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

[catz]

Here, I'll break it down and see if it makes it more intelligible (I've just had my own coffee :)).

 

1. A noun is a word that can have a plural form.

2. Gerunds, clauses, and 'placeholders' (it, there) can be subjects.

3. Gerunds, clauses, and 'placeholders' (it, there) are not nouns.

4. Gerunds, clauses, and 'placeholders' (it, there) don't have plural forms.

....

 

 

Well gerunds, other phrases, and clauses are covered and covered well in the MCT Town level IMHO. I feel like my son has a good handle on the fact that subjects can be something other than a noun or pronoun fairly early into our Town experience. Not trying to pull you back to MCT. Just throwing that out there for other people looking at MCT and trying to sort through this discussion. Good luck finding a better fit for you and your kids!

[Stacy in NJ]

Hrm. My younger children are learning better with R&S Grade 5 than with the levels written for their grades. I am convinced the success comes from the fact that R&S Grade 5 explains things thoroughly instead of saving trickier layers for later.

 

I think when they see all the layers, it makes more sense. At least for my kids.

 

"A word that can have a plural form" isn't all that sophisticated, is it? If they know even the 8 parts of speech taught in Schoolhouse Rock, they can easily grasp the fact that an adjective doesn't have a plural form, and a verb is a single action or state of being, and a conjunction is not more than one...

 

edited to add: I'm not sure I should be in this conversation. I don't have experience teaching English to any children other than my own, and my 6yo and 10yo are very happily studying R&S Grade 5 along with my 12yo. The younger two might be atypical.

 

Adjectives can have plural forms, too. So defining a noun as such is still a bit misleading. Grammar like math can be quite complex, but we don't try to teach 3rd graders calculus prior to multiplication. Knowledge is layered.

[KarenNC]

Adjectives can have plural forms, too. So defining a noun as such is still a bit misleading. Grammar like math can be quite complex, but we don't try to teach 3rd graders calculus prior to multiplication. Knowledge is layered.

 

Agreed. I really don't see how it is, in the long run, vastly superior to teach that subjects are at the front of a sentence (when they often are not) or that nouns are things that can be pluralized by adding an "-s" (when there are things that function as nouns which can't---I'm thinking of gerunds, infinitives, etc). It seems to me that the same issues arise in that as with traditional methods--they are not totally complete and covering all possible variations or exceptions. Both have their limitations, as do all introductory methods. I have no vested interest in whether or not any family uses MCT, I just don't like to see something denigrated in a manner I consider unfounded.

 

If I teach my 3rd grader about atoms in basic science, saying they have electrons, protons and neutrons, I'm not "lying" to her if I don't also *at that moment* get into charmed, strange, up, down, top and bottom quarks.

Edited December 8, 2010 by KarenNC

[KarenNC]

Well gerunds, other phrases, and clauses are covered and covered well in the MCT Town level IMHO. I feel like my son has a good handle on the fact that subjects can be something other than a noun or pronoun fairly early into our Town experience. Not trying to pull you back to MCT. Just throwing that out there for other people looking at MCT and trying to sort through this discussion. Good luck finding a better fit for you and your kids!

 

Agreed. We're in Town level and are working with gerunds, participles, infinitives, appostive phrases, gerund phrases, prepositional phrases, infinitive phrases, participial phrases, etc. As this is aimed at a 4th grader, it hardly seems as dumbed down or simplistic as I feel it's being accused of being here.

[forty-two]

Agreed. We're in Town level and are working with gerunds, participles, infinitives, appostive phrases, gerund phrases, prepositional phrases, infinitive phrases, participial phrases, etc. As this is aimed at a 4th grader, it hardly seems as dumbed down or simplistic as I feel it's being accused of being here.

I didn't see it as being accused of being dumbed down so much as being a completely different way of teaching grammar. And the "traditional method" of teaching grammar was being accused of being an inaccurate model in many respects, not that it "dumbed things down". It doesn't matter how well MCT teaches traditional grammar, if you don't like the traditional model in the first place, kwim?

[Mandy in TN]

You may want to look at Winston Grammar Basic.

 

The front of the WG noun card does show a picture of a person, a landscape, a block, and a person with a thought bubble, but it doesn't state that a noun is only a person place thing or idea.

 

Below these simple graphics the noun card has the word two followed by a blank indicating that nouns may be plural (this IMO is better than the ending in -s statement, because so many nouns are not made plural by simply adding -s). Under the word two is the word the followed by a blank indicating that when an article appears it indicates that a noun will shortly follow.

 

The back of the noun card has the word noun underlined so that the student knows to underline a noun. Below this it has the words proper and common indicated that a noun may be proper or common. Below this in smaller font the card lists seven abbreviations for noun functions- Subject, Direct Object, Indirect Object, Object of Preposition, Appositive, and Noun in Direct Address.

 

Expletives are not taught in WG Basic, but ellipsis are. (ellipse- the deliberate omission of words that are necessary to make a sentence grammatically complete) The ellipsis lesson covers the understood (you), but it also covers other understood but not stated words.

Thank you for the flowers.

(I) thank you for the flowers.

 

She is taller than he.

She is taller than he (is tall).

 

When finding the subject in WG the child is not taught that a subject must be a noun or pronoun. He is taught that all nouns and pronouns in a sentence perform a noun function and that the subject of a sentence is not inside a prepositional phrase. To find the subject the child is taught to look at the main verb. The child says who or what and then reads the main verb. The answer to this question is the subject.

