s/o structural vs. traditional grammar

[HRAAB]

At the risk of exposing my ignorance, what is the difference between structural and traditional grammar?

[Mommybostic]

I am curious about this one as well! I saw another thread that sparked my interest. I am a grammar nerd, and I am at a loss to answer this question. Perhaps I was only taught one way, and therein lies my ignorance.

[LisaKinVA]

I have a feeling this was part of an earlier MCT debate... around the parts of speech, things in traditional grammar being "over simplified." I tried googling, and didn't come up with much. Although, I did spy a journal abstract that was testing the teaching of structural grammar vs. traditional grammar -- and it found no statistical differences in how people performed if taught either one.

[Crimson Wife]

I tried a Google search as well and all I came up with was a bunch of academic jargon. I did see a mention of Noam Chomsky in one of them so I gather it has something to do with linguistics. Many of the citations I found referencing it were from the 1960's, which raises a red flag for me personally as IMHO a *LOT* of bad ideas came out of academia during that decade...

[In the Rain]

:bigear: I'm wondering too.

[Just Robyn]

I believe structural grammar would be accurate, science-based grammar and traditional grammar would be just what it sounds like. Here is an example, but there is a LOT more to it.

 

Traditional grammar teaches syllabication based off of spelling and grammar, possibly off of Latin syllabication. I guess I don't know where they got the ideas. I have just noticed trends. Traditional grammar would say that the syllabication of the word

 

droning would be dron ing (based off the grammar, right?)

 

Structural grammar teaches syllabication based off of syllables that we actually speak. When they come out of our mouths the syllables in the word droning are

 

dro ning

 

A syllable without an onset (that is a consonant or group of consonants at the beginning) is dispreferred and a syllable with a coda (that is a consonant or group of consonants after the vowel) is dispreferred. By saying the syllables are dron ing we are creating two dispreferred syllables instead of two preferred ones and when we speak we just don't do that.

 

Here is my schtick. In order to know when to use a comma, or how to read poetry, and probably many other things, you need to learn traditional grammar. The poets and prose writers of the past did not have linguistics.

 

However, many traditional grammar books tell the rules as if they were true. They say you should be able to figure out syllables based off your speech and since in speech you use structural grammar and the book is teaching traditional grammar that is not true. I point out to my children where I notice statements that are just not true in traditional grammar books and I plan to hand them each a linguistics book or two when they are in high school.

[Crimson Wife]

I don't know of *ANY* LA programs that tell the student to divide "droning" into dron - ing. Now the "ing" part is a suffix added to the root word "drone", but that doesn't have anything to do with syllabification. :confused:

[KarenNC]

I'm curious as well. We have gone through Grammar Town and I saw nothing related to syllabification, so I'm a bit mystified if that's the primary difference. We're doing the Practice Town and Paragraph Town---parts of speech, parts of the sentence, clauses, phrases, verbals, etc, but nothing about spelling or syllabification.

 

I'm not sure about what science has to say about whether something is a noun or a verb, subject or predicate?

 

Maybe someone who understands the difference between the two could give an example of how each would analyze a specific sentence?

Edited December 8, 2010 by KarenNC

[Ellie]

I haven't the faintest idea, which probably means it isn't all that important.:D

[HRAAB]

I'm starting to think ignorance can be bliss. :001_smile:

[KarenNC]

I asked my husband, who has an English degree, if he could explain the difference and he had no idea either.

[Just Robyn]

I don't know of *ANY* LA programs that tell the student to divide "droning" into dron - ing. Now the "ing" part is a suffix added to the root word "drone", but that doesn't have anything to do with syllabification. :confused:

 

If only I had AAS with me I could give you a specific example from that program. Here is dictionary.com with droning as dron ing. I don't know how to put a dot between them...

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/droning

 

 

 

In Grammar Island MCT defines a syllable as an utterance or something like that. I don't have that with me either. At any rate, he gives a pronunciation explanation of syllables, but I guarantee he would not actually syllabify all words based on pronunciation.

