Had it with MCT. Is there a structural grammar curriculum?

[Storm Bay]

As does Shurley (an excellent grammar program, imho)...

 

Yes, I'm aware of the debate regarding article adjectives. I would not dismiss a grammar resource because it teaches article adjectives.

 

I woudn't, either, but that was to the OP :).

 

I'm not a prescriptivist. I'm not clear why defining a noun as "a person, place, thing or idea" is more prescriptive than defining it as "a word that can form a plural with -s." Or an adjective as "a word that modifies a noun" rather than "a word that comes before a noun and whose position can be changed in a series". I find those definitions more prescriptive. :confused:

 

I'm also loving this discussion and finding it fascinating how much we agree and disagree simultaneously! :D

 

 

Same here. I love syntax and abhor poor grammar, but I don't have a strong opinion on traditional vs structural grammar. I tend to get this passionate about ways to teach math, but not about ways to teach grammar. When my dc did Easy Grammar, I told them that articles were articles. My problem is, that I personally don't care enough whether or not the word "It" is a pronoun or not in a sentence such as "It is raining outside," and could probably find a way to say that it is a pronoun (whether or not I was correct) if it were important enough to me.

 

My chief concern is that my dc are able to speak and write well, and in our house, learning grammar is a tool to that end only.

 

What I love about this thread is how there is so much thought and passion put into this subject which is important, just not the same way for everyone. Hooray for homeschooling so that we can pursue our passions and help our dc pursue theirs. Hooray also for a forum where this comes up.

 

I have to confess that after a while here my eyes started to glaze over, though, and so I'm still not clear on what the differences are between structural and traditional grammar. I'm going to look at a couple of the links. I do need to change ds's grammar next year, because he hates the old fashioned pictures, etc, of R&S. I'd been thinking about MCT, but now I will have to rethink this. He likes math & science and abhors English.

[Storm Bay]

I have a question, merely out of curiousity, not to argue (because I think that there is some subjectivity to grammar and don't have a problem with that.) Could the OP or someone tell me a noun that fits the definition of a word that can have a plural that doesn't fit under the definition of "a noun is the name of a person, place, thing or idea?" I'm quite intrigued by this possibility. At one time I thought diagramming sentences was pointless and became a convert; it has done a lot for my dd's, and so I will change my mind if the evidence and argument convince me. Diagramming wasn't taught when and where I was in school, so I couldn't see any reason to do it before.

[TracyP]

Wow, thanks! After following the thread from the beginning I finally feel like I understand.

 

:iagree: Thank you, catholicmommy!

[HRAAB]

I am fascinated by this discussion!

 

I studied linguistics in university (have a BA in linguistics) and loved every class I took. Hopefully I can clarify a few definitions that have people confused here.

 

 

Ah! The amazing power of a clear and simple explanation! Thank you.

[Violet Crown]

I have a question, merely out of curiousity, not to argue (because I think that there is some subjectivity to grammar and don't have a problem with that.) Could the OP or someone tell me a noun that fits the definition of a word that can have a plural that doesn't fit under the definition of "a noun is the name of a person, place, thing or idea?" I'm quite intrigued by this possibility. At one time I thought diagramming sentences was pointless and became a convert; it has done a lot for my dd's, and so I will change my mind if the evidence and argument convince me. Diagramming wasn't taught when and where I was in school, so I couldn't see any reason to do it before.

I'm responding without answering (because I promised myself when I started this that I'd only get in discussions that led to finding a resource I could use). But in the last ten pages people have been objecting to my saying all sorts of things I didn't say. I didn't say I objected to "person, place, thing, or idea" because it didn't cover all nouns; I didn't say that nouns in all languages pluralize with the -s morpheme (I've only ever been talking about English grammar); I didn't say that a/an and the aren't articles; etc. But I don't want to discuss any of these further because (a) others have addressed some of these points and (b) that wasn't the purpose of this thread. I'm not out to disprove or be dismissive of traditional grammar; I just wanted to give enough examples to give those who had more of a background in linguistics/syntax than I an idea what I was looking for.:001_smile:

 

Thank you very much for all the discussion, and especially for the suggestions I've gotten from many people for resources. It's become clear that there's really nothing out there for the K-12 range. The most usable thing I've been able to look through, so far, is Ronald Wardhaugh's Understanding English Grammar: A Linguistic Approach (on Google Books), which seems easy to use--about high school level--and adaptable for younger children. It also addresses, in the early pages, objections to traditional grammar.

 

Finally, it has really hit home after all this discussion and research that, despite linguists having objected to traditional grammar teaching for some time, there seems to have been no attempt by anyone to construct an alternative grammar curriculum below the undergraduate level. This seems like an amazing lacuna, and I'm very tempted now to write to some of the linguists who spend time castigating K-12 teachers for clinging to traditional grammar and ask why they aren't being proactive.

 

Again, thank you all so much. You are an amazing group of ladies (Bill, you're an honorary member of the double-X club :D), and many of you could grammaticize rings around me. I am humbled and grateful.

[catholicmommy]

I

 

Finally, it has really hit home after all this discussion and research that, despite linguists having objected to traditional grammar teaching for some time, there seems to have been no attempt by anyone to construct an alternative grammar curriculum below the undergraduate level. This seems like an amazing lacuna, and I'm very tempted now to write to some of the linguists who spend time castigating K-12 teachers for clinging to traditional grammar and ask why they aren't being proactive.

.

 

I agree! When I started grammar with my first daughter (now only in grade 5), I was astounded that there were no resources for learning sentence structure ala x-bar theory (even if it is outdated by minimalism and whatever has come up since I finished university). That way of diagramming sentences always made so much sense to me, and I love the bigger picture that it can give. It's certainly been interesting to learn the traditionalist grammar way of diagramming sentences, and it is teaching me a bunch of terms I never learned before (which helps to understand what the grammarians are trying to get at), but I take a lot of it with a grain of salt.

