going
to understand any ofthe concepts relating to nonrestrictive apposition.
Immediately following nonrestrictive apposition is an explanation ofrestrictive
apposition. The authors begin by identifying three forms restrictive apposition takes.
First, and most frequently, "The first appositive is the more general expression and is
preceded by a definite article" (282). Second, the precedes the second, more general
appositive. Third, the first appositive is general and is not preceded by a determiner. The
next two sections present additional information as to when these structures are most
frequently used, but the information offers little applicable information to the reader, for
it is highly unlikely that the reader will be able to write restrictive appositives as a result
ofthis jargon-laden section.
53
The authors do not discuss restrictive and nonrestrictive elements again until
chapter 13, which explains modification. In section 13.3, they explain,
Modification can be restrictive or non-restrictive. That is, the head can be
viewed as a member ofa class which can be linguistically identified only
through the modification that has been supplied (restrictive). Or the head
can be viewed as unique or as a member ofa class that has been
independently identified (for example, in a preceding sentence); any
modification given to such a head is additional information which is not
essential for identifying the head, and we call it non-restrictive. (376)
Despite the term head, the explanation is clear enough to allow the reader to get an idea
ofthe concept, and the authors present examples and walk the reader through the
breakdown ofthe clauses and why each is restrictive or nonrestrictive. The discussion
then moves to where restrictive modifiers usually fall in sentences-before or after the
noun-and how the emphasis ofthe modification is determined by the clause's position.
Once again, however, very few students would be able to work through the explanation
that is heavily laden with linguistic jargon. This is also true for section 13.4 that
discusses the relation between progression and restrictive and nonrestrictive modifiers.
Most readers will skip these sections, hoping that later sections will be easier to
understand.
In section 13.8, Quirk and Greenbaum attempt to define restrictive relative
clauses. This section concentrates on the use ofthat in restrictive relative clauses. That
can usually be replaced with who, whom, or which, and it is also possible that the
pronoun be eliminated altogether. In linguistic terms, this is referred to a "zero" (381).
54
While the underlying idea ofdistinguishing between the uses ofpronouns is an important
one, most students, again, will not follow the discussion or understand the zero concept.
The same can be said for the section on nonrestrictive relative clauses, section 13.11.
The clearest part is the discussion ofwh- pronouns and the fact that they can be used in
nonrestrictive clauses. All in all, the explanations are extremely confusing.
Next, the authors introduce the reader to postmodification. Nonrestrictive
modifying clauses use "non-finite clauses," and restrictive modifying clauses use "Infinite
clauses" (386-87). The example sentences offer the best picture ofthese concepts, but for
the most part, this section resembles the previous sections. There is little chance that the
reader will be able to work through the explanations or utilize the information on their
own.
The final discussion pertains to prepositional phrases. Quirk and Greenbaum
explain that prepositional phrases can be non-appositive or appositive and restrictive or
nonrestrictive. They offer the following examples to illustrate their point:
This book on grammar (non-appositive, restrictive)
This book, on grammar (non-appositive, non-restrictive)
The issue ofstudent grants (appositive, restrictive)
The issue, ofstudent grants (appositive, non-restrictive). (389)
The problem remains, though, that the reader does not get more explanation than this.
Also, the reader never learns why these distinctions are important to the overall concept.
Thus, there is minimal, ifany, applicable knowledge for the reader in this section.
Not only do Quirk and Greenbaum divide their explanations into various sections
like Roberts does, they offer jargon-filled explanations that will be difficult for the reader
55
to work through. Without some foundation in linguistics, the reader is destined to wait
for definitions that never come. Also, the authors never give a clear definition ofthe
basic meaning ofrestrictive or nomestrictive. Therefore, the reader has no general
definitions to keep in mind as he or she works from section to section. Roberts at least
gives a definition in the glossary. Unfortunately, even with the definitions, the reader
would be more confused after reading this grammar than before. This grammar will only
help teachers and students who are familiar with linguistics. No basic knowledge will be
delivered in this grammar.
Liles (1987)
In A Basic Grammar ofModern English, Bruce Liles takes a less complicated
approach to restrictive and nomestrictive elements. He groups all ofhis explanations in
one section located in his sixth chapter, entitled "Clauses and Phrases that Modify
Nouns" (94). After explaining relative clauses, participle phrases, and adverbials, Liles
provides a section dedicated solely to the purpose ofexplaining how the previous phrases
and clauses can be restrictive and nomestrictive (Previous to this section, Liles only uses
examples ofrestrictive modifiers). This setup allows the reader to see a clear connection
between the material in this chapter, making it much easier to gain some kind of
understanding ofrestrictive and nomestrictive elements.
After a review ofthe functions ofmodifiers, Liles provides the reader with
definitions ofrestrictive and nomestrictive modifiers. He explains that "We call a
modifier that does not serve the function ofrestricting the class ofobjects named a
nonrestrictive modifier; one that restricts is called a restrictive modifier" (106). While
56
these first definitions do not provide the reader with any better ofan understanding than
Roberts' definitions, Liles' strength is his follow through. He goes on to build on these
definitions by breaking the concepts into more simple terms. After four sets ofsample
sentences, Liles walks the reader through the sets ofsentences and explains why the
restrictive modifiers limit the noun and why the nonrestrictive modifiers do not need to.
The breakdown ofthe example sentences alone provides a better explanation of
restrictive and nonrestrictive elements than Roberts provides in his entire grammar.
Liles continues to explain some ofthe same concepts involved in restrictive and
nonrestrictive elements that the previous authors do. However, instead ofbreaking the
elements into the different types ofclauses and phrases like Roberts, Quirk and
Greenbaum, and Eschliman et al do, Liles attempts to explain the underlying reasoning
that affects the restrictive or nonrestrictive nature ofclauses and phrases. For example,
Liles explains that sometimes "a possessive or adjective specifies the noun, and the
relative clause is nonrestrictive" (l07). He illustrates his point using the following
sentences:
I was talking to a mother [who detests poems about motherhood].
I was talking to Sheila's mother, [who detests poems about motherhood]. (l07)
Another example is Liles discussion ofshared knowledge and its ability to restrict a
noun. The example he uses,
My brother, [who went to Greece last summer], brought back some interesting
post cards,
57
illustrates that the individual receiving the infonnation may know the speaker or writer
has only one brother, making the "The designation my brother . .. enough to indicate
which brother is meant" (107).
Liles then moves on to explain how indefinite pronouns are related to restrictive
and nomestrictive clauses, something the previous authors do not do or do not do clearly.
He provides two similar sentences:
Anyone [who remembers these directions] can find my house.
Anyone can find my house. (108)
Then, Liles explains the difference in meaning that results from the absence ofthe
restrictive modifier, and he emphasizes that ifthe modifier is removed from the sentence
the indefinite pronoun must be changed to convey a more accurate meaning.
Liles now moves on to discuss punctuation. He explains that commas set off
nomestrictive clauses but not restrictive clauses. This section is probably Liles' weakest.
For the most part, Roberts consistently explained the connection between punctuation and
nomestrictive elements, and Quirk and Greenbaum and Eschliman et al touch on the
subject briefly. However, Liles, like Jacobs and Rosenbaum, seems to gloss over the
importance ofpunctuation. The reader will not fully understand how punctuation affects
the sentence. Liles does not provide enough examples; in fact, he provides one sentence,
and the example is ambiguous and could be both restrictive and nomestrictive depending
on the shared infonnation he mentioned earlier:
The Dean, [who listens to all grade complaints], is out oftown this week. (108)
There can be more than one Dean, but by the use ofpunctuation, the writer is stating
there is only one. Liles would serve the reader better by providing more examples that
58
clearly illustrate the defining line between restrictive and nonrestrictive elements and the
use ofpunctuation with nonrestrictive elements. Ifhe is going to use ambiguous
sentences, he should show two sentences, one with the information as restrictive and one
with the information as nonrestrictive, and describe how the elements affect the meaning
ofthe sentence.
Somewhat related to the discussion ofpunctuation is Liles' discussion ofrelative
pronouns. Like Roberts, and to some degree Quirk and Greenbaum and Eschliman et aI,
Liles explains when who, whom, which, whose, and that can or cannot be used in
restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses (although Roberts does not deal with whom and
whose). However, Liles takes the discussion a step further than the other authors by
explaining that "object relatives may be deleted in restrictive clauses, but they must be
maintained in nonrestrictives" (109). In other words, relative pronouns do not need to
appear in restrictive clauses but must appear in nonrestrictive clauses in order to create
what will be considered a grammatically coherent sentence.
Liles' final discussion pertains to the placement ofrestrictive and nonrestrictive
phrases. He informs, "Unlike clauses, nonrestrictive participle phrases may occur at
various places in the sentence" (110). Liles goes on to insist that placing these phrases at
the end or beginning ofsentences is more common than placing the phrases immediately
after the noun. Roberts only deals with placement when he explains that restrictive
clauses require commas when they come at the beginning ofsentences. Roberts does not
mention anything about phrase placement, and Liles mentions nothing about restrictive
clauses appearing at the beginning ofsentences. Thus, there is a clear gap in the
placement information that both ofthese authors offer.
59
Overall, Liles attempts to deal with restrictive and nomestrictive elements in a
logical manner. It is effective to keep all ofthe information about modifiers together in
one section so the reader still has the information about modifiers in his or her mind
while reading about restriction and nomestriction. Basically, Liles makes the connection
for the reader that the first three authors force the reader to make on his or her own.
Thus, these authors' discussions ofthe same concepts are too complicated. No one would
want to flip from section to section in order to learn about restrictive and nomestrictive
elements. Ifa reader cannot distinguish between the different types ofrestrictive and
nomestrictive elements, the first three grammars will be overwhelming. Liles', on the
other hand, deals with everything together and offers explanations that are less technical
and easier to understand than Jacobs and Rosenbaum, who also keep information
together, because he tries to explain the underlying concepts at play. Liles weeds through
the grammatical jargon and presents the topic in a basic way. His style would easily
provide the grammatical information students need without taking an excessive amount
oftime away from the other stages ofthe writing process.
IMPLEMENTING THE CONCEPT INTO THE CLASSROOM
The most effective approach to teaching this concept is to take it as one concept
instead ofbreaking the concept down into various parts (relative clauses, modifiers, etc.).
It is more important that students understand the concept ofrestrictive and nomestrictive
elements as I presented earlier in this chapter: restrictive elements provide important
information, while nomestrictive elements do not. It is not important that students be
able to break the different elements down and identify them. When will they be asked to
60
do this in the real world? Similar to Liles' approach, teachers should keep everything
simple and together. Restrictive elements are essential to identify the noun;
nonrestrictive elements add additional information about the noun.
By taking the above approach, a teacher can implement this concept into a
punctuation review. During a lesson on comma usage, ifpresented clearly, the rule for
punctuating restrictive and nonrestrictive elements becomes easier for students to
comprehend. The basic grammar concepts students will need to know are intricate parts
ofall ofthe comma rules; therefore, all ofthe rules will build on each other. Once
students understand the rule for using a comma and a coordinating conjunction to connect
two independent clauses, for example, the rule for using a comma after introductory
words, phrases, and clauses is more readily understood. The key is that all ofthe rules
utilize the same terminology.
