job interview. In addition, chapter 3 examines traditional grammar’s prescrip-
tive approach to language study and explores the implications for teaching.
Chapter Four. Chapter 4 introduces phrase–structure grammar and ex-
plains how it emerged during the early part of the 20th century as an alternative
to traditional grammar. Because phrase–structure grammar provides the ana-
lytical basis for all modern grammars, the chapter devotes considerable atten-
tion to helping students understand phrase–structure notation. The primary
focus, however, is on understanding thedescriptive,as opposed to theprescrip-
tive,nature of phrase structure and how this orientation is central to differenti-
ating modern grammars from traditional grammar.
Chapter Five. Chapter 5 introduces transformational–generative (T–G)
grammar as an historical evolution of the work in phrase structure. Many stu-
dents find T–G challenging, and others resist its complexities by arguing that it
is irrelevant to teaching high school language arts. They often are put off by the
fact that T–G grammar has undergone numerous changes over the years. Nev-
ertheless, in the United States, T–G grammar remains an influential tool for an-
alyzing language and therefore should be part of any language arts teacher’s
training. The first part of the chapter examines the fundamental features of T–G
grammar and explains in simple terms how transformations work. The second
part of the chapter examines the principles that underlie the latest evolution of
the generative approach:the minimalist program(MP). This new approach has
dropped many of the features that characterized T–G grammar, simplifying the
rules associated with language production while simultaneously increasing the
level of abstraction regarding the relation between grammar and language.
Chapter Six. T–G grammar and the MP can be characterized as
“formalist” approaches to language because of their emphasis on rules and the
application of those rules. Advocates of formalist grammars—most impor-
tantly, Noam Chomsky—have claimed consistently that they reflect the under-
lying psychological mechanisms of language. That is, they have viewed the
study of grammar as a means of developing a theory of mind. This claim is
powerful, but to date scholars have had little success in supporting it. Numer-
ous studies have failed to reveal any connections between formalist grammars
and underlying cognitive mechanisms, leaving them with the unhappy status of
unsubstantiated theories. As a result, various scholars began developing an al-
ternative approach. What emerged wascognitive grammar,the subject of chap-
ter 6. This grammar draws heavily on work in cognitive science to develop a
xii PREFACE