Scott,

I think that one of the most important methods that we have as teachers is
shocking students into viewing a familiar object of study from a very
different perspective. I'll never forget a geography prof's slide show
presentation of different maps of the world. The same principle applies to
teaching about language; students are used to encountering language in
linear form as sounds in the air or words on a page. I like to use tree
diagrams before labeling in order to shock the students into viewing
language from a radically different perspective--not as a linear sequence,
but as a system of hierarchically related groups of meaningful units
that are configured for rhetorical effect. The need for such instruction
usually arises naturally from the occasionally unsuccessful sentences that
my students write in their papers. I use their sentences as examples, and
then with diagrams, teach them how to restructure the sentence to more
effectively emphasize or de-emphasize certain constituents in order to best
convey the intended meaning within the context of the paragraph. Once they
get the idea (understand the hierarchical structure of meaningful groups of
words and how to manipulate them) labeling with brackets, underlining, etc.
is definitely faster and easier. I think this should be true for students of
almost any age who are beginning to study language in this way.

Rob




On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 7:09 PM, rbetting <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>  Herb,
> I have good memories of diagramming too, and I taught it for years in high
> schools. The right brain functioning. I never taught KISS but have read some
> of the literature. It seems to focus a bit much on labels (which is what
> members have been discussing) but it alse requires lots of use, something
> that diagrammers sometimes don't. I would still use diagrams, generative
> grammar trees and sentence stratification (test sentences and so on too) as
> tools to show students ways to see and describe sentences and their
> component parts. The list of negatives is meant to make a point, I guess,
> that this activity can become an end in itself easily. Florey illustrates
> with some elegant diagrams.
> Yup, we're back to the main question: what can and should be used. When
> these activities can be applied to showing students how to use structures to
> make particular kinds of sense in effective communication, they can be
> useful, ought to be used. Seems to me. Students need to be shown how. Use
> doesn't come automatically. Dick Betting
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>   *Sent:* Friday, April 11, 2008 6:06 PM
> *Subject:* Re: relative advantages of marking sentences versus diagramming
>
>  Dick,
>
>
>
> While I have good memories of diagramming, it's because I was one of those
> students who was good at it.  It just made sense and came to me easily.  I
> can't argue with litany of criticisms you review.  I have, by the way,
> similar enjoyment of and problems with phrase structure trees, which I find
> generally more useful than RK diagrams, if not necessarily any clearer, and
> flawed in other ways although they do structure very well.
>
>
>
> But I'm bothered by the criticism that either kind of diagramming is
> simply an exercise in geometry.  I suspect it was that when I learned it and
> that it's all too often taught in that way:  the diagram as an end in
> itself.  But any sort of grammar, even without formal diagrams, can be
> taught as an end in itself, and that's the problem many of us have with
> traditional school grammar, that when it's not simply about formal
> correctness it is an end in itself.  We classify words into parts of speech
> to classify words into parts of speech.  We underline subjects once and
> predicates twice with the same circular goal.  The problem with teaching
> grammar is most frequently that we don't know why we teach what we teach,
> and so we can't provide a curricular justification that will pass muster
> with any competent curriculum committee.  We never explain the role of
> subject and predicate in expressing meaning effectively and in structuring
> discourse.
>
>
>
> Asking why we teach what we teach will lead to answers that actually do
> deal with communication, spoken and written.  Doing so will make us ask what
> developing writers need to know about their grammatical options so that they
> choose them with as much knowledge and care that we would like them to make
> other choices.
>
>
>
> I disagree strongly with Florey's claim that you cite, "But there are
> other places to acquire it than in sixth-grade grammar classes. . . . The
> fact is that a lot of people don't need diagramming or anything else: they
> pick up grammar and syntax effortlessly through their reading . . . and they
> do things correctly without knowing why."  This is the standard confusion
> of grammar as what children learn in their first five years as they acquire
> most of the first language and grammar as the anatomy and physiology of
> language that defines the rhetorical choices we can make as we speak or
