Evidence and source ownership
Track matrix reporting clauses, embedded claims and the speaker’s final conclusion.

Keep the main claim visible while you report sources, qualify evidence and connect several propositions precisely.
For learners: Control proposition hierarchy, source ownership, attachment and reference in multi-source explanations.
For teachers: Group 9 moves from meaning stability to information focus, noun density and embedded-clause control, then transfers into fine stance; connectors remain a cohesion comparison.
สำหรับผู้เรียน: ควบคุมลำดับชั้นของข้อความ เจ้าของคำกล่าว การเกาะของส่วนขยาย และการอ้างอิงในการอธิบายหลายแหล่งข้อมูล
สำหรับครู: กลุ่ม 9 พัฒนาจากการคงความหมาย ไปสู่จุดเน้น ความหนาแน่นของกลุ่มคำนาม และการควบคุมอนุประโยคซ้อน ก่อนถ่ายโอนไปสู่การวางท่าทีอย่างละเอียด โดยใช้คำเชื่อมเป็นบทเปรียบเทียบ
By the end of this lesson, you can diagram six multi-layer sentences, distinguish five clause functions, repair four attachment or reference problems, and deliver a precise multi-source explanation with controlled embedding.
เมื่อจบบทเรียน คุณจะเขียนผังประโยคหลายชั้น 6 ประโยค แยกหน้าที่ของอนุประโยค 5 แบบ แก้ปัญหาการเกาะกับส่วนผิดหรือการอ้างอิงไม่ชัด 4 จุด และอธิบายข้อมูลจากหลายแหล่งโดยควบคุมการซ้อนประโยคได้อย่างแม่นยำ
Embedding lets a speaker show who said what, which claim is qualified and how causes, conditions or evidence relate. When the hierarchy disappears, listeners confuse the main claim with a source’s claim or attach a modifier to the wrong host.
ภาษาไทย: การซ้อนอนุประโยคช่วยบอกว่าใครกล่าวอะไร ข้ออ้างใดมีเงื่อนไข และเหตุผลหรือหลักฐานเชื่อมกันอย่างไร หากลำดับชั้นไม่ชัด ผู้ฟังอาจสับสนระหว่างข้อสรุปหลักกับคำกล่าวของแหล่งข้อมูล หรือจับส่วนขยายเข้ากับส่วนที่ผิด
Start from proposition hierarchy, not punctuation. Learners must identify the main claim, each embedded proposition, its function and its host before they edit sentence length.
| Stage | Teacher move | Evidence to collect |
|---|---|---|
| 1 · Diagram | Separate matrix and embedded propositions. | 6 hierarchy diagrams |
| 2 · Classify | Name five clause functions and their hosts. | 5 function decisions |
| 3 · Control | Manage clause depth, host distance and source ownership. | 6 controlled rewrites |
| 4 · Repair | Repair four attachment or reference failures. | 4 minimal repairs |
| 5 · Transfer | Trace hierarchy in two accent-varied explanations. | 2 source maps |
| 6 · Perform | Score MEAN/FORM/USE and target one retry. | Multi-source explanation + retry |
Find the matrix clause first; then place each embedded proposition under the word or clause that hosts it.
| Sentence | Matrix frame | Embedded hierarchy |
|---|---|---|
| The report suggests that the delay began after the supplier changed the process. | The report suggests X | X = delay began [after supplier changed process] |
| What the panel could not confirm was whether the figures that appeared online were final. | X was Y | X = what panel could not confirm; Y = whether figures [that appeared online] were final |
A sentence can begin with an embedded subject such as What the panel found. The first words are therefore not automatically the matrix clause. Ask which frame can stand as the sentence’s highest grammatical relationship.
Name what the clause does in its host—not only the conjunction that introduces it.
| Function | Question it answers | Model |
|---|---|---|
| subject | What occupies the subject position? | What the audit revealed changed the decision. |
| object / content | What is claimed, known or reported? | The analyst confirmed that the dates differed. |
| complement | What completes a noun, adjective or linking frame? | The question is whether the evidence is complete. |
| relative modifier | Which person or thing? | The figures that the supplier submitted were provisional. |
| adverbial modifier | When, why, how or under what condition? | The team paused the launch because two checks had failed. |
Form and function can cross: a wh-clause may be a subject, object or complement. Accept alternative terminology if the learner identifies the same hierarchy and host relationship accurately.
Control distance, depth and source ownership before deciding whether to split the sentence.
| Risk | Harder version | Controlled version |
|---|---|---|
| reporter and source claims blur | The review says the supplier claimed the test failed, which is uncertain. | The supplier claimed that the test had failed. The review says that this claim remains uncertain. |
| relative clause is far from host | The team rejected the proposal after a long review that lacked cost evidence. | After a long review, the team rejected the proposal, which lacked cost evidence. |
| three depths overload speech | The analyst believes that the claim that the supplier made after the audit was incomplete is misleading. | The analyst considers the supplier’s post-audit claim misleading. She says the claim omitted key evidence. |
Splitting is a discourse choice, not a defeat. Keep one sentence when hierarchy supports the intended relationship; split when distance or depth makes the listener misassign source, scope or attachment.
Diagnose the likely wrong reading before making the smallest reliable repair.
| Problem line | Likely failure | Repair target |
|---|---|---|
| The manager discussed the forecast with the analyst who was incomplete. | relative clause attaches to analyst | The manager discussed the incomplete forecast with the analyst. |
| The report says the supplier denied the figures were inaccurate, which surprised the board. | which has several possible antecedents | Name the surprising event or claim. |
| When it was reviewed, they found that it lacked dates. | two unrecoverable pronouns | Name the document and reviewers. |
| The analyst asked why did the test fail after the update. | direct-question order inside an embedded question; time phrase floats | why the test failed after the update / after the update, why the test failed |
For sentence-relative which, require the learner to paraphrase the antecedent as a full event. If more than one event fits, replace which with an explicit noun such as this denial or this discrepancy.
Separate the speaker’s conclusion from each source’s claim, question and qualification.
Track matrix reporting clauses, embedded claims and the speaker’s final conclusion.
Track the unresolved question, its condition and the relative clause that identifies the evidence.
The accents test meaning transfer, not imitation. Replay only where the learner loses source ownership, clause function, condition or reference; then ask for a proposition map before replaying the full explanation.
Make the hierarchy audible: main conclusion first, then attributed evidence, qualification and unresolved question.
Result: 0–2 Rebuild · 3–4 Developing · 5–6 C2 mastery evidence.
Score the first independent attempt across MEAN, FORM and USE. Give one target only: matrix visibility, clause function, host distance, source ownership or reference. Keep the original score and record the retry separately.
You can now organise several propositions without losing the main claim. Use the Dynamic Learning Graph below to revisit noun-phrase density, compare information focus, continue to fine modal stance or revisit precise connectors.
Return to Grammar LessonsEdit Dense Noun Phrases for Clarity
ควบคุมความหนาแน่นของกลุ่มคำนาม
Information Structure and Focus
จัดโครงสร้างข้อมูลและจุดเน้น
Fine Modal Stance and Interpersonal Distance
วางท่าทีและระยะห่างระหว่างบุคคล
Precise Discourse Connectors
ใช้คำเชื่อมอย่างแม่นยำ