A Grammatico-Semantic Exploration of the Problems of Sentence Formation and Interpretation in the Classroom, Volume 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED olie 243 24 TE 002 130 AUTHOR Bateman, Donald R.; Zidonis, Frank J. TITLE A Grammatico-Semantic Exploration of the Problems of Sentence Formation and Interpretation in the Classroom, Volume 1. Final Report. INSTITUTION Ohio State Univ., Columbus. Research Foundation. SPONS AGENCY Office of Education (DHEW) ,Washington, D.C. Bureau of Research. BUREAU NO BR-5-0618 PUB DATE May 70 CONTRACT OEC-6-10-107 NOTE 381p.; Project origiDally titi2d "Development of Composition Programs Based on Generative Grammar and Psycholinguistic Theory for Grades 7-'74" EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF-50.65 HC-$13.16 DESCRIPTORS Case (Grammar), Composition (Literary), Critical Reading, *Curriculum Development, Deep Structure, *Grammar, *Linguist Linguistic Theory, Literature, Poetzy,,,e search, *Semantics, *Sentence Structur ABSTRACT In the introduction to this volume of a two volume do-mment (See also TE 002 131.) written for curriculum developers, Donala Bateman identifies the recent periods in the development of linguistic thoaght and methodology, and presents language curriculum development as the continuing exploration of the processes of evolving linguistic structures. Ti.omas G. Shroyer, in "An Investigation of the Semantics of English Sentences as a Proposed Basis for Language Curriculum Materials," (1) 5£t. forth case relaticns through an examination of types of sentences,(2) describes a component of a grammar designed to incorporate case relationships into a descrir.ticn of semantic deep structures, (3) illustrates the use of the results of the above developments in the ,,ritical reading of poetry, and (4)indicates future areas of study. Barbara Van Horn, in "AD Anecdotal Account of a Classroom Investigation of the Semantics of English Sentences," indicates ways in which grammatical principles may be applied to literature, advertising, composition, and sentence structure. (JM) U.S DEMONIC Of HULK EDVCITION N. WINK RA: /;% OfPCE Of MOTION Pr% DOZUMEN1 HAS DEIN 0911000(E0 EXACTIN AS RECEIVED FROM 1ME -4" PERSON OR 000,4111110A ORIC,INCLIEG II.POENIS Of VIEW OR OPINIONS STALED DO NOT NECESSARILY 010011001 OFFICIAL OFFICN Of EDUCATION C4) POSIIION OR 0011CY. VOLUME I C:) LAJ FINAL REPORT Project No. 2133 Contract No. 0E-6-10-107 A GRAAHATICO-SEMANTIC EXPLORATION OF THE PROBLEMS OF SENTENCE FORMATION AND INTERPRETATION IN THE CLASSROOM Donald R. Bateman Frank J. Zidonis The Ohio State University Research Foundation Columbus, Ohio May 1970 The research roported herein was vrformed pursuant to a Contract with the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.The original title of this project was DEVELOPMENT OF COMPOSITION PROGRAMS BASED ON GENMATIVE GRAMMAR AND PSYCHOLINGUISTIC THEORY FOR ORADEA 7-9. Contractors undertaking such projects under Government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their pro- fassioual judgment in the conduct of the project. Points of view or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessarily represent official Office of Education positi,.or policy. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Office of Education Bureau of Research 1 OTHER PROJECT PERSONNEL Junior High School Language Arts Consultant Jane Stewart Research Associates William E. Craig Thomas 0. Shroyer Bruce Oansneder Field Coordinator Elizabeth Stockover Consultant in Linguistics Charles J. Fillmore Cocperating Teachers Sister Barbara Cleary, 0.S.F., St. Francis De Sales High School, Columbus, Ohio Sister Mary 3arrigan, O.P., St. Philip the Apostle Elementary School, Columbus, Ohio Carol Ellen HaIerd, St. Mary Magdalene Elementary School, Columbus, Ohio Sister Ann Msry Jurka, S.N.D., St. Aloysius Elementary School, Columbus, Ohio Sister Mary Serap'ine Kuntz, S.N.D., St. Joseph Actleaemy, Columbus, Ohio Sister Helen Marks, O.P., Bishop Fenwick High School, Lancaster, Ohio Sister Mary Norbert McLaughlin, O.P., Christ the King Elementary School, Columbus, Ohio Patrick J. Mooney, St. Timothy Elementary School, Columbus, Ohio Sister Mildred Uhl, 0.P., St. Javea the Less Elementary School, Columbus, Ohio Virginia Van Camp, St. Timothy Elementary School, Columbus, Ohio Sister Barbara Wallace, O.S.F., St. Mary Magdalene Elementary School, Columbus, Ohio Secretary Perna Caekey iii TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I Page INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION ONE. AN YAVESTIOATION OF TEE SEMANTICS OF ENGLISH SENTENCES AS A PROPOSED BASIS FOR LANGUAGE CURRICULUM MATERIALS by Thoras G. Shroyer 49 SECTION TWO. AN ANECDOTAL ACCOUNTOF A CLASSROOM INVESTIGATION OF THESEMANTICS OF ENGLISH SENTENCES by Barbara WallaceVan Horn 299 VOLUME II SECTION THREE. AESTHETIC THEORY AND LINGUISTIC INVESTIGATION by Thomas G. Sbroyer 1 SECTION FOUR. INVESTIGATION OF SYNTACTIC-SEMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE SELECTED WRITING OF STUDENTS IN GRADES 4-12 by William E. Craig 67 3 INTRODUCTION For the last several years curriculum development has proceeled under the banner of inquiry, a eomewhat mystical doctrine (1) which encourages the teacher to hide