Karl,

Having been born and raised in France, I guess I'm missing some of the 
ideological overtones of the debate...

Still, I think that an outdated grammar is better than no grammar at 
all. The grammar taught in French schools isn't great (I sometimes 
wonder what the writers of the national curriculum were thinking), but 
it's a foundation you can build on later on. Doesn't traditional grammar 
in the US distinguish between category and function?

Marie

Karl Hagen a écrit :
> Marie,
>
> I hope you're not suggesting that all simplifications are more or less 
> interchangeable.
>
> The problem I have with teaching 8 categories specifically, as opposed 
> to some other number, is that it is not an innocent choice. It's a 
> signal that we're teaching the old, late-19th-century grammar, and 
> there is absolutely no good reason to do this. (The fact that your 
> school board requires you to use a textbook that regurgitates outdated 
> nonsense is not, to my mind, a good reason.)
>
> Everyone who's studied the matter knows that old parts-of-speech 
> account doesn't work well as a theoretical description of English (and 
> this holds of old grammars that pick some other number than 8 too), so 
> why subject students to something that we know is not right?
>
> The 8-category account isn't just a simplification for young minds, 
> it's an integral part of a wider, incorrect account of English, one 
> that has substantially different assumptions than contemporary 
> linguistic grammars do.
>
> Those of us who acquired a linguistic background after being subjected 
> to traditional grammar essentially had to be reprogrammed. Why do we 
> want to waste students' time with that? I think we can do better by 
> providing a well thought out introduction to language from the start.
>
> Of course we need to give beginning students simplified accounts of 
> syntax. Why not start with the 5 big categories (noun, verb, 
> adjective, adverb, preposition)? We can mention that there a number of 
> other smaller categories that will be covered later.
>
> I don't have any problem with calling these categories parts of 
> speech, as long as we teach them strictly as word categories and don't 
> use them to describe grammatical functions. For example, don't call a 
> prepositional phrase that modifies a noun an adjective phrase.
>
> Karl
>
> On 11/18/2010 4:24 AM, Marie-Pierre Jouannaud wrote:
>> I don't agree with Susan in that I think languages are just as much "out
>> there" as planets or electrons. Sure, they're a creation of the human
>> mind, but I don't really see what difference it makes. They might be
>> harder to study because they change all the time and each person uses a
>> slightly different version of the same language, but then you could also
>> argue that they're easier to have access to than far-away planets or
>> electrons.
>>
>> What I do agree with is that there's nothing harmful in teaching
>> children that there are 8 parts of speech (or 7, or 9, or any other
>> number). Isn't that more of less what all of you were taught, and didn't
>> you become grammarians or linguists? As long as teachers realize that
>> what they are teaching is a simplication of reality, and that there
>> might be other ways of simplifying it, and don't shy away from
>> discussing "in-between" cases, then we're good. If they manage to convey
>> these ideas to their students, then the students might not be
>> destabilized if their next teacher uses a slightly different
>> categorization scheme.
>>
>> Children DO need to know the names of basic categories: how far can they
>> go in their study of English (not to mention foreign languages) if they
>> don't know what a noun is, or a verb, or a preposition?
>>
>> Marie
>> France
>>
>> PS: From a pedagogical perpective, the real difference between
>> established "hard" sciences like physics or biology and linguistics
>> could be that they agree on useful, productive simplications and we 
>> don't.
>>
>>
>>
>> Susan van Druten a écrit :
>>> This passage does not negate what I have been saying about basic
>>> grammar definitions: grammar is a subjective reality.
>>> I have avoided using the terms hard science and soft science, but I
>>> guess these terms cut to the chase.
>>> Grammar is a human construct. Gravity is not. Grammar has no objective
>>> reality to test and discover. I like the work of Steven Pinker a lot
>>> more than the philosophers you mentioned. I think Pinker does "hard"
>>> science with grammar and doesn't dabble much in theory. I see most
>>> theoretical grammarians as trend-setters, and their followers are
>>> bandwagon-jumpers. They come in and out of fashion. Right now it is
>>> trendy to disparage an 8-parts-of-speech view of the world; those
>>> grammarians act like they are Copernicus and have discovered that the
>>> earth revolves around the sun. Sorry, it's not even close to
>>> comparable. If it's so damaging to think that way, give me a reason.
>>> Why are kids poorly served by dividing all words into only 8
>>> categories? These are kids who don't know that "is" (such a small,
>>> preposition-like word) is a powerful verb. You haven't come up with an
>>> answer because there is no answer. It's a subjective reality. There is
>>> no grammatical reality "hiding a number of mysteries."
>>> Susan
>>>
>>> On Nov 17, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Bruce Despain wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm sorry for misrepresenting your position. I wish you had taken the
>>>> time to read the few pages that I have written on the scientific
>>>> approach. Here is an example of how our languages give us a view of
>>>> reality that is not scientific.
>>>> The scientist does not necessarily want to study the phenomena of
>>>> nature in the same way that language has come to refer to them. A
>>>> particularly apt case in point concerns the discovery that heat and
>>>> work do not refer to anything tangible (Peter Atkins, 2003
>>>> <file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Bruce/My%20Documents/WebDev05/phil/note/refap03.htm>, 
>>>>
>>>> pp. 110–112) Before 1798 heat was something like a liquid, which
>>>> scientists called “caloric,” that could flow from one object to
>>>> another. This theory arose despite the fact that heat was “subtle”
