Jump to content

Menu

Grammar Confusion


gala5v22
 Share

Recommended Posts

My head is spinning right now. I'm grading my 5th grader's Abeka grammar and she's done very poorly on the end of year review. We did Shurley English all the way up til this year and she could automatically label every part of speech in the sentence. It seems like this year has just confused her.

 

I switched to Abeka because I kept reading that she needed to learn to diagram. But exactly how important is that? I understand that it is a visual, but aren't you getting the exact same end result with the Shurley method of classifying?

 

I had planned on switching to Growing With Grammar next year, but now I'm seriously considering going back to Shurley. Can anyone help clear my mind????? :banghead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We used Shurley 5 then moved on to Analytical Grammar, which has diagramming. To me, the strength of learning how to diagram comes from understanding what word(s) in a sentence are modifying other words. You do not get this at all with parsing. Diagramming helps to clarify the purpose of the words in a sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Sue. I switched my 5th grader from Shurley (which she had done since 1st) to Rod and Staff (6) this year so she could learn to diagram. It was a terrific change for us. She has learned how to diagram and that has had a positive impact on her writing. She also has enjoyed the new material.

 

I found Shurley very strong in teaching the parts of speech, which it sounds like your daughter learned well. We took the transition slowly and will not finish with R&S 6 next year. I think sticking with the diagramming is important as it gives the child a visual way of evaluating sentences. When I come across "clunky" sentences in her writing she diagrams them before rewriting them and often can easily see how to improve the sentence.

 

For us while Shurley was a good foundation, but I would not use it all the way through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do you guys ever find yourself using the question and answer flow to identify what some of the parts of speech are? Because this was our first year of Abeka and diagramming, I don't think we really learned it WELL and that may be why I'm having a hard time seeing the value in it... along with the fact that I'm actually going back and using the Q&A flow myself to find the different parts of speech. Even to do the basic subject/verb part of the diagramming. It's like it's ingrained in my head.

 

I'm holding her back next year anyway and was thinking about going back and using the Shurley with the Growing with Grammar... and just picking out of the two to make the assignment. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to give a few examples of the power of diagramming:

The man in the poem who talks to the raven is insane...

The basic sentence is man is insane.

(in the poem) tells which man - it is describing man

(who talks to the raven) also tells which man - it an an adjective clause

this would be clear from the diagram

 

The Raven, probably a hallucination, tells the man that he will never be happy again.

(probably a hallucination) is an appositive phrase describing Raven

(that he will never be happy again) is a noun clause - it is functioning like a direct object

this would be clear from the diagram

 

So do you guys ever find yourself using the question and answer flow to identify what some of the parts of speech are?

When we started AG, I did use the flow sometimes, but AG has their own way of figuring out adjectives, adverbs, etc. You ask which noun? how many noun? etc. So, we eventually didn't need the flow anymore.

 

I'm holding her back next year anyway and was thinking about going back and using the Shurley with the Growing with Grammar... and just picking out of the two to make the assignment. What do you think?

I don't think that I can advise you. I love AG. Ds learned more grammar in the first 10 weeks of AG than he did in all of Shurley 5. Learning the parts of speech need not take years. AG did not cover some things that Shurley covered though (making nouns plural, past/future tenses, big-bigger-biggest, etc). I've never looked at GWG because it came out after I needed it.

 

Have you considered JAG?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wanted to give a few examples of the power of diagramming:

The man in the poem who talks to the raven is insane...

The basic sentence is man is insane.

(in the poem) tells which man - it is describing man

(who talks to the raven) also tells which man - it an an adjective clause

this would be clear from the diagram

 

The Raven, probably a hallucination, tells the man that he will never be happy again.

(probably a hallucination) is an appositive phrase describing Raven

(that he will never be happy again) is a noun clause - it is functioning like a direct object

this would be clear from the diagram

 

 

 

See, I get all that without diagramming - I think diagramming is very useful for some, but not necessary (or even useful) for all. This is ironic coming from me, as I usually like things that are shown graphically, but since I "get" all this, diagramming ends up being an unnecessary extra step. I think I absorbed most of this through foreign language study - how something functions in a sentence is *way* more important in other languages, especially an inflected one (I'm thinking that's part of why Latin is so highly regarded here).

 

I do think that being able to take apart a sentence and figure out how each part is functioning is very important. It's also one reason why I'm not big on memorizing lists of words that are purported to be a certian type of speech, because in English virtually any word can function as more than one part of speech (sometimes multiple kinds) based on how it's used in the sentence - that's the real key. Does Shurley only teach parts of speech, or also phrases and clauses?

 

I think if diagramming is the thing that makes the lightbulb go off, then it's a wonderful tool. If it's getting in the way, it is possible to understand grammar very well without it.

 

Next year I'm going to use MCT's LA program, which uses a four-part sentence analysis - you parse separately for parts of speech, parts of the sentence (subject, types of verb/verb phrases, objects, complements, etc.), then phrases, then clauses. This makes much more sense to me personally, so it's what I'm going to use. :)

Edited by matroyshka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...