Cover not available
Article published In:
Pedagogical Linguistics
Vol. 1:2 (2020) ► pp.211–233

Why are there growing divisions between traditional grammars and theoretical and experimental linguistic works (and how can they be overcome)?

| Ruhr-Universität Bochum
The present article discusses a worrying development, whereby some traditional grammars become less aligned with the findings of linguistics research. The article gives examples of such discrepancies, illustrated here on the basis of the description of German. It also aims to describe a possible cause for this development. On the one hand, it seems that the grammatical descriptions found in school grammars have in some cases ceased to reflect discussions in (and formats of) current theories of grammar. They have also chosen, to a degree, to ignore empirical findings made by linguistic research. However, the article seeks to demonstrate that this may in large part be caused by the nature of the linguistic theories and experimental research approaches themselves, as well as the presentation of these projects in the literature: The granularity of the descriptions (and the objects described) that theoretical and experimental research assess simply does not match the kinds of generalisations that traditional grammars (school grammars, especially) aim for. To illustrate this point, specific issues with linguistic theories, methods and conventions are presented, which may make it difficult for school grammars to react to the results in a principled way.
Keywords: word class, noun, subject, traditional grammar, school grammar, German, linguistic theory
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Discrepancies between school grammars and current linguistic findings?
  • 2.How traditional descriptions and scientific discussions have, in fact, grown apart
    • 2.1Word classes in traditional descriptions
    • 2.2Grammatical functions in traditional descriptions
  • 3.Scientific theories avoid the issues – but cannot serve as models for traditional descriptions
    • 3.1Feature-based operations in generative syntax – not a model for traditional word classes
    • 3.2Cases, Roles and Agreement in generative syntax – not a model for grammatical functions
  • 4.Optimality-theoretic and interface-driven generative approaches cannot serve as models either
    • 4.1OT constraints may not work for the purposes of traditional descriptions
    • 4.2Interface-driven restrictions may not work for the purposes of traditional descriptions
  • 5.Empirical investigations often do not yield generalisations of the right granularity
    • 5.1Experiments must by necessity limit themselves to narrowly circumscribed phenomena
    • 5.2Empirical results are often not clear-cut enough even for small-scale phenomena
  • 6.Conclusion: How can the linguistic subfields inform each other more constructively?
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.20002.str
References (37)
References
Baker, M. C. (2003). Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1982). Control and Complementation. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(3), 343–434.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1989). Event Nominalizations: Proposals and Problems. Linguistische Studien des Zentralinstituts für Sprachwissenschaft 1941, 1–73.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(1970). Remarks on Nominalization. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. (pp. 184–221). Waltham, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
(1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1995). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dürscheid, C. (2012). Syntax. Grundlagen und Theorien (6th ed.). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Duden (2016). Duden – Die Grammatik – Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch (9th ed.). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Gehrig, A. (2014). Wortarten. Ein Vergleich von Schulbuch und Grammatik. Hohengehren: Schneider.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, R. (2006). Scrambling, Remnant Movement, and Restructuring in West Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (2004). Why Education Needs Linguistics (And Vice Versa). Journal of Linguistics 401, 105–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1977). X-bar-Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratz, I. (2019). Goethe, Schiller, Chomsky!? Generative Grammatik im Deutschunterricht der gymnasialen Oberstufe am Beispiel des Themas Spracherwerb . In A. Betz & A. Firstein (Eds.), Schülerinnen und Schülern Linguistik näherbringen: Perspektiven einer linguistischen Wissenschaftspropädeutik (pp. 148–170). Hohengehren: Schneider.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1991). Predicate classes and PARTICIPATION. In H. Seiler & W. Premper (Eds.), Partizipation: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten (pp. 183–239). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Meibauer, J., U. Demske, J. Geilfuß-Wolfgang, J. Pafel, K.-H. Ramers, M. Rothweiler & M. Steinbach. (2015). Einführung in die germanistische Linguistik. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.Google Scholar
