AskerWilliam “Does Knowledge of Formal Grammar Function?” School and Society, XVII (January, 1923), 109–11.
2.
BatemanDonald, and ZidonisFrankThe Effect of A Study of Transformational Grammar on the Writing of Ninth and Tenth Graders.NCTE Research Report No. 6. Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1966.
3.
BlakeRobert W. “Linguistics and Punctuation,” English Record, XV (October, 1964), 9–13.
4.
BoraasJulius“Formal English Grammar and the Practical Mastery of English.” Doctor's dissertation. Department of Education, University of Minnesota, 1917.
5.
BradfordLeland P. “Study of Certain Factors Affecting English Usage,” Journal of Educational Research, XXXV (October, 1941), 109–18.
6.
BrownMarshall L., and WhiteElmerA Grammar for English Sentences (Books One and Two). Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, 1966.
7.
CatherwoodCatherine“A Study of Relationships Between A Knowledge of Rules and Ability to Correct Grammatical Errors and Between Identification of Sentences and Knowledge of Subject and Predicate.” Master's thesis, University of Minnesota, 1932.
8.
HawkinsJames Preston.“The ‘New English Grammar,’ A Study of the Structural-Transformational Foundations in Materials Designed for Secondary Schools.” Doctor's dissertation. Colorado State College, 1966.
9.
HoytFranklin S. “The Place of Grammar in the Elementary Curriculum,” Teachers College Record, VII (November, 1906), 467–500.
10.
HuntKellogg W.Differences in Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels, The Structures To Be Analyzed by Transformational Methods. Cooperative Research Project 1998. Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida State University and the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1964.
11.
HuntKellogg W.Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels.NCTE Research Report No. 3. Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1965.
12.
HuntKellogg W.Sentence Structures Used by Superior Students in Grades Four and Twelve, and by Superior Adults. Cooperative Research Project No. 5-0313. Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida State University and the Cooperative Research Program of the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, n. d.
13.
JacobsRoderick A., and RosenbaumPeter S.Grammar 1 and Grammar 2.Boston: Ginn & Co., 1967.
14.
JohnsonFalk S. “Structural versus Non-Structural Teaching,” College Composition and Communication, XI (December, 1960), 214–15.
15.
KlauserEva L.“A Comparison of a Structural Approach and a Traditional Approach to the Teaching of Grammar in an Illinois Junior High School.” Doctor's dissertation. University of Colorado, 1964.
16.
LabovWilliam, and CohenPaul “Systematic Relations of Standard and-Non-Standard Rules in the Grammars of Negro Speakers.” Project Literacy Reports, No. 8, pp. 66–84. Cornell University, 1967.
17.
Linsan-su.Pattern Practice on the Teaching of Standard English to Students with a Nonstandard Dialect.Project No. 1339. Orangeburg, S.C.: Claflin University and the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1965.
18.
LobanWalterLanguage Ability: Grades Ten, Eleven, and Twelve.Project No. 2387. Berkeley: University of California and the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1967.
19.
LobanWalterThe Language of Elementary School Children.NCTE Research Report No. 1. Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1963.
20.
McCarthyDorothea “Language Development in Children.” In A Manual of Child Psychology, 2d ed.; pp. 492–630. Edited by CarmichaelLeonard. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 1954.
21.
MacLeishAndrewMaterials and Methods for Teaching Structural and Generative Grammar to High School Students and Their Teachers. Project No. H-144. Northern Illinois University and the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1967.
22.
MehlerJacques “Some Effects of Grammatical Transformations on the Recall of English Sentences,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, II (1963), 346–51.
23.
MellonJohn C.Transformational Sentence-Combining: A Method for Enhancing the Development of Syntactic Fluency in English Composition. Cooperative Research Project No. 5-8418. Office of English Education and Laboratory for Research in Instruction, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1967.
24.
O'DonnellRoy C.The Correlation of Awareness of Structural Relationships in English and Ability in Written Composition.Cooperative Research Project No. 1524. Mount Olive, N.C.: Mount Olive Junior College and the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1963.
25.
O'DonnellRoy C., GriffinWilliam J., and NorrisRaymond C.Syntax of Kindergarten and Elementary School Children: A Transformational Analysis.NCTE Research Report No. 8. Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1967.
26.
RapeerLouis W. “The Problem of Formal Grammar in Elementary Education,” Journal of Educational Psychology, IV (March, 1913), 125–37.
27.
RobertsPaulEnglish Sentences.New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1962. See also English Syntax. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1964.
28.
RobinsonNora “The Relation Between Knowledge of English Grammar and Ability in English Composition,” British Journal of Educational Psychology, XXX (June, 1960), 184–86.
29.
RogovinSyrellModern English Sentence Structure.New York: Random House-Singer, 1964.
30.
SegalDavid, and BarrNora R. “Relation of Achievement in Formal Grammar to Achievement in Applied Grammar,” Journal of Educational Research, XIV (December, 1926), 401–2.
31.
ShugrueMichael F. “New Materials for the Teaching of English: The English Program of the USOE,” PMLA, LXXXI (September, 1966), reprint.
32.
SlobinDan I. “Grammatical Transformations and Sentence Comprehension in Childhood and Adulthood,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, V (1966), 219–27.
33.
SquireJames R., and ApplebeeRoger K.A Study of English Programs in Selected High Schools Which Consistently Educate Outstanding Students in English. Cooperative Research Project No. 1994. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois and the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1966.
34.
StricklandRuth G.The Language of Elementary School Children: Its Relationship to the Language of Reading Textbooks and the Quality of Reading of Selected Children. Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University, Vol. 38. Bloomington, Ind., 1962.
35.
TovattAnthony L., and MillerEbert L.Oral-Aural-Visual Stimuli Approach to Teaching Written Composition to 9th Grade Students.Project No. 5-03892-12-1. Muncie, Ind.: Ball State University and the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1967.
36.
Wisconsin English-Language-Arts Curriculum Project, Teaching the English Language in Wisconsin. Experimental ed. Madison, Wis. Department of Public Instruction and the Cooperative Research Division of the U.S. Office of Education, 1967.