 

 

I'm curious as well. We have gone through Grammar Town and I saw nothing related to syllabification, so I'm a bit mystified if that's the primary difference. We're doing the Practice Town and Paragraph Town---parts of speech, parts of the sentence, clauses, phrases, verbals, etc, but nothing about spelling or syllabification.

 

I'm not sure about what science has to say about whether something is a noun or a verb, subject or predicate?

 

Maybe someone who understands the difference between the two could give an example of how each would analyze a specific sentence?

 

Regarding parts of speech etc., there is a lot of overlap between the two. Most of the time a noun is a noun is a noun. However, in Grammar Islan MCT gives examples of adjectives on one page and says that in sailboat 'sail' is an adjective. I've read that on other pages about traditional grammar too. In linguistics this is considered a compound noun made up of two nouns.

 

You can tell a compound noun from an adjective - noun pair by the stress. Compare the stress of hot dog - the thing you eat - with hot dog - a very warm canine.

 

In linguistics when you talk about the subject you are usually talking about the whole subject.

 

The dog is grey. (The dog) From what I've seen in traditional grammar they usually just want (dog).

Edited December 8, 2010 by crstarlette

[EKS]

I tried a Google search as well and all I came up with was a bunch of academic jargon. I did see a mention of Noam Chomsky in one of them so I gather it has something to do with linguistics. Many of the citations I found referencing it were from the 1960's, which raises a red flag for me personally as IMHO a *LOT* of bad ideas came out of academia during that decade...

 

I Googled it as well and came up with everything you mentioned and nothing of substance. BTW, I had the same reaction to the dates of the articles.

[Irishmommy]

I'm confused about the relationship between syllables and how words function in the sentence. Can someone clear this up for me?:confused:

[KarenNC]

In Grammar Town MCT defines a syllable as an utterance or something like that. I don't have that with me either. At any rate, he gives a pronunciation explanation of syllables, but I guarantee he would not actually syllabify all words based on pronunciation.

 

I just went through Grammar Town (teacher manual which includes the student text) and found no reference to syllabification.

 

Regarding parts of speech etc., there is a lot of overlap between the two. Most of the time a noun is a noun is a noun. However, in Grammar Town MCT gives examples of adjectives on one page and says that in sailboat 'sail' is an adjective. I've read that on other pages about traditional grammar too. In linguistics this is considered a compound noun made up of two nouns.

 

You can tell a compound noun from an adjective - noun pair by the stress. Compare the stress of hot dog - the thing you eat - with hot dog - a very warm canine.

 

Sorry, no sailboat mentioned at all in Grammar Town that I can find, either. Are you sure you have the right book? He definitely doesn't treat "ice cream" or "rooftops" or "sidewalk" as separate adjectives and nouns (p. 59), but as nouns. In Practice Town, "rooftops,""sidewalk," "headache," "overseer," "neighborhood" and "chairman" are all listed as nouns, not as adjective-noun pairs.

 

In linguistics when you talk about the subject you are usually talking about the whole subject.

 

The dog is grey. (The dog) From what I've seen in traditional grammar they usually just want (dog).

 

Okay. What is the advantage to not knowing or learning the difference between the complete subject and the simple subject?

 

On several pages in Grammar Town, MCT points out the difference between the two and says that for this book, he is using subject and predicate to mean the simple subject and simple predicate. Seems pretty clear to me. From Paragraph Town, p. 21 "The sentence is an idea that has two sides. The first side is the subject, a noun or pronoun that the sentence is about. That is also called the simple subject. The complete subject might include adjectives or other words that go with the subject.

The other side of the sentence is the predicate. The verb is the main predicate word; it is called the simple predicate. The complete predicate might include other words that do important things in the idea."

Also pp. 65-66, 69, etc.

 

I'm certainly not slavishly addicted to MCT as the only program out there worth considering, nor do I think he is incapable of error. Certainly one is entitled to prefer one program over another, but I really do not see a basis for the objections yet. I also don't see a clear explanation of what "structural grammar" is and how it actually differs from (and is superior to) traditional grammar in terms of understanding how words function in a sentence.

 

ETA: I see that while I was replying you changed "Grammar Town" to "Grammar Island" in your post. I have not seen Grammar Island. Perhaps someone who has it can weigh in.

