| After having published my Paraphrastic Grammar of English on the web, it became clear that there was not a very high level of grammatical knowledge even among the Association of Teachers of English Grammar. In addition there was a high interest in the framework of diagramming that Alonzo Reed and Brainerd Kellogg became famous for. For these reasons publishing a précis of and commentary on their grammar and diagrams seemed like a useful thing to do. |
|
This work was initially little more than an extract of every diagram published in the original work of Reed and Kellogg.
To most of these the authors had appended a full “explanation,” and sometimes a separate analysis.
The next phase was the addition of the diagrams for sentences that they had not diagrammed, but to which the authors had given hints and/or “explanations” and/or comments in footnotes.
First the idea was to provide alternative versions of only those diagrams that the authors were tentative about or that I felt strongly were not adequate.
For these it was natural for me to add a commentary in extra paragraphs and footnotes.
For the most part, any additions to the authors’s text are marked in yellow or blue, whereas their published version is presented on a white background. Just recently I have added colors to the authors’ diagrams as an aid to understanding the grammatical relationships of the various sentence parts. Eventually I went to the trouble to add all of the exercises from which the original diagrams had been taken. There are comments in notes about many of these, where I had some difficulty at first. It has been very difficult to maintain full consistency in the analysis and in some of the innovations. I would appreciate any comments from students about any of the diagrams and will welcome better ideas on how to make them plainer and possibly overcome their deficiencies. Like most grammars of the time, there are many exercises and instructions in composition. Some of these have been extracted more recently, but it is a long process and there are, in fact, much better sources for such material. The ideal, I suppose, would be to have extensive hyperlinks to the basic grammar of Southworth & Goddard that was extracted on this site. |
| The Study of the Sentence for Discipline.—As a means of discipline nothing can compare with a training in the logical analysis of the sentence. To study thought through its outward form, the sentence, and to discover the fitness of the different parts of the expression to the parts of the thought, is to learn to think. It has been noticed that pupils thoroughly trained in the analysis and the construction of sentences come to their other studies with a decided advantage to mental power. These results can be obtained only by systematic and persistent work. Experienced teachers understand that a few weak lessons on the sentence at the beginning of a course and a few at the end can afford little discipline and little knowledge that will endure, nor can a knowledge of the sentence be gained by memorizing complicated rules and labored forms of analysis. To compel a pupil to wade through a page or two of such bewildering terms as “complex adverbial element of the second class” and “compound prepositional adjective phrase,” in order to comprehend a few simple functions, is grossly unjust; it is a substitution of form for content, of words for ideas. (p. vii) |
|
The Use of the Diagram.—In written analysis, the simple map or diagram, found in the following lessons, will enable the pupil to present directly and vividly to the eye the exact function of every clause in the sentence,
of every phrase in the clause, and of every word in the phrase — to picture the complete analysis of the sentence, with principal and subordinate parts in their proper relations.
It is only by the aid of such a map, or picture, that the pupil can, as a single view, see the sentence as an organic whole made up of many parts performing various functions and standing in various relations.
Without such a map he must labor under the disadvantage of seeing all these things by piecemeal or in succession. But, if for any reason the teacher prefers not to use these diagrams, they may be omitted without causing the slightest break in the work. The plan of this book is in no way dependent on the use of the diagrams. (pp. viii, ix) |
|
The Objections to the Diagram.—The fact that the pictorial diagram groups the parts of the sentence according to their offices and relations, and not in the order of speech, has been spoken of as a fault.
It is, on the contrary, a merit, for it teaches the pupil to look through the literary order and discover the logical order.
He thus learns what the literary order really is, and sees that it may be varied indefinitely, so long as the logical relations are kept clear. The assertion that correct diagrams can be made mechanically is not borne out by the facts. It is easier to avoid precision in oral analysis than in written. The diagram drives the pupil to a most searching examination of the sentence, brings him face to face with every difficulty, and compels a decision on every point. (p. ix) |
| The Abuse of the Diagram.—Analysis by diagram often becomes so interesting and so helpful that, like other good things, it is liable to be overdone. There is danger of requiring too much written analysis. When the ordinary constructions have been made clear, diagrams should be used only for the more difficult sentences, or, if the sentences are long, only for the more difficult parts of them. In both oral and written analysis there is danger of repeating what needs no repetition. When the diagram has served its purpose, it should be dropped. (p. ix) |