 

There are 30 lessons. Some of the ending lessons that address usage of nouns may be different than you desire. In lesson 24 students are taught action verbs and linking verbs as a way to identify direct objects versus predicate nominatives. (This is also true in MCT, so this may not be how you want to cover this. This may be true of some other things taught in lesson 23-28 where subjects, action verbs, linking verbs, direct objects, indirect objects, and predicate nominatives)

 

Nowhere does it contain a list saying these are the eight parts of speech.

 

HTH-

Mandy

Edited December 8, 2010 by Mandy in TN

[Mandy in TN]

1. The debutante curtsied prettily.

2. Discussing syntax can present challenges.

3. There is a gargoyle outside the window.

4. The cat was chased by the dog.

 

A child who is looking for "person, place, thing, idea" is going to struggle to figure out the subject in 2 and 3. A child who has learned that "the subject is the thing acting on the object" is going to be confused by 4. Anyone looking for "what the sentence is about" may be confused by any of them (Is 2 about challenges? Is 4 about chasing? And surely 3 is not about There--what would that even mean?).

I would argue that this is an inverted sentence where WG makes more sense. Who or what is? The answer to this question is gargoyle. Gargoyle is the subject. There is an adverb answering the question where. It modifies is. Where is the gargoyle? there

 

HTH-

Mandy

[Woodland_Mom]

I've only scanned some of the posts on this thread, but thought I'd throw out a resource that might be of interest:

 

Our Mother Tongue

 

I use many of the lessons in it orally or we do them on the whiteboard together.

[treestarfae]

I'm going to throw this link out there again as it has arguments about MCT you might find useful. http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211965

8fillthe heart is talking about Analytical Grammar and does not like MCT. She may be someone to bring to this thread. I have looked for syntax as well.

[Just Robyn]

First time trying that multi-quote thing; this is what I get for posting a big question and then going out for the evening.

 

No, it applies to both. Linguists don't usually draw a line between the two.

 

I disagree. When I was in grad school for linguistics I was expected to turn in papers written in proper prescriptive English. If I used 'less' when I should have used 'fewer' or 'who' when I should have used 'whom' it was not considered descriptively correct these days and so fine in academic writing as well. We linguists are sort of hypocrites that way. We use prescriptive grammar while we're ****ing it. So I guess what I'm saying is there is a difference between descriptive grammar and conventions used in academic writing. My main problem with traditional grammar books is that they claim that they are teaching "correct grammar" instead of stating straight out that what they are teaching is correct academic writing.

 

Thanks, and thanks to others for grammar program suggestions; but they're not quite what I had in mind. I'm afraid I'm doing a rather poor job of describing what I'm looking for.

 

Here's another try at an example. MCT (and everyone else) says a subject must be a noun or a pronoun. My Dream Grammar Curriculum would say, at the first pass-through, "A simple subject is usually a noun or a pronoun. The cat sits on the bed. He can't help himself."

 

At the next pass-through in discussing subjects, it would say "A simple subject is usually a noun or a pronoun. But often a subject is instead a kind of 'placeholder' word--"it" or "there."* It is windy today. There's no business like show business. We can see that these are not pronouns because they have no antecedent. They hold the place of a subject in sentences that don't really have a subject."

 

"Sometimes an entire clause can be a subject. That Medea killed her children upset Jason."

 

As I said above, I don't object to starting off with a claim that's not the whole story (about subjects, for instance). So long as the whole story is told eventually.

 

 

*These are called "expletives," but people tend to misunderstand what those are.

 

:)

[Mandy in TN]

I've only scanned some of the posts on this thread, but thought I'd throw out a resource that might be of interest:

 

Our Mother Tongue

 

I use many of the lessons in it orally or we do them on the whiteboard together.

In addition to WG Basic with a 5th grader and MCT Island with a 2nd grader, I am also using Our Mother Tongue and The Blue Book of Grammar to orally review some points with my 11th grader. The little two often listen in on our oral review of this material.

 

I think MCT has been a fun place for my little guy to start, but I do incorporate the WG cards and teaching into his lessons.

 

Mandy

[Matryoshka]

Here, I'll break it down and see if it makes it more intelligible (I've just had my own coffee :)).

 

1. A noun is a word that can have a plural form.

2. Gerunds, clauses, and 'placeholders' (it, there) can be subjects.

3. Gerunds, clauses, and 'placeholders' (it, there) are not nouns.

4. Gerunds, clauses, and 'placeholders' (it, there) don't have plural forms.

 

Defining a subject is a challenge, again because it's a lot more complex than "it's what the sentence is about." My own approach is to start with the highly simplified, but very accessible to young children, rule that "The subject is (usually) at the beginning of the sentence." Now obviously that's got a zillion exceptions, but it's built on the basic structure of English sentences. Take these sentences:

 

1. The debutante curtsied prettily.

2. Discussing syntax can present challenges.

3. There is a gargoyle outside the window.

4. The cat was chased by the dog.

 

A child who is looking for "person, place, thing, idea" is going to struggle to figure out the subject in 2 and 3. A child who has learned that "the subject is the thing acting on the object" is going to be confused by 4. Anyone looking for "what the sentence is about" may be confused by any of them (Is 2 about challenges? Is 4 about chasing? And surely 3 is not about There--what would that even mean?).

 

But a child who knows that "the subject is at the beginning" will correctly identify (again, in my experience) the subjects.

 

Now of course you're going to have to move on to identifying prepositional phrases and adverbs (for instance) that have floated up to the beginning of the sentence. But by the time you're dealing with those, the child has already grasped the basic subject + predicate structure of the sentence, and isn't going to be put off by those. Again, this isn't theoretical; I've already done this with two children.

