This categorical statement has some problems with it.
> The Reed and Kellogg diagrams unambiguously symbolize almost all the
> relationships found among words in English sentences. There are
> exceptional usages that create difficulties, but this is true of any
> system of classification.
If I remember the principles of diagramming correctly, UNICORN in the
following two strings would occupy the same slot.
1) A unicorn is in the garden.
2) There is a unicorn in the garden.
Yet, UNICORN has a different relationship in (1) as opposed to (2). If
you make tag questions out of (1) and (2), you have the following:
3) A unicorn is in the garden, isn't it?
4) There is a unicorn in the garden, isn't there?
Why should that be the case if UNICORN has the same relationship?
I have been looking at Lester's Grammar in the Classroom. He does not
provide a diagram for (4), but he provides diagrams for (5) and (6).
They have the same structure.
5) John is easy to please.
6) John is eager to please.
As anyone who has read the most elementary discussion about Chomsky
knows, John does not have the same relationship to the rest of the
string in (5) and (6).
7) It is easy to please John.
8) *It is eager to please John.
In fact, John in (6) is the one who wants to please. John is (5) is the
one is pleased.
Bob Yates
>
> It seems to me that the criticisms usually raised against diagraming are
> applicable to any system of symbolization. You can in some sense
> understand things in themselves without knowing how to represent them
> according to a particular system of symbolization. (I have to admit
> that you were right to call me on the exaggerated claim that if you can't
> diagram a sentence, you don't understand its structure. In saying
> that, I was taking for granted an understanding of the rules of
> diagraming.) There is a sense in which people know words that they cannot
> spell or tunes for which they could not write the musical notes.
> Nevertheless, systems of symbolization have huge advantages. They enable
> you to photograph your understanding, examine it, compare it to others'
> etc. For these reasons, I don't see how the study of grammar can get along
> without diagraming or an equivalent system of symbolizaiton.
>
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000, Susan Witt wrote:
>
> > At 6/27/00, you wrote:
> > >Three cheers! I feel exactly the same way. If you can diagram the sentence,
> > >you understand its structure. If you can't, you don't.
> >
> > I disagree. Diagramming a sentence means that you have to understand not
> > only what an adjective is, but where in the diagram it belongs. Looking at
> > sentence diagrams to me is like looking at Arabic writing -- it really
> > doesn't make sense to me, even though I understand the words. Maybe that's
> > because no one has ever tried to explain it to me.
> >
> > I can't believe that this means I don't understand sentence structure. I
> > may not know the words that categorize things, but I do know how the words
> > relate to each other and how they should go together. I can read what I
> > call "3 paragraph sentences" and know whether they are written in correct
> > English and what they are talking about. (Put Persian and English
> > complexities together in a sentence, as a writer named Shoghi Effendi does,
> > and you come up with some whopper sentences!)
> >
> > Moreover, I can understand sentences well enough to help my students make
> > sense of them and understand why one way of saying things is appropriate
> > formal English and another is not. While I do use a simple, modified form
> > of diagramming, I have never used the formal diagramming in English texts
> > to do this.
> >
> > I am quite sure that this technique is very helpful for some students, but
> > seriously doubt that it is the most important thing or the most useful
> > thing for all students.
> >
> >
> > Susan Mari Witt
> >
> >
> >
> > 240 ERML, MC-051
> > 1201 W. Gregory
> > Urbana, IL 61801
> >
> > Phone: (217) 333-1965
> > Fax: (217) 333-4777
> >
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
|