 

Why don't you write a grammar program!! :D I don't have time, that's for sure LOL. But I have been recently (coincidentally just before this thread started) pulling out my old linguistics textbooks to see how I might simplify it a bit to teach my dd some good ole syntax the way I learned it.

 

Thanks for the link to the book that you mentioned about english grammar. It certainly looks interesting.

[treestarfae]

I found this before but it's not for me Syntax for Sailors http://www.syntaxforsailors.com/index_002.htm

[stripe]

Okay, say the idea that a noun is a name, or a noun is the name of something. (Rather than a "person, place or thing.") Why is this a good or bad definition?

 

Because that refers to what it does rather than what it "is," that is somehow a deficient definition (or a good one)?

Maybe what we need is a grammar curriculum written by Dr. Laura. Since she is "her kid's mom."

[8filltheheart]

In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.

 

:)

 

In the town, actually within sight of Charlie’s house, was an enormous chocolate factory!

 

 

 

Great examples of writing masters! That is proof of the power of words placed in the most emphatic location in the sentence--the end. It is the sign of deliberate structure and wording. (which is different than most kids' writing using there is/was/are/were. ;) )

 

FWIW.....I never said it didn't have its place; just not typically formal (essay vs. fiction) writing and definitely not w/o proper thought and reason. :D

[justamouse]

Finally, it has really hit home after all this discussion and research that, despite linguists having objected to traditional grammar teaching for some time, there seems to have been no attempt by anyone to construct an alternative grammar curriculum below the undergraduate level. This seems like an amazing lacuna, and I'm very tempted now to write to some of the linguists who spend time castigating K-12 teachers for clinging to traditional grammar and ask why they aren't being proactive.

 

 

I really hope you write one.

[HRAAB]

Now that I have a very small grasp of structural grammar, I am wondering what the benefits would be from teaching this, or at least including it with your traditional grammar, to young children? Could they even grasp it? I am thinking of 3rd/4th graders based on the OP's use of Grammar Island. I am more inclined to give them the 'rules' in the grammar stage, and leave something like this to the later years, maybe even high school, and maybe only if they show interest.

 

My goal is for my children to write well, write clearly, and be understood, whether it is a college paper, a letter to the editor or friends, or for work. Does a study of structural grammar, in addition to prescriptive grammar, produce a better writer?

[dovrar]

I didn't read the entire thread and am not sure what all has been suggested, but try KISS grammar. It's free! :D

 

http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/PBooks/index.htm

[treestarfae]

Now that I have a very small grasp of structural grammar, I am wondering what the benefits would be from teaching this, or at least including it with your traditional grammar, to young children? Could they even grasp it? I am thinking of 3rd/4th graders based on the OP's use of Grammar Island. I am more inclined to give them the 'rules' in the grammar stage, and leave something like this to the later years, maybe even high school, and maybe only if they show interest.

 

My goal is for my children to write well, write clearly, and be understood, whether it is a college paper, a letter to the editor or friends, or for work. Does a study of structural grammar, in addition to prescriptive grammar, produce a better writer?

This article may explain the debate. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/15/20041215-085728-5559r/

[catholicmommy]

Now that I have a very small grasp of structural grammar, I am wondering what the benefits would be from teaching this, or at least including it with your traditional grammar, to young children? Could they even grasp it? I am thinking of 3rd/4th graders based on the OP's use of Grammar Island. I am more inclined to give them the 'rules' in the grammar stage, and leave something like this to the later years, maybe even high school, and maybe only if they show interest.

 

My goal is for my children to write well, write clearly, and be understood, whether it is a college paper, a letter to the editor or friends, or for work. Does a study of structural grammar, in addition to prescriptive grammar, produce a better writer?

 

Janet,

I am not sure. A lot of the linguists annoyance at prescriptivism is that it holds up as 'correct' only one dialect of a language, and doesn't show the children that they already KNOW everything there is to know about grammar, intuitively. We don't teach our kids how to speak.. they just learn it from exposure to the language we immerse them in as babies and children. (fascinating!)

 

Sometimes, especially in places where the local dialect is significantly different than the standard one (think schools with a mix of kids from various backgrounds... I am thinking of african-american kids who grew up speaking the 'black english vernacular' (as it's described in literature). Prescriptivism can make these kids feel like they are somehow deficient and less intelligent because they speak differently (it's really is a different language, with it's own consistent rules and usage patterns... it just isn't the standard one used by the media and institutions).

 

These kids would benefit from understanding their 'own' language first of all, (or at least validating that they aren't stupid just because they speak differently) and then learning the standard dialect so they can communicate effectively in the language of the media/institutions.

 

-------

 

I enjoy diagramming with the 'tree' structures more, because that is what I am familiar with and it seems to give a better visual picture of what is going on in a sentence. I don't think that you will do a disservice to your children by using the traditional approach.

 

I agree, the goal is to have children who can speak and write clearly and be understood by a variety of audiences.

 

Linguistics as a science has a lot to add to grammar study, in helping us to understand some of the puzzles of english... and it is a fascinating science in it's own respect.. but don't let this conversation make you feel like you are somehow missing something in the education of your children. (I'm thinking about the crazy math debates that go on every few months or so).

 

If you are interested in it, than read up a bit on it yourself, and see if you can get a better 'whole' understanding of grammar so you can explain some of the things you come across as you teach your children.

 

There's NO harm in learning what nouns are and memorizing the definitions!! These are pegs to hang future information on so that when they get older (and if they are more interested in language and linguistics) they can build on them.

[catholicmommy]

Sharon:

 

Here's a nice article I came across on the web from a linguistics professor discussing a bit about bringing linguistics into K12 education. It's a short read and here are the books that she cited at the end:

 

Liberating Grammar

 

Discovering English Grammar: And Introduction to English Sentence Structure

 

Doing Grammar (although looking through the book preview, his way of diagramming sentences is like a flattened tree... a little confusing.

[Violet Crown]

Thanks for those suggestions. Our library has Discovering Grammar and Doing Grammar, so I'm going to look at those this evening. They look promising.