>>>> (could enter any substance), and was “imponderable” (could not be
>>>> weighed). In that year Benjamin Thompson (1753–1814) showed that heat
>>>> could be created at will and was inexhaustible. Since it was
>>>> generated by friction, it must be related to the motion of particles.
>>>> Involved with extensive study using the steam engine scientists
>>>> attempted to show how work, measured in ergs, could be related to
>>>> heat, measured in calories. Sometime before 1875 James Joule
>>>> (1818–1889) found that there was a direct equivalence between the
>>>> work done (mechanical energy) and the heat generated (heat energy).
>>>> In fact they are two manifestations of one and the same thing! “Heat”
>>>> and “work” are really verbs, /i.e./, two ways of transferring energy
>>>> from one object (location) to another. We speak of an object as
>>>> “hot,” but the more accurate truth is that the object, if it must be
>>>> “storing energy,” is doing so by the rapid vibrations of its parts.
>>>> Heat is the agency of transfer and not an entity being transferred.
>>>>
>>>> I would submit that you comments about gravity might well be hiding
>>>> something. The way it is able to work at a distance has always been a
>>>> mystery; assumed to be true for the theory to work and the
>>>> mathematics to describe it accurately. Some theoreticians posit
>>>> particles (gravitons) like the photons of light that let it travel
>>>> through space. Where is the reality here? I think the theories are
>>>> frameworks that are missing some of the underlying details. One
>>>> person may want to say reality is out there, another that it is in
>>>> here. Wherever it is, it is hiding a number of mysteries.
>>>> 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: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:08:54 -0600
>>>>
>>>> Before leaving the subject you want to throw out a misrepresentation
>>>> of my position? That sounds like someone who can no longer argue
>>>> logically and must resort to name-calling.
>>>> there is a reality out there that scientists can observe,
>>>> measure, standardize, and control.
>>>>
>>>> This is obviously true. Not even worth arguing with you about it. But
>>>> if you don't believe it, you may provide an example for me to knock
>>>> down.
>>>>
>>>> But the ability to observe (analyze, generalize, /etc/.) requires
>>>> a good amount of acceptance of existing frameworks for doing so. It's
>>>> a vicious circle. Analysis into parts *reduces* the
>>>> phenomena to simpler terms. Generalizing allows the phenomena to
>>>> be seen as an aspect of something greater. Both modes of
>>>> reasoning are tools of the linguist.
>>>> I have no complaint about this. I think you have misread me. (Let's
>>>> be clear, an existing scientific framework is "gravity will work
>>>> tomorrow and the day after, and the day after that, etc."
>>>> Philosophical frameworks are not as easy to agree upon. THAT'S my
>>>> complaint about science v. philosophy.)
>>>>
>>>> The positions of both Kuhn and Popper are discussed...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And as you used their ideas to explain grammar, would you
>>>> characterize them as being scientific or philosophical? I'm guessing
>>>> it's both (especially scientific when it involves mathematics), but
>>>> I'm guessing you relied heavily--very heavily--on philosophy to
>>>> present their ideas. That's my point. Grammar is an art.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:34 PM, Bruce Despain wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Before leaving this subject I did want to comment on a Susan's
>>>> position on philosophy and Herb's on the history of science. Susan
>>>> seems to subscribe to the common naive notion (a
>>>> pre-theoretical phlosophy) that there is a reality out there that
>>>> scientists can observe, measure, standardize, and control. But
>>>> the ability to observe (analyze, generalize, /etc/.) requires a
>>>> good amount of acceptance of existing frameworks for doing so. It's a
>>>> vicious circle. Analysis into parts *reduces* the
>>>> phenomena to simpler terms. Generalizing allows the phenomena to
>>>> be seen as an aspect of something greater. Both modes of
>>>> reasoning are tools of the linguist. The positions of both Kuhn and
>>>> Popper are discussed in my Logical
>>>> Approach to the /Syntax of English/. The first chapter covers
>>>> the approach of science in some detail as the language of science
>>>> (mathematics) is also amenable to linguistic investigation. The
>>>> section on presentation outlines the characteristics of a
>>>> successful theory. http://www.bdespain.org/S&L/science/index.htm
>>>> <http://www.bdespain.org/S&L/science/index.htm>
>>>> 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: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:45:06 -0600
>>>>
>>>> Hi Brett,
>>>>
>>>> You also need to read more carefully. I wrote that Kuhn was not
>>>> a scientist when he is writing about what science is. When he
>>>> does that, he leaves the realm of science and becomes a
>>>> philosopher. When he creates controlled experiments to determine
>>>> what matter, energy, motion, and force are, then he is a scientist.
>>>>
>>>> Susan
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 15, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Brett Reynolds wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 2010-11-15, at 6:54 PM, Susan wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Hi Bob, do you think philosophy is a science in the same way
>>>> that physics is a science? You will need a more precise
>>>> definition of science to follow my argument. But perhaps that is
>>>> what you don't want to do.
>>>> >
>>>> > But Kuhn was a physicist and Susan said he wasn't a scientist!
>>>> I know I'm having trouble following her argument.
>>>> >
>>>> > Best,
>>>> > Brett
>>>> >
>>>> > -----------------------
>>>> > Brett Reynolds
>>>> > English Language Centre
>>>> > Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
>>>> > Toronto, Ontario, Canada
>>>> > [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>> >
>>>> > 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/
>>>
>>
>> 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/