Edited December 8, 2010 by KarenNC

[Irishmommy]

I've always taught the complete subject and predicate as well as the simple subject and predicate.

 

Also, if you took that "structural" approach what would the standard be? Standard American dialect? Since each region has it's own dialect, I would think that you couldn't rely on how it "sounded". I don't know anything about the "structural" approach. I'm just speaking as someone who has studied dialects, as well has used the "traditional" method of teaching grammar.

[Momling]

I don't know of *ANY* LA programs that tell the student to divide "droning" into dron - ing. Now the "ing" part is a suffix added to the root word "drone", but that doesn't have anything to do with syllabification. :confused:

 

Actually ETC 4 (p.33) says that "Words can be divided into syllables... between a word and its ending -- jump/ing.

Also on p. 51 it has kids dividing syllables like this: sev/en, which might make sense in a teaching-reading context, but is not actually correct.

 

CRStarlette is right that there are preferences for syllable structure that seem to be true across all languages (unless you start looking too carefully into languages like Tashlhiyt Berber or something).

[Country Mouse]

:lurk5:

[HRAAB]

 

Sorry, no sailboat mentioned at all in Grammar Town that I can find, either. Are you sure you have the right book? He definitely doesn't treat "ice cream" or "rooftops" or "sidewalk" as separate adjectives and nouns (p. 59), but as nouns. In Practice Town, "rooftops,""sidewalk," "headache," "overseer," "neighborhood" and "chairman" are all listed as nouns, not as adjective-noun pairs.

 

 

In Grammar Island, pg. 29., he has sail boat (not a compound word) as an example of an adjective (sail) modifying a noun (boat). Then on pg. 59 he has the sentence 'They saw a sailboat' as a linking verb example with 'sailboat' (compound word) marked as a noun.

 

I'm still :confused:

[KarenNC]

Actually ETC 4 (p.33) says that "Words can be divided into syllables... between a word and its ending -- jump/ing.

Also on p. 51 it has kids dividing syllables like this: sev/en, which might make sense in a teaching-reading context, but is not actually correct.

 

CRStarlette is right that there are preferences for syllable structure that seem to be true across all languages (unless you start looking too carefully into languages like Tashlhiyt Berber or something).

 

As I understand it, then, the structural approach is to write it as you say it. I say "sev-en" and "jump-ing" vs. "se-ven" or "jum-ping." Would I go with what I actually say or with how the people who determine structural grammar say I ought to say it (in which case it seems no different than the objections stated)?

 

BTW, why is "sev-en" incorrect? It's the way Merriam-Webster has it divided. I also don't understand why "dron-ing" wouldn't be correct. I say "dron-ing" (well, more like "droan-ing," given that I'm a Southerner born and bred;)). Folks are presenting this as if it's self-evident that some of these things are incorrect, and I'm afraid it isn't to me.

Edited December 8, 2010 by KarenNC

[KarenNC]

In Grammar Island, pg. 29., he has sail boat (not a compound word) as an example of an adjective (sail) modifying a noun (boat). Then on pg. 59 he has the sentence 'They saw a sailboat' as a linking verb example with 'sailboat' (compound word) marked as a noun.

 

I'm still :confused:

 

Sounds like an error. The man is human and copy editors sometimes miss. Perhaps it was intended to be "sailing boat" and the "ing" is missing. Given the evidence of further usage in Grammar Island (as you state) and then in Grammar Town, I don't see this as a fundamental flaw of the series. Have you sent a note to the publisher? There's a great discussion group in which both the publisher and author participate and they are happy to answer questions and admit that they aren't infallible (and they work to fix errors when they re-issue). http://rfwpsupport.com/forum.php

[HRAAB]

As I understand it, then, the structural approach is to write it as you say it. I say "sev-en" and "jump-ing" vs. "se-ven" or "jum-ping." Would I go with what I actually say or with how the people who determine structural grammar say I ought to say it (in which case it seems no different than the objections stated)?

 

I'm sorry to be so dense, but what does this have to do with recognizing parts of speech?

