Marie,
The notion "part of speech" has traditionally been associated with notional definitions and with the number "eight," but I agree with others on this thread that for younger students such definitions offer a useful entry point. Too often, though, they are the end point as well. I'm afraid it's my linguistic side that's showing when I use the term "word class." The two can be used interchangeably, as long as we understand how to define them, and that requires morphological and syntactic properties as well as notional traits. I always presented them in this way to my classes, pointing out that they do require all three sets of properties.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marie-Pierre Jouannaud
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 3:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: grammar term definitions
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/
|