[Crimson Wife]

Janet,

I am not sure. A lot of the linguists annoyance at prescriptivism is that it holds up as 'correct' only one dialect of a language, and doesn't show the children that they already KNOW everything there is to know about grammar, intuitively. We don't teach our kids how to speak.. they just learn it from exposure to the language we immerse them in as babies and children. (fascinating!)

 

I'm not sure I agree with this. My kids have a tendency to mangle the English language and that's one reason why I start teaching them grammar in Kindergarten. They do grow up speaking English rather than some other language, but they don't automatically pick up everything they need to know about it.

[Amy loves Bud]

 

FWIW.....I never said it didn't have its place; just not typically formal (essay vs. fiction) writing and definitely not w/o proper thought and reason. :D

 

:D I know. It was just too hard to resist after the "there" conversation!

 

Seriously, I do a agree with what you are saying. This is definitely an "easy out" way of writing that my son falls back on frequently.

[justamouse]

I'm not sure I agree with this. My kids have a tendency to mangle the English language and that's one reason why I start teaching them grammar in Kindergarten. They do grow up speaking English rather than some other language, but they don't automatically pick up everything they need to know about it.

 

While that may be--many people here on this board would think that African American Vernacular is mangled and in need of correction. Remember the thread on people saying Y'all sounded uneducated?

 

Catholic Mom's first link

 

For example, though most teachers are certainly aware that our language has changed and will continue to change, it is difficult to maneuver around the change equals degradation myth because of the strong foothold that prescriptivism holds in our society and because of the traditional expectation that the English teacher will teach the standard.

 

http://www.ateg.org/conferences/c14/denham.htm

 

 

 

I'm thinking of this as "The King's English" as opposed to common English--TKE being Traditional Grammar. While some would say that thinking anything less than is relavatism, scientists know that language organically changing all the time.

 

Why I would teach structure? Because it's the truth of communication, not just the correct way to write.

Edited December 9, 2010 by justamouse

[Amy loves Bud]

 

These kids would benefit from understanding their 'own' language first of all, (or at least validating that they aren't stupid just because they speak differently) and then learning the standard dialect so they can communicate effectively in the language of the media/institutions.

 

-------

 

 

I'm not sure I agree with this. (Well, I agree that they shouldn't be made to feel less intelligent because they speak differently from the standard dialect.) My family talks like a bunch of hicks, but we are aware that it is not standard and we don't study "hick speak" in school. We study traditional grammar. We learn the rules and know how to apply them. IMO, studying traditional grammar and understanding the "rules" gives one the ability to understand when bending those rules works and when it doesn't.

 

Blogging is a good example of this. Some of the best bloggers clearly have a mastery of traditional grammar, even though they don't necessarily follow its rules. The solid foundation of traditional grammar gives them the ability to play with the language in the informal blog setting to create writing that truly suits the setting.

 

I tend to agree with the person (probably 25 pages ago) who compared grammar to math. First we learn arithmetic, then algebra and calculus, then we get into the higher levels and start playing with theory.

 

-Amy, who never heard of structural grammar until yesterday, so take it easy on me please :)

[Crimson Wife]

While that may be--many people here on this board would think that African American Vernacular is mangled and in need of correction. Remember the thread on people saying Y'all sounded uneducated?

 

I wasn't talking about Ebonics or "redneck" ;) or any other dialect but rather my kids' own idiosyncratic mangling of our native tongue.

[wapiti]

I'm not sure I agree with this. (Well, I agree that they shouldn't be made to feel less intelligent because they speak differently from the standard dialect.) My family talks like a bunch of hicks, but we are aware that it is not standard and we don't study "hick speak" in school. We study traditional grammar. We learn the rules and know how to apply them. IMO, studying traditional grammar and understanding the "rules" gives one the ability to understand when bending those rules works and when it doesn't.

 

Blogging is a good example of this. Some of the best bloggers clearly have a mastery of traditional grammar, even though they don't necessarily follow its rules. The solid foundation of traditional grammar gives them the ability to play with the language in the informal blog setting to create writing that truly suits the setting.

 

I tend to agree with the person (probably 25 pages ago) who compared grammar to math. First we learn arithmetic, then algebra and calculus, then we get into the higher levels and start playing with theory.

 

-Amy, who never heard of structural grammar until yesterday, so take it easy on me please :)

 

I agree with all this. Specifically, I do think of grammar as mathematical. I've been thinking about this recently, trying to figure out why a mathy girl with language processing issues consistently scores in the 97th-99th percentile on the Language Usage section of the MAP (these scores are not consistent with her reading scores, which are lower). It's oddly difficult to find the correct page describing the contents of that test, but I believe it's about grammar.

[catholicmommy]

I'm not sure I agree with this. (Well, I agree that they shouldn't be made to feel less intelligent because they speak differently from the standard dialect.) My family talks like a bunch of hicks, but we are aware that it is not standard and we don't study "hick speak" in school. We study traditional grammar. We learn the rules and know how to apply them. IMO, studying traditional grammar and understanding the "rules" gives one the ability to understand when bending those rules works and when it doesn't.

 

 

Basically, all I was trying to say was that if you studied the 'hick language' in a scientific linguistic way, you would see that it actually follows it's own rules and is a language in it's own right.... and so one of the problems with prescriptivist grammar teaching has been that kids who aren't 'fluent' in the standard dialect end up feeling dumb even before they start learning about grammar because they are told that what they are doing is wrong. Does that make sense?

 

Of course it's valuable to teach the rules and patterns of the standard dialect because this is what you need to succeed in many areas of society. It's just helpful to realize that what you call 'Traditional' grammar is actually just the grammar that is specific to the standard dialect of english (and often isn't even a good representation of THAT because language is fluid and ever changing as each generation passes).

 

I'm all for teaching grammar to kids: learning the parts of speech and how they work together so ultimately they can use this knowledge to become better communicators.