 

You might take a look at the other thread. The OP has written more on structural vs. traditional grammar.

[HRAAB]

Sounds like an error. The man is human and copy editors sometimes miss. Perhaps it was intended to be "sailing boat" and the "ing" is missing. Given the evidence of further usage in Grammar Island (as you state) and then in Grammar Town, I don't see this as a fundamental flaw of the series. Have you sent a note to the publisher? There's a great discussion group in which both the publisher and author participate and they are happy to answer questions and admit that they aren't infallible (and they work to fix errors when they re-issue). http://rfwpsupport.com/forum.php

 

I never noticed this until it was pointed out in this thread. Along with 'sail boat' he has shown other examples using a noun as an adjective: motor boat, gravy boat. None of this jumped out at me when I originally read it since it's not uncommon in English to use a noun as an adjective. Does this have a particular name???

 

I'm always afraid to actually tell how I teach something, since I probably make more mistakes than not, but when it comes to teaching the parts of speech, I tell my girls a word needs to be part of a sentence before it has a name: noun, adjective, etc. I liken them to actors with no role until they are part of the play. So when we come across 'sail boat' they usually see that the noun is boat and is being modified by sail.

 

I need to stay out of these threads since they are way over my head. :tongue_smilie:

[KarenNC]

I'm sorry to be so dense, but what does this have to do with recognizing parts of speech?

 

You might take a look at the other thread. The OP has written more on structural vs. traditional grammar.

 

I don't think it *does* have anything to do with parts of speech. I'm trying to get a handle on what people mean when they say structural grammar (and I'm reading the other thread as well--not really helping me either). Since those supporting structural grammar seem to think it hinges on syllabification when asked (agreed, I don't know what that has to do with nouns and verbs, either), I'm trying to figure out why they are claiming what the dictionaries have for syllabification is incorrect and, therefore, who is determining what is correct and isn't.

[KarenNC]

I never noticed this until it was pointed out in this thread. Along with 'sail boat' he has shown other examples using a noun as an adjective: motor boat, gravy boat. None of this jumped out at me when I originally read it since it's not uncommon in English to use a noun as an adjective. Does this have a particular name???

 

OK, so not an error, but at least an inconsistency. I'd ask the author in the forum I mentioned, if it were me. He's very good about replying in the forum. Perhaps it is for some specific sort of emphasis or teaching method that is not immediately obvious to someone like me;).

[forty-two]

I'm not an expert, but I've really liked what I've seen of structural grammar, have Latin/English/Greek books based on structural grammar, so I'll take a stab at it:

 

The big thing with structural grammar, afaik, is that you have definitions of parts of speech and sentence structure and such that only depend on the form of the word, not the meaning. This depends a lot of times on the sort of prefixes/suffixes that are characteristic of a particular word class, plus their characteristic place in a sentence. So my book has nouns defined not as a person/place/thing/idea, but as one of the four form classes (others are verbs, adjectives, and adverbs), whose members can fill the headword slot in the noun phrase; most nouns can be inflected for plural and possessive (boy, boys, boy's, boys'); nouns have characteristic derivational endings, such as -tion (action, compensation), -ment (contentment), and -ness (happiness); nouns can also function as adjectivals and adverbials (The *neighbor* children went *home*).

 

That actually sounds a lot more complex than it really is :tongue_smilie:. But the idea is that you should be able to analyze a sentence based just on its form - that you don't have to understand the meanings of each of the individual words to analyze it grammatically. Also, there's a strong descriptive influence, in that you are figuring out how a particular dialect works, which is perfectly grammatical in its own system by definition, without getting into whether a given dialect is "better" than others.

[Violet Crown]

I'm not an expert, but I've really liked what I've seen of structural grammar, have Latin/English/Greek books based on structural grammar, so I'll take a stab at it:

 

The big thing with structural grammar, afaik, is that you have definitions of parts of speech and sentence structure and such that only depend on the form of the word, not the meaning. This depends a lot of times on the sort of prefixes/suffixes that are characteristic of a particular word class, plus their characteristic place in a sentence. So my book has nouns defined not as a person/place/thing/idea, but as one of the four form classes (others are verbs, adjectives, and adverbs), whose members can fill the headword slot in the noun phrase; most nouns can be inflected for plural and possessive (boy, boys, boy's, boys'); nouns have characteristic derivational endings, such as -tion (action, compensation), -ment (contentment), and -ness (happiness); nouns can also function as adjectivals and adverbials (The *neighbor* children went *home*).