 

P.S. Momling, feel free to chime in anywhere with corrections or better explanations. My knowledge of syntax is so, so basic. Can I hire you as a tutor?:D

 

I would find this a horrible way to teach my kids grammar. They are learning multiple langagues, and I highly prefer to teach them grammar rules that are at least mostly universally applicable. Syntax is all over the place among different languages. Yes, sentence order in English can help define parts of the sentence, as English has no case, so sentence order is more fixed. I guess if my kids were monolingual, that might be helpful, but in other languages with case, things can be moved all over.

 

In German, almost no noun is pluralized with -s. A lot of English words aren't either. I find "person, place, thing or idea" much more applicable, and it does cover gerunds and clauses, which I'd term under "idea" or concept. And you can't pluralize a gerund, which does function as a noun.

 

I've been forging deeper in to German and Spanish grammar with my kids this year, and I just did a whole chart on German adjective endings for them to reference. This reminded me of the definition of "limiting adjectives" as opposed to "descriptive adjectives". This determines adjective endings in German. Limiting adjectives are defined as articles, as well as words like "which" and "that" (which are lumped in German simplified terms as der-words and ein-words - are you horrified now? ;)). Your objection to calling articles and other words like that adjectives are (if I recall correclty) that they can't be placed in a list or moved around like you say adjectives should; they must come first and there can be only one. Well, they're liimiting adjectives as opposed to descriptive adjectives. Different types of adjectives, different rules, but still adjectives - not a separate part of speech. Yes, I know there are linguists that disagree, but this definition to me seems very workable and I can use it in all three languages I'm teaching my kids.

 

In German, the subject is often not at the beginning, and the verbs have a nasty tendency to end up at the end of the clause, very distant from the subject, but are also often before the subject. Teaching my kids that "subjects are usually at the beginning of a sentence" would be a nightmare! It also doesn't work in English in sentences with introductory particlple phrases. Asking who or what is doing the action in the sentence/clause is applicable in any language and also to me a much more useful defintion.

 

Just another perspective from another grammar geek. :)

[Spy Car]

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

[lamamaloca]

I would find this a horrible way to teach my kids grammar. They are learning multiple langagues, and I highly prefer to teach them grammar rules that are at least mostly universally applicable. Syntax is all over the place among different languages. Yes, sentence order in English can help define parts of the sentence, as English has no case, so sentence order is more fixed. I guess if my kids were monolingual, that might be helpful, but in other languages with case, things can be moved all over.

 

In German, almost no noun is pluralized with -s. A lot of English words aren't either. I find "person, place, thing or idea" much more applicable, and it does cover gerunds and clauses, which I'd term under "idea" or concept. And you can't pluralize a gerund, which does function as a noun.

 

I've been forging deeper in to German and Spanish grammar with my kids this year, and I just did a whole chart on German adjective endings for them to reference. This reminded me of the definition of "limiting adjectives" as opposed to "descriptive adjectives". This determines adjective endings in German. Limiting adjectives are defined as articles, as well as words like "which" and "that" (which are lumped in German simplified terms as der-words and ein-words - are you horrified now? ;)). Your objection to calling articles and other words like that adjectives are (if I recall correclty) that they can't be placed in a list or moved around like you say adjectives should; they must come first and there can be only one. Well, they're liimiting adjectives as opposed to descriptive adjectives. Different types of adjectives, different rules, but still adjectives - not a separate part of speech. Yes, I know there are linguists that disagree, but this definition to me seems very workable and I can use it in all three languages I'm teaching my kids.

 

In German, the subject is often not at the beginning, and the verbs have a nasty tendency to end up at the end of the clause, very distant from the subject, but are also often before the subject. Teaching my kids that "subjects are usually at the beginning of a sentence" would be a nightmare! It also doesn't work in English in sentences with introductory particlple phrases. Asking who or what is doing the action in the sentence/clause is applicable in any language and also to me a much more useful defintion.

 

Just another perspective from another grammar geek. :)

 

:iagree:

[forty-two]

I would find this a horrible way to teach my kids grammar. They are learning multiple langagues, and I highly prefer to teach them grammar rules that are at least mostly universally applicable. Syntax is all over the place among different languages. Yes, sentence order in English can help define parts of the sentence, as English has no case, so sentence order is more fixed. I guess if my kids were monolingual, that might be helpful, but in other languages with case, things can be moved all over.

<snip>

In German, the subject is often not at the beginning, and the verbs have a nasty tendency to end up at the end of the clause, very distant from the subject, but are also often before the subject. Teaching my kids that "subjects are usually at the beginning of a sentence" would be a nightmare! It also doesn't work in English in sentences with introductory particlple phrases. Asking who or what is doing the action in the sentence/clause is applicable in any language and also to me a much more useful defintion.

 

Just another perspective from another grammar geek. :)

See, the more I study grammar and foreign languages, the more I realize just how shockingly similar all the different languages are (to me, anyway, it seems amazing that all languages basically want to communicate the same sorts of things and tend to do so in the same sorts of ways; maybe it shouldn't - we're all human, after all ;) - but it does; it seems to me that different languages should be *different*, not effectively variations on a theme; and yes, I'm very fascinated by transformational grammar :tongue_smilie:).

 

So, since grammar seems to me to be so very similar at the core in all languages, I really like highlighting all the different ways different languages do things - that Latin does nouns like this, and English does nouns like this, and Greek does them like this, and discussing how that affects how people use the language and the different sorts of shades of meaning that one gets in the different languages. Otherwise, what's the point in studying multiple languages, if not to get a feel for the differences? I mean, I certainly want to make sure the fundamental similarities don't get lost in the field of surface details (and I've started studying linguistics in an effort to have a common way of talking about language), but the structural grammar emphasis on taking each language on its own merits, describing it in the way best suited to *that* language, really resonates with me.