 

I'm just saying, be open to a different understanding of what a language is, and what a 'grammar' is. (that doesn't mean you have to let go of learning traditional 'grammar' and sharing the standard dialect.. I expect my kids to be proficient in this)

 

The science of linguistics is truly fascinating. I especially enjoyed my classes on sociolinguistics and how language interacts with and influences control and power in cultures. Even just the history of English alone is fascinating when you look at how the various changing powers of the time influenced the way our language was shaped into what it is today.

[Matryoshka]

Basically, all I was trying to say was that if you studied the 'hick language' in a scientific linguistic way, you would see that it actually follows it's own rules and is a language in it's own right.... and so one of the problems with prescriptivist grammar teaching has been that kids who aren't 'fluent' in the standard dialect end up feeling dumb even before they start learning about grammar because they are told that what they are doing is wrong. Does that make sense?

 

Yes, I totally get that dialects have their own, logical grammar that in and of its own right is every bit as valid as the standard dialect. That's how new langauges form over time, after all.

 

However, I disagree that kids should be taught their "own" grammar first. In Switzerland, virtually everyone speaks a dialect at home (and not even all the same one), but in school, they learn standard German (or French, or Italian). (Someone correct me if I'm wrong here - I'd be gobsmacked if they actually taught the formalites of the grammar of each variant of Swiss German in the elementary schools). The dialect is a spoken language only (at least, I don't think there are bodies of work in Swiss German, say? Except maybe children's picture books or something? - someone correct me if I'm way off base); for reading and writing, and speaking to others outside one's community, they learn the standard dialect. I don't think kids should to be made to feel dumb because they speak a dialect, but they have to be able to speak and write correctly in the standard dialect as well.

 

One does not need to be a prescriptivist to think that there should be some standard taught.

 

I think grammar rules should develop like the dictionary - new words and definitions get added all the time - just at a much, much slower pace (like ever 50 years or so? Or perhaps longer?) and held up to a much higher bar before being changed - where a new grammar form truly has become standard usage.

[catholicmommy]

I agree with all this. Specifically, I do think of grammar as mathematical. I've been thinking about this recently, trying to figure out why a mathy girl with language processing issues consistently scores in the 97th-99th percentile on the Language Usage section of the MAP (these scores are not consistent with her reading scores, which are lower). It's oddly difficult to find the correct page describing the contents of that test, but I believe it's about grammar.

 

I have always thought of grammar as a type of mathematics. It's very logical, follows definite rules, and is like a puzzle to solve. It's fascinating to study and compare how various languages are different from each other and yet the same. I loved loved my classes in linguistics at university.

 

When I said that we as parents do not need to teach our children anything about the language they speak, I am not talking about writing, spelling, the names for types of speech etc...

 

I am talking about the fact that they learn how to pluralize nouns (not how to spell them, but how to say them) all by themselves.

 

For example, we KNOW that dog becomes dogs (pronounced z), and hat becomes hats (pronounced s)....

 

When very small children (like three and four year olds) are asked about the plurals of nonsense words (like wug)... they can easily produce the correct plural form wug (pronounced z).

 

Bunch becomes Bunches (pronounced ez)

and wuch becomes wuches.

 

In four short years they figure out a very complex system all by themselves. You probably don't even know the rule yourself.. you just know that it sounds right to pronounce the plural as a z in some cases and an s in others.

 

The rule is: the plural is /s/ if it follows a voiceless consonant, and /z/ if it follows a voiced consonant. It's /ez/ (uz.. i can't make a schwa on my keyboard) if it follows a fricative.

 

You see, parents don't teach that to kids because they don't even understand it academically themselves... its' fascinating to watch kids acquire language.

 

It's innate, and untaught. It's AMAZING how children figure out these patterns in such a short time.

 

Yes there are many things about punctuation, writing and what people think is 'proper' speech that you might need to teach a child, but their own grammar of the language (and dialect they speak) is already inside them. They just might not have the words to explain it yet.

[catholicmommy]

Yes, I totally get that dialects have their own, logical grammar that in and of its own right is every bit as valid as the standard dialect. That's how new langauges form over time, after all.

 

However, I disagree that kids should be taught their "own" grammar first. In Switzerland, virtually everyone speaks a dialect at home (and not even all the same one), but in school, they learn standard German (or French, or Italian). (Someone correct me if I'm wrong here - I'd be gobsmacked if they actually taught the formalites of the grammar of each variant of Swiss German in the elementary schools). The dialect is a spoken language only (at least, I don't think there are bodies of work in Swiss German, say? Except maybe children's picture books or something? - someone correct me if I'm way off base); for reading and writing, and speaking to others outside one's community, they learn the standard dialect. I don't think kids should to be made to feel dumb because they speak a dialect, but they have to be able to speak and write correctly in the standard dialect as well.

 

One does not need to be a prescriptivist to think that there should be some standard taught.

 

I think grammar rules should develop like the dictionary - new words and definitions get added all the time - just at a much, much slower pace (like ever 50 years or so? Or perhaps longer?) and held up to a much higher bar before being changed - where a new grammar form truly has become standard usage.

 

I'm not suggesting at all that every kid should learn the intricacies of their own grammars.. obviously that would be crazy and something that would be an interesting study for them later in life in university... not as a little kid needing to master the standard dialect. I agree that you do not need to be a prescriptivist to believe that a standard should be taught.

 

These conversations can be so funny on the computer because it's so much harder to convey what you really mean :-)

 

I'm just saying that the original OP was wondering about a resource to teach 'structural' grammar (basically linguistics) to the kids instead of the traditional prescriptivist grammar. This means to me that if you were learning grammar this way, it wouldn't matter WHICH dialect you spoke.. you would be learning to understand the underlying structure of language itself. Not just english.

 

I'm not saying that this is the path that we should all follow.... it's two different subjects that are getting confused here due to a few words that can have different meanings in linguistics vs traditional grammar.

 

Remember, linguistics is about observing and describing language... not about prescribing how it should be properly spoken and written.

 

Traditional grammar (also very worthy in it's own right) is about maintaining a standard of rules that people stick to when communicating with others (especially in more formal settings like literature, rhetoric etc...).

