Sentence Combining: An Experiment
in Teaching Writing
THOMAS C. COOPER
SENTENCE COMBINING IS AN INSTRUCTIONAL
technique for teaching writing. It evolved
from research studies in English education. In
the 1960s, investigators in this field were interested in tracing the syntactic development
of school children. But before they could do so
objectively, it was necessary to find measures
of syntactic complexity that could be easily
employed to analyze large samples of writing
produced by schoolchildren. Furthermore,
these measures had to be sensitive enough to
discriminate between writing from different
grade levels.
One of the most promising measures for
this task turned out to be the minimal terminable unit (T-unit) developed by Hunt. He defined it as one main clause plus any attached
subordination.' In addition to taking into account subordination, a T-unit also preserves
coordination between words, phrases, and
clauses.
Hunt and others showed that as schoolchildren become older and the complexity of their
syntax increases, the mean T-unit length of
their compositions also increases.* Such
lengthening can be accomplished in two ways:
writers add subordinate clauses to main
clauses, and/or they add subclausal constructions such as prepositional phrases, adjectives,
etc. By calculating a subordinate clause ratio,
which indicates by a decimal fraction the
amount of subordination, and a words-perclause index, which measures subclausal additions, investigators were able to describe how
T-unit lengthening was accomplished in a
body of writing.3
Development toward syntactic complexity,
or syntactic maturity as Hunt called it, results
in writing that has two basic qualities. First, it
is more compact. A high school senior who
ModemLunfwfeJournal, 65 (Summer 1981): 158-65
writes long T-units, for example, is able to
convey in one sentence the amount of information for which a younger student would
need several short sentences. Second, older
students tend to exhibit a greater degree of
syntactic fluency in their compositions; they
are capable of expressing a message in a number of different ways, for they possess an extensive repertoire of syntactic patterns to
choose from when writing.*
As an instructional approach, sentence
combining involves hastening development
toward syntactic maturity. To this end students are given extensive and systematic practice in using nominal and adverbial constructions and coordination to combine pairs of
kernel sentences (main clauses consisting of
subject and predicate). In effect, they are encouraged to attain a higher level of syntactic
maturity than would normally be found in
students at their particular grade level.
Experimental studies in English have demonstrated that sentence combining can be successfully employed to increase syntactic development at a statistically significant rate;
even more important, such practice has been
shown to improve student writing qualitatively. In at least two studies experienced English teachers compared writing samples from
control and experimental groups. In their
opinion the writing of the students given sentence-combining practice was stylistically
superior to that of students in the control
group who had engaged in traditional writing
activities.5
Two descriptive studies involving second
language learners of French and German at
the college level revealed similar developmental trends toward syntactic maturity.6
Relatively little experimentation has been
done with sentence combining as an instructional technique in foreign language classrooms. The present study was undertaken to
A n Experiment in Teaching Writing
159
expand this field of inquiry by determining
whether such practice would increase the rate
of written syntactic development of college
students of French, German, and Spanish. A
corollary interest was whether this kind of
writing practice would have a measurable effect on the oral syntax of students in these languages.?
RESEARCH DESIGN
Subjects. A total of 325 students enrolled in
third quarter (intermediate) French, German,
and Spanish took pak in the experiment conducted during spring quaker, 1977, at the
University of Georgia. For each language,
three classes served as the experimental group
and three as the control group.
Students filled out a general information
questionnaire in order to provide a profile of
their foreign language background. Results
indicated that 88-95 percent of the students
had studied a foreign language in high school.
They had received predominantly “A” and “B”
grades. Seventy to eighty percent had earned
“A” and “ B grades in foreign language courses
on the college level. Sixteen to twenty-five
percent had visited a country where their foreign language was spoken, although most
trips had lasted three weeks or less. Very few
students had immediate family members
whose native language was French, German,
or Spanish, and those who did were elimiTABLE I
Division of Experimental and Control Groups
Experimental Group N
Control Group
N
French Class 1
French Class 2
French Class 3
French Class 1
French Class 2
French Class 3
22
24
Total
German Class 4
German Class 5
German Class 6
Total
Spanish Class 7
Spanish Class 8
Spanish Class 9
Total
Experimental Total
24
15
25
64
13
19
__
21
53
13
12
22
47
Total
German Class 4
German Class 5
German Class 6
Total
Spanish Class 7
Spanish Class 8
Spanish Class 9
Total
164
Control Total
Grand Total 325
18
64
20
7
12
39
16
20
22
-
58
161
nated from the sample in order not to bias
results.
