Dear ATEG list,

I would like to reply on the questions relating to traditional versus
linguistic terminology for the parts of speech.

First, though, let me say that I would not worry about the seeming
rash of defections from the list.  We only get those messages because
the senders are not sending to the _computer_ but to all of us
instead.

The ATEG Web Site is very prominent on the web and offers an easy way
to sign up to the list -- there must be tons of traffic going through!

 It warms my heart that such a beautiful web site has been put up and
running for us to use.

But, to respond on the point:  I object to the misrepresentations and
minimizations of what "traditional terminology" actually presents.

It is wrong  to brush off an immense scholarly tradition with a
few unconsidered remarks.

One thing that all pre-scientific scholars could study almost as well as
we can, is language.  And study it they did!  It is wrong to throw
around a few loose terms and then say "let's use our own reasoning to
make a better grammar than they used with their reasoning"

Because that's all we are doing, using our reasoning to establish a
classification system for words.

To attack traditional terminology, you would have to attack the
scholastic philosophy that it's based on.  No one has ever done that.

Even Chomsky himself failed to describe the pedigree behind the
philosophy that he puts forward in "The Logical Structure of
Linguistic Theory."

These are some of the examples I have noted in recent postings:

To change the term "subject" to "actant" is really a step backwards.
Here's why:

The main noun in a clause is not a "doer" of the verb; it is a
"subject" about which we predicate a statement.  A "noun" is called a
"substantive" because of the distinction between "substance" and
"attribute" that underlies the concept of a clause.  A clause is the
combining of a substance and some attributes.

Therefore, the traditional definition of a noun is _not_  the
oversimplified "person, place or thing."  The definition of a noun is
a "substance."  The term "actant" actually gives a narrower, not a
broader concept of what a noun is.

The definition of a clause as "a subject and a verb" also shows a
misunderstanding of traditional terminology. The terms "subject" and
"verb" do not really go together.

 The term "subject" aligns with the terms "predicate" and "object."

The term "verb" comes from a different stratum of terminology:  it
belongs with "noun," "adverb," and "adjective."

A noun is the name of a substance.  It may become a subject if we
wish to predicate a statement about it.  "Subject, Predicate, and
Object" deal with syntax; "noun and verb" deal with lexis.

Another question is the choice between "article" and "determiner."

Supposedly, "determiner" is better because it is a more narrow, more
subdivided classification.  This is fine!  Classifying the parts of
speech is what we do.  But it's also what traditional grammarians
have always done.  To _refine_ and _tidy up_ the traditional system
is not as rejecting the traditional system out of hand and starting
anew.  Johanna's "detail issues" are actually continuing the work of
traditional grammar.  They may even be quite as rational as any
classification in traditional grammar.  But they are in no way a
revolution and should not be seen as such.  It is not profitable to
see this work as a revolution, rather than as a refinement.

However, we can go the other way also in the "article - determiner"
question.  Perhaps the word "determiner" is a poor choice.

Everything's a determiner.  Certainly every adjective and every
adverb.  It depends on what you mean by "determiner," of course; but
wouldn't it be nice if the new names were at least a little more
self-evident?

Not only that, but the category of "determiner" can be criticized as
too narrow for practical purposes.  What use is the article-determiner
distinction in the classroom where students still don't know what
a noun is?

"Determiner," if it is valid, is an extremely narrow sub- sub-
category.  It fits into a larger category of "secondary, supporting,
or modifying" words; in traditional terminology, an attributive.  All
words are either substances or the attributes of a substance or else
connecting words.  The articles and determiners _all_ fit into a
larger category called "modifiers."  In my opinion, it is more
practical in the classroom, more "in context" if you like, to teach
on the level of somewhat larger categories.

There is also a question on "pronouns."  Johanna proposes that we
change this to "proforms," which is may also be a reasonable
category.  However, it is a traditional category, or at least a new
part of the traditional system:  even if we accept "proforms," then
"pronouns" will still be a valid sub-category of proforms.  It is one
thing to refine traditional reasoning, another to reject it.

Johanna says that a pronoun can't be defined as "replacing a noun"
and gives this example:

In going from "the tall girl scored" to "she scored," the word "she"
replaces a whole phrase, not a noun.

Interesting, but misleading.  Again, the traditional definition of
"pronoun" is _not_ the stereotypical "replaces a noun."

In the article "Of Grammar" (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1771, posted on
my web page) pronound are dealt with in a section called "Of
Substantives of the Second Order, called Pronouns."  The pronoun is
not seen to replace a noun, it is seen to refer to a substance.

"She" refers to the tall girl herself, not to the words in the
previous sentence.  _That_ is the traditional definition of a
pronoun.

Traditional terminology is not the barrier that we face.  The barrier
that we face is the complete ignorance of a subject called "grammar"
amongst the population, in particular amongst the products of
Education degrees.

Johanna's list of the parts of speech (from her February 4 post) is
excellent.  It is, however, at most a refinement of the traditional
classification.  What we need to do is _teach this list_ to all
students and prospective teachers.  We do not need to make up a new
list.

Ed Vavra's KISS curriculum (available on the ATEG web site) is
perfect.  In my opinion the scope and sequenceing are perfectly
appropriate to the grades and ages that he outlines.  I notice that
there are no takers to his challenge to present a better k-12 grammar
curriculum.  There isn't a better one!

Let's keep on our efforts to teach _that one_.

Robert Einarsson
www.artsci.gmcc.ab.ca/people/einarssonb

Vavra's curriculum