Since I’ve begun teaching middle school, my intellectual life has taken a dramatic turn “back to the basics”, as they say. Well, it certainly has been a turn for the better because through such turning back, we can, ultimately, move much farther forward. Eugene Moutoux is a language professor…. (somewhere) and he has written several books on sentence diagramming–among other things.
So the main reason I’m posting this is because he has an awesome mustache. AND I thought it time to share my grammatical joys with my friends. So, just as we all enjoy taking time to re-read fairy tales and poems from childhood, perhaps you’d be interested in checking out Eugene’s amazing diagramming from basic sentences such as: The people should laugh. to the intricacies of the Gettysburg Address.
He’s from Kentucky and he also diagrams in German.
I admit, crazy mustache, but what, in your opinion, does diagramming sentence in this way get you? What does this tell you about language, or language usage?
Interesting question Chris. I would for one say that diagramming sentences helps reinforce ones understanding of grammar, which has obvious benefits. What implications does it have on language in your opinion?
Thanks for keeping me on my toes, Chris. Language has a pattern, and it’s shown quite clearly through diagramming. For instance, the main line always has subject+verb+(either direct obj, pred. nom or pred adj.). From there, all of the modifying words, phrases, and clauses apply to one of those words and follow the same pattern. I guess the advantage is the combination of structure with innumerable variations. Don’t we all like that: not too autonomous, not too forced and strict, but a higher, greater freedom with order but where, perhaps, Bacchus and Apollo unite…
I don’t know if that’s what you are asking, but diagramming the best way to teach grammar because, you know, I have years of experience….
Yes, so basically what peter said: “Understanding of grammar” and what’s ever wrong with that?
Peter:
What are these obvious benefits? If you mean the prescriptive limits you can slap onto sentences with a simple pass through a sentence diagramming task, I can produce some odd but grammatical sentences that would more difficult to fit into Moutoux’s diagrams than many of the obviously ungrammatical sentences that kids benefiting from these diagrams are producing in written speech. E.g. “This is an outrage up with which I shall not put.” A lot of the time, I imagine that if you actually read out an ungrammatical sentence, slowly and carefully, so that they are actually paying attention, they will realize their mistake. If you have a sentence for which it is hard to determine grammaticality by intuition, but which a simple Moutoux diagram makes obvious, please share. A large part of the problem with the ungrammatical language that kids over the age of, say, eight produce is that they: a) simply do not care, b) are not paying close attention, or c) don’t really understand the connection between written and spoken language (which is why a careful reading will reveal a lot of otherwise hard-to-see errors. Language, at its core, is thought and spoken, not written. Orthography is an awesome but artificial tool we use to retain language outside the immediacy of time. It is not intuitive.) Otherwise, a very common “problem” is that prescriptive limits are often ridiculous: please see https://vimeo.com/15412319.
Anne:
No, that’s not really what I’m asking. Language has a pattern, certainly. But Moutoux’s diagramming only demonstrates this pattern for a select subset of English sentences, and it implicitly pretends that the pattern it evokes is universal, or at least applicable to all English. Plus, it lacks motivation.
You say “the main line always has subject+verb+(either direct obj, pred. nom or pred adj.)”, but I can think of innumerable examples without a subject (e.g. “Shut up!”, “Let’s go!” — is “us” the subject? If so, why is it accusative?, “Te amo.”, “Pleuve.”, etc.), without a verb (“I read a book and Christine a magazine.”, “magando ako” — “I am beautiful” in Tagalog, “ako” means I and “maganda” means beautiful), or without a direct object, predicate nominative, or predicate adjective (“Joan cried.”, “I think I am going to faint.”). I glanced through Moutoux’s examples, and while they get pretty long, they don’t get very complex. I didn’t see one instance of him dealing with a small clause, as in “I consider him a fool.” It’s simplistic, non-universal (not even close), so I guess I don’t see the point.
Every person who reads widely has a much deeper “understanding” of grammar in the intuitive sense than Panini, Chomsky, or Moutoux ever did in the analytical sense. That’s what makes language so awesome. Linguistics is not a solved problem. My production of language, and yours, is. It’s amazing like that!
Perhaps it is the best way to teach grammar. Pedagogy both fascinates and scares me. Fascinates in theory, scares in practice. I guess I’m still not sure why you need to “understand” grammar in this way. Please see the comment to Peter above. The cool thing about other types of diagramming is that you can say, very precisely, why “herself” in “Samantha showed Shana herself” can point to either Shana or Samantha, whereas “herself” in “Gina saw that she bathed herself” always points to whoever her points to, which may or may not point to Gina. And why can you say “the book of short stories with the gray cover” and not “the book with the gray cover of short stories,” but you can say “the book with the gray cover in the kitchen” just as well as “the book in the kitchen with the gray cover”? I don’t see how Moutoux helps with that. There’s no meaningful foundation behind Moutoux’s diagrams. He’s drawing pretty pictures around words; that’s all he’s doing, as far as I can tell. I guess I’m still curious what enlightenment you see in your students when you teach them how to draw these pretty pictures around words, besides a newfound aptitude for drawing pretty pictures around words. Surely that’s the ultimate purpose — some deeper understanding? If so, can you describe or provide some examples of that understanding?