Statistical Analysis. Since university scheduling procedure prohibited random assignment
of students to groups, analysis of covariance
was used to test differences between posttest
means at the .05 level of confidence. Covariates were: 1) cumulative university grade
point averages for a composition test; 2) pretest scores for two other writing tests and an
oral test.
Other Controls. In addition to testing by
analysis of covariance, the following precautions were taken to control for extraneous
variables: 1) each instructor taught both an
experimental and a control class; 2) classes
were randomly assigned to experimental and
control groups.
TREATMENTS
Control Group. Students in the control classes
engaged in a variety of activities. In the
French and Spanish sections they completed
the last third of a basic grammar, which involved reading short passages about foreign
civilization and culture as well as answering
oral and written questions over the selections.8
Grammar presentations were also given with
various accompanying oral and written exercises. Instead of using a basic text, German
students used a review grammar.g In all language sections students read selections from
intermediate level anthologies; they answered
oral and written questions based on content
and interpretation.10 In general, instructors in
these classes followed a modified audio-lingual approach; that is, listening comprehension, speaking, reading, and writing were
stressed equally.
Experimental Group. Students in the experimental classes used the same texts and were
also taught according to a modified audio-lingual approach. The only difference was that
their writing activities consisted of sentencecombining practice, examples of which are
given below.
Both groups did an equal amount of writing
during the quaker. The writing of students in
the control group was simply more traditional
in nature. In lieu of sentence combining, they
completed exercises from their texts, answered
questions concerning reading selections, and
did other assignments.
160
T h o r n C. Cooper
Problem-Solving Exercises. These exercises,
which constituted the first phase of experimental treatment, had two purposes. One objective was to give students systematic practice
in manipulating sentence-embedding constructions.11 A second objective was to teach
ways of varying expression.
The problem-solving exercises concentrated
primarily on one grammar point at a time.
Three basic types of exercises were utilized: 1)
combination (the house is haunted + the house
is behind the cemetery = the house behind
the cemetery is haunted); 2) breakdown (the
crime happened one stormy rainy night = the
crime happened one night + the night was
stormy + the night was rainy); and 3) variation
(when he arrived he found the house deserted
= upon his arrival he found the house deserted). Other kinds of writing activities at this
stage included free-answer questions designed
to elicit certain grammatical constructions and
short essays.
Paragraph Exercises. During the second phase
of the treatment, students from the experimental group were given paragraphs in their
foreign language and were asked to reduce
longer sentences to constituent parts. Then,
with the aid of cues, they were told to reconstruct the passages while remaining as true to
the originals as possible. In effect, students
followed in slow motion the combining processes that the author might have instinctively
used when creating the passage.
Composition Exercises. In the final phase of
experimental treatment, students wrote several narrative and descriptive themes for
which travel posters and a series of cartoon
strips without words served as stimuli. To help
students begin, instructors listed kernel sentences on the blackboard and demonstrated
how these could be combined to form units
more syntactically mature than the kernels
themselves. Students were then encouraged to
continue in the same fashion and to write with
confidence. (In the control classes the same
number of themes was also required but, instead of being told how to write, students were
given appropriate vocabulary and expressions
and left to their own devices.)
The following summary schedule indicates
the amount of time spent on sentence-combining practice in the experimental classes: 1)
problem-solving exercises five weeks, twenty to
-
thirty minutes a class period, five times per
week; 2) paragraph exercises-two weeks, twenty
to thirty minutes a class period, three times a
week; 3) composition exercises- two weeks, thirty
to forty mintues a class period, three times per
week.
