The title pays homage to my junior high English teacher, Bro. Hill, who would always say something to that effect before plunging into a lesson in sentence diagramming.
Today I was at Williamsburg Ind. once again. And today, I learned something. In his first period class, Mr. H worked his students on diagramming sentences, which is something that I have not done since I was in junior high under the tutelage of Bro. Hill. Although I have taught ESL grammar for the last four semesters, I had not made any attempt to relearn the skill because I had thought it to be both confusing and unnecessary. However, after Mr. H's lesson today, I am going to have to rethink my assumptions; the class helped me make some important linguistic connections.
For example, his explanation of how to distinguish between a linking verb and action verb clarified my own understanding of the distinction and will help me explain the concept to my own students. His insight is that any state of being verb can take the place of any other linking verb. For example:
I feel good.
Although feel can be an action, in this case, it is clearly a linking verb, and we can know this for two reasons:
1.) feel is followed by an adjective, good.
2.) The meaning of the sentence is unaltered if be replaces feel.
I am good.
Used in a different context, we can see how the test doesn't work when feel is used as an action verb:
She felt the chill in the wind.
In this case, be cannot take the verb's place:
She is the chill in the wind.
Although poetically intriguing, the meaning of the sentence has completely changed.
In addition, I was interested to discover that there is a specific way to diagram the distinction between action and linking verbs. If a sentence contains a transitive action verb, it is followed in the diagram by a perpendicular line. Furthermore, the line indicates that an object follows. On the other hand, linking verbs are followed by a backslash that also indicates a predicate adjective or nominative comes next.
The reason I find this method of diagramming helpful is that it makes it easier to recognize syntactical patterns -- it is a visual representation of those patterns -- it is all about pattern recognition, which I believe is essential for lifelong self-education. By observing the patterns within the English language, it becomes possible to accurately predict sentence structure as it unfolds and thereby apprehend the meaning of a sentence more quickly and more fully.
In light of these realizations, the question, then, is whether or not sentence diagramming would be appropriate for my students at WCHS. On one hand, I suspect that none of them have ever diagrammed before, and few even have a basic understanding of the parts of speech -- which would seem to be antecedent to diagramming. But on the other hand, if I assume that my students cannot handle the same knowledge as their cross-town peers, would it not in effect state that students at WHS are inherently more intelligent and capable than those at WCHS? But I do not believe that is the case. Despite the achievement gap existing between students at the respective schools. I do not believe the gap is due to a difference in inherent ability; rather, it seems more likely that the difference is due to intellectual diet. Just as good health is largely dependent upon a regular diet of wholesome food in fitting portions, intellectual health and development of the mind is dependent upon a regular diet wholesome intellectual nourishment. Unfortunately, I fear that students are often given intellectual scraps, crumbs, and the occasional TV dinner when they require whole grain bread, fresh fruit, milk, honey, and meat.
Before today, I wasn't sure if sentence diagramming were useful or not, so I never bothered to study for myself (nor for my students). My assumption is a common one, I think. Our society, having for years been steeped corporatism, materialism, and utilitarianism, asserts that if something does not appear to offer an overt use that yields immediate results (and preferably results that carry a cash value), it is dispensable -- it is not to be considered any further. Moreover, it is assumed that something just as good (if not better) can be attained more quickly (and if not more quickly, then at least more stylishly) via computer programs and the latest technology. In place of patiently working towards actual understanding of language patterns and ways of expressing thoughts and feelings experienced in the hearts and minds given to us by Almighty God, we opt for grammar and sentence check on our word processors and T9 texting on our cellphones.
In place of the question Is it useful?, perhaps I should ask:
1. Is it true?
2. Does it clarify truth?
3. Is is a truth appropriate for high school students?
By changing the fundamental question being asked, I believe it is possible to gain access to vital truth that may not initially appear to have an immediate use and/ or cash value. In fact, none of the humanities (language and literature not being the least of which) can be reduced to the cold practicality of workplace applicability. However, they do encourage, facilitate, and nourish the heart and mind toward the practice of being human.
And that's where the seemingly insignificant and occasionally tedious task of sentence diagramming comes in. Because a culture and a people are inseparable from their history and language, studying patterns of language leads (over time) to reflection and insight into oneself, relationships, responsibilities, community, and society at-large.
For more on the assumptions of modern society, government, and education, follow the link below to "The Joy of Sales Resistance," the prologue to Wendell Berry's collection of essays entitled Sex, Economy, Freedom, and Community. Personally, I consider the essays presented in the book to be vital reading for any teacher; but of course, I believe it is vital reading for every other person as well.
http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/resist.html
No comments:
Post a Comment