Martha,

Thanks for providing a more positive view than I did.  I do find
diagramming useful, but I think that people who intend to use it should
understand what it does and does not offer as well as what it does
wrong.

Let me clarify my comment that RK diagrams fail to distinguish between
complements and modifiers.  The closest they come to doing this is by
putting direct objects and subject complements and object complements on
the skeleton line and adverbial modifiers below on diagonals.  However,
indirect objects and locative complements are treated as adverbial
modifiers.  Also, complements of other lexical categories are typically
treated as modifiers, as in the example I posted some time back, the
difference between "a student from Chicago" and "a student of
linguistics".  In the latter the PP is a complement, not a modifier, as
can be seen from the fact that we can say "a student of linguistics from
Chicago" but not "a student from Chicago of linguistics".

While at the level at which diagramming is typically taught, the
complement/modifier distinction is arguably less relevant, it's one of
those distinctions that grammars leave out at the expense of student
understanding.  It's a basic grammatical contrast that should be
presented at least in high school, if not in middle school, just as the
difference between free verse, blank verse, and rhyming metrical verse
is.  It's one of those fundamental facts about language that grammar
teaching should cover, unless we are to follow the trend of reducing the
content of grammar teaching to the minimum needed to talk about writing.

Herb

Dear Nancy,

I'd like to put a more positive spin on Herb's generally positive
assessment of diagramming.

One of his negatives concerns the diagrams inability to reflect word
order accurately.  He's right that in many, if not most, cases the
diagram does not preserve word order.  But of course its purpose is
to demonstrate the structural relationships of the parts of the
sentence.  So no matter where an adverbial shows up, for example, the
diagram makes clear that it's a modifier of the verb.  A student
working on a sentence already has the word order; it's the
relationship of the various parts that the diagram will
illustrate--and help the student learn.

I'm not sure what Herb's problem with distinguishing complementation
and modification refers to, but clearly the diagram shows which
structure is the direct object, the indirect object, the object
complement, the subject complement--their lines make that clear--in
contrast to those structures that show up beneath the noun as
modifiers or next to the noun, in parentheses, as appositives, or
below the verb as adverbials.

The diagram does, of course, have drawbacks, but overall sentence
structure is not one of them.  And, yes, the relationships of prenoun
modifiers is a weakness.  For example, in a noun phrase such as "the
simple sentence diagram," the diagram does not show the determiner as
the marker of "simple sentence diagram"--it is simply one of three
slanted lines below the headword.  The diagram would, however,
distinguish the two possible meanings in that noun phrase--that is,
whether "simple" should modify sentence or diagram.

I would suggest that prior to the diagrams, or in conjunction with
them,  you teach the various parts you mention--subjects, direct
objects, etc--in terms of sentence patterns.  I have spoken with a
number of  high school and middle school teachers whose students are
learning to diagram the patterns.  They learn to recognize transitive
verbs on the basis of the following direct object NP, which is then
placed after the vertical line on the diagram's main line.  And
linking verbs or linking-be verbs with their line that slants toward
the subject.  In other words, the be-patterns, the linking patterns,
the intransitive, and the various transitive patterns all have their
specific variations of the basic subject-predicate pattern.

I'll be happy to send you off-line some pages from my book that
illustrate this method.

Martha

P.S.  This month's Harper's has a delightful article on diagramming,
a "Remembrance" piece, reprinted from the online literary journal
"Vocabulary Review." It's called "Sister Bernadette's Barking Dog."
The writer pays tribute to her teacher's--and her own--love of
diagramming.  She remembers especially sentences about the barking
dog.  Coming on the heels of the diagramming article in the NYTimes
Education Life section (November 7), it looks like grammar and
diagramming are back on the table for discussion.  It's about time!




>Diagramming is simply a tool.  How useful it is depends on how a
>teacher chooses to use it.  If it's treated as an end in itself,
>that is, we diagram to learn to diagram, it's pretty much a waste of
>time, but if it's used as you are using it, to reinforce and
>illustrate principles like parts of speech and grammatical
>relationships, then it can be a powerful learning aid.  From what
>you write, it sounds as if your 8th graders are gaining some benefit
>from learning the diagramming skills.
>
>That said, we have to recognized that Reed-Kellogg diagrams are
>based on a theory of grammar that was traditional but decidedly
>inadequate.  RK diagrams don't sufficiently distinguish between
>function and structure; they make no distinction between
>complementation and modification; they treat all prenominal
>modifiers as if they are adjectives, which is in keeping with how
>the traditional eight parts of speech treat them but still wrong;
>and they are unable to reflect word order accurately.  In spite of
>all those problems, they still represent basic notions like subject,
>predicate, main verb, direct object, predicate nominative, and
>modifier clearly, and that's no small benefit.
>
>I'd say keep using them because they are, for all their warts, the
>best thing that is generally available to and familiar to our
>culture for the purpose of teaching grammar.
>
>Herb Stahlke
>
>Subject: diagramming
>Many of you know, I'm an 8th grade teacher of writing and grammar in
>Georgia (B.A. from O.S.U. and M. Ed. from Ohio U.) with 150 students
>in 5 classes.  Anyhow, I've been reviewing parts of speech with my
>darlings (we're talkign BASICS ... nouns/pronouns, verbs (action and
>linking), adj., adv., prep. phrases, d.o. and pred. nom. and pred.
>adj.), and some of them STILL just don't get it.  Thus, I've dusted
>off my Dru Riley Everts incomplete grammar book and started
>diagramming sentences with my students.  They all moaned and groaned
>at first, BUT, they all agree that diagramming is FORCING them to
>see the connections between parts of speech that they didn't see
>before (plus, they like to go to the board to diagram their
>sentence).
>
>Anyhow, for the past decade, diagramming was 'considered' taboo;
>something old school that wasn't worthy of our time.  Are times
>changing?  Can we diagram in peace, since we realize that
>diagramming is just an old fashioned graphic organizer that really
>does help many students decipher a sentence's construction?
>
>Thoughs, comments and criticisms from you all would be greatly
appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>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/