MEASUREMENT
Collection OfSamples. During the first and last
weeks of the quarter, the same versions of two
writing tests were administered to all students
participating in the study. In one of these
tests, students were asked to rewrite in an acceptable style two short paragraphs consisting
of kernel sentences; in the other, they were
given vocabulary and required to write an
essay about a sight-seeing trip to a large city.
These tests were designed to be complementary. Since the number of input sentences
was constant in the rewrite test, skill in sentence-embedding within a restrictive framework would be apparent. In the other test,
however, students were given leeway to
choose their own syntactic patterns while writing. In the oral test, administered at the beginning and end of the quarter in the language
laboratory, students described on individual
cassette tapes a picture of a disco party. Two
of the compositions assigned as homework
were also collected from each student during
the last two weeks of the study.
Analysis. After writing samples had been assigned identification numbers and put in
order according to group, measures of syntactic maturity were calculated for each sample
following the procedure illustrated below.
When the Texan, picking his teeth with a splintered kitchen match,
mzerged j a m the house twenly minutes la&, the tethered
wagons and riding horses and mules extended from the
lot gate to Varner’s store,/and there were more than fifv
men now standing along the fence beside the gate, watching him quietly, a little covertly, as he approached, rolling a
little, slightly bowlegged, the high heels of his carved boots printing
neatly in the dustL l 2
1. First find:
A. totalwords.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5
B. number of T-units (i.e., main
clauses plus subordination; T-units
are set off with slash marks). . . . . . 2
C. number of subordinate clauses (these
are underlined). . . . . . , .
.2
..
. .. .
A n Experiment in Teaching Writing
161
D. total number of clauses, both subordinate and main (add B and
C) ........................
4
be transcribed from tape and two additional
measures were calculated: mazes and words
per maze. l 4
2. Next determine these measures of syntax:
A. Words per clause13 (found by dividing
RESULTS
words by total number of clauses;
here, 75 + 4 = 18.74 words per
clause);
B. Clauses per T-unit (determined by dividing total number of clauses by
number of T-units; here, 4 + 2 =
2.00 clauses per T-unit);
C . Words per T-unit (found by dividing
total words by number of T-units;
here, 75 + 2 = 37.50 words per T unit).
The same analysis procedure was followed for
the speech samples except that they first had to
Table I1 presents posttest means of combined language sections on the writing tests.
Experimental means for measures of syntactic
maturity are consistently higher than control
means, indicating that students in this group
used more complex syntactic patterns in their
writing than did their control counterparts
(columns 2, 3, and 4). F-ratios from testing by
analysis of covariance (column 5) show that
these differences are highly significant. In
eight out of nine cases the probability that
they could have been due to chance is less than
one in a thousand.
TABLE I1
Posttest Means of Writing Tests
Experimental
Means
Test and Variable
Rewrite
WIClause
CLIT-Unit
W/T-Unit
(N
Freewrite
WIClause
CL/T-Unit
W/T-Unit
(N
Compositions
WIClause
CL/T-Unit
WIT-Unit
(N
Control
Means
164)
6.38
1.52
9.74
(N
162)
6.93
1.34
9.17
(N
168)
8.14
1.33
10.80
(N
=
159)
5.93
1.36
7.85
Difference
Scores
.45
.16
1.89
(DF
=
156)
6.65
1.18
7.85
=
32.26**
11.60**
69.42*
1,316)
=
4.69'
57.67'.
62.43**
1,311)
=
34.39**
51.61**
85.66..
1,302)
=
.28
.16
1.32
(DF
=
F-Ratio
=
157)
7.32
1.18
8.64
=
.82
.15
2.16
(DF
*Significantbeyond the .05 level.
"Significant beyond the ,001 level.
TABLEIII
Posttest Means of Oral Test
Test and Variable
Experimental
(N
WIClause
CLIT-Unit
W/T-Unit
Total Words
Mazes
WIMaze
158)
6.90
1.15
7.88
119.84
1.50
1.40
=
Control
151)
6.55
1.09
7.06
110.71
2.29
1.71
(N
Difference
=
.35
.06
.82
9.13
- .79
- .31
(DF
*Significantbeyond the .01 level.