 

That actually sounds a lot more complex than it really is :tongue_smilie:. But the idea is that you should be able to analyze a sentence based just on its form - that you don't have to understand the meanings of each of the individual words to analyze it grammatically. Also, there's a strong descriptive influence, in that you are figuring out how a particular dialect works, which is perfectly grammatical in its own system by definition, without getting into whether a given dialect is "better" than others.

:iagree:Thank you. :)

[Spy Car]

So my book has nouns defined not as a person/place/thing/idea, but as one of the four form classes (others are verbs, adjectives, and adverbs), whose members can fill the headword slot in the noun phrase; most nouns can be inflected for plural and possessive (boy, boys, boy's, boys'); nouns have characteristic derivational endings, such as -tion (action, compensation), -ment (contentment), and -ness (happiness); nouns can also function as adjectivals and adverbials (The *neighbor* children went *home*).

 

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

[wapiti]

Thank you for this interesting thread (this is all very timely for me as I am shopping for language arts stuff).

 

Despite the fact that I'm quite sure I don't yet fully understand "structural" grammar (i.e., I'm going to open my big mouth anyway), I don't understand what good it does to point to forms unless one first understands the meaning that corresponds to the forms, a meaning that would then only come from prior language usage. It's almost like trying to turn English into an inflected language. I think it would be easier just to teach Latin.

 

I better stop now - the more I think about this, the more circular I get - I'm making myself dizzy!! :tongue_smilie:

[Momling]

I don't think it *does* have anything to do with parts of speech. I'm trying to get a handle on what people mean when they say structural grammar (and I'm reading the other thread as well--not really helping me either). Since those supporting structural grammar seem to think it hinges on syllabification when asked (agreed, I don't know what that has to do with nouns and verbs, either), I'm trying to figure out why they are claiming what the dictionaries have for syllabification is incorrect and, therefore, who is determining what is correct and isn't.

 

I think this thread (and Sharon in Austin's original thread about MCT) is not really about 'structural grammar' but is ultimately about whether language arts should be taught from the older, traditional, prescriptive perspective that we learned as kids and our parents and grandparents learned and that textbooks and dictionaries are written in... Or whether we should use the knowledge that the modern field of linguistics can offer - where language is studied as a science.

 

Unfortunately, linguistics is a very young field and there's not always complete agreement within the field. To make it worse, theoretical linguistics is not an accessible topic that the average educated person can pick up and read. So the information that linguists have about how grammar really works or how language changes or why people pronounce things in a certain way has just never made it into the educational world; and so we are relying on language arts textbooks that are based on an old-fashioned model and not using the modern knowledge that we have about how language actually works.

 

So, yes... just like nouns and verbs, syllable structure is a part of linguistics -- and textbooks and dictionaries sometimes get it wrong.

[forty-two]

I think this thread (and Sharon in Austin's original thread about MCT) is not really about 'structural grammar' but is ultimately about whether language arts should be taught from the older, traditional, prescriptive perspective that we learned as kids and our parents and grandparents learned and that textbooks and dictionaries are written in... Or whether we should use the knowledge that the modern field of linguistics can offer - where language is studied as a science.

 

Unfortunately, linguistics is a very young field and there's not always complete agreement within the field. To make it worse, theoretical linguistics is not an accessible topic that the average educated person can pick up and read. So the information that linguists have about how grammar really works or how language changes or why people pronounce things in a certain way has just never made it into the educational world; and so we are relying on language arts textbooks that are based on an old-fashioned model and not using the modern knowledge that we have about how language actually works.

 

So, yes... just like nouns and verbs, syllable structure is a part of linguistics -- and textbooks and dictionaries sometimes get it wrong.

