PSAT Glitch

[P2052 at AOL.COM]

First of all, I used the word rules because that is exactly the term that was
used when I was taught grammar.  The students were required to memorize the
rule (e.g. A noun is the name of a person, place, or thing); then, they were
given practice exercises to reinforce their learning of the rule; lastly,
they were tested to determine how well they had retained the rule.   In fact,
if I recall, the textbooks called these rules as well, as well as many books
on grammar or language.

Second, I don't think that my use of the phrase, "traditional grammar,"
confused anyone.  If so, let me explain that I use the term to refer to the
grammar presented in textbooks used before the 1970's--textbooks that, in
fact, relied on the students' memorizing rules, completing grammar
exercises--including diagrams, and demonstrating how well they could appy
those rules in their writing and on test.
(See also David Crystal's The Cambridge Encyclopedia of The English Language,
1995.)

Finally, the purpose of my response was not to support Keegan's position.
Rather, it was to ensure doubters that Keegan did not make this rule up.  It
does indeed appear in older grammar books.  And that rule is not based, as
Zwicky claims, on an assumption "that english NP's expressions are derived,
not inflected."  I am well aware that English NPs occur in both these forms.
In the particular example cited ("Toni Morrison's genius enables her to
create novels that arise from and express the injustices African Americans
have endured"), one has to take into account not just the semantic features
of the inflected NP, "Toni Morrison's," but also those of the head noun,
"genius," (and, often, the verb) in order to determine the true antecedent.
Had the sentence been, "Toni Morrison's sister left one of her books on the
desk," then, the antecedent would not be so clearcut.  The point of the rules
, or generalizations, proposed in these earlier grammar textbooks was, I
think,  to give students a tool which they could used to apply in most
instances.

I don't see the relevance of Zwicky's "suppressing the Zs," and, while the
idea of the "anaphoric-island effect" is interesting, I'm not sure if he
cites, "[A] serious flautist practices on it everyday," as an example of an
acceptable sentence since it is even more problematic than the original
example (The pronoun, "it," can refer only to what a flautist would likely
practice on, the flute, which is not explicitly stated in the sentence.)
And, since the burden of communication is on the writer, why should the
reader have to be the one to make all these connections?

It's great to depend on "actual language use", but whose actual language is
Zwicky referring to?  Most of my experience has been with middle and lower
"class" African American and white speakers from the rural South.  Are these
language groups members of that class of "ordinary folks"?
                                 P-A-T