"Significant beyond the ,001 level.
F-Ratio
=
8.95.
19.02..
29.69..
7.92*
9.67.
2.65(NS)
1,302)
162
Results in Table I11 indicate that the experimental students were also able to express
themselves in an advanced fashion orally, for
their average scores on words per clause,
clauses per T-unit,, and words per T-unit are
significantly higher (column 5) than those of
their control group counterparts. Students in
the experimental group were also more articulate in the oral test than their counterparts as
can be seen from their significantly higher
means for total words per sample. They also
tended to have fewer sentence fragments
(mazes) than did the control group, although
this trend is less clearcut statistically.
DISCUSSION
The results of the present study seem to indicate that sentence combining facilitates
achievement of a higher degree of syntactic
maturity than might be normally expected.
What this means in terms of actual language
production, however, can best be illustrated
by comparing excerpts judged to be typical of
both groups. Test samples from the German
section with spelling and grammar errors uncorrected are given in Appendix 1 .
Scores on words per T-unit indicate that the
experimental paragraph is grammatically
more complex than the control paragraph
(13.11 words as opposed to 8.33). Since a Tunit can be lengthened by addition of subordinate clauses and subclausal constructions, a
comparison of the other two measures enables
one to pinpoint complexity.
First, the experimental writer uses a higher
proportion of subordinate clauses per T-unit
(1.56 to l.ll).15 Some of these are relative
clauses (dus Madchen, dus im Sand grabt; and
andere Madchen, die Bikinis trugen). There is also
a good mix of adverbial clauses (purpose with
so daJ, condition with wenn, and cause with
weil). In the control paragraph there is only
one subordinate clause with wahrend,
The experimental writer also has a higher
score on words per clause (8.43 to 7.50), exhibiting greater use of coordination, phrases,
and single word modifiers. Some of these are:
1) prepositional phrases of place (der Grq,bvater
sitzt unter einem Sonnenschirm hinte~der Familie);
2 ) coordination of verbs (die Frau halt das kleine
Madchen . . . undgibt . . .); 3) coordination of
infinitives and nouns, and prepositional
Thomas C. Cooper
phrases modifying nouns (die Familie hat Sachen
zu essen und zu trinken, Sonnenol und andere Dinge
f u r einen Tag am Strand mitgebracht).
The control writer also makes use of subclausal elements, but not to such an extent.
Both paragraphs contain their share of mistakes involving case, flectional endings, word
order, lexical choice, etc., but these are to be
expected when intermediate students first venture forth to produce their own German sentences. Nevertheless, from a broader point of
view, the experimental paragraph is vivid,
stylistically superior, contains good-natured
humor, and the German in it flows smoothly.
The control description, on the other hand, is
rather drab, lifeless and inhibited.
The relationship between qualitative and
quantitative aspects of student writing was investigated to a limited degree in the German
section by adapting an evaluation procedure
employed by 0Hare.l6 First, students in both
groups were rank-ordered according to pretest
writing scores. Twenty control students were
then chosen at random and matched with experimental students who had comparable pretest scores. This subsample comprised roughly
one-fifth of all German students. Next, a composition by each control student in the subsample was paired with one written by the experimental counterpart. The matched pairs of
compositions were then given to experienced
German teachers who were instructed to
choose the theme in each pair which they considered best, according to criteria of grammatical correctness and style.
Table IV shows the results of the evaluations. Tallies on the left side of the table indicate a clear preference for the experimental
themes. From a possible total of 180 choices
among the raters, 145 were made in favor of
the experimental themes. Stated another way,
eighty-one percent of the choices were for the
experimental group, nineteen percent for the
control group. Still, a word of caution is in
order: themes from the French and Spanish
sections were not evaluated and correlations
between syntactic maturity scores and rater
preferences were not computed in the German
section.
