Herb,
I thought the term "part of speech" could be used interchangeably with
"word class" (showing my ignorance here). You seem to be implying that
"parts of speech" are associated with notional definitions only? I am
trying to understand all the connotations of this term.
Thanks,
Marie
> Actually, for all my objections to Eight Parts of Speech and to their
> notional definitions, when we would get into word classes in my undergrad
> grammar classes I would start there. But then I would go on to talk about
> what it means to call some class of words a part of speech, and we would
> talk about the need for morphological and syntactic criteria in addition
> to the notional. After we had worked through an understanding of what
> that meant and how to do it, I would then ask them to apply their methods
> to determiners and to number words to see if they could be defined
> morphologically, syntactically, and notionally as word classes, parts of
> speech. As they worked on this is groups, I could see people catching on
> as they began to understand what it meant to call something a word class.
> The classes noun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, pronoun,
> conjunction, and interjection are useful categories. Even more useful is
> some critical thinking about what these terms actually mean and how we
> come to know that. I do explain why we talk about eight parts of speech
> and why that doesn’t always make sense. My concern has been, however,
> not to provide a fixed number of categories, because anyone can argue
> intelligently about any list of lexical categories; rather, my concern has
> been that my students be able to see how a word is functioning in a
> particularly context. We’d play with classic sentences like “The
> horse raced past the barn collapsed,” or I’d give them a sentence
> beginning like “The red pencil marks easily erased…” and ask them to
> suggest ways of completing the sentence. I’d see lights go on as they
> worked on different analyses and correspondingly different ways to
> complete the sentence.
>
> I didn’t want my students learning to sneer at eight parts of speech but
> rather to understand the problems inherent in the concept by learning to
> understand what a lexical category was and why that information was
> important.
>
> Herb
>
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 8:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: grammar term definitions
>
> Susan,
>
> I must apologize again for coming across as putting you down and remaining
> silent. I must agree that much of what is called "traditional" is a pile
> of junk. I want to defend the analysis of the earlier traditional
> schools, who were serious about furthering the science of linguistics.
> The school books of the latter half of the 19th century seem to be in
> general agreement about parts of speech and how they need to be defined.
> However, language study has come a long way since then. I think we simply
> have to be more careful about their definitions. The framework that has
> eight parts of speech seems to be quite sound and robust. A subjective
> approach would be like like a botanist classifying flowers according to
> how beautiful they are on a scale of impressionability to young women, or
> their colors as measured in sunlight as to hue, tint, and intensity. What
> Herb mentioned about the care taken to speak not of words, but of lexemes
> is very instructive. The word "man" can be a noun, but also a verb,
> depending on how it is used. This "how it is used" expression brings us
> to patterns in the sequencing of words (syntax) that will help to tie down
> the definition of the lexeme. The parts of speech are lexemes that find
> definition by means of how they occur with other parts of speech
> (circular). I think the eight found in Indo-European languages are a good
> place to start. The definition usually works easiest if we sometimes
> think about their meaning and how they compare to one another in making a
> sentence, in building a sentence, or even working outside a sentence.
> (Someone pointed out how "hello" is used as a sentence even though many
> interjections are not parts of a sentence. They can even be interjected
> into a word: "abso-bloody-lutely, they can!)
>
> Nouns: name persons or things (usually necessary but not usually
> sufficient for a sentence)
> Pronouns: refer to persons or things (usually necessary but not usually
> sufficient for a sentence)
> Verbs: assert, ask, command, request (usually necessary and sometimes
> sufficient for a sentence)
> Adjectives: modify noun phrases (useful auxiliary component)
> Adverbs: modify other phrases (useful auxiliary component)
> Prepositions: show the relation between noun phrases (useful auxiliary
> component)
> Conjunctions: show the connection between same kinds of phrases or clauses
> (useful auxiliary component)
> Interjections: express feeling (in any utterance)
>
> I won't bother to quote anyone else on these ideas as suggestions for
> using P.o.S instruction. I admit to these definitions being rather
> intuitive and hope I haven't missed the umbilicus in my contemplations.
>
> 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: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 17:30:31 -0600
>
> On Nov 17, 2010, at 8:52 PM, Spruiell, William C wrote:
>> It's the *denial* of subjectivity that inheres in the OctoDogma that's
>> the objectionable part.
>
> Yes, grammar definitions are incredibly subjective. That was my point
> about grammar being a soft science. There is no objective reality out
> there to uncover. We will fight forever about how to categorize.
>
> It is fine for adults who go on to study and teach grammar to contemplate
> the fight between the OctoDogmarians and, for fun, let's call the
> opposition the Octogenarians. I am going to place myself squarely with
> the OctoDogmarians when I am in my classroom (but you should know that my
> heart is with the older, smarter crowd). We OctoDogmarians know there
> aren't 8, but we teach it to young people because it is practical, and
> your warning that it is damaging to teach it because it's a kludge is
> rather circular. Why is it clumsy and inelegant? If we don't teach the
> Eight, what would you have us teach? How much theory do we want to throw
> at students?
>
>> There's no real logic to saying that the distinction between "modifies
>> noun" and "modifies verb" is more important than the distinction between
>> "modifies verb" and, say, "modifies whole sentence."
>
> No, the logic is not on the side of this soft science we call grammar. I
> don't like some of the dumb stuff I have to teach, such as how to get
> around the awkward "he or she." And the reason we need a category that
> distinguishes between "modifies noun" and "modifies verb" is so I can
> explain to my students why they shouldn't tell a prospective employer that
> "they did really good in school." If you could wave a magic grammar wand
> and remove the OctoDogma of the educated class, do it. Until you get
> around to that, I need definitions that will make sense to my students
> without bogging them down in theory. I do love your color-coded idea for
> the younger grades, but at some point we have to branch out to explain
> some of the Latin-forced stupidity that is the snobbery with which we
> live.
>
>> As it's implemented in K-12, the OctoDogma prevents teachers, and
>> students, from *thinking* about language.
>
> Yes, I agree. But some other trendy people all point to studies that say
> grammar study doesn't improve writing. So any grammar we can sneak into
> the curriculum must be simple, simple, simple because we don't have much
> time and little is reinforced from year to year.
>
>> What I can't take is a response that boils down to "I don't care what
>> you say, I'm going to say my taxonomy is better than anything else and I
>> don't have to have reasons." What I actually hear most often goes past
>> that and straight to "N'uh-uh. I'm right."
>
> I agree. I dislike those who shut down debate and will not defend their
> positions. But that is exactly what I have felt from some people (not
> you) on this list. What I head most often is putdowns meant to silence,
> such as "What a naive argument!" "I have no idea what your background is,
> but you need to have a wider...bla bla bla. I will now spew names of
> famous people I have read in an attempt to shut you up."
>
> Thank you for a great post.
>
> Susan
>
> 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/
|