 

Anyway, random musings from another grammar geek, though a novice one :tongue_smilie:.

[Beth in SW WA]

But is there anything at all for teaching structural grammar at the elementary level? Anything?

 

 

Harvey's? I like the Harvey's workbooks that Kathy Weitz (of CW fame) wrote for her students. The parsing about killed me. :)

 

I'm now using the Singapore grammar books. They are nice, little workbooks for my workbook-loving dd7 who is doing Grammar Practice 2 this month.

 

MCT, Shurley and the traditional methods do the trick here. My older dc learned plenty of grammar via Latin, English grammar exercises and contextual grammar via good writing instruction. Dd 8th is in TPS English Grammar 2. The teacher assumes advanced grammar knowledge and dd has plenty.

 

Sharon, I hope you find what you're looking for. Please keep us posted. :)

Edited December 11, 2010 by Beth in SW WA
typo

[Just Robyn]

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

 

You've made me pull out my old textbook. Thank you!

 

Here is what English Grammar has to say about nouns and how to tell what's what.

 

Pluralization is one method of identifying a noun listed as well as the genitive construction. Next it is noted that,

 

"Words belonging to the same category also have a simiar distribution: they appear in simialar positions in the sentence. For instance, nouns can be preceded immediately by the article the or by the possessive pronoun his."

 

The peace in this place is palpable.

 

It goes on to acknowledge and exemplify the fact that not all tests work on all nouns. For example they show that mass nouns "are not compatible with plural morphology." *milks The same is true for some abstract nouns. *hatreds

[Matryoshka]

So, since grammar seems to me to be so very similar at the core in all languages, I really like highlighting all the different ways different languages do things - that Latin does nouns like this, and English does nouns like this, and Greek does them like this, and discussing how that affects how people use the language and the different sorts of shades of meaning that one gets in the different languages. Otherwise, what's the point in studying multiple languages, if not to get a feel for the differences? I mean, I certainly want to make sure the fundamental similarities don't get lost in the field of surface details (and I've started studying linguistics in an effort to have a common way of talking about language), but the structural grammar emphasis on taking each language on its own merits, describing it in the way best suited to *that* language, really resonates with me.

 

I find I can much better teach the different structures and syntax of different languages if I first teach a base concept of parts of speech, parts of sentence, phrases and clauses. This gives us a basic vocabulary to use when speaking about how different languages use syntax differently, and actually very much enhances highlighting the differences among the languages.

 

These are all Indo-European languages I've been speaking of, btw - I don't speak any non-Indo-European langauges, but I'd be fascinated as to how some of them solve the grammar puzzle. The bit I've learned about Chinese, for example - no verb conjugations at all!! In that case the structural definiton of verb (I'm guessing it'd be a word that changes with person or tense??) would be useless in discussing it, whereas the definition of something defining the action in the sentence would be very useful.

 

To me, syntax is a layer upon the foundation, not the foundation itself.

 

I'm also firmly in the "descriptive" vs. "prescriptive" grammar camp.

Edited December 8, 2010 by matroyshka

[Mandy in TN]

It goes on to acknowledge and exemplify the fact that not all tests work on all nouns. For example they show that mass nouns "are not compatible with plural morphology." *milks The same is true for some abstract nouns. *hatreds

beat me to it

 

and proper nouns are also excluded

[Spy Car]

Another question (as I have not studied linguistics) and am struggling a bit to understand what is meant by "structural grammar."

 

If you had this sentence:

 

Me and Molly be walking to the park later and we be playing basketball.

 

Would a linguist (while acknowledging the sentence had flaws/errors when judged by the standards of traditional grammar) call it a "descriptively" acceptable sentence as neither the speaker or the receiver is in doubt about the meaning in terms of who, what, why, where and how?"

 

Or am I missing the whole point?

 

Bill

Edited December 8, 2010 by Spy Car

[forty-two]

I find I can much better teach the different structures and syntax of different languages if I first teach a base concept of parts of speech, parts of sentence, phrases and clauses. This gives us a basic vocabulary to use when speaking about how different languages use syntax differently, and actually very much enhances highlighting the differences among the languages.

 

These are all Indo-European languages I've been speaking of, btw - I don't speak any non-Indo-European langauges, but I'd be fascinated as to how some of them solve the grammar puzzle. The bit I've learned about Chinese, for example - no verb conjugations at all!! In that case the structural definiton of verb (I'm guessing it'd be a word that changes with person or tense??) would be useless in discussing it, whereas the definition of something defining the action in the sentence would be very useful.

I'm just in the beginning of learning all this - where is seems so wonderful and fascinating, but you can't actually *do* much, yet :tongue_smilie:. But I do know that structural grammar does define things by their role in the sentence - that actually, in English at least, seems to be more of a primary definition than inflection - it's just that they want to define that role in such a way that, for example, you can use those definitions to explain the role of the nonsense words in Jabberwocky, which function as part of a perfectly grammatical sentence, despite being made-up. *Why* do you see it as a grammatical sentence? What markers, of the words and their placement, enable a native English speaker to naturally "get" the sentence, despite the nonsense words?

[Storm Bay]

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211965

Is there a specific post you're referring to?

[Just Robyn]

Another question (as I have not studied linguistics) and am struggling a bit to understand what is being meant by "structural grammar."

 

If you had this sentence:

 

Me and Molly be walking to the park later and we be playing basketball.

 

Would a linguist (while acknowledging the sentence had flaws/errors when judged by the standards of traditional grammar) call it a "descriptively" acceptable sentence as neither the speaker of the receiver is in doubt about the meaning in terms of who, what, why, where and how?"