As reported in Table I11 above, experimental students also had higher means on the
speaking test. The parallel development in
speaking and writing in this study was cer-
163
A n Experiment in Teaching Writing
TABLE IV
Results of Evaluation of Selected German Themes
1
Experimental Themes Chosen (X)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Uudges)
9
1
Control Themes Chosen (X)
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Uudges)
9
Theme
Pair
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
x x x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
x
X
x x x x
x x
x x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
x x
X
X X
x x
X
X
X X
X
x x x
X X
x x
x x
x x
X X
x
x x
x x
x x
x
X X
x x
X X
X X
X X
x
x
x X
x
x x
=
=
=
=
-
Total Chosen for Experiment Group
8
9
9
9
?
5
9
9
9
3
8
9
8
8
9
4
5
9
3
5
145
tainly not due to a direct cause and effect relationship. As recent research has pointed out,
however, it may be the result of the interrelatedness of these skills.17 Both skills are productive because they involve the process of
going from thought to expression by means of
syntax, and practice in manipulation of syntactic patterns is one of the results of sentence
combining.
SUGGESTIONS F O R FURTHER RESEARCH
The present study begins to connect several
threads of research in foreign language learning and teaching. In addition to demonstrating that the concept of syntactic maturity is
applicable to second language learning, it
offers positive evidence that sentence combining is an effective approach for teaching at
least some aspects of writing to intermediate
foreign language students. It may also point to
a positive correlation between writing development and gain in oral skills.
A final aspect of the study concerns student
attitude. As ascertained from questionnaires
X
=
1
-
0
= o
= o
X
X
x x
X
x
x x x x x x
X
= o
= o
-
6
-
1
=
*
1
1
= o
X
X
X
= 2
= 4
- 0
X
x x
x x x
X
x x
x x x x
x x x
X
Total Chosen for Control Group
X
= o
- 5
0 4
- 0
1 6
- 4
35
administered at the end of the quarter, students generally liked sentence-combining
techniques. One explanation for this positive
attitude may be the satisfaction that students
gained from writing practice pm se, for they
have concrete evidence of the fruits of their
labor. Another explanation for the students’
favorable attitude toward sentence combining
may be that it offers a framework for organizing and presenting aspects of grammar in a
logical way.
Possibilities for further research are: 1) this
study could be replicated and expanded to include other levels and foreign languages for
the purpose of establishing normative data on
syntactic development; 2) extensive evaluation procedures could be developed to investigate the relationship between quantitative and
qualitative aspects of language production
especially with emphasis on error analysis; 3)
the feasibility of using sentence-combining
techniques to teach reading skills could be explored. These techniques might also prove to
be useful for stylistic analysis in literature
courses.
Thomas C.Cooper
164
A. Adjectives (the large man is my father).
NOTES
'Kellog W. Hunt, Grammatical Structures Written a1 Three
Grade Levels, National Council of Teachers of English Research Report, 3 (Champaign, x ~ :NCTE, 1965), p. 21.
?KellogW. Hunt (note 1 above), Grammatical Structures;
Roy C. O'Donnell. William J. Griffin & Raymond C .
Norris, Syn1a.r of Kindergarten and Elementary School Children:
A Transformational Analysis, National Council of Teachers
of English Research Report, 8 (Champaign, IL: NCTE,
1967); Kellog W. Hunt, Syntactic Matunly in Schoolchildren
and Adults, Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 35, i (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago
Press, 1970).
3K. Hunt (note 1 above), GrammatzcalStructures,pp. 4453.
4K. Hunt (note 2 above), SyntacticMaturily.
JFrank OHare, Sentence-Combining: Improving Student
Writing Without Formal Grammar Instruction, National
Council of Teachers of English Research Report, 15
(Champaign, IL: NCTE, 1973) and Max Morenberg,
Donald Daiker & Andrew Kerek, "Sentence-Combining
at the College Level: An Experimental Study," Research in
the TeachingofEnglish, 12 (1978), pp. 245-56.