This terminology can be implemented by setting up editing workshops throughout
the time period that editing is covered in the writing process. Since I am working within
the writing process, all editing activities will focus on the students' writing, more
particular, the drafts that students have revised during the previous stage ofthe process.
A sample schedule would look like this:
Day 1:
Review phrases, clauses, and independent versus dependent (fragments).
Day 2:
Review run-ons and commas splices.
61
Day 3:
Review the six basic comma rules.
The concepts learned on day 1 build up to and leave offat the concepts covered on day 2.
By the time the comma rules are covered, students will have all ofthe terminology they
need to understand the comma rules and how to use restrictive and nonrestrictive
elements.
First, the distinction between a phrase and a clause needs to be made. A phrase is
simply a group ofwords that has no subject or verb. There is no need to confuse students
by trying to define the different types ofphrases (infinite phrases, participle phrases, and
prepositional phrases), for this distinction will add more difficulty to the lesson than
needed. Instead, by keeping the definition simple, students will be less intimidated, and
they will more than likely be able to pick up on the concept. The following examples can
be used to provide the students with a more concrete understanding ofwhat phrases are:
6a. myhouse
6b. to run
6c. are gomg
While some ofthe phrases contain nouns and others contain verbs, none contain nouns
and verbs at the same time. Thus, the students can see exactly how the examples fit the
definition.
Next, the definition ofa clauses should be provided. A clause is also a group of
words, but this group contains a subject and predicate. Before giving examples, however,
it is most useful to define two types ofclauses: independent and dependent clauses. An
62
independent clause can stand alone and be punctuated as a sentence. A dependent
clauses, on the other hand, cannot stand alone, and therefore, it cannot be punctuated as a
sentence. The following examples show both independent and dependent clauses, and
the teacher and students can analyze the clauses to identify the subject and predicate of
each clause to ensure understanding ofthe definitions:
7a. Before I go to the movies
7b. The dog ran away
7c. Since John is sick
All ofthe clauses, as stated in the definition, have subjects and predicates. Below, the
subjects are italicized, and the predicates are bolded.
8a. Before I go to the movies
8b. The dog ran away
8c. Since John is sick
With this minimal amount ofgrammatical background, students will be ready to proceed
with the editing lessons. This above explanation alone covers fragments, and if
supplemented the next day with run-ons and comma splices, the students will be more
than ready for a lesson on commas.
The comma lesson itselfcan be covered with six basic rules. Figure 2A is a
handout that summarizes the six basic comma rules3. All ofthe terminology previously
covered is used throughout the handout, yet, the handout is not intimidating to students
because the definitions are simple, and the examples are clear. The rules build on each
3 The comma handout is adapted from a handout by the Youngstown State University Writing Center.
63
other, and the rule for punctuating restrictive and nonrestrictive elements is last since it is
the most difficult rule. Nonetheless, the rule can easily be presented.
THE SIX BASIC COMMA RULES
I. Use commas between dates, addresses, and geographical names.
Ex. I will leave Youngstown, Ohio, on March 28,1999, for an exciting week in the Caribbean.
2. Use commas between items in a series ofthree or more.
Ex. I need to buy bread, milk, cheese, and ice cream at the store.
NOTE: The comma before the conjunction in a series ofthree or more is optional.
TIP: Ifyou have commas within the items in a series, use semi-colons to separate the
items.
Ex. I will travel through Cleveland, Ohio; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Chicago, Illinois; and New
Orleans, Louisiana.
3. Use commas to separate lists ofadjectives that individually modifY a noun.
Ex. It was a dark, stormy night when he left to go hiking.
TIP: Ifyou can replace the comma with "and" without destroying the meaning, the comma is correct.
(It was a dark and stormy night).
4. Use a comma with a coordinating conjunction to connect two independent clauses.
Ex. I go to school full time, but I also work.
TIP: The comma is placed after the first clause and before the coordinating
conjunction (for/andlnor/but/or/yet/so). However, a comma is needed only if there is an
independent clause (sentence) on either side ofthe coordinating conjunction.
5. Use commas after introductory words, phrases, or clauses.
Exs. A. Suddenly, the car spun out ofcontrol.
B. Running carelessly down the street, the boy tripped and fell.
C. Since winter is coming, Susan is going to buy a snowblower.
TIP: Words such as if, when, since, although, because, after, and before are
subordinating conjunctions and signal introductory elements.
6. Set ofJin commas any words, phrases, or clauses--other than restrictive modifiers--that interrupt the
structure ofthe sentence.
Exs. A. Roses, I think, are better than carnations.
B. John, who lives down the street, drives a red Chevy SIO.
C. The man who lives down the street drives a red Chevy S10.
Figure 2A: The Six Basic Comma Rules
64
Basically, students will need to set offany words, phrases, or clauses that do not
provide necessary infonnation about the noun. At this point, the teacher will define the
tenns restrictive and nonrestrictive elements. As defined earlier in this paper, restrictive
elements deliver necessary infonnation to identify the noun, while nonrestrictive
elements do not provide infonnation necessary to identify the noun and, therefore, are set
offwith commas. The set offmaterial can be removed from the sentence without
destroying the meaning ofthe sentence. These explanations become clear after analyzing
examples.
The best way to break down the rule is to look at each part one at a time. Thus,
the teacher would first explain how words can interrupt sentences. These words are set
offwith commas because they can be removed without affecting the meaning ofthe
sentence:
9a. My dog, however, hates to go for walks.
9b. The bill, therefore, is late.
9c. Her cat, Fluffy, enjoys sleeping in the window.
9d. You, Susan, are sadly mistaken.
The teacher can present these examples and illustrate the nonrestrictive nature ofthe set
offwords by removing them from the sentences to illustrate how the meaning ofthe
sentences are not changed:
lOa. My dog hates to go for walks.
lOb. The bill is late.
10c. Her cat enjoys sleeping in the window.
1Od. You are sadly mistaken.
65
Usually, students do not have difficulty identifying these nonrestrictive words, so it adds
a bit ofconfidence to begin the explanation ofthe rule with an easily identified
nonrestrictive element. The rest ofthe rule, however, usually causes a bit more trouble.
Next, the teacher would move on to restrictive and nonrestrictive phrases. The
students already know about this concept, so they should be ready to dive right in.
Again, these nonrestrictive phrases are set offwith commas:
lla. Jason, wearing new running shoes, tried out for the track team.
11b. The chef, my brother, is known for his desserts.
11 c. Running, contrary to recent theories, offers excellent health benefits.
Again, all ofthe set offphrases can be removed since they do not serve to identify the
noun in any necessary way. Instead, the sentences would convey the same meanings if
these phrases were completely omitted:
12a. Jason tried out for the track team.
12b. The chefis known for his desserts.
12c. Running offers excellent health benefits.
Once students have a handle on these parts ofthe rule, the rest ofthe rule becomes easy.
After phrases, the teacher will cover clauses. The pattern and explanations are the
same as with words and phrases, so at this point, the students should be able to define the
rule themselves with little input from the teacher. The following examples will help:
13a. Cheryl, who loves to swim, joined a health club.
13b. My car, which I bought from my brother, broke down yesterday.
13c. Gymnastics, I have always argued, is a very dangerous sport.
66
Again, the clauses can be removed, and the students should be able to explain that the
clauses are not necessary to identify the noun, and the sentences can actually be written
as follows:
14a. Cheryl joined a health club.
14b. My car broke down yesterday.
14c. Gymnastics is a very dangerous sport.
The rule, then, has been clearly presented, and ample examples have helped drive the
point home. However, it is just as important to take time to look at restrictive elements.
At this point, the teacher will present restrictive elements. These elements are
necessary to the sentence, and their absence affects the meaning ofthe sentence. Thus,
examples become very important here. The following examples can be used to lay a
basic foundation:
15a. A man wearing a gray cap robbed the bank.
15b. The boy with blond hair broke the window.
15c. My sister who works at a bank refinanced her car.
These examples take a lot more analysis than the nonrestrictive examples, and the teacher
will need to walk the students through each example and explain why the element is
restrictive. In example (15a), the phrase A man is vague, and the man needs to be
identified somehow. Thus, the phrase wearing a gray cap identifies which man. The
same is true for example (15b). The phrase with blond hair identifies the otherwise
vague noun The boy. In (15c), the clause who works at a bank identifies which sister,
meaning the speaker or writer must have more than one sister. This example is more
clearly illustrated by using examples like the following:
67
16a. My dog that enjoys long walks always wakes me up at 6:00 am.
16b. My dog, which enjoys long walks, always wakes me up at 6:00 am.
16c. JeffJones, who lives down the street, loves to play tennis.
16d. The boy who lives down the street loves to play tennis.
Ifstudents analyze the examples, they have to determine why the information in one
sentence is restrictive while it is nonrestrictive in the other. In (16a), the clause that
enjoys long walks must be needed to identify the dog; therefore, the person must have
more than one dog. However, in (16b), the clause which enjoys long walks can be
removed from the sentence, as noted by the commas, so the person must only have one
dog, and the nonrestrictive clause is simply providing additional information about this
one dog. In (16c) and (16d), the important thing to note is the vagueness ofthe phrase
The boy in (16d). Such a vague phrase needs to be identified, while the phrase JeffJones
is specific to a particular individual. The nonrestrictive information gives added details
about JeffJones that can be removed from the sentence without affecting it.
These examples lead to another important distinction that needs to be made when
addressing this rule. I recommend that teachers move toward the designation that which
be reserved for nonrestrictive elements and that be reserved for restrictive elements. This
movement is apparent in copyediting, as illustrated by Karen Judd in Copyediting: A
Practical Guide: "In restrictive clauses, use that instead ofwhich" (77). This usage
distinction takes away some ofthe confusion that using which for both classifications
may cause:
17a. The book that is on the table needs to be returned.
17b. The book, which is on the table, needs to be returned.
68
In the first example, (17a), the clause is restrictive because it identifies which book out of
several needs to be returned. It is specifically the book on the table. In (17b), the
nonrestrictive element indicates that there is no need to identify the book; thus, there
must be only one book in question, and it happens to be on the table. This distinction
gives students a concrete rule to use when trying to create restrictive and nonrestrictive
elements. That is used with restrictive elements, and which is used with nonrestrictive
elements.
The next step would be to allow students to try to apply the rules to their own
writing. There are two ways that this can be done. First, students can apply each rule
one-by-one as the rules are reviewed. After the first rule is explained, students would
take time to look through their writing for errors that apply to that rule and examine how
the error obscures their meaning. Then, they could correct the error. Second, the teacher
could present all ofthe rules and ask students to look through their writing for errors.
This is more difficult since it is hard to edit for numerous errors at one time, and students
would be trying to apply six different rules. This strategy should only be used in a class
where the students already seem to have a strong knowledge ofthe grammar concept but
need some review.
