Timeline for How widespread are Reed-Kellogg sentence diagrams?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 24, 2016 at 14:46 | answer | added | Greg Lee | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 24, 2016 at 14:22 | answer | added | user14817 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 11, 2014 at 9:10 | answer | added | Christian Pietsch | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 13, 2013 at 1:55 | answer | added | wugology | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 3, 2013 at 16:22 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackLinguist/status/407907751395094528 | ||
| Dec 2, 2013 at 14:52 | comment | added | jlawler | Oh, and it was a student, not me, who wrote that "utopian" term paper. I just liked the way she laid it out, and especially the question she asked in the title. I agree it's utopian, which is why I prefer to ignore curricula. | |
| Dec 2, 2013 at 14:49 | comment | added | jlawler | Of course they're constructions; they're another way of viewing constructions; the algorithms that link them with syntactically and semantically and pragmatically related constructions. And they mix constituency and grammatical relation and dependency to match the ways they're mixed in the data. And, finally, I didn't collect them. Haj Ross did; I'm just hosting his papers on my web site. | |
| Dec 2, 2013 at 8:20 | comment | added | Tim Osborne | @jlawler, I've taken a look at your links. I enjoyed the utopian language curriculum in schools that you describe, and the list of "transformations" you have collected is impressive. Now if you'd call them "constructions" as opposed to "transformations", I'd be with you. | |
| Dec 2, 2013 at 8:18 | comment | added | Tim Osborne | @Prash, for a bit more info on Reed-Kellog diagrams, see here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagramming_sentences. | |
| Dec 2, 2013 at 4:56 | comment | added | prash♦ | I've studied 7 different ways of representing parses. I've come across 4-5 more kinds in literature. But until today, I had not come across Reed-Kellog diagrams. | |
| Dec 2, 2013 at 3:41 | comment | added | Tim Osborne | @Jlawler, I share the skepticism you express about constituency-based systems, but not about dependency-based systems. I am not a fan of Reed-Kellogg diagramming for two reasons: 1) they sew confusion by mixing both dependency and constituency, and 2) they largely ignore actual word order. Given a purely depedency-based system of diagramming, teaching both adults and children to analyze and understand sentence structure becomes relatively easy. Tesnière makes this point at the end of his book. | |
| Dec 2, 2013 at 2:59 | comment | added | jlawler | Yes, that's true. But it's not really a viable hybrid, since it has many of the bad features of both systems. If one were to go to the trouble of reviving it, there'd be no reason to use the original R-K system. More has been learned since it was developed. Much more. And it's no use without some education in the actual language (i.e, its pronunciation) and related matters. | |
| Dec 2, 2013 at 1:35 | comment | added | Tim Osborne | @James Grossmann, clumsy or not, the interesting thing from my point of view as a DG guy is that those old diagrams combine dependency and constituency. They are manifestations of a hybrid system. Constituency is present in the initial binary division into subject and predicate, and dependency is present in the manner in which modifiers are attached to and dangle from their heads. | |
| Dec 2, 2013 at 1:15 | comment | added | James Grossmann | The Reed-Kellogg diagramming system, shown here utexas.edu/courses/langling/e360k/handouts/diagrams/…, seems clumsy to me. | |
| Dec 1, 2013 at 23:06 | comment | added | Tim Osborne | @Jlawler and Colin Fine, thanks for your comments. They help. | |
| Dec 1, 2013 at 20:44 | comment | added | Colin Fine | I (educated at a private school in the UK in the 60's-70's) had never heard of sentence diagramming until I encountered questions about it on the Internet on a site like this one a few years ago. The idea of some sort of parse diagram made sense, of course, but I was startled to find that to many Americans there was one specific way to do it. | |
| Dec 1, 2013 at 19:50 | comment | added | jlawler | I was taught it in grade school in the 1950s (though I didn't learn it was "Reed-Kellogg" until much later), and there are still sporadic places where it's taught, mostly by individual teachers, rather than as a matter of curriculum. It is certain that sentence diagramming is not part of any standard elementary curriculum in the U.S, though it used to be. It really can't be revived, however, because so few teachers understand English grammar that it would take a generation of concerted effort to bring it back, and that's never going to happen. | |
| Dec 1, 2013 at 17:41 | history | asked | Tim Osborne | CC BY-SA 3.0 |