 

I hope I'm making sense. i'm not trying to argue that traditional grammar is wrong... it's a totally different way of looking at language than linguistics... and it's very practical and useful.

 

Linguistics is more theoretical and interesting .... a puzzle to be solved and ideas to be figured out. Fascinating as a science... not meant to make too many waves among home educators teaching their kids what nouns and verbs are. Unless that is interesting to you... then by all means jump into some of the intro texts and start discovering a different perspective on language.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I just wanted to say that this is the only place I know where there could be 9 pages of posts wracked up in less than 24 hours on the topic of grammar.

 

I love this board.

 

:iagree::lol:

[Crimson Wife]

When I said that we as parents do not need to teach our children anything about the language they speak, I am not talking about writing, spelling, the names for types of speech etc...

 

I am talking about the fact that they learn how to pluralize nouns (not how to spell them, but how to say them) all by themselves.

 

But they *DON'T* necessarily always pick up proper pluralization all on their own. I'm constantly having to correct my kids (especially my DS) on this type of thing.

[Mommyfaithe]

I am fascinated by this discussion!

 

I studied linguistics in university (have a BA in linguistics) and loved every class I took. Hopefully I can clarify a few definitions that have people confused here.

 

Linguistics (as opposed to English grammar or english literature, etc...) is a recently new science that has been popularized by Noam Chomsky.

 

It is the SCIENCE of language, bent on understanding the whys of language (both spoken and written) and the underlying grammar that is common to all human language spoken or manual.

 

It is descriptive because it's work is to observe and then describe language. It makes no difference whether the language is english, hindi, latin or some 'ungrammatical' sounding dialect of english like 'black english' that we commonly hear in movies. It passes no judgement on these languages, and allows the speaker to decide whether sentences are grammatical or not. To us, they might sound awful, but to someone who speaks that dialect, it is a genuine language (just not the standard language in our culture).

 

It's structural, because it is diagrammed like a 'tree' to show the different dimensions of language and how each word works together with the whole sentence. Here is an example of a sentence diagrammed this way (as opposed to the linear traditional way.

 

This is, in fact, only a small part of the current science of linguistics however. The grammar part of linguistics is called SYNTAX.

 

There is also much study going into:

 

phonetics (the science of how our mouths make the specific sounds of language),

 

phonology (how each sound works together in a word), morphology (how each syllable works together in words),

 

semantics (how sentences and words get their meaning),

 

psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics (how the brain is physically wired to understand language),

 

developmental linguistics (child language aquisition and Second Language Acquisition) (how children learn new languages, and how grownups learn second languages, and how new languages are created),

 

historical linguistics (learning about how language has changed and how the various langauges are related to each other),

 

sociolinguistics (how language affects power within cultures and how language changes because of power changes... gender issues etc...)

 

---

 

Traditional grammar is 'prescriptive' because it is prescribing the 'right' and 'only' way that one should talk and write.

 

This is frowned upon by linguists because of the fact that it can be inaccurate due to the fact that it is only addressing one dialect: the standard one used by the people in power.

 

This isn't necessarily a bad thing for our children to learn though.... if they want to participate in this culture and succeed in the world of business, higher education etc.. they need to be fluent in the standard dialect (even if it is different than what they 'speak' at home or with their friends).

 

It is not a waste of time to study prescriptive grammar, but it is good to keep in mind that it is just a representation of one dialect of one language. (albeit a very important one in this modern 'small' world we live in). It's also important to remember that language is always changing so some of those 'rules' might not be relevant anymore. Be flexible, especially when using some of the older grammar books.

 

I am happy teaching my children traditional grammar, and if they show interest in language and grammar to delve deeper into linguistics itself and learn about the 'science' of language. I do think that the practical side of learning to be fluent in the written language of the standard english dialect is worth the effort of going through grammar... although we don't study it to death each year. I love the approach of Analytical grammar which treats it the way it is: a finite body of knowledge that can be conquered in a short time.

 

To anyone who is interested in understanding more about grammar and the science of language, I highly recommend The Language Instinct by Stephen Pinker, or any basic intro to linguistics college textbook. I believe that MIT has a lot of their courses online for free now and they are the hub of linguistics in north america.

 

I hope that helps to clear a few things up. It's easy for linguists to want to debate and dismiss the traditional, prescriptivists, but they both have their places. Especially in a Classical education.

 

Thank YOU! Thank YOU! Thank YOU!

This post excited me more than you know.

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

I am off to buy some books and download some courseware.

 

Faithe

[catholicmommy]

But they *DON'T* necessarily always pick up proper pluralization all on their own. I'm constantly having to correct my kids (especially my DS) on this type of thing.

 

BUT... he's only five and still learning.... it's amazing how much they learn in such a short short time... and while his productive use of plurals might be wrong, I bet that his receptive skills are much better, as those come first. The errors that kids make are usually very consistent and show how they are applying the 'rules' to irregular forms that don't use the rules. (those darn irregular forms that are a major pain for ESL students).

 

Here's an example:

 

foot becomes feet (irregular and you need to memorize it). Kids will very often go through a phase of learning the language where they know the 'rule' but don't know the exceptions, so they say 'feets'.

 

or for past tense:

 

hit becomes hit in the past tense (no change) but many kids will say 'hitted'.

 

This is actually showing that they innately KNOW the rules, just not the exceptions yet. Studying the phases children go through in learning languages gives us so many clues into how languages are really structured in the mind.

 

And of course there are always going to be kids who have speech delays in grammar and pronunciation... just like there are those that take longer to learn to crawl, walk, etc... and then there are the crazy twin languages out there... let me tell you I know all about that.

[Just Robyn]

That's an interesting thing to say. I'm pretty sure I don't agree. A deaf child of deaf parents who sign poorly will become fluent in poor quality sign. Is that what you were saying?

 

I heard about one study where a bunch of deaf bubs were kept together and not taught any kind of sign language, and developed their own with the typical features of signed language syntax.

 

Rosie

 

 

No, I'm saying just the opposite. The accuracy of the parents' signing is inconsistent, but despite that the accuracy of the child is consistent. Mistakes do not become a part of the child's grammar because those mistakes are not options in the universal grammar.