While the concept ofrestrictive and nonrestrictive elements can be covered in a
separate lesson, by combining the rule in a punctuation review, the concept becomes less
intimidating and requires a minimum amount oftechnical terms (phrase and clause are
relatively familiar terms for students). I am not guaranteeing 100% performance from
students with this approach, for such results are impossible. The key is to present
students with information relevant to their needs. Students need to know how to
69
accurately incorporate restrictive and nonrestrictive elements into their writing, and the
above approach allows them to understand how to do so without scaring them, which is
often the problem with more traditional approaches to grammar that use a lot ofjargon.
Instead, this approach is student friendly because it cuts down on the terminology and
presents the concept in the context ofother grammar rules that make it easier to
understand the central concepts at work. Thus, students will be willing to attempt to
apply the information to their writing, hopefully improving it along the way. After all,
this is the composition teacher's goal.
70
Chapter 3
Bridging the Gap Between Written and Spoken English:
Intonation as a Marker ofRestrictive and Nonrestrictive Elements
As I illustrated in the previous chapter, the first step in implementing this new
grammar approach into the composition classroom is to eliminate grammatical jargon and
develop more student-friendly definitions. It is also important to allow the grammatical
concepts presented to build on each other in order to provide coherence to the different
concepts covered during the editing process. There is, however, one more factor
involved in the new grammar I propose, and that is the use ofspeech to aid teachers and
students during grammar instruction.
No matter how diligently a teacher plans a grammar lesson, he or she cannot
ensure that every student will grasp the grammar concept in question. Regardless ofhow
many times a teacher goes over the rules pertaining to a grammatical concept, or how
simple the teacher makes the explanations, some students may not be able to understand
the concept. Therefore, the teacher must find a way to supplement the lesson with a
different approach that will aid students further. In the new student-friendly approach to
grammar, teachers will instruct students on how to utilize speech to help students
implement grammar into their writing.
Written language is usually more formal than spoken language, but speech can be
a valuable tool in grammar instruction. Speech allows students to recognize certain
grammar concepts, which is why students can often find errors when they read their
writing aloud. Reading aloud is a common editing strategy because ofits effectiveness;
71
thus, teachers should implement speech into the actual grammar instruction as a tool for
teaching instead ofrelying on it during the seek-and-correct part ofthe editing stage. To
illustrate how speech can be incorporated into a grammar lesson, I will once again use
restrictive and nonrestrictive elements as an example. More specifically, this
grammatical concept utilizes speech through intonation because intonation serves as a
marker for restrictive and nonrestrictive elements.
In this chapter, I will first provide a basic foundation necessary to understand
intonation, including an overview ofthe intonation patterns prevalent to the discussion of
restrictive and nonrestrictive elements. Then, I illustrate how intonation serves as a
marker ofthis grammatical concept and how teachers can utilize intonation to help
students implement this concept into their writing. A teacher does not have to have a
strong linguistics background to truly understand the concept ofintonation and use it in
grammar instruction; instead, I present the minimal amount ofinformation that teachers
would need to know to be able to present the concept efficiently.
BUILDING THE FOUNDATION: DEFINITIONS AND RELATED CONCEPTS
Intonation is the change ofpitch in speech. This fluctuation conveys the
speaker's meaning based on the rise or fall ofthe pitch. While intonation is easily
identified ifone listens closely to any conversation, it is such an integral part ofspeech
that speakers and listeners often are not aware ofit. Speakers create the fluctuation with
little thought, and listeners interpret the intonation with the same minimal effort. This
ease does not allow speakers or listeners to realize the complexity ofintonation, so the
72
importance ofintonation can easily be overlooked. In order to understand intonation,
teachers must understand what intonation is comprised of.
The most important concept involved in intonation is pitch. Pitch is the highness
or lowness ofthe voice. The rise or fall in pitch reflects the meaning ofan utterance. It
seems, then, that the terms intonation and pitch can be used interchangeably. Both terms
are identified by fluctuations in speech, but since the definition ofintonation utilizes the
entire concept ofpitch, it seems that pitch must be a subordinate concept under
intonation. However, some linguists view intonation as a subordinate part ofpitch. For
the purpose ofthis chapter and what I propose in it, it is not important that teachers
understand whether intonation or pitch is the dominant concept. Instead, it is more
important to understand how intonation and pitch relate to each other on a basic level.
Therefore, it is satisfactory to leave the discussion where the majority oflinguists have
left it. Intonation is the change ofpitch in speech. There is no need to define the
relationship anymore, for this definition provides a clear understanding ofwhat
intonation is.
Accent is often associated with intonation, but the two concepts have no direct
correlation to each other. Accent involves speaking with emphasis, giving a syllable or
word prominence in a sentence. According to Dwight Bolinger, accent utilizes three
concepts: length, loudness, and pitch (Aspects 47). However, he is not trying to make a
connection between intonation and accent as it would seem when the concept ofpitch is
mentioned. Instead, Bolinger distinguishes between accent and intonation in the
following way:
73
Accent is intonation at the service ofemphasis. In the shapes ofthe
profiles it makes certain syllables stand out in varying degree above
others, revealing to our hearer how important the words containing them
are to us, and revealing also, by the buildup ofaccents, how important the
whole message is. (Intonation 3)
Again, there seems to be some relationship between accent and intonation since accent is
a way to convey meaning. However, while intonation makes meaning by changing pitch,
accent makes meaning by emphasis. Thus, intonation changes the meaning ofan entire
utterance while accent stresses the importance ofan utterance.
The definition ofaccent brings about another problem since the concept ofstress
and accent are often assumed to be closely associated. Stress is also a type ofemphasis.
What, then, is the distinguishing factor between accent and stress? Bolinger distinguishes
the two in this manner:
Accents are to highlight a word within the utterance or to lend power to
the utterance as a whole. It is only the fact that most words have more
than one syllable that makes location ofthe accent on a particular syllable
a possible distinction between one word and another. .. Since accent is
thus often not realized at all, we speak ofthe potential for it to be realized
on a given syllable, rather than the actual realization, as the distinguishing
feature, and for that purpose we use the term STRESS. Thus undertaking is
stressed on its first syllable, and also accented on that syllable when the
speaker decides to accent it. (Intonation 214)
74
Stress, then, remains consistent from speaker to speaker (or should remain consistent
according to correct usage ofthe language). An individual can look in a dictionary and
learn where to place the stress in any given word. However, accent is completely
subjective. A speaker can use accent in any way he or she deems appropriate to convey
the emphasis necessary.
For our purposes, a middle ground is sufficient. Accent is used to emphasize
sentence parts (words, phrases, and clauses) or entire sentences. Stress deals with
emphasis on syllables. However, Bolinger's definition, as noted earlier, helps to create a
more definite distinction between stress and accent. Stress is determined by the correct
usage ofthe language. Each word in the English language is given a set stress. For
example, the stress ofthe following words has been marked4;
la. a'pron
lb. cat'tle
lc. eve'ning
The stress ofthese words are fixed and will remain the same in any dictionary a person
uses as a reference. Accent, on the other hand, is not set, so different circumstances will
result in different accent:
2a. This book needs to be returned to the library. (emphasizing which
book)
2b. The recipe instructs you to add the sugar and then the flour.
(emphasizing an important step in the recipe)
4 I avoided using words with more than two syllables since doing so would force a discussion on primary
versus secondary stress, which is outside ofthe domain that I have set for this particular chapter. In the
end, the stress ofwords will have little affect on the intonation ofrestrictive and nomestrictive elements.
75
2c. You can watch television after your finish you homework.
(emphasizing the importance ofthe time frame)
The important thing to remember is that each speaker can emphasize whatever he or she
chooses to.
This distinction, then, leads us back to the relationship between intonation and
accent. Intonation conveys meaning, and accent conveys emphasis. The following
examples help make the distinction clear:
me
3a. The phone is for
3b. The phone is for me
In 3a, the rising tone makes the sentence a question. The rising tone allows the hearer to
recognize the utterance as an inquiry needing an answer or reassurance. In 3b, the accent
ofme emphasizes who the phone is for. This accent would be reflected by both loudness
and length; however, it is difficult to illustrate exactly how the emphasis works since
written language does not adequately reflect the endless variations possible in spoken
language. Nonetheless, the distinction is relatively clear in the examples.
In conclusion, the concept ofintonation deals directly with pitch. While it is not
necessarily important to identify ifpitch is a part ofintonation or intonation a part of
pitch, it is important to know that intonation is a shift in pitch. This definition is
comprehensive enough for both teachers and students who want to utilize the concept.
Also, it is important that stress and accent be kept separate from intonation. Accent lies
on the boundaries ofintonation, and while in a larger sense the relationship between the
two is crucial in understanding and developing linguistic theories, teachers and students
who wish to learn about intonation and use it to help them in their study ofgrammar will
76
not need to make such finite distinctions. They will need to be aware ofintonation and
how it affects meaning. Accent and stress pertain to emphasis, which does not affect
intonation in any major way. Therefore, it would be best for teachers not to be too
concerned about stress and accent or to introduce these concepts to students in order to
avoid confusion.
TYPES OF INTONATION
In order to utilize intonation, students will need to identify it. Unfortunately,
there is not a consensus as to exactly how many intonation patterns there are, so this
discrepancy causes a slight problem for teachers who need to be able to present
intonation patterns to students.
D. Robert Ladd notes that there are two to six intonation patterns identified by
various linguists, but Ladd insists that there are four intonation patterns, and variations of
each are possible. He concentrates on fall, fall-rise, rise, and rise-fall (32). These four
categories are more than sufficient. In fact, it is possible to narrow the field to simply
rise and fall, but once we discuss the actual intonation ofrestrictive and nonrestrictive
elements, we will need to utilize both fall and rise at the same time, making the fall-rise
pattern necessary in our analysis. This will become clear in the next section.
Fall or falling intonation is exactly what it suggests. The pitch falls. This
intonation pattern is easily recognized in statements. As the speaker concludes a
statement, he or she drops the pitch, indicating a close to the thought. These examples
illustrate this pattern:
4a. I love ice
cream.
77
4b. The library is
closed.
4c. Sarah went to the
store.
Rise or rising intonation is also easily identified. It is marked by a rise in pitch at
the end ofthe utterance. Questions are the best examples ofthis pattern because an
utterance is interpreted as a question as a result ofa rising intonation even ifthe question
does not begin with question markers such as who or what. Again, a written
representation helps to illustrate this pattern:
pizza?
5a. John likes
party?
5b. she was invited to the
meat?
5c. Turtles eat
Some linguists try to distinguish between high and low tone. Thus, there would
be a distinction between high falling and low falling tones and high rising and low rising
tones. This distinction is certainly important ifwe needed to utilize intonation in a
broader manner, but Crystal and Davy explain why the distinction between high and low
is not always necessary:
it is more important to know whether an utterance ends in a falling or
rising tone than whether the beginning point ofthe fall is high or low: the
78
first contrast might carry a critical distinction between a statement or a
question, whereas the second simply distinguishes between, say, two kinds
ofstatement. From the point ofview ofthe information being transmitted,
the first distinction is more important than the second. (25)
Crystal and Davy's theory is very relevant to the goals ofthis chapter since meaning will
be the main focus ofour intonation analysis.