6For descriptive studies see Thomas C. Cooper,
"Measuring Written Syntactic Patterns of Second Language Learners of German," Journal of Educational Research, 69 (1976), pp. 176-83;James Monroe, "Measuring
and Enhancing Syntactic Fluency in French," French Review,48 (1975). pp. 1023-31. For experimental studies see
Judy Akins, "Enhancing the Syntactic Fluency of Beginning Foreign Language Learners Through SentenceCombining Practice," Diss., Univ. of Georgia, 1975;
B.R. Klassen, "Sentence-Combining Exercises as an Aid
to Expediting Syntactic Fluency in Learning English as a
Second Language," Diss., Univ. of Minnesota, 1976.
'This study, which is based on ideas initially set forth
in Thomas C. Cooper's "A Strategy for Teaching Writing," Modern LanguageJourna[, 61 (1977), pp. 251-56, was
made possible by financial support from the Exxon Education Foundation. Special thanks are also due Genelle
Morain and Theodore B. Kalivoda for the time and effort
they spent on the project.
8These were Thomas H. Brown, French: Listming,
Speaking, Reading, and Writing (New York: McCraw-Hill,
1971) and L.H. Turk & A.M. Espinosa, Foundation Course
in Spanish (Lexington, MA: Heath, 1974).
gKimberly Sparks & Van Horn Vail, German in Revicw
(New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1967).
'OThe readers were Voltaire, Candide ou L'Optimisme,
adapt. Gilles de la France (Skokie, IL:National Textbook
Co., 1975); Kimberly Sparks & Van Horn Vail, Der Weg
zum Lesen, 2nd ed. (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1974);
Mario B. Rodriguez, ed., Cuentos de ambos mundos (New
York: Houghton Mifflin, 1952).
"English examples of the sentence-embedding constructions on which the French, German, and Spanish
exercises were based are:
I. Noun constructions.
B. Possessives (my uncle's car is expensive, or the car of
my uncle . . .).
C . Relative clauses (that's the woman whom Ihelped).
D. Prepositional phrases with nouns (the garden behind
the house is beautiful).
E. Appositives (MT.Smith, a teacher, is on a trip).
F. Noun clauses as objects (he said that he was sick).
11. Adverbial clauses.
A. Time.
1. when I'm tired, I11 lie down.
2. I lived in Berlin when I was 20.
3. After he read the newspaper, he went to a restaurant.
4. while I did the dishes, my wife read a book.
B. Manner (she acted as ifshe were tired).
C . Cause (he left because he wasn'l having anyfun).
D. Condition ( i f I had time, I'd go to Florida).
E. Concession (although he had seen it, he did nothing).
F. Purpose (he's going to Germany so that he will learn
more German).
111. Coordinate constructions.
A. Adjectives (he bought afart sleek car).
B . Nouns (I see the man and the woman over there).
C. Verbs (he went downtown, bought a suit, and then
went to the movies).
'2William Faulkner, Three Famous Short Novels (New
York: Vintage, 1963), p. 19.
13A clause is defined as any grammatical construction
containing a finite verb.
!+Mazesare sentence fragments.
1Yhce a T-unit by definition contains one main
clause, 1 .OO subtracted from the clauses per T-unit index
gives the percentage of subordinate clauses in a passage.
Thus, for thecontrolstudent, 1.11 - 1.00 = . l l (11%);
and 1.56 - 1.00 = .56 (56%) for the experimental student. These percentages indicate how often subordination was used per main clause.
16F. O H a r e (note 5 above), Sentence-Combining, pp. 6266.
17John W. Oller, Jr. & Kyle Perkins, Research in Language Testing (Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1980).
APPENDIX I
Paragraphfiom Control Composition. Im Vordergrund auf
dem Bild sieht man eine FarnilieJHier sind ein Mann,
eine Frau und ein kleine Madchen./Sie sitzen an die
DeckeJDer Grothater sitzt im Stuhl unter dem Sonnenschirm./Die Frau gibt ihm das Getrank./Der Mann liest
die Zeitung, wahrend das kleine Madchen im Sand grabt./Sie
hat eine schone Haube./Das Sonnenol und die Tasche
liegt auf der Decke./Es sind vie1 zu essen und zu trinken
in die Tasche./[One sees a family in the foreground of the
picture. There's a man, a woman, and a little girl.