> write.  There is no question that children master the former sort of
> grammar.  The problem is that they don't typically learn at the same time
> how to use that knowledge to good rhetorical effect without overt teaching.
> It's rather like saying that because children learn to run and swing their
> arms without overt teaching that they don't have to taught to play tennis,
> an activity in which directed and effective use of these natural motions is
> critical.
>
>
>
> So we're back to the questions that continue to both plague and drive
> groups like ATEG:  what should we teach and how should we teach it?
>
>
>
> Herb
>
> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *rbetting
> *Sent:* 2008-04-11 09:06
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: relative advantages of marking sentences versus diagramming
>
>
>
> You might consider my analysis of diagramming from Grammar Today:
>
> The question is whether diagramming helps, whether students understand the
> functions of the various parts of sentences better with diagrams. Does it
> help to put *flag *and *Camping *on a line where the system says subjects
> belong? Students could analyze the sentences and come to the same conclusion
> without a diagram. What a diagram does illustrate is that *Camping*,
> normally a verb, is used as a subject. But students can also understand that
> without a diagram. They've used those kinds of nominatives for years. For
> visual learners, the diagram may help. Diagrams appear neat and attractive
> for some, frown formidably for others. *Several problems with diagramming*:
> (1) On some level the lines and sticks appear to make clear the relationship
> of the parts, but diagrams do almost nothing to explain meaning, while they
> oversimplify language structures. (2) Diagrams in textbooks use someone
> else's sentences. Few difficult ones. None that cannot be parsed neatly. (3)
> Diagrams are not predictive; that is, they don't help students produce
> sentences of their own. (4) Diagrams fail to distinguish between form and
> function; that is, any word or phrase in subject position must be a
> nominative. Many different kinds of structures can be nominatives: gerunds,
> infinitives, prepositional phrases, noun clauses. (5) Badly worded and
> ungrammatical sentences can be diagrammed as neatly as well-worded sentences
> can. (6) Diagramming as an exercise can become an end in itself. (7)
> Sentences are isolated from context, never the case in actual use. (8)
> Diagrams fail to make a connection between knowing how to do them and being
> able to speak and write more effectively. Diagrams don't automatically help
> students improve their style. They may even prevent students from exploring
> their own linguistic creativity.
>
> In *Teacher Man *Frank McCourt explains his inability to teach
> diagramming, the "structure and Euclidian beauty of it." He admits, "I tried
> but failed. I made lines vertical, horizontal, slanting, and then I stood,
> adrift at the blackboard, till a Chinese student volunteered to take over
> and teach the teacher what the teacher should have known."
>
> In her recent book *Sister Bernadette's Barking Dog *Kitty Burns Florey
> concludes that diagramming, while a joyful activity for some students, will
> not improve their writing or speaking. "Few people would deny that students
> need to master grammar in order to write decently," Florey writes. "But
> there are other places to acquire it than in sixth-grade grammar classes. .
> . . The fact is that a lot of people don't need diagramming or anything
> else: they pick up grammar and syntax effortlessly through their reading . .
> . and they do things correctly without knowing why."
>
>
>
> Grammar Today 84 *Chapter 6. The Beginnings of Traditional Grammar    Dick
> Betting    *
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>
> *Sent:* Friday, April 11, 2008 12:23 AM
>
> *Subject:* relative advantages of marking sentences versus diagramming
>
>
>
> Dear Listmates,
>
> I would appreciate some comment on the relative advantages of marking
> sentences (following a KISS Grammar method or similar) versus diagramming
> sentences in the Reed-Kellogg style (or variant) for the purposes of
> teaching and learning how to understand sentence structure.  The students
> are diligent upper elementary and middle school students performing at or
> above grade level; the teachers believe that grammar instruction is
> important; the administration lets the teachers do what they want, provided
> their students continue to outperform other schools.  Should students learn
> diagramming? What advantages does it bring them that marking will not? When
> should they learn diagramming?  Does anyone have any experience with using
> either both methods or diagramming with this age group?  Is there any
> relevant research?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott Woods
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit
> the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.htmland 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/
>
>  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/