 

Or am I missing the whole point?

 

Bill

 

Right, but in the case of this particular example I would also like to point out that a construction of "be verb+ing" (such as your 'be playing') actually has rules of distribution with regard to meaning. A dialect that uses the "be verbing" construction, such as AAVE, uses it to mean an ongoing activity (I believe). be is not put before every and/or just any verb. A person like myself who does not speak AAVE doesn't recognize the pattern without effort and it just sounds like messed up English.

[Storm Bay]

Thanks for the links. I'm off to check some of them out.

 

"Structural grammar" is a pretty old-fashioned, first-half-of-the-twentieth-century term at this point; linguists just say "grammar" now, traditional grammar being that dead. There's a not bad article (unfortunately most of it hidden behind JSTOR) here. Maybe better to say that I'd like a curriculum that teaches English syntax.

 

The things that irk me about MCT/traditional grammar texts are false things such as "there are only eight kinds of words"; subjects and objects can only be nouns or pronouns; "the three little words the, a, and an are special adjectives" [false twice!]; "predicate" as a synonym for "verb"; the subject of a sentence is what it's about; etc. And not-strictly-false-but-grammatically-useless things such as the distinction between "action verbs" and "linking verbs" [by which they mean the verb "to be"]; "subject complements make our idea of the subject more complete"; etc.

 

(Again, if those are all fine with you, I'm not about to argue.)

 

What I want is a grammar curriculum that isn't based on an explanation of grammar based on facts about meaning, but based on facts about grammatical structure. Example: Instead of "a noun is a person, place, thing, or idea" (traditional grammar, based on meaning), something like "a noun is a word that can have a plural form, usually by the signal -s." In this example, you would want to go on later to talk about mass nouns; but there's a difference between starting simplistically in discussing grammar and just flatly asserting false/misleading things.

 

Don't get R&S or Easy Grammar then, becuase they make some of these same statements. EG teaches the articles as adjectives, for eg. I haven't yet seen any grammar that defines nouns the way you do and am intrigued by your definition. I'd like to see more on this. In fact, I found R&S's def of a noun a bit more narrow than FLL (first edition grades 1&2.)

Edited December 8, 2010 by Karin

[forty-two]

To me, syntax is a layer upon the foundation, not the foundation itself.

I agree with this. And I readily admit I'm only just delving into what linguists see as the foundation - it very well may be, at its core, effectively meaning-based for all I know. But in the introductions of my beginning linguistics texts, they seem to make a big deal about grammar *not* being about meaning (semantics, I think), but about structure (morphology, syntax, and such). I'm just starting to try to sort it all out - maybe in a few years I'll have scratched the surface a bit and have a (somewhat) more informed opinion :tongue_smilie:.

[Mom-ninja.]

matroyshka explained it well. Teaching English syntax would not help me when teaching German grammar.

[justamouse]

All y'all* must live on the west coast--I just woke up and there's another three pages of discussion!

 

*How's that for a second person plural pronoun?

 

 

Youz is far superior. ;)

 

I think this is one of my most favorite threads yet.

[Spy Car]

Right, but in the case of this particular example I would also like to point out that a construction of "be verb+ing" (such as your 'be playing') actually has rules of distribution with regard to meaning. A dialect that uses the "be verbing" construction, such as AAVE, uses it to mean an ongoing activity (I believe). be is not put before every and/or just any verb. A person like myself who does not speak AAVE doesn't recognize the pattern without effort and it just sounds like messed up English.

 

Despite appearances I was not trying to conform with the rules of a particular dialect, but instead tried to construct a sentence that would be intelligible to most English speakers and have elements that would be a violation of the rules of "prescriptive" traditional grammar simply for examples sake, so I could understand some of the issues more thoroughly.

 

We clearly can have speech that has "errors" in terms of case or subject-verb agreement or other grammatical elements when viewed through the rules of traditional grammar that still work as successful communication. 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

Edited December 8, 2010 by Spy Car

[forty-two]

matroyshka explained it well. Teaching English syntax would not help me when teaching German grammar.

But teaching English syntax isn't *supposed* to help with teaching German grammar :confused: - it's supposed to give you a better understanding of how *English* works. (Just as teaching German syntax wouldn't be much help with teaching English grammar - but would be rather useful in learning how *German* works.)

 

You know, it's odd. In all the "can you teach English grammar through Latin" threads, the majority vote is "no", b/c people think it is important to study English-specific aspects of English grammar. But here people prefer the traditional route b/c they don't find English-specific grammar to be very worthwhile. Funny :tongue_smilie:.

[Beth in SW WA]

Don't get R&S or Easy Grammar then, becuase they make some of these same statements. EG teaches the articles as adjectives, for eg.

 

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.

[Spy Car]

But teaching English syntax isn't *supposed* to help with teaching German grammar :confused: - it's supposed to give you a better understanding of how *English* works. (Just as teaching German syntax wouldn't be much help with teaching English grammar - but would be rather useful in learning how *German* works.)

 

You know, it's odd. In all the "can you teach English grammar through Latin" threads, the majority vote is "no", b/c people think it is important to study English-specific aspects of English grammar. But here people prefer the traditional route b/c they don't find English-specific grammar to be very worthwhile. Funny :tongue_smilie:.

 

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

[Just Robyn]

We clearly can have speech that has "errors" in terms of case or subject-verb agreement or other grammatical elements when viewed throughout the rules of traditional grammar that still work as successful communication. 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

 

Right. For me, that's the main thing. I would like to put language in a category separate from academic writing. A study of language would include linguistics. A study of academic writing would include traditional grammar. Obviously there will be places where the two studies overlap.