This website only gleans what he calls “Basics of Sentence Diagramming”…I have Moutoux’s “Diagramming Step-by-step” book in which he goes through all different grammatical complexities that I think would answer a lot of your questions… they are very similar to the distinctions you made above. But really: “I consider him a fool” is very simple to diagram, “fool” is the objective complement. In a command like: “Shut up”, the subject is an implied “you”. I think “us” in “Let’s go” would be the d.o. though that one is trickier. Also, for the sentence: “I read a book and Christine a magazine”, “read” is obviously the transitive verb while it is implied in the second clause. When words are implied, such as in comparison adverb clauses (“Tim is taller than Marie”), then he uses an X to show the ellipses. I highly recommend you look at Eugene’s “Diagramming Step-by-Step” where he explores these complexities… (especially in your latter examples), except it sounds like you just don’t like diagramming at all. Do you think it’s base to make something like language that is so fascinating into something that is more like a fun game?
A benefit to teaching it this way is that after the students diagram the sentence, they write an imitation to the sentence, so, for the first time, they know how to begin a sentence with a participle phrase or interrupt a main clause with an adjective/adverb clause….. I’m just saying, there’s more to Moutoux than you’ve see…
As far as your response to Peter goes: are you saying that it’s better for students to learn grammar through recognizing when something is incorrect? Sure, that’s fine, but shouldn’t they know why it’s incorrect rather than, Oh, now that I’ve read it slowly, it doesn’t sound right…
Chris–I agree with Anne, these aren’t pretty pictures around words. The english language and MOST languages have a basic structure: subject, verb, object. Latin and Greek both function that way–except that they have the advantage in the case system of ambiguity–the capability to use an accusative to function as a subject also.
I understood your point that this system limits the many capabilities of a noun, say. However, one needs to know the BASIC function of a noun (as a subject, object or indirect object) before they can see its multi-faceted capabilities. In addition, the English language isn’t quite so clear as other languages because it lacks a case system so it is essential that people, especially children, understand the fundamental structure of sentence (and just as there is objective truth in the world, there is also objective structure to a sentence—I would martyr myself to this cause.) before they can begin to play with the language and use it more fruitfully. Also, Anne’s point that this system teaches kids to imitate participles and understand how they work is essential to them understanding the basic function of a prepositional phrase say, as modifying something else.
that is all.
but I really like your summer mix cd.
Look guys, all I am saying is that X-bar trees are way more fun, way more descriptive, and say incredibly interesting things about language. Like why determiners come before adjectives, why modals are never followed by inflected lexical verbs, why auxiliaries select for tense on subsequent auxiliaries/verbs, what the differences between adjuncts and complements are, and so much more.
Moutoux’s diagrams are beguiling simplistic, and don’t seem to say anything about language. Kids nurtured with such constraining diagrams must consequently think about language prescriptively — inside the box — instead of creatively.
Camille: Latin and Greek are comparatively siblings of English in terms of linguistic variety. You wouldn’t believe some of the crazy stuff out there, if you get away from the European mainland. But “Objective structure?” Do you read much poetry? Just try to Moutoux, for example,
Not one shred of verb tense in that entire sentence, which should render it ungrammatical, yet it’s beautiful and fully acceptable English. And then there’s e. e. cummings and Walt Whitman and William Carlos Williams who are fathoms “worse” in terms of prescriptive grammaticality. (By the way, did you watch the movie above?)
I haven’t hung out with any 12 year olds in a long time, though. Maybe they really are more language-ignorant than I give them credit for being.
P.S. Camille, is there an objective level of “understanding” as there is “objective truth” and “objective sentence structure”? If so, doesn’t “objective” mean one correct answer? And if there is one correct answer, why do you believe its prophet is Moutoux instead of the host of other linguists out there who obviously diverged from Moutoux’s line of thinking ages ago?
I’m formulating a thought, but as of right now, I just want to say that Chris you are so right in so many ways. I love it. I almost got into a fight in the faculty office today over sentence diagramming. I’ve been approaching it from a more traditional standpoint.
Let me just say that as of right now, I tend to agree with Christopher more than I agree with Anne and Camille, but I don’t agree with everything Chris is saying. I believe that sentence diagramming as Montoux has outlined is USEFUL for a middle-school pedagogy for the masses. BUT! I think it’s no coincidence that Montoux sounds a lot like another person who puts some prescriptive limits on the world: Descartes.
I’M still hot. So there.
Chris, I will personally email you my diatribe rather than subject my fellow draught-ers to its vehemence.
Lord Bloch, way to be biased. Aren’t you a teacher? The site administrator can’t take sides. Or be presumptuous enough to have opinions.
Anne, yes anne. You are the bitch queen.
Ah, cizlar, you play such a screwy game of bias and intrigue, in which opinion is unthinkable unless it is your own. Open up a little. Try on reason for a day. And know that whatever you email me is liable to be posted here anyway.
You threaten me with a breach of privacy? I was merely joking with Lord Bloch about his opinions. If you cannot catch the jocund intonation of my messages, then don’t be so assuming as to rebuke me for being too close-minded. Now I won’t put the effort into arguing with you if you are going to behave in such an un-gentleman like manner.
Als man sich gerade über die Beschießung von Shanghai durch die Japaner erregte und ich Karl Kraus bei einem der berühmten Beistrich-Problemen antraf, sagte er ungefähr: Ich weiß, daß das alles sinnlos ist, wenn das Haus in Brand steht. Aber solange das irgend möglich ist, muß ich das machen, denn hätten die Leute, die dazu verpflichtet sind, immer darauf geachtet, daß die Beistriche am richtigen Platz stehen, so würde Shanghai nicht brennen
At a time when one was generally decrying the bombardment of Shanghai by the Japanese, I met Karl Kraus struggling over one of his famous comma problems. He said something like: I know that everything is futile when the house is burning. But I have to do this, as long as it is at all possible; for if those who are obliged to look after commas had always made sure they were in the right place, then Shanghai would not be burning.