:iagree:

 

Although, I disagree a little that linguistics isn't accessible to an educated layperson. I freely admit that I'm only getting started, but I've had no problem with introductory texts, at least, and I've no reason to think that I'll hit insurmountable problems as I move on. Sure, it requires thinking - not quite bedtime reading :tongue_smilie: - but so does lots of things ;).

[FairProspects]

I tried a Google search as well and all I came up with was a bunch of academic jargon. I did see a mention of Noam Chomsky in one of them so I gather it has something to do with linguistics. Many of the citations I found referencing it were from the 1960's, which raises a red flag for me personally as IMHO a *LOT* of bad ideas came out of academia during that decade...

 

:lol:

[kokotg]

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

 

I was wondering the same thing earlier today...about abstract nouns like peace and joy and love. I suppose I could ask, "can you have more of that?" but I think answering yes is not necessarily any clearer than if I asked it about an adjective (well, this could be more big or more red).

 

I'm curious about how structuralism in linguistics relates to structuralism in literary criticism. Honestly, I only know there's a relationship at all because of a quick skim of a wikipedia article last night. But I know enough about structuralism from grad school to know that not everyone thinks Lacan is all that, you know? Are there not similar debates in linguistics?

Edited December 8, 2010 by kokotg

[forty-two]

I'm curious about how structuralism in linguistics relates to structuralism in literary criticism. Honestly, I only know there's a relationship at all because of a quick skim of a wikipedia article last night. But I know enough about structuralism from grad school to know that not everyone thinks Lacan is all that, you know? Are there not similar debates in linguistics?

Short answer, yes :D.

[Momling]

I was wondering the same thing earlier today...about abstract nouns like peace and joy and love. I suppose I could ask, "can you have more of that?" but I think answering yes is not necessarily any clearer than if I asked it about an adjective (well, this could be more big or more red).

 

I'm curious about how structuralism in linguistics relates to structuralism in literary criticism. Honestly, I only know there's a relationship at all because of a quick skim of a wikipedia article last night. But I know enough about structuralism from grad school to know that not everyone thinks Lacan is all that, you know? Are there not similar debates in linguistics?

 

I am completely ignorant about literary criticism, so I can't help you there... When I went to grad school in linguistics, I don't recall anything about structuralism other than at the beginning of a psycholinguistics class when the problem of language categories came up. The reading had to do with notional definitions about parts of speech and then putting things in substitution frames... I think the discussion went on to talk about prototypes and, like much of my linguistics training, ended with me figuring out that I don't know as much about parts of speech as I thought I did and that we can't assume that we know how many parts of speech are in any particular language or in language in general.

 

As for whether there are debates in linguistics? Definitely! Blood has been drawn at many linguistics conferences.

[angela in ohio]

I think this thread (and Sharon in Austin's original thread about MCT) is not really about 'structural grammar' but is ultimately about whether language arts should be taught from the older, traditional, prescriptive perspective that we learned as kids and our parents and grandparents learned and that textbooks and dictionaries are written in... Or whether we should use the knowledge that the modern field of linguistics can offer - where language is studied as a science.

 

And this is why I think this is an interesting conversaton for a classical education board. Many of us are choosing purposefully to use the older, prescriptive method, but not out of ignorance. ;)

 

I really do hope SWB chimes in on one of these threads...

[Violet Crown]

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").

I wonder if that has more to do with the /s/ sounds following on each other? I can imagine someone saying "War's cost is too high," but you're right that one would less often hear "Peace's price is just as high." But the availability of "war's" suggests to me that it's not a grammatical problem.

 

I think this thread (and Sharon in Austin's original thread about MCT) is not really about 'structural grammar' but is ultimately about whether language arts should be taught from the older, traditional, prescriptive perspective that we learned as kids and our parents and grandparents learned and that textbooks and dictionaries are written in... Or whether we should use the knowledge that the modern field of linguistics can offer - where language is studied as a science.

