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 <mailto:[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.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/