Steve,
I have time only for a brief response just now, so I'll talk about just two problems with RK.
The first is the failure to separate structure and function, a problem that pervades tradition school grammar. The typical main clause diagram does a reasonable job of representing different sentence types, at least linking, intransitive, and transitive. However, it makes category implicit. We infer that a subject or an object is a noun because RK doesn't specify category. On the other hand it does specify subject and object relations reasonably well.
The second is the failure to distinguish between modifiers and complements. With a ditransitive verb, the indirect object is a complement, not a modifier, as in "He gave her a ring," but it is represented as a modifier. In "the ring was too small," "too small" is clearly distinguished as a subject complement or predicate adjective. However, in "She considered the ring too small," where "too small" is an object complement RK treats it as a modifier. It's functional relationship to "the ring" hasn't changed, but the absence of "to be" from the clause leads RK to obscure that fact.
While I am sure that others on the list could provide other weaknesses in RK, I think a lot of us would still agree that it has some valuable strengths as a pedagogical tool.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Benton, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 6:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Take me fishing - Make me smile - Reed-Kellogg diagrams
I find it hard to resist sentence diagramming (Reed Kellogg-style) when I am teaching grammar and wish I were more aware of its flaws. The most obvious one is that it requires memorization of a number of symbols (lines, dotted lines, "platforms," diagonal lines, etc.) in addition to the memorization of the categories they represent. I do not doubt that when it comes to describing the complexity of the language, RK sentence diagrams may occasionally prove to be crude instruments (are there any other kind, though?). With that in mind, I wonder if the following two cases are representative of the flaws of sentence diagramming:
1) Make me smile.
2) Take me fishing.
It seems to me that in example number one, "me smile" could be a nominative clause that functions as a direct object. If I were diagramming it, I would put "me" on a diagonal line in the subject position (which seems counterintuitive since "me" is objective case) and put the entire clause on a "platform" in the object position. Is that what RK would do with this sentence? What would Reed Kellogg do with the Star Trek command: "Make it so"?
I'm not sure what RK would do with example number two.
Thoughts?
Steve Benton
Assistant Professor
Department of English and Languages
East Central University
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/
|