 

Unfortunately, linguistics is a very young field and there's not always complete agreement within the field. To make it worse, theoretical linguistics is not an accessible topic that the average educated person can pick up and read. So the information that linguists have about how grammar really works or how language changes or why people pronounce things in a certain way has just never made it into the educational world; and so we are relying on language arts textbooks that are based on an old-fashioned model and not using the modern knowledge that we have about how language actually works.

:iagree:And you can read linguists' blogs and see many contemptuous comments about the teaching of traditional grammar; but nowhere do I see suggestions for resources for educators that would help them (us!) teach in accordance with modern understandings of grammar. Thus my OP.

 

I'm curious about how structuralism in linguistics relates to structuralism in literary criticism. Honestly, I only know there's a relationship at all because of a quick skim of a wikipedia article last night. But I know enough about structuralism from grad school to know that not everyone thinks Lacan is all that, you know? Are there not similar debates in linguistics?

Are they related? I remember Lacan, vaguely. What's the relation?

 

I really do hope SWB chimes in on one of these threads...

I really hope not. It took me a week to gin up the courage to write the OP, because I know that traditional grammar is really an integral part of home education for many (most?) of the posters here, and I didn't want to come across as saying "you're all wrong, here's what you should be doing for grammar." I want to respect the educational choices that others have made. But I also knew there would be people here who knew what I was talking about, and who could point me in the direction of useful books or curriculum. So I held my breath and posted.

 

But a moderator chiming in would put a whole different spin on the legitimacy of asking for resources for non-traditional grammar, and I would likely come to regret having brought up the subject at all.

[Guest Cheryl in SoCal]

I really hope not. It took me a week to gin up the courage to write the OP, because I know that traditional grammar is really an integral part of home education for many (most?) of the posters here, and I didn't want to come across as saying "you're all wrong, here's what you should be doing for grammar." I want to respect the educational choices that others have made. But I also knew there would be people here who knew what I was talking about, and who could point me in the direction of useful books or curriculum. So I held my breath and posted.

 

But a moderator chiming in would put a whole different spin on the legitimacy of asking for resources for non-traditional grammar, and I would likely come to regret having brought up the subject at all.

Well, it would just be her opinion. Even though they are her boards doesn't mean she has the final say in all thinks educational. While I'm not going to leave traditional grammar I've found both of these related posts very interesting and am glad to have read them, and that won't change if SWB or a moderator chimes in with their 2 cents!

[CarrieF]

I don't know of *ANY* LA programs that tell the student to divide "droning" into dron - ing. Now the "ing" part is a suffix added to the root word "drone", but that doesn't have anything to do with syllabification. :confused:

My thoughts exactly!

[angela in ohio]

But a moderator chiming in

 

Not as a moderator, as an expert in this area. :001_smile:

[forty-two]

And this is why I think this is an interesting conversaton for a classical education board. Many of us are choosing purposefully to use the older, prescriptive method, but not out of ignorance. ;)

 

I really do hope SWB chimes in on one of these threads...

 

Genuinely asking here :) - what are your reasons for going prescriptive? Because all I know of prescriptive is either English shoehorned into Latin rules or people who've basically done a descriptive analysis of a subset of "proper" English writing, and so the linguistic approach has seemed to be better grounded in the underlying truth/reality of what language and grammar really is. How do you see prescriptive grammar, so that you believe it to be a better approach? And better for what, for that matter?

 

Thanks :)

[Oak Knoll Mom]

 

droning would be dron ing (based off the grammar, right?)

 

Structural grammar teaches syllabication based off of syllables that we actually speak. When they come out of our mouths the syllables in the word droning are

 

dro ning

 

 

It's the opposite here. I say dron ing, but in teaching my kids to read I've always divided it dro ning. That's actually what causes the "o" to make its long sound.

[kokotg]

 

Are they related? I remember Lacan, vaguely. What's the relation?

 

 

 

Well, according to Wikipedia ;), you can give one universal definition of structuralism and then apply it to different disciplines:

 

Structuralism argues that a specific domain of culture may be understood by means of a structure—modelled on language—that is distinct both from the organisations of reality and those of ideas or the imagination—the "third order."

