Marie,
No, traditional U.S. grammar books make no consistent distinction
between category and function. A classic example of such a book--widely
used for decades--would be Warriner's, which so completely ignores the
point that it doesn't appear even aware of the possibility that there's
a difference.
BTW, I would be interested to look at the French national curriculum on
grammar. Is there any substantial description available on line? (I can
read French.)
Karl
On 11/18/2010 8:11 AM, Marie-Pierre Jouannaud wrote:
> Karl,
>
> Having been born and raised in France, I guess I'm missing some of the
> ideological overtones of the debate...
>
> Still, I think that an outdated grammar is better than no grammar at
> all. The grammar taught in French schools isn't great (I sometimes
> wonder what the writers of the national curriculum were thinking), but
> it's a foundation you can build on later on. Doesn't traditional grammar
> in the US distinguish between category and function?
>
> Marie
>
> Karl Hagen a écrit :
>> Marie,
>>
>> I hope you're not suggesting that all simplifications are more or less
>> interchangeable.
>>
>> The problem I have with teaching 8 categories specifically, as opposed
>> to some other number, is that it is not an innocent choice. It's a
>> signal that we're teaching the old, late-19th-century grammar, and
>> there is absolutely no good reason to do this. (The fact that your
>> school board requires you to use a textbook that regurgitates outdated
>> nonsense is not, to my mind, a good reason.)
>>
>> Everyone who's studied the matter knows that old parts-of-speech
>> account doesn't work well as a theoretical description of English (and
>> this holds of old grammars that pick some other number than 8 too), so
>> why subject students to something that we know is not right?
>>
>> The 8-category account isn't just a simplification for young minds,
>> it's an integral part of a wider, incorrect account of English, one
>> that has substantially different assumptions than contemporary
>> linguistic grammars do.
>>
>> Those of us who acquired a linguistic background after being subjected
>> to traditional grammar essentially had to be reprogrammed. Why do we
>> want to waste students' time with that? I think we can do better by
>> providing a well thought out introduction to language from the start.
>>
>> Of course we need to give beginning students simplified accounts of
>> syntax. Why not start with the 5 big categories (noun, verb,
>> adjective, adverb, preposition)? We can mention that there a number of
>> other smaller categories that will be covered later.
>>
>> I don't have any problem with calling these categories parts of
>> speech, as long as we teach them strictly as word categories and don't
>> use them to describe grammatical functions. For example, don't call a
>> prepositional phrase that modifies a noun an adjective phrase.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> On 11/18/2010 4:24 AM, Marie-Pierre Jouannaud wrote:
>>> I don't agree with Susan in that I think languages are just as much "out
>>> there" as planets or electrons. Sure, they're a creation of the human
>>> mind, but I don't really see what difference it makes. They might be
>>> harder to study because they change all the time and each person uses a
>>> slightly different version of the same language, but then you could also
>>> argue that they're easier to have access to than far-away planets or
>>> electrons.
>>>
>>> What I do agree with is that there's nothing harmful in teaching
>>> children that there are 8 parts of speech (or 7, or 9, or any other
>>> number). Isn't that more of less what all of you were taught, and didn't
>>> you become grammarians or linguists? As long as teachers realize that
>>> what they are teaching is a simplication of reality, and that there
>>> might be other ways of simplifying it, and don't shy away from
>>> discussing "in-between" cases, then we're good. If they manage to convey
>>> these ideas to their students, then the students might not be
>>> destabilized if their next teacher uses a slightly different
>>> categorization scheme.
>>>
>>> Children DO need to know the names of basic categories: how far can they
>>> go in their study of English (not to mention foreign languages) if they
>>> don't know what a noun is, or a verb, or a preposition?
>>>
>>> Marie
>>> France
>>>
>>> PS: From a pedagogical perpective, the real difference between
>>> established "hard" sciences like physics or biology and linguistics
>>> could be that they agree on useful, productive simplications and we
>>> don't.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Susan van Druten a écrit :
>>>> This passage does not negate what I have been saying about basic
>>>> grammar definitions: grammar is a subjective reality.
>>>> I have avoided using the terms hard science and soft science, but I
>>>> guess these terms cut to the chase.
>>>> Grammar is a human construct. Gravity is not. Grammar has no objective
>>>> reality to test and discover. I like the work of Steven Pinker a lot
>>>> more than the philosophers you mentioned. I think Pinker does "hard"
>>>> science with grammar and doesn't dabble much in theory. I see most
>>>> theoretical grammarians as trend-setters, and their followers are
>>>> bandwagon-jumpers. They come in and out of fashion. Right now it is
>>>> trendy to disparage an 8-parts-of-speech view of the world; those
>>>> grammarians act like they are Copernicus and have discovered that the
>>>> earth revolves around the sun. Sorry, it's not even close to
>>>> comparable. If it's so damaging to think that way, give me a reason.
>>>> Why are kids poorly served by dividing all words into only 8
>>>> categories? These are kids who don't know that "is" (such a small,
>>>> preposition-like word) is a powerful verb. You haven't come up with an
>>>> answer because there is no answer. It's a subjective reality. There is
>>>> no grammatical reality "hiding a number of mysteries."
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 17, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Bruce Despain wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry for misrepresenting your position. I wish you had taken the
>>>>> time to read the few pages that I have written on the scientific
>>>>> approach. Here is an example of how our languages give us a view of
>>>>> reality that is not scientific.
