Herb: In his book The Oxford English Grammar Greenbaum (1996) describes traditional grammar and some of its essential characteristics in the following words: Traditional grammar adopts the approaches and descriptive categories used, particularly in school grammars, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Traditional grammars describe solely, or chiefly, the written language and are indebted to Latin grammars for some of their analyses of English. (p. 26) Besides school grammars, adds Greenbaum, “scholarly reference grammars of the first half of the twentieth century, such as the major work by Otto Jespersen (cf.n.1) have also been considered traditional grammars (p. 26). Traditional grammars are also considered “prescriptive,” and not “descriptive.” Williams clarifies the distinction in this manner: “We say that traditional grammar is prescriptive because it focuses on the distinction between what some people do with language and what they ought to do with it, according to a pre-established standard.” (p. 50). Referring to the approach these grammars take in the definition of grammar terms, Greenbaum specifies that such grammars use “notional” descriptions or formulations: Traditional grammars typically make use of notional criteria; for example, defining a noun as the name of a person, place, or thing rather than by formal criteria such as that nouns typically take plural inflections or that they typically may be introduced by the. Grammars that make frequent use of notional definitions are notional grammars. (p. 26) This classification of the word classes appears at first sight as an oversimplification and reduction of their grammatical roles, but the purpose of such an approach is to make the notions accessible to a large group of students, from the first grade to college. Huddleston (1995) makes the following comment about the notional approach: Notional definitions are characteristic of much traditional grammar – and of the grammar taught in schools in many places even now. Their appeal is clear. The avoid the apparent circularity of the structural approach where a noun, say, is explained by reference to heads, noun phrases, subjects, objects, dependents, singular and plural inflections, and so on, all these other terms being just as much in need of explanation as ‘noun’ itself. The notional definition by contrast does not mention any technical terms of syntax beside the one being defined: it is expressed instead in terms of apparently everyday and intuitively obvious concepts like ‘person,’ ‘place,’ ‘command,’ ‘request.’ (p. 56). The notional definition approach to word classes has been criticized again and again, and termed incorrect and inadequate. Fries (cited in Mulroy, 2003, p. 70), commented that some parts of speech could have multiple functions in the sentence, while Huddleston (1995) mentioned that “the trouble is that the notional definitions simply don’t give the right results,” and supported his point of view with an example concerning the noun definition: “Take first the one we have given for noun – the name of a person, place, or thing. If we interpret ‘thing’ to mean ‘physical object,’ then clearly the definition does not provide a necessary condition for nounhood” (p 56). The claim that traditional grammar definitions are “inaccurate” and “antiquated” seems to be founded on a simplistic understanding of those definitions. Indeed, “Fries was right that traditional grammarians have not been entirely consistent in their definitions of the parts of speech” (Mulroy, 2003, p. 70), and Huddleston showed that “notional definitions simply don’t give the right results” (1995, p. 56), but structural definitions need even more clarification than notional definitions, according to Huddleston himself (p. 56), and such definitions are far from perfect, too. More than that, the terms in the traditional grammar seem more adequate for basic and intermediate grammars than the structural ones: The parts of speech are traditionally taught to young students, and the ways in which they have been taught reproduce the way in which classificatory schemes are usually internalized. One starts with the prototypes: the clearest, most familiar examples of a category (Mulroy, 2003, p. 70). In order to make the prototype notion clear in the mind of the reader Mulroy refers to the means through which children come to recognize different species of birds as they begin “with a familiar and unproblematic example of the category,” not “with an abstract definition.” The same principle applies to the learning of word classes: So, too, in teaching the classes of words, it is natural to begin with prototypical examples. Names of persons, places, and things provide a good collection of nouns. As one continues to study grammar, more refined criteria come into play, often subconsciously. Nouns are words that act like prototypical nouns. The decisive criteria of the parts of speech have to do with the rules governing their forms and the kinds of words with which they are combined. (2003, p. 70) ********* What else needs to be said about traditional grammars? Eduard On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Herbert F.W. Stahlke wrote... >I have a feeling this debate over traditional grammar will continue to >go in a circle. We don't agree on what traditional grammar is. We >don't agree on the relationships between traditional grammar and >language learning and teaching. If we want to spend some time >specifying what traditional grammar is and what it teaches and >encompasses, then we might have a productive topic to discuss. I >suspect Eduard, Phil, and I, for example, agree on more than is >apparent, but we're using different language and making different >assumptions. > > > >Herb 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/