 

I'm all ears though. I'd like to know ways in which teaching linguistics might be helpful to teaching formal writing.

[Storm Bay]

Despite appearances I was not trying to conform with the rules of a particular dialect, but instead tried to construct a sentence that would be intelligible to most English speakers and have elements that would be a violation of the rules of "prescriptive" traditional grammar simply for examples sake, so I could understand some of the issues more thoroughly.

 

We clearly can have speech that has "errors" in terms of case or subject-verb agreement or other grammatical elements when viewed through the rules of traditional grammar that still work as successful communication. 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

 

 

This is the crux of the issue with writing at our house. I want my dc to learn both styles of writing. Academic writing has its place, but few want to read a novel written with traditional language as it sounds stilted. Even literary novels today have a few well places sentence fragments, etc.

 

As for grammar, the rules do change with time, and there is nothing any of us can do with it.

 

I am intrigued by the defnition of a noun the OP gave later on, because I haven't yet thought of a noun that doesn't fit under the FLL definition, "A noun is the name of a person, place, thing or idea." I'd also like to know if the word it in "It is raining" is then a noun? Clearly, grammar wasn't a subject I spent a great deal of time wondering about in my formative years; it was something to be endured.

[Matryoshka]

But teaching English syntax isn't *supposed* to help with teaching German grammar :confused: - it's supposed to give you a better understanding of how *English* works. (Just as teaching German syntax wouldn't be much help with teaching English grammar - but would be rather useful in learning how *German* works.)

 

 

Well, exactly. That's why I want to teach the basic structures of *Grammar* first, which can be more universally applied, and *Syntax* specific to the language. Teaching syntax alone would be inefficient and putting the cart before the horse. There's some backward syntax! :tongue_smilie: I in no way object to teaching syntax, but I don't think it is superior to, or can replace, a more functional understanding of grammar. They're different.

 

I don't know that I've even taught English grammar first - grammar for us has been taught semi-simultaneously in all three languages, and the differences deepen and refine meaning in each (as you say, seeing the differences helps narrow definition). Again, for someone who is planning to remain monolingual, perhaps defining grammar solely by structure or syntax may be fine, but that doesn't work for me. :)

 

You know, it's odd. In all the "can you teach English grammar through Latin" threads, the majority vote is "no", b/c people think it is important to study English-specific aspects of English grammar. But here people prefer the traditional route b/c they don't find English-specific grammar to be very worthwhile.

 

 

I would never *only* teach English grammar through another language (speaking of falsehoods, don't get me started on those Latinophile grammarians that tried to superimpose Latin grammar (syntax) rules onto English and landed us with "you can't split an infinitive" in English because you can't in Latin). I do think studying another language's grammar enhances (but does not replace) understanding of our own grammar - besides being beneficial in its own right. :)

Edited December 8, 2010 by matroyshka

[forty-two]

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

For me, it's more that structural grammar seems more *real*, more true - that it's a more honest system, in terms of how English really is, and one that rests on all that linguists have been doing in the past century. It resonates with me, honestly - it attracted the always-dig-deeper for the *real* reason part of me. It seems that it gets to the core of things, instead of getting obsessed with splitting hairs and totally missing the point. Plus it introduced me to linguistics, which is so wonderful (even though I'm only just starting and am clearly misusing definitions all over the place :tongue_smilie:), so I love it for that.

 

I really am just starting - my reasons aren't so much well-thought-out, here's the pros and cons - but more that structural grammarians speak to me, that their goals for studying English (to learn how it *really* works) are my goals. I don't do well with utilitarian goals, with learning how to use English well just b/c it is somehow necessary. I want to do things because they are true and beautiful - and structural grammarians are, to me, all about the truth of language. And in such rigorous terms - appeals to the logic geek in me :tongue_smilie:.

 

It's really that simple - I read the work of some structural grammarians and got an English structural grammar book, and I loved it :). It seemed *real* to me, in a way that traditional grammar didn't. Thus why I want to do it :tongue_smilie:.

[Just Robyn]

For me, it's more that structural grammar seems more *real*, more true - that it's a more honest system, in terms of how English really is, and one that rests on all that linguists have been doing in the past century. It resonates with me, honestly - it attracted the always-dig-deeper for the *real* reason part of me. It seems that it gets to the core of things, instead of getting obsessed with splitting hairs and totally missing the point. Plus it introduced me to linguistics, which is so wonderful (even though I'm only just starting and am clearly misusing definitions all over the place :tongue_smilie:), so I love it for that.

 

I really am just starting - my reasons aren't so much well-thought-out, here's the pros and cons - but more that structural grammarians speak to me, that their goals for studying English (to learn how it *really* works) are my goals. I don't do well with utilitarian goals, with learning how to use English well just b/c it is somehow necessary. I want to do things because they are true and beautiful - and structural grammarians are, to me, all about the truth of language. And in such rigorous terms - appeals to the logic geek in me :tongue_smilie:.

 

It's really that simple - I read the work of some structural grammarians and got an English structural grammar book, and I loved it :). It seemed *real* to me, in a way that traditional grammar didn't. Thus why I want to do it :tongue_smilie:.

 

I agree with all of this, and if you're studying language for the love of language I would think neglecting linguistics would be tragic. However if you're studying language for functional reasons, like to be able to write an impressive essay to get into college, then I don't see how linguistics will help you much, especially if your study of linguistics leads you to dismiss traditional grammar.

 

ETA: I want my children to know the truth about grammar and language. I also want them to be able to write well. For these reasons I find the study of *both* to be valid and important. I wouldn't dump it all on them at once though. Linguistics is something I plan to give them when they are older and (hopefully) writing well. Maybe that's just me being pessimistic or cautious.