It is not necessary to go any further in the explanation ofthe types ofintonation. I
have identified that there are two basic patterns (falling and rising), and the two patterns
can work together to create two more complex patters (falling-rising and rising-falling).
These are the only patterns teachers have to know to use tone to teach restrictive and
nonrestrictive elements. With this small bit ofinformation, a teacher is ready to
implement intonation into the grammar lesson.
USING INTONATION AS A MARKER
Itwould be completely misleading to say that intonation always follows a logical,
predictable pattern. For example, a person who is angry will violate intonation patterns
by constantly varying the pitch ofhis or her speech. Exceptions aside, however, it is safe
to say that intonation follows patterns. As stated in the previous section, questions are
executed with a rise in intonation, and statements have a falling intonation. These
intonation patterns serve as markers for these types ofutterances. This concept of
intonation as a marker can be a useful tool when teachers present a lesson on restrictive
and nonrestrictive elements, for when a speaker utters a sentence containing a restrictive
or nonrestrictive element, two different intonation patterns are produced.
79
Many linguists have noted the intonation patterns prevalent in restrictive and
nonrestrictive elements; however, more analysis has been conducted on nonrestrictive
elements since the information is not necessary, causing a more distinct intonation
pattern. Maria Schubiger, in English Intonation: Its Form and Function, stresses that
nonrestrictive elements "form a separate tone-group, sometimes preceded by a slight
pause" (104). Bolinger takes this analysis further by noting the three intonation
characteristics typical ofa nonrestrictive element:
it is lower in pitch than the matrix sentence, it is set offby pause(s), and it
has a rising terminal. .. In final position it may be accentless-- a low
terminal level. The pauses reflect the separation from the rest ofthe
utterance, the lower pitch represents the incidentalness, and the terminal
rise provides the linkup. (Intonation 186)
These markers are clear and can be used to teach students how to utilize nonrestrictive
elements. The key is to allow speech to aid in written instruction.
In writing, nonrestrictive elements are clearly set offwith commas. In speech,
nonrestrictive elements are marked with pauses and a fall-rise or simple fall intonation
pattern. Ifa student is unsure ifinformation should be nonrestrictive, he or she can use
speech to test the sentence. In How to Speak the Written Word: A Guide to Effective
Public Reading, Nedra Newkirk Lamar offers readers advice that teachers can also offer
to students. Lamar instructs,
In reading a sentence containing a restrictive [element], almost never
pause before the restrictive [element] as it is too closely connected with
the word it modifies to be separated from it by even a very slight pause...
80
In reading a sentence containing a nonrestrictive [element], almost always
pause before the nonrestrictive [element] or you will give the impression
that it is a restrictive [element]. (80)
Thus, the natural instinct to pause may indicate a nonrestrictive element, providing
students with a signal to assist them in deciding how to treat information.
Ofcourse, the obvious objection to this suggestion is that students will only pause
ifcommas are present. However, Lamar insists that the commas do not cause the pause:
The fact that in these sentences the pauses fall at the commas, in some
cases, is merely a coincidence. THE COMMA IS NOT THE CAUSE OF
THE PAUSE. THE PAUSE IS NOT THE EFFECT OF THE COMMA.
THE COMMA AND THE PAUSE ARE BOTH THE EFFECTS OF THE
SENSE. (81)
In writing, the meaning ofthe sentence warrants the commas, and in speech, the meaning
warrants the pause and even the falling intonation. Even ifa writer punctuates a sentence
incorrectly, the natural urge to pause and drop intonation should still be present,
according to Lamar's theory, based on the meaning ofthe sentence.
The best way for teachers to understand the difference in intonation between
restrictive and nonrestrictive elements would be to see representations ofthe two types of
sentences. The following examples illustrate the difference between restrictive and
nonrestrictive elements in regards to the intonation ofjust the part ofthe sentence in
question:
6a. The boy wearing the red sweater broke the window
81
6b. John,
sweater,
wearing a red
broke the window
7a. My cat that likes catnip sleeps in my window
7b. My cat,
catnip,
which loves
sleeps in my window
The (a) examples are restrictive, so they are providing necessary information. As a
result, the intonation pattern does not affect the restrictive element in any way. The
entire sentence would follow a typical falling intonation pattern for statements. The (b)
examples, on the other hand, are nomestrictive. The information is not necessary. The
nomestrictive element, therefore, is marked with a fall-rise intonation pattern preceded
and followed by pauses. Ifa student reads a nomestrictive element like a restrictive
element, he or she changes the meaning ofa sentence by implying the nomestrictive
element is restrictive and providing necessary information. The same would be true of
the opposite. Ifa student pauses and follows a fall-rise intonation pattern, he or she
implies the restrictive element is nomestrictive and can be omitted from the sentence
without changing the meaning in any way. Thus, the student will have to listen to both
pronunciations and decide which conveys the correct meaning.
I am not suggesting that teachers attempt to teach intonation by working it into a
lesson by itselfor even suggesting that teachers have to use this strategy in a lesson at all.
Some students will have trouble identifying restrictive and nomestrictive elements. Since
some students will require different teaching styles in order to learn, the students may
82
benefit from implementing intonation into the lesson. Sometimes the ear picks up what
the eye misses. After all, isn't that why we tell students to read their papers aloud during
their editing process?
Similarly, I am suggesting that students call on their oral skills to aid them in
writing. After a student looks at a sentence and tries to omit the element in question to
test ifthe deletion changes the meaning ofthe sentence, the student may still be unsure as
to the restrictive or nonrestrictive nature ofan element. To aid in the analysis, the student
would have an additional tool to test the element. The student can read the sentence
aloud using each intonation pattern. First, the student can read the sentence as ifthe
element is restrictive, ensuring not to pause or change pitch. Then, the student can read
the sentence as ifthe element is nonrestrictive, pausing and following the fall-rise pattern
or fall pattern depending on the placement ofthe element in the sentence. Which
sentence conveys the correct meaning? Chances are, the distinction will be clearer to the
ear.
CONCLUSION
Granted, at first, this approach may seem odd, but the variety in the approach will
allow more students to grasp the concept. Again, this is not the first approach to use in
teaching this grammatical concept. This approach should supplement the lesson that
teaches students how to identify restrictive and nonrestrictive elements I present in the
previous chapter. The approach that uses intonation cannot stand by itself, for it depends
on a student having some prior knowledge ofthe concept. Teachers certainly do not want
to teach students to rely solely on their speech and sense when trying to use grammar;
83
instead, teachers should offer the use ofspeech to students as an additional tool available
to aid them during their editing process. Thus, this approach can be very beneficial to
students. There is a definite intonation pattern present in restrictive and nonrestrictive
elements, and students should be aware ofthis marker so they have all ofthe tools
necessary to aid them in their writing.
Using speech is not too off-the-wall. Fragments, for example, are easily
identified when read aloud. Similarly, run-ons can be detected through speech, as well as
subject-verb agreement. Will every student benefit from using speech? No, some
students will not be able to utilize speech. Just like some students' ears have trouble
picking up on syllable stress in words, their ears will not pick up on the intonation
patterns in speech, too. However, others students will be able to identify intonation and
use it to their advantage. Teachers, then, are leaving another learning possibility open to
students, and this alone can help students learn grammar by zeroing in on a method that
benefits their learning strategies. While I have clear methods for using intonation, there
is no such methodology for all grammar. Teachers must decide how they feel most
comfortable utilizing speech in grammar instruction and use that method.
84
Chapter 4
Post-process in the ESL Classroom:
Implementing Focus on Form into Second Language Instruction
While Chapters 1, 2, and 3 focused on the new type ofgrammar instruction that
should occur in the composition classroom, this chapter deals specifically with how this
new grammar can be introduced into ESL classrooms. Almost identical to the change in
grammar's role in composition classrooms, grammar's place in second language
acquisition also has changed dramatically, and now, teachers are trying to bring grammar
back into ESL writing instruction.
Originally, language was seen as grammar, and the two went hand-in-hand. By
the 1970s, grammar was removed from second language teaching in favor ofstrictly
meaning-focused instruction similar to the process-centered composition classrooms.
Today, this process-centered focus is still dominant, as reflected by Tony Silva and Ann
Johns. These authors offer suggestions for implementing writing process into second
language writing instruction and make critical connections to first and second language
writing processes ("Second Language Composition Instruction," "LI Composition
Theories").
However, like the post-process movement in composition, the field ofsecond
language teaching is experiencing a similar movement. Grammar has been welcomed
back into the second language classroom with a new approach calledfocus onform. This
approach~which combines the form and function ofthe target language into the
85
language curriculum, concentrating mostly on function-is on the verge of
revolutionizing the world ofsecond language teaching.
This approach to second language teaching is very similar to the theory I propose.
Just like grammar has a specific time and place in composition instruction, grammar has
a designated place in second language teaching. While the main goal ofa class may be to
teach process and content, within the process or teaching ofany content, grammar can be
taught without being intrusive. The grammar instruction needs to be clear and simple.
Focus onform deals with grammar at an appropriate time and in an appropriate
way. While the concept itselfis still new and not supported by an ocean ofresearch, it is
possible to understandfocus onform by looking at what it is, when it should be
implemented, and how it can be implemented in the classroom.
WHAT IS Focus ON FORM?
Focus onform has not been completely understood. Some teachers object to the
entire concept and argue that meaning-focused learning is the only instruction students
need. At the other end ofthe spectrum, other teachers interpretfocus on form as a call to
return to the heavily laden grammar instruction once popular in second language
instruction. These different interpretations offocus onform, as Catherine Doughty and
Jessica Williams adamantly point out, derive from teachers' uncertainty about not only
how to implementfocus on form but also from their uncertainty about what exactlyfocus
on form is ("Issues and Terminology" 2).
Part ofthe confusion comes from the assumption thatfocus on form is the same
thing as teachingformS. Teaching formS deals with grammar separate from meaning.
86
This learning approach is the traditional grammar instruction that causes so much
objection from teachers. Thus, the terms grammar instruction, form-focused instruction,
code-focused instruction, andformal instruction are also used when referring to teaching
formS. The key is to realize thatform-focused instruction is not the same as focus-on 
form ("Issues and Terminology" 3-4). However, it would be misleading to imply that the
two approaches are completely opposite. Instead, they are forms ofinstruction that
overlap in their attempt to teach linguistic concepts, but they utilize different approaches
to do so.
Focus on form creates the happy medium for grammar instruction. In this
teaching approach, grammar is not the most important aspect ofthe class; however, it is
not thrown completely to the side and ignored either. Focus on form addresses grammar
at an appropriate time in the curriculum. Doughty and Williams explain that in order for
grammar instruction to be useful to students, the students must first have a foundation
developed by meaning. Only after this foundation is developed will students be able to
learn grammar ("Issues and Terminology" 3). Doughty and Williams defer, however, to
Michael Long and Peter Robinson's definition offocus onform for a more
comprehensive explanation since Long is credited for the "reawakening" ofthe issue of
form ("Issues and Terminology" 3). Long and Robinson explainfocus onform as
follows:
Focus on form refers to how focal attentional resources are allocated.