>>>>> The scientist does not necessarily want to study the phenomena of
>>>>> nature in the same way that language has come to refer to them. A
>>>>> particularly apt case in point concerns the discovery that heat and
>>>>> work do not refer to anything tangible (Peter Atkins, 2003
>>>>> <file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Bruce/My%20Documents/WebDev05/phil/note/refap03.htm>,
>>>>>
>>>>> pp. 110–112) Before 1798 heat was something like a liquid, which
>>>>> scientists called “caloric,” that could flow from one object to
>>>>> another. This theory arose despite the fact that heat was “subtle”
>>>>> (could enter any substance), and was “imponderable” (could not be
>>>>> weighed). In that year Benjamin Thompson (1753–1814) showed that heat
>>>>> could be created at will and was inexhaustible. Since it was
>>>>> generated by friction, it must be related to the motion of particles.
>>>>> Involved with extensive study using the steam engine scientists
>>>>> attempted to show how work, measured in ergs, could be related to
>>>>> heat, measured in calories. Sometime before 1875 James Joule
>>>>> (1818–1889) found that there was a direct equivalence between the
>>>>> work done (mechanical energy) and the heat generated (heat energy).
>>>>> In fact they are two manifestations of one and the same thing! “Heat”
>>>>> and “work” are really verbs, /i.e./, two ways of transferring energy
>>>>> from one object (location) to another. We speak of an object as
>>>>> “hot,” but the more accurate truth is that the object, if it must be
>>>>> “storing energy,” is doing so by the rapid vibrations of its parts.
>>>>> Heat is the agency of transfer and not an entity being transferred.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would submit that you comments about gravity might well be hiding
>>>>> something. The way it is able to work at a distance has always been a
>>>>> mystery; assumed to be true for the theory to work and the
>>>>> mathematics to describe it accurately. Some theoreticians posit
>>>>> particles (gravitons) like the photons of light that let it travel
>>>>> through space. Where is the reality here? I think the theories are
>>>>> frameworks that are missing some of the underlying details. One
>>>>> person may want to say reality is out there, another that it is in
>>>>> here. Wherever it is, it is hiding a number of mysteries.
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]
>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: grammar term definitions
>>>>> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:08:54 -0600
>>>>>
>>>>> Before leaving the subject you want to throw out a misrepresentation
>>>>> of my position? That sounds like someone who can no longer argue
>>>>> logically and must resort to name-calling.
>>>>> there is a reality out there that scientists can observe,
>>>>> measure, standardize, and control.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is obviously true. Not even worth arguing with you about it. But
>>>>> if you don't believe it, you may provide an example for me to knock
>>>>> down.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the ability to observe (analyze, generalize, /etc/.) requires
>>>>> a good amount of acceptance of existing frameworks for doing so. It's
>>>>> a vicious circle. Analysis into parts *reduces* the
>>>>> phenomena to simpler terms. Generalizing allows the phenomena to
>>>>> be seen as an aspect of something greater. Both modes of
>>>>> reasoning are tools of the linguist.
>>>>> I have no complaint about this. I think you have misread me. (Let's
>>>>> be clear, an existing scientific framework is "gravity will work
>>>>> tomorrow and the day after, and the day after that, etc."
>>>>> Philosophical frameworks are not as easy to agree upon. THAT'S my
>>>>> complaint about science v. philosophy.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The positions of both Kuhn and Popper are discussed...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And as you used their ideas to explain grammar, would you
>>>>> characterize them as being scientific or philosophical? I'm guessing
>>>>> it's both (especially scientific when it involves mathematics), but
>>>>> I'm guessing you relied heavily--very heavily--on philosophy to
>>>>> present their ideas. That's my point. Grammar is an art.
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:34 PM, Bruce Despain wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Before leaving this subject I did want to comment on a Susan's
>>>>> position on philosophy and Herb's on the history of science. Susan
>>>>> seems to subscribe to the common naive notion (a
>>>>> pre-theoretical phlosophy) that there is a reality out there that
>>>>> scientists can observe, measure, standardize, and control. But
>>>>> the ability to observe (analyze, generalize, /etc/.) requires a
>>>>> good amount of acceptance of existing frameworks for doing so. It's a
>>>>> vicious circle. Analysis into parts *reduces* the
>>>>> phenomena to simpler terms. Generalizing allows the phenomena to
>>>>> be seen as an aspect of something greater. Both modes of
>>>>> reasoning are tools of the linguist. The positions of both Kuhn and
>>>>> Popper are discussed in my Logical
>>>>> Approach to the /Syntax of English/. The first chapter covers
>>>>> the approach of science in some detail as the language of science
>>>>> (mathematics) is also amenable to linguistic investigation. The
>>>>> section on presentation outlines the characteristics of a
>>>>> successful theory. http://www.bdespain.org/S&L/science/index.htm
>>>>> <http://www.bdespain.org/S&L/science/index.htm>
>>>>> Bruce
>>>>> --- [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]
>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> Subject: Re: grammar term definitions
>>>>> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:45:06 -0600
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Brett,
>>>>>
>>>>> You also need to read more carefully. I wrote that Kuhn was not
>>>>> a scientist when he is writing about what science is. When he
>>>>> does that, he leaves the realm of science and becomes a
>>>>> philosopher. When he creates controlled experiments to determine
>>>>> what matter, energy, motion, and force are, then he is a scientist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Susan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 15, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Brett Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On 2010-11-15, at 6:54 PM, Susan wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Hi Bob, do you think philosophy is a science in the same way
>>>>> that physics is a science? You will need a more precise
>>>>> definition of science to follow my argument. But perhaps that is
>>>>> what you don't want to do.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > But Kuhn was a physicist and Susan said he wasn't a scientist!
>>>>> I know I'm having trouble following her argument.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Best,
>>>>> > Brett
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----------------------
>>>>> > Brett Reynolds
>>>>> > English Language Centre
>>>>> > Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
>>>>> > Toronto, Ontario, Canada
>>>>> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 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/
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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/
|
