Dick,
That's one of the more thoughtful critiques I've read of diagramming
systems. You're unquestionably right that diagramming can't be an end
in itself and that there are features of phrase structure trees that are
also useful. The deep/surface distinction is not really much of a part
of contemporary syntactic theory, but certainly the PS tree does a much
clearer and more complete job of representing constituent structure and
grammatical category. I have not found it worthwhile doing a lot of
tree drawing, though. Both RK and PS diagrams require a fair bit of
teaching overhead, which has led me away from using such systems in the
classroom. While RK diagrams convey more functional information than
PS, that information is both limited and faulty because the system was
designed long before we had a clear understanding of the different
properties of functional and syntactic analysis. I've found it more
efficient to use measures like pronoun replacement to demonstrate
constituency, but that may be a result of the fact that my
undergraduates have only very limited experience with any sort of
grammar. If we had a rigorous grammar program in K12, then perhaps a
formal representational system might make more sense, since students
could learn parts of it progressively. But that's part of the Scope and
Sequence project, and I'm not sure that they're going in the direction
of formal systems.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Betting
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 11:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: research on sentence diagramming?
A response to questions about using diagraming in English classes
from Dr. Beth Rapp Young
I haven't any research data, but I do have my experience and
some information. Diagraming is comforting to the rationalist, and it
looks
systematic and useful. But I would suggest using it only to illustrate a
method that English teachers used to employ. In the past many students
(some
of mine included) had to learn to draw sticks and trees showing how noun
clauses functioned as direct objects, etc. But rational-looking
diagraming
frequently became an end in itself. If you choose to diagram, I would
suggest not doing so without also using generative-transformational tree
diagrams. These complex diagrams scare many English teachers, but they
illustrate the deep and surface levels of language. They also are
predictive, rather than historical. Then you might add
sentence-component
stratificational grams, somewhat like the Christensen method (far
superior
because that system requires students to create their own sentences in
imitation of the models) used.
Further problems with diagramming include using someone
else's
sentences, focusing on structures rather than meaning, and ignoring
context
almost entirely. Where, for example, are setting, tone, senders and
receivers. Where is phonology? More: diagrams appear to be the whole of
grammar, even of language, when, as a part of the communication process,
diagraming is miniscule.
It seems to me that students are short-changed by an
emphasis on
grammar as it is taught and explained in current traditional grammar
textbooks, and an emphasis on diagraming is one of the ways that
encourage
such a perspective.
It was also interesting that this question was asked at the
same
time John Curran brought up the topic of Systemic-Functional
Linguistics, a
system based on meaning, rather than structures, where traditional
grammar
is stuck.
Dick Betting
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beth Young" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:25 PM
Subject: research on sentence diagramming?
> Hi everyone,
>
> I just received a nice email from a h.s. English teacher asking if I
> knew of any research that supports the use of sentence diagramming as
an
> instructional strategy. I'm going to encourage her to join ATEG :),
but
> in the meantime, do any of you have any suggestions that I could pass
> along to her? I am aware of such sources as David Mulroy's _War on
> Grammar_, but not of empirical research on that particular point.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Beth
>
>
>
> Dr. Beth Rapp Young
> http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~byoung
>
> University of Central Florida
> Stands For Opportunity
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface
> at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