Although there are degrees ofattention, and although attention to forms
and attention to meaning are not always mutually exclusive, during an
otherwise meaning-focused classroom lesson, focus on form often consists
87
ofan occasional shift ofattention to linguistic code features--by the
teacher and/or one or more students--triggered by perceived problems with
comprehension or production. (23)
Grammar instruction invites itselfinto lessons when structure causes problems with
meaning comprehension. Thus, in order for students to understand meaning, grammar
has to be addressed. The important connection for native speakers to understand is the
parallel concept in grammatical impasses in native speakers' search for meaning. As
Long and Robinson point out,
This is similar to what happens when native speakers who are good writers
pause to consider the appropriate form ofaddress to use when composing
a letter to a stranger, or when efficient readers suddenly "disconfirm a
hypothesis" while reading and are momentarily obliged to retrace their
steps in a text until they locate the item-- perhaps a little not they had
missed earlier in the sentence-- which caused the semantic surprise. The
usual and fundamental orientation is to meaning and communication, but
factors arise that lead even the fluent language user temporarily to attend
to the language itself. (23-4)
Ifnative speakers can understand the importance ofhaving to move away from content to
focus on form in the above examples, then surely language teachers can understand why
this break is not only necessary but natural as well.
88
WHAT FORMS SHOULD Focus ON FORM ADDRESS?
Understanding the basic concept offocus on form is not enough, for it is also
important to understand what kind ofform should be addressed. However, it is actually
very difficult to settle on definite forms. DeKeyser points out three concepts that help
limit the scope offocus onform: Universal Grammar (UG), negative evidence, and the
feature's degree ofcomplexity (43). Together, the three variables provide both obvious
and unclear implications that teachers can use to implementfocus ofform into the second
language classroom.
Universal Grammar plays a large part in second language acquisition. Lydia
White, in Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition, explains the basic
meaning ofUniversal Grammar:
Universal Grammar consists ofprinciples which constrain the form and
functioning ofgrammars. It gives the child advance knowledge ofmany
abstract and complex properties oflanguage, so that these do not have to
be learned solely on the basis oflinguistic input by means ofgeneral
learning strategies. In language acquisition, then, there is an interaction
between the innate UG and the linguistic input from the language being
acquired. (5)
The innate language makes second language acquisition somewhat easier. DeKeyser
illustrates this by explaining that "Ifa structure is part ofUG, and UG is accessible to the
second language leamer, then all that is needed is sufficient input to trigger acquisition"
(42). This concept ofaccessibility to innate grammar is not foreign to second language
89
learning; unfortunately, neither is the fact that students cannot always access this
universal grammar.
When Universal Grammar cannot be called upon, negative evidence--which is
essentially correction--becomes an essential part oflanguage acquisition. White explains
that when students are corrected because their use ofthe language is ungrammatical,
teachers are providing negative feedback (13). This, however, poses another problem.
According to Joyce L. S. Bruhn-Garavito, negative evidence is rarely given to students or
children while learning their first language, and "without negative evidence and without
UG, it is unclear how children would correct a hypothesis that was not compatible with
the language being acquired or how they would acquire knowledge ofwhat is not
possible in the language" (79-80). Echoing Bruhn-Garavito's claim, White addresses the
fact that the reason negative evidence has been ineffective in the past is because students
never actually received it. She cites past studies that point out the absence ofnegative
evidence and calls for a change (13). Negative evidence cannot work ifit is completely
absent from language learning.
While DeKeyser's first two criteria are somewhat easy to accept, the third criteria,
the complexity ofthe features, is not. DeKeyser defers to Krashen and his well known
coverage ofthis topic, presenting Krashen's two categories that grammar rules fall into:
rules easily learned but difficult to acquire and rules easily acquired but difficult to learn.
It is the rules that are easy to learn that have a place infoeus on form. Unfortunately,
there is no consensus as to which rules fall under this easy category. Another problem is
that some researchers insist that harder rules should be at the center offoeus onform.
Again, though, a consensus as to which rules the difficult rules are does not exist. To
90
further illustrate the complexity ofthis concept, researchers have called for a focus only
on the rules that have few exceptions, making the rules more reliable to teach (43-5).
DeKeyser attempts to clarify which rules should be included infocus on form by drawing
attention to various research that has yielded two conclusions:
First, subjects tend to learn better under conditions ofimplicit induction
(i.e., mere exposure to a very large set ofinstances or memorization ofa
set ofexemplars) than under conditions ofexplicit induction (i.e., where
they are asked to figure out the rules), in the sense that subjects in the
implicit condition are subsequently better at making grammaticality
judgments than are their explicit counterparts. (45)
This first conclusion is very different than the beliefs ofresearchers like White who
assume learners can acquire the grammar magically without explicit instruction.
However, the second conclusion DeKeyser cites may lead some teachers to
consider the first conclusion void. Studies prove that while students can often identify a
deviation from a grammatical structure, students usually cannot identify a specific rule
that governs the grammatical deviation they have identified. With both ofthe
conclusions taken into consideration, researchers are willing to accept that students "can
learn abstract rules implicitly and can subsequently draw on these rules without being
able to state them" (45). To DeKeyser, this conclusion is enough to warrant a wide
variety ofrules to be implemented into focus onform.
Jessica Williams and Jacqueline Evans try to limit the rules that should be
addressed infocus onform. These forms are forms that:
91
1. Differ in nonobvious ways from learners' first language, for example,
adverb placement for L2 French and English.
2. Are not salient because they are irregular or infrequent in the input, for
example, conditionals in L2 French.
3. Are not important for successful communication, for example, third
person singular -s in L2 French.
4. Are likely to be misinterpreted or misanalyzed by learners. (140)
These four criteria provide a checklist for teachers to use when debating to include or
exclude a particular rule from instruction.
Doughty and Williams also try to provide additional criteria for selecting what
formS belong infocus onform in "Pedagogical Choices." Research has proven that some
language features do not need to be taught because there are 'easy rules' that allow an
ease in learning outside ofthe classroom. At the other extreme, some features are just too
difficult to present and seem to elude learners no matter how much instruction is given.
An obvious example would be the use ofarticles in English ("Pedagogical Choices" 200 
201). Teachers, then, must determine what rules will be naturally picked up and what
rules are beyond the scope ofthe communication-based classroom, meaning which rules
will be too difficult to teach but not interfere with communication ifthe rule is not taught.
There is an array ofrules that can be considered possible parts offocus on form,
and many researchers have their own criteria that determines what rules are included.
Ultimately, each teacher will have a set ofrules that he or she believes appropriate for
focus on form. A consensus may never be reached, but there has to be a way to limit the
parameters. For now, such uniform limitations do not exist.
92
WHEN IS Focus ON FORM ApPROPRIATE?
Focus on form is not foolproofbecause it relies heavily on timing based on
students'readiness. In "The Importance ofTiming in Focus on Form," Patsy M.
Lightbown attempts to clarify how timing plays a crucial part infocus onform. She
explains that the key to focus on form is to present topics that are 'next' in the
developmental sequence. When this sequence is followed, students learn more, as
opposed to the lack oflearning that takes place when students receive instruction below
or beyond their learning stage (177-78). Therefore, teachers must be able to pace the
learners along a natural progression in their language acquisition. However, how does an
teacher utilize this progression?
The first thing to note is that the majority oflanguage learners evolve through
typical stages. Lightbown insists that although there will be exceptions to this theory, the
pattern is generally the same:
SLA research showed that learners acquired features in a predictable
sequence whether or not they got specific instruction on one feature or
another. Indeed, much ofthe research prior to 1985 was based on subjects
whose exposure to their second language took place exclusively, or to a
large extent, outside classrooms. One could thus assume that they were
exposed to a wide variety oflinguistic features, in no particular order,
from the beginning. This tended to confirm that the sequences were a
result ofmechanisms or processes internal to the learners rather than to
any consistency in the input to which they had been exposed. (180)
93
Iflearning is indeed sequential, teachers should be able to utilize this sequence to the
advantage ofthe class. Unfortunately, as Lightbown notes, there is still a lot ofresearch
that needs to be done in regards to the "when" aspect offocus on form (196).
Itwould seem, though, that even with the small amount ofresearch that has been
done pertaining to timing and focus on form, teachers can develop a sequence oflearning.
Second Language classes can be set up according to some skill sequence that research
indicates students progress through; hence, learners are assumed to progress from lower 
level language skills to skills that will enable the learners to be ready for the next class in
the sequence or to be mainstreamed. Therefore, just by being aware ofthe level of
language learning taking place in a particular classroom, teachers can predict the
sequence their students will progress through, ending at a level that the following
language class will start with. Granted, it may be difficult to develop consistency from
teacher to teacher, but ifteachers use students as a base to evaluate level, the sequence of
learning should be somewhat easier.
How DO TEACHERS UTILIZE Focus ON FORM?
The obvious question that arises is how do teachers pull all ofthis information
together in order to actually use focus on form? Doughty and Williams address this issue
by proposing that the goal ofsecond language learners is to communicate; therefore,
focus on form must allow learners to improve their communication skills. Instruction,
then, does not separate form and communication. Instead, instruction should take notice
ofform in the context ofcommunication ("Pedagogical Choices" 197). Such instruction,
however, takes many teaching decisions into consideration. Doughty and Williams go on
94
to address some ofthe pressing decisions associated withfocus on form that teachers
have to take into consideration before entering the classroom.
Doughty and Williams debate the reactive and proactive nature offocus onform.
A reactive approach waits until a problem in communication presents itselfand reacts by
providing instruction to clear up the problem. Proactivefocus on form will provide
instruction before a problem arises. The teacher plans a lesson to lead up to thefocus on
form ("Pedagogical Choices" 205). It is the reactive approach thatfocus on form usually
calls for since communication takes center stage in this learning approach. The reactive
approach is advantageous because teachers do not have to choose which formS to
concentrate on; the teachers simply address errors that present themselves in the
classroom. Even when this happens, teachers only need to address formS that have been
deemed appropriate for the level ofthe class ("Pedagogical Choices" 206). It is crucial to
point out that once again there is a limited amount ofresearch that has been done on
reactive and proactive approaches to safely encourage teachers to choose one over the
other. Rather, as Doughty and Williams conclude, "both approaches are effective,
depending upon the classroom circumstances... The implications ofthe choices are,
nevertheless, important, for they involve different emphasis in curricular planning"
("Pedagogical Choices" 211). Depending on the emphasis on form or communication,
one approach will work better than the other.
Another decision Doughty and Williams address is the explicitness ofinstruction.
They note that there is a direct tie between explicitness and teachers' theories on how
students store the information about the target language, how students recall the
information, and how metalinguistic factors affect second language acquisition
95
("Pedagogical Choices" 228). They go on to define implicit versus explicitfocus on
form:
1. Implicit focus on form: The aim is to attract learner attention and to
avoid metalinguistic discussion, always minimizing any interruption to
the communication ofmeaning.