Edited December 8, 2010 by crstarlette

[forty-two]

Well, exactly. That's why I want to teach the basic structures of *Grammar* first, which can be more universally applied, and *Syntax* specific to the language. Teaching syntax alone would be inefficient and putting the cart before the horse. There's some backward syntax! :tongue_smilie: I in no way object to teaching syntax, but I don't think it is superior to, or can replace, a more functional understanding of grammar. They're different.

 

I don't know that I've even taught English grammar first - grammar for us has been taught semi-simultaneously in all three languages, and the differences deepen and refine meaning in each (as you say, seeing the differences helps narrow definition). Again, for someone who is planning to remain monolingual, perhaps defining grammar solely by structure or syntax may be fine, but that doesn't work for me. :)

I think we agree moreso than we don't - it's just clouded by my misuse of definitions (probably because I'm still a more-enthusiasm-than-sense novice :tongue_smilie:). I, at least, don't mean to imply that syntax is the whole of grammar - hardly! It's just that structural grammar was my first introduction to the world of linguistics, and so I tend to associate the two, as "real grammar". I think of traditional grammar as the Latin-contaminated stuff - I really didn't realize there was a traditional approach that avoided it.

 

I thought it went (broadly) traditional -> structural -> transformational (with all sorts of competing theories in there), and that no linguist did anything at all "traditional" as we non-linguists conceive of it, that whatever theory they held to, *none* of it was remotely "traditional". And, at least my structural grammar book was very sympathetic to transformational grammar, so I assumed that the two could coincide - that you could be studying the surface grammar of a particular language while still learning/acknowledging the idea of a universal deep grammar. And I've been delving into linguistics in order to *have* a common framework for learning about and studying the grammar of Latin/Greek/Hebrew/English - I know there *is* one, and I thought that the traditional framework was Latin-contaminated/wrong-wrong-wrong, and so I turned to linguistics to get a better one.

 

ETA: I'm starting to get the feeling I've no idea what traditional grammar *is*, if it's not the Latin-contaminated stuff :confused:.

Edited December 8, 2010 by forty-two

[Crimson Wife]

Defining a subject is a challenge, again because it's a lot more complex than "it's what the sentence is about." My own approach is to start with the highly simplified, but very accessible to young children, rule that "The subject is (usually) at the beginning of the sentence." Now obviously that's got a zillion exceptions, but it's built on the basic structure of English sentences. Take these sentences:

 

1. The debutante curtsied prettily.

2. Discussing syntax can present challenges.

3. There is a gargoyle outside the window.

4. The cat was chased by the dog.

 

A child who is looking for "person, place, thing, idea" is going to struggle to figure out the subject in 2 and 3. A child who has learned that "the subject is the thing acting on the object" is going to be confused by 4. Anyone looking for "what the sentence is about" may be confused by any of them (Is 2 about challenges? Is 4 about chasing? And surely 3 is not about There--what would that even mean?).

 

But a child who knows that "the subject is at the beginning" will correctly identify (again, in my experience) the subjects.

 

Typically, the student identifies the predicate first and then asks who or what is doing the predicate.

 

Who/what curtsied? The debutante.

Who/what can present challenges? Discussing syntax.

Who/what is? A gargoyle ("there" being an adverb modifying the verb)

Who/what was chased? The cat.

 

Very easy for even a young, literal-minded child to understand. And it works with nonsense words as well.

 

The garglezonk tweedled.

Who/what tweedled? The garglezonk.

 

And the child will still be able to identify the subject in a sentence where the subject comes after the verb.

 

Spoke the girl a fond farewell.

Who/what spoke? The girl.

[wapiti]

Typically, the student identifies the predicate first and then asks who or what is doing the predicate.

 

Who/what curtsied? The debutante.

Who/what can present challenges? Discussing syntax.

Who/what is? A gargoyle ("there" being an adverb modifying the verb)

Who/what was chased? The cat.

 

Very easy for even a young, literal-minded child to understand. And it works with nonsense words as well.

 

The garglezonk tweedled.

Who/what tweedled? The garglezonk.

 

And the child will still be able to identify the subject in a sentence where the subject comes after the verb.

 

Spoke the girl a fond farewell.

Who/what spoke? The girl.

 

This is interesting, because this is how we (in our house) approach Latin as well.

[Just Robyn]

Typically, the student identifies the predicate first and then asks who or what is doing the predicate.

 

Who/what is? A gargoyle ("there" being an adverb modifying the verb)

 

 

This is one example of where traditional grammar and linguistics analyze things differently. According to a linguistic view there is the subject in that sentence. It is a place-holder for the logical subject a gargoyle.

 

You can see that there is the grammatical subject of the sentence because it inverts with a finite auxiliary.

 

There is a gargoyle outside the window.

Is there a gargoyle outside the window?

 

like

 

A gargoyle is outside the window.

Is a gargoyle outside the window?

[Spy Car]

For me, it's more that structural grammar seems more *real*, more true - that it's a more honest system, in terms of how English really is, and one that rests on all that linguists have been doing in the past century. It resonates with me, honestly - it attracted the always-dig-deeper for the *real* reason part of me. It seems that it gets to the core of things, instead of getting obsessed with splitting hairs and totally missing the point.

 

I'm still struggling to understand what sort of truth about English this sort of analysis (one that is beyond my ken) brings you. Can you help me with an example? I'm trying to understand what "it" is.

 

Bill (occasionally thick-skulled)

[wapiti]

This is one example of where traditional grammar and linguistics analyze things differently. According to a linguistic view there is the subject in that sentence. It is a place-holder for the logical subject a gargoyle.