 

So for literature this is going to have to do with arguing that all literature fits into an existing, archetypal system, and you look at all texts as they relate to each other and to that system. Again, Wikipedia:

 

In literary theory, structuralist criticism relates literary texts to a larger structure, which may be a particular genre, a range of intertextual connections, a model of a universal narrative structure, or a system of recurrent patterns or motifs.[8] Structuralism argues that there must be a structure in every text, which explains why it is easier for experienced readers than for non-experienced readers to interpret a text. Hence, everything that is written seems to be governed by specific rules, or a "grammar of literature", that one learns in educational institutions and that are to be unmasked.

 

IME, this kind of analysis is, in practice, often very limiting. It becomes about trying to fit texts into a box, and, when they don't seem to fit, you invent ever more elaborate and opaque arguments for why they really DO fit, and if only other people understood the box like YOU do, they'd see it as clearly as you do. Err, well, that's my take on it. And structuralism has plenty of other, far more eloquent, critics in literary theory as well.

 

So that's what I'm getting at...is structuralism something that is universally accepted in linguistics (is it, in fact, something that is necessarily accepted as soon as you accept linguistics as a field of study) or does it have its proponents and detractors as it does in literary theory?

 

I have no clue if this is completely tangential or not, but I keep thinking of it...a few months back I read a book by Daniel Everett called Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle. He's a linguist who's spent many years studying the language of the Piraha people. His conclusions about this language have made him unpopular with Noam Chomsky fans. I guess one of the primary points of contention is that Chomsky maintains that one of the rules of universal grammar is that all language is recursive, and Everett argues that Pirahan is not recursive. I spent a few hours poking around online and reading some of the back and forth between Everett and some other linguists, and I came away with a not very good impression of the other linguists. It seemed to me that they were so dedicated to the "facts" they had reached about universal grammar, that they would make any argument, no matter how circular, to preserve it. They came up with definitions of "recursive" so broad that they were meaningless. They suggested that Everett was racist for suggesting that the language of the Piraha did not fit into the definition of human language that Chomsky had come up with.

 

So I guess after reading that, I come at the scientific findings of linguistics with some skepticism. It's not science if you can't imagine any argument that will prove you wrong, and that's what seemed to be going on here. But I readily admit that it's not fair of me to judge the entire field of linguistics based on this one exchange.

[Rosie_0801]

I think this thread has given me more of a headache than the other one.

 

Why are we wanting to shove morphology into syntax? Why is it not ok for morphology to be morphology and syntax to be syntax.

 

Bill, to answer your question:

 

If there's one, it's PEACE

If there's more than one, you've got PIECES

 

 

I'm funny :lol:

 

 

Rosie

[Spy Car]

I think this thread has given me more of a headache than the other one.

 

Why are we wanting to shove morphology into syntax? Why is it not ok for morphology to be morphology and syntax to be syntax.

 

Bill, to answer your question:

 

If there's one, it's PEACE

If there's more than one, you've got PIECES

 

 

I'm funny :lol:

 

 

Rosie

 

You are very funny Rosie :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Bill

[MerryAtHope]

As I understand it, then, the structural approach is to write it as you say it. I say "sev-en" and "jump-ing" vs. "se-ven" or "jum-ping." Would I go with what I actually say or with how the people who determine structural grammar say I ought to say it (in which case it seems no different than the objections stated)?

 

BTW, why is "sev-en" incorrect? It's the way Merriam-Webster has it divided. I also don't understand why "dron-ing" wouldn't be correct. I say "dron-ing" (well, more like "droan-ing," given that I'm a Southerner born and bred;)). Folks are presenting this as if it's self-evident that some of these things are incorrect, and I'm afraid it isn't to me.

 

There are two ways of dividing words; one is according to pronunciation, and one is according to morphology or word meaning. Often a dictionary will show you both ways, though sometimes words with suffixes are not all listed. One that commonly is, is the word "driver." In the bold entry, it is divided according to morphology--keeping the root together: driv-er. In the pronunciation guide (in parenthesis), you can see it divided dri-ver.

 

The issue with pronunciation is, as you have noted--people pronounce things differently. I wonder just how arbitrary some of those entries are!

Edited December 9, 2010 by MerryAtHope