2. Explicit teaching: The aim is to direct learner attention and to exploit
pedagogical grammar in this regard. ("Pedagogical Choices" 232).
Implicit instruction would occur, for example, after a grammatical structure has been
used incorrectly. The teacher might repeat the student's sentence, correcting the error
that the student made to illustrate the correct usage without drawing an excessive amount
ofattention to the error, or, ifenough students keep making a particular type oferror, the
teacher may present a brieflesson on the grammatical concept to clarify and usage and
allow the students to continue with their exercise. The key is to take the least amount of
time away from actual communication as possible. Explicit instruction is what I propose
should take place during the editing process. This is when teachers plan out grammar
instruction in order to teach students to utilize the concept in question. While one
approach may seem favorable over another, research has indicated that a mixture of
instruction types works best, proving that it is naive to believe that there is one clear way
ofteaching language.
The most important decision Doughty and Williams address is howfocus on form
actually fits into a curriculum. Again, there is no one way to implement this concept into
the curriculum, but the authors provide examples ofthree curriculum options that they
summarize in the following way:
96
Curriculum Option 1
A. Presentation ofrules ---+ development ofdeclarative knowledge
B. Reflection ---+ proceduralization
C. Controlled practice ---+ anchoring ofdeclarative knowledge
D. Fluency practice ---+ automatization
Curriculum Option 2
A. Input ---+ processing meaning
B. Input processing ---+ intake offormal features
C. Output ---+ fluency
Curriculum Option 3
A. Preemergence: implicit techniques, for example, flood or input
enhancement---+ noticing
B. Emergence: selection ofappropriate techniques, that is, more explicit
techniques, for example, focused feedback or metalinguistic reflection
concurrent with production output in task-natural activities ---+
noticing the gap or hole. ("Pedagogical Choices" 257)
The various approaches take many ofthe issues in second language acquisition into
account. Thus, no matter what concepts a teacher considers pertinent to the curriculum,
he or she can utilizefocus onform.
The issue ofcurriculum brings up another pressing issue. As Doughty and
Williams illustrate in their three curriculum options, there are various types oftasks and
97
exercises that can be used when implementingfocus on form. However, there are
differences that distinguish tasks from exercises. Exercises concentrate on form and treat
"language-as-object," whereas tasks depend on language learning that goes beyond
grammar ("Pedagogical Choices" 244). Exercises can be used infocus on form, but tasks
usually make up the majority ofthe curriculum because tasks concentrate on meaning
and are communicative. This idea ofcommunicative task is a familiar point in second
language acquisition. Such a task requires learners to interact in the target language,
concentrating on meaning rather than form, which is the goal ofthe first three stages of
the writing process. Ifgrammar is introduced into the editing stage in the ESL
classroom, than the writing still takes on a communicative focus. The learners are
ultimately utilizing the target language, so the task is considered to have a more practical
application than isolated exercises. In a writing class, the goal is to get the students to
write in the target language as clearly as they can
Ifa communicative task focuses on meaning, how doesfocus on form relate to the
communicative task? In a communicative setting, implicit instruction will be the most
obvious teaching strategy, drawing attention to form only when necessary without taking
attention away from meaning. This conclusion is supported by a study by Catherine
Doughty and Elizabeth Varela. They studied a communicative classroom to determine
the most effective way to implementfocus on form into this type ofclassroom. The
results ofthe study suggested that the interruption offocus on form should occur as soon
as a problem is detected and should be as briefas possible. However, while students are
willing to concentrate on communication, meaning, and form simultaneously, they do not
want to be bombarded with form correction. Teachers, then, should know how much
98
feedback students are comfortable with. Together, this information makesfocus onform
possible without distraction from meaning (136-37). Thus, teachers have to be aware of
several factors, all ofwhich have been mentioned throughout. Focus onform is not
intrusive to the larger concept ofcommunication, but instead, it allows communication to
keep progressing smoothly.
CONCLUSION
By this point, it should be clear that all aspects offocus on form are so
interconnected that the issue seems to go in circles. Teachers have to decide what form
they will address and ifthe form is worth addressing at all based on time constraints and
students' needs at any given level oflearning. Then, teachers have to decide how much
instruction on form will be given, as well as what kind ofinstruction will be presented.
Finally, teachers must workfocus onform into the communicative classroom in a manner
that draws attention to form but does not stop the communicative task. All in all,focus
on form can be difficult to implement, but it is possible to incorporate it into the
classroom.
My approach to grammar draws from Focus on form but does not follow all ofthe
approaches implicitly since my focus is on writing, while many ESL classes focus on
listening, speaking, and reading in the same term. The ultimate goal offocus onform is
to allow students to learn the language's form without detracting from the important
meaning that students are learning. However, isn't this the same goal present in the
composition classroom-to allow students to express meaning in a clear and coherent
manner? Thus, the same rules ofgrammar instruction that should be applied in
99
composition can be applied in the ESL writing classroom. Grammar instruction has an
appropriate time in the curriculum. In composition, as I pointed out in chapter 1,
grammar should be addressed during the editing stages ofthe writing process. In the ESL
classroom, grammar instruction will be more frequent but no more intrusive than in a
regular college-composition classroom.
The determining factor as to how prevalent grammar instruction is and what type
ofgrammar instruction will be presented in the ESL classroom is the level ofthe class.
The more students are expected to use the language in written form, the more intense
grammar instruction may have to be in order to ensure that the students' meaning is clear
enough to be understood by the reader. This may include explicit grammar instruction
that covers grammatical concepts that students will need to know before they move into
other college classes that require them to write. What type ofgrammar needs to be taught
can be determined in the same manner that teachers following focus on form use to
include or exclude particular grammar concepts. In short, the teacher's goals and the
students' needs must be taken into consideration before any type ofgrammar is addressed
in the class.
However, it is important to note that most ESL students have a strong foundation
ofrules because their language acquisition often begins with the memorization ofrules.
The most effective strategy is to break the rules down so students understand them.
Rules alone mean nothing ifthe user cannot comprehend how to apply the rules. Similar
to native speakers, ESL students are intimidated by grammar and its array of
terminology. Although ESL students will know more grammatical terminology than
native speakers, it is important that the basis ofthe instruction be about making students
100
understand concepts in an applicable manner, rather than learning concepts for the sake
ofmemorization.
In the following chapter, I offer a lesson on restrictive and nonrestrictive elements
that can be used in an ESL classroom. Similar to the approach I offer for implementing
this concept into a regular composition classroom, I suggest that grammatical jargon be
limited in order to make the concept easier to understand. In my lesson, I take a
proactive approach to grammar for two reasons: First, this is a difficult concept, so
students will need more specialized instruction than an implicit approach would allow
for. Second, many languages do not utilize restrictive and nonrestrictive elements, so
there may not be a time when this concept invites itselfinto the ESL writing classroom.
Nonetheless, restrictive and nonrestrictive elements are a part ofthe English language,
and they are especially abundant in academic writing. Before students experience
problems with restrictive and nonrestrictive elements, I would offer a lesson to prepare
them to use this concept.
Unlike the approach to grammar I offer in Chapter 2, which requires the students
to relate the concept immediately to their own writing, in Chapter 5, I present the concept
in a manner that builds from identifying the concept to writing using the concept. This
presentation follows Doughty and Williams' curriculum option lin which teachers
present the rules, and the students then work through the rules, complete exercises, and
move toward implementing the concept into their own writing. Since ESL students do
not have as strong ofa handle on the language, this approach allows them to understand
restrictive and nonrestrictive elements through stages, and eventually, the students
101
incorporate the concept into their writing through a writing assignment that requires them
to use their newly acquired knowledge.
102
Chapter 5
An ESL Grammar Unit on Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Elements
The lesson on restrictive and nonrestrictive elements is drawn from the proactive
approach to focus on form discussed in Chapter 4. Thus, the lesson will be presented to
students before a problem with this concept arises. Since the students' needs and the
goals ofthe class need to be taken into consideration, there are various ways to proceed
with the grammar lesson; however, as stated in the previous chapter, the difficulty ofthe
grammar concept was ultimately the deciding factor in how to present this concept. The
structure ofthe lesson follows Doughty and Williams' curriculum option 1 because the
concept is difficult, and students may have problems since not all languages utilize the
structures present in restrictive and nonrestrictive elements. Also, it is unlikely that
students will be able to understand the concept after an explanation ofrestrictive and
nonrestrictive elements that lasts thirty seconds.
The grammar lesson on restrictive and nonrestrictive elements is geared toward
ESL students who are ready to enter college level writing courses. They will most likely
know a lot ofterminology pertaining to grammar, and they will have worked through
almost all ofthe other grammar concepts that provide a nice foundation for this concept
(phrases, clauses, etc.). However, I try to cut out a lot ofthe technical terms to make this
concept easier. Instead ofdealing with restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses and
adjective clauses, for example, I lump all restrictive and nonrestrictive elements into one
category called restrictive and nonrestrictive elements (just like I suggest doing for
composition classes). Thus, the concept becomes much more student friendly than the
103
more traditional approach that uses grammatical jargon and complicates the concept
unnecessarily.
The teacher's presentation (Appendix A) is identical to the students' worksheets
(Appendix B). It is important for teachers to present information that the students can
understand even ifthe teacher is not there to present the information. The students'
handout breaks the concept down in simple terms, and the teacher should do the same.
The students can follow the teacher from definition to definition and example to example.
The only difference is that the teacher's presentation has reminder notes on it, and the
exercises have all ofthe answers. The exercises were developed with the students in
mind. My goal was to create exercises that built on each other, so each exercise becomes
more difficult and requires the students to utilize all ofthe information about the concept
necessary for the to fully understand it.
I begin by providing a basic definition ofboth concepts and using examples to
illustrate what the definitions are trying to convey. It is also useful to point out that I
break the examples down and explain why a restrictive element provides essential
information while a nonrestrictive element does not. This dissection will show the
students how the concept works and allow them to see how they can test sentences to
determine ifelements are restrictive or nonrestrictive.
In addition to the definitions, I provide a chart that compares restrictive and
nonrestrictive elements. The chart lists the basic differences between the two types of
elements. The chart can be used to test sentences. Thus, a students can look at the
characteristics and realize that ifan element does not follow the criteria under the
restrictive column, it must be nonrestrictive. Again, this chart is supposed to be student
104
friendly, and it gives the students something simple they can refer back to while they are
trying to work on the exercises. It is more important, in my opinion, that students be able
to know where to look for information instead oftrying to memorize every little bit of
information available.
The first exercise tests their understanding ofthis grammatical concept by asking
the students to determine ifsentence elements are restrictive or nonrestrictive. If
elements are restrictive, students have to underline the elements. Ifthey are
nonrestrictive, the students have to provide the correct punctuation. This exercise will be
difficult, but most exercises pertaining to restrictive and nonrestrictive elements are, even
for native speakers. However, this exercise will help the students complete the next
exercIse.