 

You can see that there is the grammatical subject of the sentence because it inverts with a finite auxiliary.

 

There is a gargoyle outside the window.

Is there a gargoyle outside the window?

 

like

 

A gargoyle is outside the window.

Is a gargoyle outside the window?

 

How about

 

A gargoyle is there outside the window.

 

In "There is a gargoyle outside the window," "There" refers to where the gargoyle is, not as a place-holder for gargoyle. But I sense I'm out of my league here ;)

Edited December 8, 2010 by wapiti

[forty-two]

I'm still struggling to understand what sort of truth about English this sort of analysis (one that is beyond my ken) brings you. Can you help me with an example? I'm trying to understand what "it" is.

 

Bill (occasionally thick-skulled)

This is probably b/c I am having a remarkably hard time *quantifying* what about it I love so much :tongue_smilie:. Well, I got into structural grammar initially through researching Latin instruction. I was rather appalled at many of the traditional approaches, but still wanted to maintain a rigorousness that most modern approaches lacked. Anyway, I came across a fellow that applied structural grammar techniques to Latin instruction - quite a breath of fresh air. Here is the article in question, which I rather enjoyed but might be boring to anyone else :tongue_smilie:. (You saw beauty in *that* :lol:.) There was something about the emphasis on taking the language on its own terms, on analyzing it as a whole, that resonated. Rigorous and true. I'm afraid it's the best I can do at the moment :tongue_smilie: - I clearly don't have a good idea what I'm talking about ;).

 

ETA: Also, my love is probably b/c structural grammar was my first encounter with linguistics - my first exposure to *real* language study - and I associate it with all the wonders I've found in linguistics as a whole.

[Caitilin]

This is one example of where traditional grammar and linguistics analyze things differently. According to a linguistic view there is the subject in that sentence. It is a place-holder for the logical subject a gargoyle.

 

You can see that there is the grammatical subject of the sentence because it inverts with a finite auxiliary.

 

There is a gargoyle outside the window.

Is there a gargoyle outside the window?

 

like

 

A gargoyle is outside the window.

Is a gargoyle outside the window?

 

It's funny you use this example, because my dds using MCT had this exact type of sentence, and I analyzed it "linguistically" while they did so "grammatically" as per MCT. It was interesting to me that both ways of analyzing it made good sense, albeit in really different ways. I LOVE this thread, too, BTW! :D

[Mandy in TN]

How about

 

A gargoyle is there outside the window.

 

In "There is a gargoyle outside the window," "There" refers to where the gargoyle is, not as a place-holder for gargoyle. But I sense I'm out of my league here ;)

 

Bingo. In this inverted sentence there is an adverb answering the question where.

 

In this sentence-

There is no reason to argue. :tongue_smilie:

 

There is a placeholder.

 

Mandy

[Matryoshka]

Originally Posted by forty-two

For me, it's more that structural grammar seems more *real*, more true - that it's a more honest system, in terms of how English really is, and one that rests on all that linguists have been doing in the past century. It resonates with me, honestly - it attracted the always-dig-deeper for the *real* reason part of me. It seems that it gets to the core of things, instead of getting obsessed with splitting hairs and totally missing the point.

 

 

I've been thinking about this some more (I mean, what else do I have to do? :tongue_smilie:). I feel the opposite. I feel like defining what a noun is by how it's structured and used in *one* language is dishonest. I feel like a definition of a noun should be universally applicable in any language - that is more *real*. How it is structured and used in a particular language is interesting, but not more honest or true - to the contrary.

 

I have no problem saying "nouns in English (and at this point in history) behave in these ways". That's qutie different from using its behavior in one language as a definition of a part of speech. To me it's digging deeper to see what a part of speech (or sentence) is doing in the sentence (oo, that clause is functioing as an adverb! Or that verbal is functioning as a noun here, yet is still described by an adjverb!) Language defies boxes and rules. Grammar can be contradictory. We can apply rules generally, but as a descriptivist, I believe language changes and grows over time and starts breaking rules and following new ones we haven't thought of! Definitions that boil down to essence are much more "true" to me.

 

I could take a structural definition of an adjective in German and say it is something that declines based on case. A structural definition in Spanish might say adjectives have to agree in gender and number with the noun they modify. English adjectives don't do any of these things. Are we to have a different definition for each part of speech in each language? This again might be an interesting study of a particular language, but not of Language - how humans use words and sentences to communicate. Whereas the definition of adjective as "a word that modifies a noun" works across languages.

Edited December 8, 2010 by matroyshka

[wapiti]

Bingo. In this inverted sentence there is an adverb answering the question where.

 

In this sentence-

There is no reason to argue. :tongue_smilie:

 

There is a placeholder.

 

Mandy

 

I think I could even argue that:

 

There is no reason to argue. = No reason to argue is there.

 

with there still being an adverb. ??? :001_huh::lol:

[radiobrain]

Gosh. You are all cracking me up. ;)

 

My brain hurts just reading through these, I need some chocolate and a cocktail.

[Crimson Wife]

You can see that there is the grammatical subject of the sentence because it inverts with a finite auxiliary.

 

Just try teaching *THAT* to a grammar-stage student. :lol:

 

Structural grammar strikes me as WAY overcomplicating things that really don't need to be all that complicated. Whatever floats your boat :D

[Just Robyn]

I'm still struggling to understand what sort of truth about English this sort of analysis (one that is beyond my ken) brings you. Can you help me with an example? I'm trying to understand what "it" is.

 

Bill (occasionally thick-skulled)

 

Linguistics is the science of language. Like in the above example with there, linguists test for what part of speech a word is. Traditional grammar tells you what to believe based on prescriptive rules.