In a message dated 6/27/00 11:51:22 AM Central Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< 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. >>

It sounds as if it's simply the conventions for representing the
relationships among sentence elements in diagramming systems that are
unfamiliar to you. I would say that's true for many but that in the following
sentence you know how the adjective is related to the noun which follows it:

This is a productive discussion.

Most of us who work with language have an intuitive feel for syntax that
serves us well much of the time. On the other hand, look at the first
sentence of this post:

"It sounds as if it's simply the conventions for representing the
relationships among sentence elements in diagramming systems that are
unfamiliar to you."

My guess is that the sentence doesn't sound as "clear" or "readable" to you
as it might. The question that interests me is how to edit it and how can a
systematic approach to syntax help the editing process. I rely on both an
intuitive feel for good style AND whatever grammars I've studied to try to
resolve these issues. Sometimes, I'm stumped for a while. So, in this
example, I know enough about syntax to make sure that the relative clause at
the end of the sentence contains a plural verb to agree with "conventions."
On the other hand, I'm puzzled about "it's simply the conventions." Is there
a S/V agreement error there? "It's" is an expletive, I believe, but the
clause still bothers me.

It interests me to look at specific examples in a real writing context when
I'm thinking about how conscious knowledge of grammars helps me edit. It
frustrates me when I'm working with students or other writers who don't use
the same tools or have the same vocabulary. And it frustrates me when I can't
resolve a grammatical issue because of my own lack of knowledge, although I
have the advantage of knowing enough to actually use reference materials.
Most students (and adults) don't and even have difficulty applying the
handful of rules in a simple style manual. Another problem, of course, is
that the popular handbooks are very blunt tools for addressing the complexity
of the sentences we generate when we write.

I bring these issues up because concrete examples help to illustrate the
interplay between conscious knowledge of grammar and the intuitive feel for
good writing that writers use when they edit and compose. The examples also,
I think, illustrate the limitations of relying solely on one's ear. Even if I
were to recast the problem sentence because "it seems wordy" (which is the
approach many writers would take),  I personally would still be niggled by
not understanding the structure of the clause, "it's simply the conventions."
Maybe one of the essential differences between those who want to use a
pragmatic, minimalist approach to grammar instruction and those who prefer a
systematic, integrated approach is simply that the second group feels the
analytic itch more intensely. I'd put myself in the second group, but I'm
still not convinced that that itch is sufficient to require that the
curriculum once again include explicit, sustained instruction in grammar.

Some of the questions I ask myself are these. Do I want students to have a
conscious awareness of the structure of language simply because I personally
use that awareness all the time, and I can't imagine the seat of the pants
approach being nearly as effective--or interesting? Why can't we design good
classroom research methodologies to improve the data we have on exactly how
conscious knowledge of syntax affects the editing process (other things as
well, analytical ability for one). I can think of several interesting
approaches that would yield more useful conclusions than the old saw that
isolated, instrusive grammar drill has no transfer to student's ability to
improve "how well they write." Whatever, "how well they write" means.

Interesting.

Dr. Cathy Upham
English Language Arts Development Specialist
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
Madison, WI  53707