The next exercise requires students to create their own sentences. The students
are given two sentences. The sentence that provides nonrestrictive information is in
parenthesis. The students have to combine the sentences into one sentence using the
techniques required for writing a nonrestrictive element. Thus, the students are getting
practice incorporating nonrestrictive elements into sentences, and the exercise is a nice
way to practice sentence combining, although this is an additional benefit and not one
intentionally worked into the lesson.
Exercise three is the most challenging. Now that students know how to identify
and write restrictive and nonrestrictive elements, they have to prove they understand the
concept. Since this is the most difficult exercise, the students will work in groups of
three so they can help each other. In this exercise, the students are given sets of
sentences that are the same word for word, but one ofthe sentences has commas setting
105
offinformation. The students have to explain the difference in the sentences' meaning.
This exercise illustrates how using commas or eliminating commas can change the
meaning ofthe sentence. Again, the students have to test sentences using the information
they have just learned, and they are gaining better understanding ofhow important this
concept can be in their writing.
The final exercise is also a communicative exercise. The students have to write a
paragraph that describes the hobbies ofthe members ofthe group. Each person in the
groups has to be identified using a nonrestrictive element. This exercise tests the
students in a different way. It is a little easier to pick information from existing
sentences. Now, the students have to write their own sentences, which is much more
difficult. The difficulty maybe curbed by the communicative nature ofthe task, but I like
having students help other students learn.
There will be problems with this lesson. As I noted earlier, this is a difficult
concept for native speakers to master, so second language learners will have trouble, too.
The only way to deal with this is to walk the students through the definitions and chart
slowly, ensuring that all oftheir questions are answered carefully and thoroughly. The
exercises build on each other nicely. Each exercise challenges the students a little more.
The key is to take each exercise one at a time. Before allowing the students to move on
to the next exercise, teachers have to make sure there are no problems with the preceding
exercise. Thus, ifteachers have to review a little after each exercise, they should do so.
I think that restrictive and nonrestrictive elements are a lot easier than students
think they are. Once the jargon is eliminated and the information is presented in a simple
way, the concept become easier to utilize. Also, this type ofgrammatical concept is best
106
understood after seeing examples and working through examples. Once students have
basic understanding ofthe concept, they will feel more comfortable about trying to
incorporate the concept into their writing, but it will take a little time due to the
complexity ofthis particular concept. Students tend to spend too much time analyzing
elements to determine ifthey should be set offor not. Eventually, with ample
opportunity to apply the concept into their own writing through assignments geared
toward utilizing restrictive and nonrestrictive elements or through other writing
assignments, the students should begin to feel more comfortable with the concept.
107
Conclusion:
Where do we go from here?
I have presented a new type ofgrammar instruction that addresses
grammar at an appropriate time in the writing process, limits the use of
grammatical jargon, and allows students to call on speech to further their
understanding ofgrammar. In order for this new grammar to succeed, all three
elements must be present. Alone, each element is a separate part ofsomething
larger, just like each stage ofthe writing process is a separate component ofa
grander writing tool. Ifone component is left out ofthis new grammar, then it
fails, as have the past approaches to grammar instruction, and teachers are then
left to ponder the same question: what do we do with grammar?
While this new approach to grammar can benefit students in their pursuit
to learn how to utilize their language in writing, this new approach is dependent
on teachers welcoming grammar back into the composition classroom. Yes, past
grammar instruction has been ineffective, but to leave the research at this
conclusion without attempting to try to develop a better approach is irresponsible
on the part ofteachers who have promised to do their best to teach students to
write. We can teach students to work through their writing process to develop
content, but that content is virtually meaningless ifreaders cannot understand it
because it is laden with errors. Teachers have to accept that students will walk
out ofour classes and write for readers who do care about product. Most are not
interested in how a writer got to the final product, readers care about what the
108
final product is like, and we have an obligation to present that reality to our
students.
The writing process has helped students work their way through various
stages ofwriting, allowing students to discover what their writing process is and
how they can use it to their advantage. The emphasis on meaning and content
allows students to express their thoughts and feelings, which gives students a
command over their writing that product-centered writing classes seemed to
ignore. Therefore, the writing process and the movement toward a process 
centered writing curriculum is worthy ofpraise and acceptance.
Unfortunately, within that process-centered movement, grammar
instruction was lost. Thus, students were walking out oftheir writing classrooms
with the knowledge ofhow to express their thoughts and work through their
process, but there was no guarantee that they learned how to utilize their language
in a grammatical manner to ensure their thoughts were clearly expressed. This
was a travesty. How could instruction on the language be removed from a field
that was supposed to teach students how to utilize the language in written form?
I am not claiming that students need to know every aspect ofgrammar.
Do drivers know everything about their cars? They know how to use the car to
meet their driving needs, but only specialists know how every part ofthe car
operates together to make things work. Similarly, students need to know the
limited amount ofgrammar that will enable them to use the language to complete
their writing goals.
109
This grammar instruction will not force teachers to revert back to the
product-centered model ofinstruction because ifteachers work with the process 
centered model ofwriting, they already have time set aside to address grammar.
The nature ofthe writing process leads to an eventual focus on grammar. As
Constance Weaver proposes, grammar should be taught in context. In my writing
curriculum, it is taught in the context ofthe writing process. Teachers should use
editing stage to provide grammar instruction that is easily understood. This is
done by eliminating grammatical jargon, which makes traditional grammar so
difficult to learn. Grammar will also be easier to comprehend ifstudents can
utilize speech as a tool, since speech allows students to pick up on error.
The post-process movement is underway, and teachers are realizing that
there comes a time when they have to evaluate a product. Students leave our
classrooms with the assumption that they are better writers. They call on the
information they learned in their composition classes in their other classes when
they have to complete a writing assignment or in their everyday life when they
have to write a letter to their VCR manufacturer explaining a glitch in the product.
Just like the grammarians from the l800s argued, our students use the knowledge
that we supply them to become better citizens and to function in society. Even if
the content ofour students' writing reflects critical thinking, ifthe writing is filled
with grammatical errors, how does the student benefit? How have we, as
composition instructors, done our students justice? Should our students be proud
that their writing is incoherent? They did not walk into the writing classroom
110
wanting to learn only halfofwhat writing is about, and that is exactly what they
have been learning.
Mina Shaughnessy wrote about errors and the expectations that teachers
should have about those errors, and the composition field embraced her theory.
Now it is time to take a step forward and reevaluate what we are teaching our
students. Removing grammar from writing is like removing numbers from math.
How can you calculate without numbers, and how can you write without a
working knowledge ofthe language? Yes, our students make errors, and they will
continue to make errors. Very few people can write perfectly. However, along
with those errors come expectations, not from teachers but from students.
Students expect to learn and expect their errors to be corrected. It is all a part of
the writing process. They want to learn all they can about how to become better
writers. Thus, each stage ofthe writing process needs to be addressed with the
same importance. Ifwe ignore grammar, we ignore our students' expectations
and cease to be teachers.
111
ApPENDIX A
Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Elements:
Teacher's Presentation
** GoOVER THE DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES WITH THE STUDENTS BEFORE LETTING
THEM COMPLETE THE EXERCISES.
A restrictive element provides essential infonnation about the noun. Ifthe restrictive
element is removed from the sentence, the meaning ofthe sentence will change.
People who smoke have a high risk ofdeveloping lung cancer.
Ifwho smoke is removed from the sentence, the sentence would read:
People have a high risk ofdeveloping lung cancer.
This sentence is untrue. Therefore, the restrictive element who smoke is necessary to
identify which people are at risk and must be left in the sentence.
A nonrestrictive element provides nonessential infonnation about the noun and can be
removed from the sentence without affecting the meaning. The infonnation is set off
with commas.
Bill Clinton,former Governor ofArkansas, is the President ofthe United States.
Ifthe nonrestrictive element is removed from the sentence, the meaning ofthe sentence
does not change:
Bill Clinton is the President ofthe United States.
The chart below breaks down the differences between restrictive and nonrestrictive
elements.
** USE THE EXAMPLES IN DEFINITION SECTION TO HELP THE STUDENTS MAKE THE
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO TYPES OF ELEMENTS.
112
Restrictive Elements
1. Provide necessary information
information that identifies the noun.
2. No commas set offthe information.
3. When spoken, the sentence has no
pauses or shift in intonation.
Nonrestrictive Elements
1. Provide additional that
is unnecessary to identify it.
2. Commas set offthe elements.
3. When spoken, the sentence
has pauses before and after
the element, and there is a
falling intonation after the
initial pause.
** READ THE EXAMPLE SENTENCES OUT LOUD TO ILLUSTRATE THE PAUSES AND SHIFT
IN INTONATION.
4. That, who, and whom can be
used to begin restrictive elements.
You should avoid using which for
restrictive elements.
4. Which, who, and whom can
be used to begin
nonrestrictive elements.
That can never be used with
nonrestrictive elements.
** EXPLAIN THAT WHICH SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR NONRESTRICTIVE ELEMENTS,
WHILE THAT SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR RESTRICTIVE ELEMENTS. THE DISTINCTION
WILL GIVE THEM A DEFINITE RULE TO APPLY TO HELP THEM.
5. Proper nouns are usually not
identified with restrictive
elements
6. Nouns that are considered generic
are usually identified using restrictive
elements.
Exercise 1
5. Proper nouns can be
identified with
nonrestrictive elements.
6. Generic nouns cannot
be identified with
nonrestrictive information.
Below are sentences that contain both restrictive and nonrestrictive elements. You have
to do three things:
A. Decide which type ofelement is in the sentence.
B. Ifthe sentence is restrictive, underline the restrictive element.
C. Ifthe element is nonrestrictive, set it offwith commas.
113
1. The boy wearing a blue shirt broke the window. Restrictive
2. James Cameron, who directed Titanic, is one ofthe most respected directors in
Hollywood. Nonrestrictive
3. Lasagna, which can be made with or without meat, is a type ofItalian food.
Nonrestrictive
4. Any students who wants to see an advisor should make an appointment. Restrictive
5. Mr. Johnson, wearing his favorite blue hat, won the marathon in record time.
Nonrestrictive
6. Mrs. Johnson, who loves to knit, made the blue hat. Nonrestrictive
7. Children who have allergies should not play outside in the spring. Restrictive
8. John, who loves to exercise, tried out for the track team. Nonrestrictive
9. Hollywood, located in California, is one ofthe most glamorous cities in the United
States. Nonrestrictive.
10. Dogs that bite should never be allowed around people. Restrictive
Exercise 2.
Below are sets ofsentences. The sentences in parentheses ( ) provide unnecessary
information. Combine the two sentences to make one sentence.
Example: Mr. Jones goes for walks every day. (Mr. Jones own the local flower shop.)
Mr. Jones, who own the local flower shop, goes for walks every day.
1. An apple is a healthy snack. (An apple has about seventy calories.)
An apple, which has about seventy calories, is a healthy snack
2. Susan drives me to school three times a week. (Susan lives next door.)
Susan, who lives next door, drives me to school three times a week.