[johnandtinagilbert]

I asked this on the other thread, but I'll ask again here:

 

Under a "structural" analysis how does one handle a noun like "peace?" It does not inflect for plural (does it?) and while I suppose it could be argued it could be inflected to show possession, I can't remember ever having seen "peace's" (rather than "of peace").

 

Bill

Are there collective nouns in structural thought? just thinking out loud with you, Bill.

 

But acknowledging this is true, how does this linguistic approach help a child write in a fashion that is mostly in keeping with academic writing/traditional grammar if functional communication is the measure of language?

 

Bill

I'm thinking b/c functional communication can be spoken and written in dialect or via the academic standard. Understanding the linguistic approach would have to be measured categorically, so I suppose we could teach from a linguistic structure using both a dialect and the standard.

 

For those whose heads are spinning, could you (or anyone else who is able) please give another example of how structural grammar would give one superior insight into the English language over traditional grammar?

 

Bill

Superior...hmmm...it can give a historical perspective and perhaps historical/cultural explanation.

 

 

I've thought about why I want to pursue this more.

 

When I write an article, I use traditional grammar. When I write a paper, I use traditional grammar. When I write a story, I don't. I fight with my editor over commas--because I want to reader to pause THERE for a reason, to hear the sentence the way it's being told-so they can HEAR it, not the 'correct' way. So they can understand where the stress is, where the subtext is. When I post on a board, I don't use traditional grammar, I put my commas where I would pause in my speech. You are hearing Me. :D I get that difference and sometimes, although I love grammar, I am frustrated at its limitations.

Loved this post.

 

Yes, but, of course, sometimes the author would CHOOSE a passive voice in order to create the mood s/he seeks. You wouldn't teach that the passive voice is always incorrect, would you? It is not grammatically incorrect, just stylistically weak. I agree that the passive voice is often/usually not the best choice stylistically, but there are times when an author specifically chooses the passive voice to present the 'subject' of a passage as a passive vessel of sorts. . . No?

 

Yes, although it is frowned upon. :D It's one of those rules that you had better know very well in order to break it precisely where you want and you'd best do so to the most effect or you will get redlined.

made a great pair!

 

As someone who loves language, this has been a favorite thread for me. I read every bit of it with pure enjoyment. Catholicmom...thank you. That was a BEAU-tiful explanation.

 

In my experience, I found linguistics came alive as we learned foreign languages, especially Latin, b/c we saved our learning for middle school and beyond. My dc seem to use their knowledge of English grammar (traditionally taught) and apply using that knowledge as a guide to understand the linguistics of Latin and written Spanish. Since I love it all on my own, I suppose I teach it as we come along, too. I may have to enjoy some of the book suggestions this summer!

 

This discussion has made me realize why I love my current elementary school language arts. While it is strongly traditional, it has glimpses of linguistics, too, and satisfies my thirst for word history and structure. It's surely traditional and I suppose prescriptive, but nicely touched with linguistics. I love when you "see" why you love something!

 

OOOhhhh I have loved this thread. What joy for an English teacher! Thanks for the great evening reading, everyone.

[8filltheheart]

No, I'm saying just the opposite. The accuracy of the parents' signing is inconsistent, but despite that the accuracy of the child is consistent. Mistakes do not become a part of the child's grammar because those mistakes are not options in the universal grammar.

 

I think I "get" a little of what you are describing. When we lived in Brazil, our oldest became fairly fluent in Portuguese. In learning to speak, he made the same sorts of mistakes that are typical of what I see in my young kids in learning English......generalities that don't apply b/c of exceptions, like goed vs. went.

 

I am NOT fluent in Portuguese, but one of the Brazilian mom's told me that he simply made all the same mistakes that Brazilian kids do.

 

So....in that sense I understand and I agree. However, they are mistakes. Today, the norm appears to be to let them slide as acceptable.

 

Yet, philosophically there is a larger issue that is my focus for all of our grammar instruction. Language is the foundation of rhetoric, and mastery and control of language is essentially the root of controlling dialogue. Superior rhetoricians are the great communicators. Regardless of whether language is living and changing, proper grammar rules when in dialogue amg educated individuals. Given an interview with someone who speaks "their language" and someone who speaks "proper grammar", one is going to come out on top of the other in how they impact those that they are around. Proper grammar is professional.

[Just Robyn]

I wasn't talking about Ebonics or "redneck" ;) or any other dialect but rather my kids' own idiosyncratic mangling of our native tongue.

 

BUT... he's only five and still learning.... it's amazing how much they learn in such a short short time... and while his productive use of plurals might be wrong, I bet that his receptive skills are much better, as those come first. The errors that kids make are usually very consistent and show how they are applying the 'rules' to irregular forms that don't use the rules. (those darn irregular forms that are a major pain for ESL students).

 

Here's an example:

 

foot becomes feet (irregular and you need to memorize it). Kids will very often go through a phase of learning the language where they know the 'rule' but don't know the exceptions, so they say 'feets'.

 

or for past tense:

 

hit becomes hit in the past tense (no change) but many kids will say 'hitted'.

 

This is actually showing that they innately KNOW the rules, just not the exceptions yet. Studying the phases children go through in learning languages gives us so many clues into how languages are really structured in the mind.

 

And of course there are always going to be kids who have speech delays in grammar and pronunciation... just like there are those that take longer to learn to crawl, walk, etc... and then there are the crazy twin languages out there... let me tell you I know all about that.

 

Yes! If you looked into first language acquisition research you may be surprised just how regular and not idiosyncratic many of your children's mistakes are. Unfortunately I never did take a class specifically on first language acquisition when I was in college (studying linguistics). I just got bits and pieces of information as it happened to come up in other classes. At one point I asked the person who taught the first language acquisition course what the textbook was so I could read it on my own and in case anyone's interested this is it. I never did buy it (sigh. groan.) so I can't personally say how good it is.