a well-known arewer in the soft core of an artifisial problem and beseech the student to discover it. When the student uncovers the answer, which he can do with some facility if the teacher asks the right questions, his reward lies in the rich experience of discovery, a vision of a piece of the structure of the discipline he is studying, as well as a good mark for his willingness to play the game enthusiastically. If the structure-discovery game is played in the world of grammatical systems, the student's reward may be an empty one, for he may have discovered a system, but the system may be quite unrevealing. If the game is ex- citing, as checkers and chess can be, at least for a while, the reward may be in the learning of the gaud. But is the game worth it? Is the structure empty?Is the activity relevant? By nature, curriculum developers tend to &trees the structure, talk about discovery, and neglect the student. It is no wonder that Robert Carlson and Janes Crow said in their review of the Project. Englith Curriculum Centers, The standard, recommended teaching strategy is the inductive method . which is whatever the writer wants it to be, no more and no less . Almost never does inductive teaching imply an open-ended and possibly uncertain conclusion that the student may reach. It is used rather to get tho student to arrive at a predetermined insight. (2, pp. 988, 990) We are talking about a developer -traps the pedagogue finds textbook material uneatiefactory; in the disguise of an innovator he becomes enamored of a new structure; with peda- gogical urgency he sets out to write a new textbook (called a package), rushes to the classroom, presents the new material in pieces (called problems), asks questions which are thinly disguised answers (called inquiry), and through the uro of sophisticated., or pseudo-sophistioated, statistical analysis demonstrates the pragmatic value of the package (called research). Unfortunately, in the words of Whitehead, "The advance which har started with the freshness of sunrise degenerates into a dull accumulation of minor feats of coordination," and the time has 1 4 cove again for a new package, a new sequence of "inquiry sessions," another run of the data, and "there is a new vision of the Great Beyond" (3, p. 79). Without question this process must proceed if advance is to take place, but if advance is to be educationally significant in any universal sense, new programs must not be frozen for public comsumption, but invented out of the stream of new knowledge by particular teachers and classes. A curriculum center will fail if it becomes a producer of frozen commodities, commercially prepared and distributed, for these products are textbooks, the content already obsolete, unusable in innovative settings. Inquiry is invention, not reconstruction; its rewards are mainly uncertain conclusions and the need to continue, rarely the clever discovery of a hidden fact; it is like a constantly changing four-dimensional puzzle, never a scavenger hunt. Does this mean that the curriculum development center must fail? That its products are frozen?That its task is ill- conce!ved? Perhaps, but there may be an alternative, which is to illustrate the process, to identify the continually changing stream of linguistic exploreion, to characterize the variety of classroom explorations, the successes, tint,.failures, the deadends, the breakthroughs--in short, a true account cf a continuing process. Let us try a definition: language curriculum development is the co 'itinuing exploration of tho heuristic possibilities of evolving linguistic structures.A meaningful report of these varied activities and changing perspectives must illustratl.vely describe the exploratory process one must engage in with children if he is to be a curriculum developer rather than a producer and distributor of frozen packages. At the risk of being inappro- preiately personal, I will try to give some account in the following pages of what it means to experience a process, be- ginning at a period which preceded the formal investigation of the effect of a study of transformational grammar on the writing of ninth and tenth gradors, proceeding through the early trans- formational period, to the current curriculum project, caking some care to identify the periods of acceptance an rejection and the activities that characterized thorn. This somewhat autobiographical account may serve as a map to guide one ::rough the varied accounts of structures and experiences that comprise the major sections of this report. 2 5. The Structural Period When one reflects on the history of a decade and tie frequent attacks on the old schoolbook grammar, it is shocking to discover that there are still classrooms around the country where students arc futilely attempting to learn the old defi- nitions and apply them to exercises in which the anmwers can only be uncovered by the student if he can discover the hidden agenda. For exarple, tie schoolbooks usually say that a noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. We might call this an ontological definition, which divides reality up into three categories: persons, places, and everything else, the last category sufficiently vague to render the definition uneless.