114
3. My car has 42,000 miles on it. (I bought my car three years ago.)
My car, which I bought three years ago, has 42,000 miles on it.
4. Blue is John's favorite color. (Blue has been proven to make people calm.)
Blue, which has been proven to make people calm, is John's favorite color.
5. Coffee can cause stomach problems. (Coffee contains a lot ofcaffeine.)
Coffee, which contains a lot ofcaffeine, can cause stomach problems.
Exercise 3
Work in groups ofthree. Together, explain the differences between the pairs ofsentences
using the information you have learned about restrictive and nomestrictive elements.
la. My brother who lives in Cleveland loves to play baseball.
I have more than one brother, so I must identify which brother I am talking about.
1b. My brother, who lives in Cleveland, loves to play baseball.
I only have one brother.
2a. The book that is on the table needs to be returned to the library.
There are a lot ofbooks around, so I must identify which book.
2b. The book, which is on the table, needs to be returned to the library.
There is only one book in question.
3a. Children who are exposed to music at an early age develop excellent coordination.
Only children who are exposed to music at an early age develop excellent
coordination.
3b. Children, who are exposed to music at an early age, develop excellent coordination.
All children develop excellent coordination.
115
4a. Susan, the oldest member ofthe choir, often gets a lot ofsolos.
Susan gets a lot ofsolos. Susan is being talked about.
4b. Susan, the oldest member ofthe choir often gets a lot ofsolos.
Susan is being addressed. The oldest member ofthe choir is being talked about.
Exercise 4.
Write a short paragraph about the hobbies each member ofthe group has. Identify each
person in the group with a nonrestrictive element.
116
ApPENDIXB
Restrictive and Nonrestrictive Elements
A restrictive element provides essential infonnation about the noun. Ifthe restrictive
element is removed from the sentence, the meaning ofthe sentence will change.
People who smoke have a high risk ofdeveloping lung cancer.
Ifwho smoke is removed from the sentence, the sentence would read:
People have a high risk ofdeveloping lung cancer.
This sentence is untrue. Therefore, the restrictive element who smoke is necessary to
identify which people are at risk and must be left in the sentence.
A nonrestrictive element provides nonessential infonnation about the noun and can be
removed from the sentence without affecting the meaning. The information is setoffwith
commas.
Bill Clinton,former Governor ofArkansas, is the President ofthe United States.
Ifthe nonrestrictive element is removed from the sentence, the meaning ofthe sentence
does not change:
Bill Clinton is the President ofthe United States.
The chart below breaks down the differences between restrictive and nonrestrictive
elements.
Restrictive Elements
1. Provide necessary information
that identifies the noun.
2. No commas set offthe information.
3. When spoken, the sentence has no
pauses or shift in intonation.
117
Nonrestrictive Elements
1. Provide additional information
is unnecessary to identify it.
2. Commas set offthe elements.
3. When spoken, the sentence has
pauses before and after the
4. That, who, and whom can be used to
begin restrictive elements. You should
avoid using which for restrictive elements.
5. Proper nouns are usually not identified
with restrictive elements.
6. Nouns that are considered generic
are usually identified using restrictive
elements.
Exercise 1
element, and there is a falling
intonation after the initial pause.
4. Which, who, and whom can be
used to begin nomestrictive also
elements. That can never be used
with nomestrictive elements.
5. Proper nouns can be identified
with nomestrictive elements.
6. Generic nouns cannot be
identified with nomestrictive
information.
Below are sentences that contain both restrictive and nomestrictive elements. You have
to do three things:
A. Decide which type ofelement is in the sentence.
B. Ifthe sentence is restrictive, underline the restrictive element.
C. Ifthe element is nomestrictive, set it offwith commas.
1. The boy wearing a blue shirt broke the window.
2. James Cameron who directed Titanic is one ofthe most respected directors in
Hollywood.
3. Lasagna which can be made with or without meat is a type ofItalian food.
4. Any students who wants to see an advisor should make an appointment.
5. Mr. Johnson wearing his favorite blue hat won the marathon in record time.
6. Mrs. Johnson who loves to knit made the blue hat.
7. Children who have allergies should not play outside in the spring.
8. John who loves to exercise tried out for the track team.
118
9. Hollywood located in California is one ofthe most glamorous cities in the United
States.
10. Dogs that bite should never be allowed around people.
Exercise 2
Below are sets ofsentences. The sentences in parentheses ( ) provide unnecessary
information. Combine the two sentences to make one sentence.
Example: Mr. Jones goes for walks every day. (Mr. Jones own the local flower shop.)
Mr. Jones, who own the local flower shop, goes for walks every day.
1. An apple is a healthy snack. (An apple has about seventy calories.)
2. Susan drives me to school three times a week. (Susan lives next door.)
3. My car has 42,000 miles on it. (I bought my car three years ago.)
4. Blue is John's favorite color. (Blue has been proven to make people calm.)
119
5. Coffee can cause stomach problems. (Coffee contains a lot ofcaffeine.)
Exercise 3
Work in groups ofthree. Together, explain the differences between the pairs ofsentences
using the information you have learned about restrictive and nonrestrictive elements.
lao My brother who lives in Cleveland loves to play baseball.
1b. My brother, who lives in Cleveland, loves to play baseball.
2a. The book that is on the table needs to be returned to the library.
2b. The book, which is on the table, needs to be returned to the library.
3a. Children who are exposed to music at an early age develop excellent coordination.
3b. Children, who are exposed to music at an early age, develop excellent coordination.
4a. Susan, the oldest member ofthe choir, often gets a lot ofsolos.
4b. Susan, the oldest member ofthe choir often gets a lot ofsolos.
Exercise 4
Write a short paragraph about the hobbies each member ofthe group has. Identify each
person in the group with a nonrestrictive element.
120
Works Cited
Bolinger, Dwight. Aspects ofLanguage. Second Edition. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Inc., 1975
Intonation andIts Uses: Melody in Grammar andDiscourse. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1989.
Brown, Goold. The Grammar ofEnglish Grammars. New York: William Wood & Co.,
1864.
Bruhn-Garavito, Joyce L. S. "L2 Acquisition ofVerb Complementation and Binding
Principle B." Second Language Acquisition Theory andPedagogy. Fred R.
Eckman, Diane Highland, Peter W. Lee, Jean Mileham, and Rita Rutkowski
Weber, eds. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1995.
Clark, S.W. First Lessons in English Grammar. New York: A.S. Barnes & Co., 1857.
Cobbett, William. A Grammar ofthe English Language. New York: 1. Doyle, 1832.
Crystal, David. A Dictionary ofLinguistics and Phonetics. 4th ed. Cambridge:
Blackwell Publishers, Inc., 1997.
Crystal, David and Derek Davy. Investigating English Style. Bloomington & London:
Indiana University Press, 1969.
DeKeyser, Robert M. "Beyond Focus on Form: Cognitive Perspectives on Learning and
Practicing Second Language Grammar." Doughty and Williams 42-63.
D'Eloia, Sarah. "The Uses--and Limits--ofGrammar." Journal ofBasic Writing 3
(1977): 1-48.
Dirven, Rene and Gunter Radden. Cognitive English Grammar. 1997.
121
Doughty, Catherine and Elizabeth Varela. "Communicative Focus on Form." Doughty
and Williams 114-38.
Doughty, Catherine and Jessica Williams, eds. Focus on Form in Classroom Second
Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
"Issues and Terminology." Doughty and Williams 1-11.
"Pedagogical Choices." Doughty and Williams 197-261.
Eschliman, Herbert, Robert Jones, and Tommy Burnett. Generative English Handbook.
Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1968.
Fabb, Nigel. "The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative
clauses." Journal ofLinguistics. 26 (1990): 57-77.
Hairston, Maxine. "The Winds ofChange: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the
Teaching ofWriting." Landmark Essays on Writing Process. Sondra Perl, ed.
Davis, California: Hermagoras Press, 1994.
Hartwell, Patrick. "Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching ofGrammar." College
English 47 (Feb 1985): 105-27.
Haugen, Einar. "On Resolving The Close Apposition." American Speech. 28 (1958):
165-170.
Hull, Glynda. "Constructing Taxonomies for Error (or Can Stray Dogs Be Mermaids?)"
A Sourcebookfor Basic Writing Teachers. Theresa Enos, ed. New York:
Random House, 1987.
Jacobs, Roderick and Peter Rosenbaum. English Transformational Grammar. Waltham,
Massachusetts: Blaisdell Publishing Company, 1968.
122
Johns, Ann M. "L1 Composition Theories: Implications for Developing Theories ofL2
Composition." Barbara Kroll. 24-36.
Judd, Karen. Copyediting: A Practical Guide. 2nd ed. Menlo Park, California: Crisp
Publications, Inc., 1990.
Kroll, Barbara, ed. Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Kroll, Barry M. and John C. Schafer. "Error-Analysis and the Teaching of
Composition." College Composition and Communication (1978): 242-48.
Ladd, D. Robert, Jr. The Structure ofIntonational Meaning: Evidencefrom English.
Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 1980.
Lamar, Nedra Newkirk. How to Speak the Written Word: A Guide to Effective Public
Reading. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1967.
Lee, Donald. "Close Apposition: An Unresolved Pattern." American Speech. 27
(1952): 268-275.
Lightbown, Patsy M. "The Importance ofTiming in Focus on Form." Doughty and
Williams 177-96.
Liles, Bruce. A Basic Grammar ofModern English. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1987.
Long, Michael H. and Peter Robinson. "Focus ofForm: Theory, Research, and
Practice." Doughty and Williams 42-63
Marsh, George. Lectures on the English Language. New York: Charles Scribner, 1859.
Meyer, Charles. "Restrictive Apposition: An Indeterminate Category." English Studies.
70 (1989): 147-165.
123
Noguchi, Rei R. Grammar and the Teaching ofWriting: Limits and Possibilities.
Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1991.
Parisi, Domenico and Francesco Antinucci. Essentials ofGrammar. Trans. Elizabeth
Bates. New York: Academic Press, 1976.
Quirk, Randolph and Sidney Greenbaum. A University Grammar ofEnglish. London:
Longman Group Limited, 1973.
Raub, Albert. A Practical English Grammar: For the Use ofSchools and Private
Students. Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1880.
Reed, Alonzo and Brainerd Kellogg. Higher Lessons in English. New York: Maynard,
Merrill, & Co., 1895.
Roberts, Paul. Understanding Grammar. New York: Harper & Row, 1954.
Schubiger, Maria. English Intonation: Its Form and Function. Tubingen: Max
Niemeyer Verlag, 1958.
Shaughnessy, Mina. Errors and Expectations: A Guidefor the Teacher ofBasic
Writing. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Silva, Tony. "Second Language Composition Instruction: Developments, Issues, and
Directions in ESL." Barbara Kroll. 11-23.
Weaver, Constance. Teaching Grammar in Context. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook
Publishers, 1996.
White, Lydia. Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1989.
Williams, Jessica and Jacqueline Evans. "What Kind ofFocus and on Which Forms?"
Doughty and Williams 139-55.
124