Molnarfi, L. (2002). Focus and antifocus in modern Afrikaans and West Germanic. Linguistics 401. 1107–1160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reis, M. (1982). Zum Subjektbegriff im Deutschen. In Werner Abraham (Ed.), Satzglieder im Deutschen: Zu ihrer syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Fundierung. (pp. 171–211) Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1972). The Category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. In P. Parenteau, J. Levi, G. Phares (Eds.) Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 316–328).Google Scholar
Rothstein, B. (2010). Sprachintegrativer Grammatikunterricht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
(2012). Das Subjekt – grammatikbiographisch betrachtet. Wirkendes Wort 621, 479–495.Google Scholar
Sasse, H.-J. (1993). Das Nomen – eine universale Kategorie? STUF, 461, 187–221.Google Scholar
Schlipphack, I. (2012). Generative Grammatik für die Schule. Marburg: Tectum.Google Scholar
Schülerduden Grammatik (2017). Die Schulgrammatik zum Lernen, Nachschlagen und Üben. Berlin, Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Steinitz, R. (1997). Lexikalische Kategorisierung: Ein Vorschlag zur Revision. In E. Löbel & Gisa Rauh (Eds.), Lexikalische Kategorien und Merkmale. (pp. 1–26). Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Struckmeier, V. (2007). Attribute im Deutschen: Zu ihren Eigenschaften und ihrer Position im grammatischen System. Berlin: Akademieverlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Scrambling ohne Informationsstruktur? (Studia Grammatica 77), Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
(2010). Attributive Constructions, Scrambling in the AP and Referential Types. Lingua 120/31, 673–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Against information structure heads: A relational analysis of German scrambling. Glossa, 2(1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
to appear a. Wortartentheorien und ihr Nutzen: Eine linguistische Quadratur des Kreises? To appear in the proceedings of Ars Grammatica 2017.Google Scholar
to appear b. Cartography cannot express scrambling restrictions – but interface-driven relational approaches can. In J. Kremers & G. Kentner (Eds.), Prosody in Syntactic Encoding. Berlin: deGruyter.
van Rijt, J. P. de Swart & P.-A. Coppen. (2019). Linguistic concepts in L1 grammar education: a systematic literature review, Research Papers in Education 341, 621–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D. (1996). Lexical Categories. Theoretical Linguistics 221, 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, I. (1985). Der syntaktische Parallelismus verbaler und adjektivischer Konstruktionen. Linguistische Studien des Zentralinstituts für Sprachwissenschaft 1271, 159–213.Google Scholar
(1991). Die Syntax der Substantivgruppe: Weiterentwicklungen der X’-Theorie. In I. Zimmermann (Ed.), Syntax und Semantik der Substantivgruppe. (1–32). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

van Rijt, Jimmy H M
2024. Formal Linguistics and Language Education. New Empirical Perspectives. Applied Linguistics 45:4 ► pp. 759 ff. DOI logo
van Rijt, Jimmy H. M.
2024. Learning how to think like a linguist: Linguistic reasoning as a focal point in L1 grammar education. Language and Linguistics Compass 18:3 DOI logo
Corr, Alice & Anna Pineda
2023. Theoretical Linguistics in Non-University Education. In Theoretical Linguistics in the Pre-University Classroom, DOI logo
Corr, Alice & Anna Pineda
2023. Theoretical Linguistics in Non-University Education. In Theoretical Linguistics in the Pre-University Classroom, ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Rothstein, Björn, Katharina Staubach, Saskia Ripp, Julia Waldeyer & Julian Roelle
2023. Is ‘more’ really more?. Pedagogical Linguistics 4:1 ► pp. 77 ff. DOI logo
Bravo, Ana
2021. Students’ errors in L1 Spanish grammar from the perspective of formal linguistics. Pedagogical Linguistics 2:2 ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo
Elsner, Daniela
2021. Knowledge about grammar and the role of epistemological beliefs. Pedagogical Linguistics 2:2 ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.