They're sitting on a blanket. The grandfather is sitting in
a chair under an umbrella. The woman is giving him a
drink. The man is reading the newspaper while the little
165
An Experiment in Teaching Writing
girl digs in the sand. She has a pretty bonnet. Suntan oil
and a bag are lying on the blanket. There are many
things to eat and drink in the bag.]
Syntactic maturity measures: 1) Words per T-unit =
8.33; 2) Clauses per T-unit = 1.11; 3) Words per
clause = 7.50.
Paragraph from Experimenlal Composition. Auf dem Bild
sieht man vide Leute am Strand./Der Tag ist schon mit
einem klaren Himmel,/und das Wetter ist heiR./Im
Vordergrund sitzen ein Mann, seine Frau, und ihrer
Tochter auf einer Decke./Der grol3vater sitzt unter einem
Sonnenschirm hinter der Familie, so daJ er keinen Sonnmbrand bekornmen wird./Die Frau hilt das kleine Madchen,
das im Snnd griibt, und gibt dem alten Mann ein
GetrankJIhr Mann liegt auf der Seite und liest eine Zeitung oder sieht andere Madchen, die Bikinis tragen,
an./ Wenn CT dies tut, ist er dumm, weil seine Frau sehrgut aus-
sieht./Die Familie hat Sachen zu essen und zu trinken,
Sonnenol, imd andere Dinge fur einen Tag am Strand
mitgebracht./[In the picture one sees many people on the
beach. The day is beautiful with a clear sky, and the
weather is hot. A man, a woman, and the daughter are
sitting on a blanket. The grandfather is sitting under an
umbrella behind the family so that he won’t get a sunburn. The woman is holding the little girl who’s digging
in the sand, and she is giving the old man a drink. Her
husband is lying on his side reading a newspaper or looking at girls wearing bikinis. If he’s doing this he’s dumb
because his wife looks very good herself. The family has
brought things to eat and drink, suntan oil, and other
things for a day at the beach.]
Syntactic maturity measures: 1) Words per T-unit =
13.11; 2) Clauses per T-unit = 1.56; 3) Words per
clause = 8.43.
Fulbright Teacher Exchange Programs, 1982-83
THE OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION,
us Department of Education, offers opportunities to teach abroad in a number of foreign
countries under the auspices of the Fulbright
Teacher Exchange Program. Non-English
speaking countries in which positions are
available include Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Switzerland.
The position in Denmark is a one-way placement for an American college instructor or assistant professor of literature. The grantee will
be assigned to teach American literature and
civilization in a Danish teacher training college. No foreign language is required.
The programs between the us and France,
Germany and Switzerland are interchange
positions and require a high level of fluency in
the language of the foreign country to which
application is made. American teachers will
teach English in the foreign schools and foreign teachers will assume the teaching assignment of their American counterparts. American and foreign teachers must obtain leaves of
absence with pay from their home schools.
The program in France is available to secondary school teachers, and instructors and
assistant professors of French. The program
in the Federal Republic of Germany is open to secondary school teachers, and instructors
through full professors of German. Associate
and full professors will be placed in the upper
levels of a Gymnasium. The program in Switzerland is directed to senior high school teachers,
and instructors and assistant professors of
German and/or French who are prepared to
teach English. Positions are sometimes available in other academic areas. The German
Fulbright Commission awards a one-way
placement for an American teacher (grades 112) at the J.F. Kennedy School in Berlin.
High level fluency in German is required.
Summer seminars for secondary teachers
and instructors through full professors are
available in the Federal Republic of Germany administered in cooperation with the Goethe
House, New York. The us Department of
Education also administers summer seminars
in Ztab for teachers of the Classics, Romance
Languages, and Italian language.
Basic I-equirements for all programs are US
citizenship, a bachelor’s degree, and current
employment. Three years of teaching experience are required for teaching positions; two
years of experience are required for summer
seminars. Application deadline is 1 November 1981. For additional information contact
the Fulbright Teacher Exchange Program,
Room 3068, ROB^, Office of International
Education, us Department of Education,
Washington, DC 20202.