[Rosie_0801]

No, I'm saying just the opposite. The accuracy of the parents' signing is inconsistent, but despite that the accuracy of the child is consistent. Mistakes do not become a part of the child's grammar because those mistakes are not options in the universal grammar.

 

Well then I definitely disagree with you ;)

 

Children of Deaf parents show up in signed language classes to learn better quality sign. People don't learn good quality language skills from poor or mediocre examples.

 

But disagreement doesn't matter just now because we are off topic anyway :tongue_smilie:

 

Rosie

[Just Robyn]

Well then I definitely disagree with you ;)

 

Children of Deaf parents show up in signed language classes to learn better quality sign. People don't learn good quality language skills from poor or mediocre examples.

 

But disagreement doesn't matter just now because we are off topic anyway :tongue_smilie:

 

Rosie

 

Check out the study of "Simon" in this article. It is just one case study, so perhaps it is an exception. Either way, I'd be interested to know what traits tended to be deficient in the language of deaf children born to deaf parents, if it doesn't throw the thread off too much.

 

ETA: I just realized I linked to an article that requires a $40 registration to something. I'll look to see if I can find a free one.

 

ETA: If you google the name of the article a free pdf link is the first thing that comes up so long as you don't use google scholar.

Edited December 10, 2010 by crstarlette

[SophiaH]

I took a college level grammar course for my English degree and it was the first time I'd seen diagramming. I was lost.

 

A few years later I went back to school and took upper level grammar and linguistics courses for Bible Translation. My professor for my two grammar courses wrote a book entitled Analyzing Grammar: An Introduction. It included the structural trees that Catholicmommy is talking about. I loved it! It made so much more sense to me than traditional diagramming. The book is very accessible and the introduction that is on the "Look Inside" on Amazon might interest some of you in this fascinating discussion. I've been inspired to look through it again in the hopes of using some of it in teaching my dd.

 

And on something that was talked about earlier, here is what he says regarding word-level categories (noun, adj, verb, etc).

He uses the example:

"They are fools."

"They are foolish."

The sentences mean basically the same thing. Yet, how to analyze the words in order to put them into their proper category?

He says by their properties.

 

a. Modification by degree-adverb vs. adjective

"They are utter fools." but not "They are very fools."

Not "They are utter foolish." but "They are very foolish."

 

b. Inflection for number

fool or fools

foolish but not foolishes

 

c. Comparative forms

fool but not fooler/more fool

foolish or more foolish

 

d. Occurrence as subject of a clause

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

but not

Foolish rush in where angels fear to tread.

 

[Formatting is mine]

 

Therefore,

"fool" belongs to the class of words which can be modified by adjectives and inflected for number, have no comparative form, and can occur as subjects.

But "foolish" belongs to the class of words which can be modified by adverbs of degree, do have a comparative form, cannot be inflected for number, and cannot occur as subjects.

Then he says,

"The grammatical criteria used to identify word classes should be thought of as diagnostic features or 'symptoms,' rather than definitions....[T]he number of categories and the identifying properties of each category must be determined separately for each individual language.....Almost all languages have the lexical categories Noun and Verb, but beyond that there is a significant range of difference among languages."

We learned grammar through the study of languages all throughout the world. It was absolutely fascinating.

[johnandtinagilbert]

I took a college level grammar course for my English degree and it was the first time I'd seen diagramming. I was lost.

 

A few years later I went back to school and took upper level grammar and linguistics courses for Bible Translation. My professor for my two grammar courses wrote a book entitled Analyzing Grammar: An Introduction. It included the structural trees that Catholicmommy is talking about. I loved it! It made so much more sense to me than traditional diagramming. The book is very accessible and the introduction that is on the "Look Inside" on Amazon might interest some of you in this fascinating discussion. I've been inspired to look through it again in the hopes of using some of it in teaching my dd.

 

And on something that was talked about earlier, here is what he says regarding word-level categories (noun, adj, verb, etc).

He uses the example:

"They are fools."

"They are foolish."

The sentences mean basically the same thing. Yet, how to analyze the words in order to put them into their proper category?

He says by their properties.

 

[Formatting is mine]

 

Therefore, Then he says, We learned grammar through the study of languages all throughout the world. It was absolutely fascinating.

ooohhhh aaaahhhhhh

[Rosie_0801]

Check out the study of "Simon" in this article. It is just one case study, so perhaps it is an exception. Either way, I'd be interested to know what traits tended to be deficient in the language of deaf children born to deaf parents, if it doesn't throw the thread off too much.

 

Over here, at least, there's no certainty that the deaf parents were properly taught Auslan. Many have a higgledy piggledy mash of Signed English and Auslan and the children will naturally learn the same higgledy piggledy mash, which is then updated to higgledy piggledy mash plus current slang ;) The differences will be in lexical items and syntax, and often signed language specific elements like short and distance focus (also known as visual vernacular) won't be used.

 

This generally isn't a problem for the deaf kids of deaf parents, only the hearing kids who want to be teachers or interpreters. The teachers (usually Deaf) teach that no one has the right to correct another Deaf person's Auslan because it is all equally valid, but they don't teach as though they believe that ;)

 

ETA: If you google the name of the article a free pdf link is the first thing that comes up so long as you don't use google scholar.

 

I'll have a squizz.

 

Hmm. I'm not terribly comfortable with that article, but it is interesting reading. I don't feel at all qualified to make any judgments on it because I'm not very familiar with ASL. That and I never learned Auslan morphology well because I didn't have anyone qualified to argue with ;)

 

Rosie

[justamouse]

this is my most favoritest post on this whole board *loves*

[Momling]

This generally isn't a problem for the deaf kids of deaf parents, only the hearing kids who want to be teachers or interpreters.

 

 

 

The article is talking about first language acquisition, not second language acquisition. You might try a google search for "Poverty of the Stimulus". The process of creolization from pidgins is also a good example of the same situation of a child imposing grammar when none existed. There's also an interesting case of deaf Nicaraguan children creating sign language when none existed.

[Rosie_0801]

The article is talking about first language acquisition, not second language acquisition.

 

I realise that. Hearing children of Deaf parents can also acquire sign as their first language, but not in the same way as a deaf child would because Deaf parents sign differently with hearing and deaf children.

 

You might try a google search for "Poverty of the Stimulus". The process of creolization from pidgins is also a good example of the same situation of a child imposing grammar when none existed. There's also an interesting case of deaf Nicaraguan children creating sign language when none existed.

 

Yup, I read about that earlier.

 

Rosie

[Just Robyn]

Over here, at least, there's no certainty that the deaf parents were properly taught Auslan. Many have a higgledy piggledy mash of Signed English and Auslan and the children will naturally learn the same higgledy piggledy mash, which is then updated to higgledy piggledy mash plus current slang ;) The differences will be in lexical items and syntax, and often signed language specific elements like short and distance focus (also known as visual vernacular) won't be used.

 

This generally isn't a problem for the deaf kids of deaf parents, only the hearing kids who want to be teachers or interpreters. The teachers (usually Deaf) teach that no one has the right to correct another Deaf person's Auslan because it is all equally valid, but they don't teach as though they believe that ;)

 

 

 

I'll have a squizz.

 

Hmm. I'm not terribly comfortable with that article, but it is interesting reading. I don't feel at all qualified to make any judgments on it because I'm not very familiar with ASL. That and I never learned Auslan morphology well because I didn't have anyone qualified to argue with ;)

 

Rosie

 

I realise that. Hearing children of Deaf parents can also acquire sign as their first language, but not in the same way as a deaf child would because Deaf parents sign differently with hearing and deaf children.

 

 

 

Yup, I read about that earlier.

 

Rosie

 

That is all really interesting Rosie. Thank you!:)

[Storm Bay]

I'm responding without answering (because I promised myself when I started this that I'd only get in discussions that led to finding a resource I could use). .

 

Okay. I actually didn't object to anything you said, just wanted to undersatnd the difference (not to argue, I was just curious.) I've never even heard of structural grammar before, that's all. Actually, your first post was correct because the noun definition you mentioned didn't include ideas.

 

Anyway, it sounds as though I'll be remaining in the dark on this one since right now I don't have time to find a college level structural grammar book.

[Violet Crown]

Okay. I actually didn't object to anything you said, just wanted to undersatnd the difference (not to argue, I was just curious.) I've never even heard of structural grammar before, that's all. Actually, your first post was correct because the noun definition you mentioned didn't include ideas.

 

Anyway, it sounds as though I'll be remaining in the dark on this one since right now I don't have time to find a college level structural grammar book.

The essential difference is that structural grammar doesn't say that "person, place, thing, or idea" is the wrong definition of a noun; it doesn't approach grammar by looking at the meaning of a word at all.

 

If you read the sentence "The ugly grixblums sit in the tree," you would know immediately that "grixblum" was a noun. You wouldn't know because you know that "grixblum" is a person, place, thing, or idea; you would know because only nouns behave that way in sentences in English. Structural grammar is about recognizing nouns (and other things) in the way the brain of a native English speaker already recognizes them: structurally, and not by meaning.

 

Does that help?

[Crimson Wife]

If you read the sentence "The ugly grixblums sit in the tree," you would know immediately that "grixblum" was a noun. You wouldn't know because you know that "grixblum" is a person, place, thing, or idea; you would know because only nouns behave that way in sentences in English. Structural grammar is about recognizing nouns (and other things) in the way the brain of a native English speaker already recognizes them: structurally, and not by meaning.

 

Does that help?

 

But wouldn't a child who has been taught traditional grammar immediately realize that "grixblum" has to be a noun because it is being modified by the adjective "ugly"? :confused:

[Violet Crown]

But wouldn't a child who has been taught traditional grammar immediately realize that "grixblum" has to be a noun because it is being modified by the adjective "ugly"? :confused:

If what you mean is that you recognize a noun in part because of adjectival modification, that's a structural definition, and if the child in question has learned that, then he's learned some structural grammar. Note that you don't need to know that a noun is a person, place, etc. to spot adjectival modification.

 

If you mean that you have to know the meaning of the preceding adjective in order to recognize the adjectival modification, and so a meaning-based grammar has crept in, I'd point out that you don't: in "... and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble," one recognizes "tove" as a noun modified by the adjective "slithy," without knowing the meaning of either.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Sharon in Austin

[Mommyfaithe]

The essential difference is that structural grammar doesn't say that "person, place, thing, or idea" is the wrong definition of a noun; it doesn't approach grammar by looking at the meaning of a word at all.

 

If you read the sentence "The ugly grixblums sit in the tree," you would know immediately that "grixblum" was a noun. You wouldn't know because you know that "grixblum" is a person, place, thing, or idea; you would know because only nouns behave that way in sentences in English. Structural grammar is about recognizing nouns (and other things) in the way the brain of a native English speaker already recognizes them: structurally, and not by meaning.

 

Does that help?

 

Cool!! That is an awesome explanation. Makes me love Jabberwocky even more....Might try to diagram it for fun. :D

[Crimson Wife]

If what you mean is that you recognize a noun in part because of adjectival modification, that's a structural definition, and if the child in question has learned that, then he's learned some structural grammar. Note that you don't need to know that a noun is a person, place, etc. to spot adjectival modification.

 

If you mean that you have to know the meaning of the preceding adjective in order to recognize the adjectival modification, and so a meaning-based grammar has crept in, I'd point out that you don't: in "... and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble," one recognizes "tove" as a noun modified by the adjective "slithy," without knowing the meaning of either.

 

In a traditional grammar program, an adjective is defined as a word that modifies a noun (or sometimes a pronoun). I had gotten the impression from this thread that was the type of definition that you wanted to avoid. Now I'm really confused...:confused:

[Rosie_0801]

Cool!! That is an awesome explanation. Makes me love Jabberwocky even more....Might try to diagram it for fun. :D

 

 

You deserve to have someone tell you that you are a sick person :tongue_smilie:

 

 

Rosie