Grammar and Parts of Speech - How Language Works!

Aristotle--in his treatise on Rhetoric--believed that all nonfiction consisted of three kinds of speeches (rules):

• deliberation--political speeches


• forensic--pleadings in court (debate)


• epideictic--funeral orations

Parts of speech--components of language that make the sentences and ideas work or communicate--were first conceived by the Greek philosopher, Aristotle. In his treatise, Rhetoric--he outlined how the parts of speech are used in Greek (these "rules" were later applied to Latin) and how, in his opinion, views and ideas should be expressed to pass along meaning.

Aristotle's "rules" on parts of speech have now become an essential part of linguistics study and most classes of English grammar and composition.

Although pedagogue detractors would argue that these rules are unbending (thus prescriptive) forms in which to squeeze the lively, ever-changing English language, their "rules" do not necessary make for readable and useful writing.

To take a side tangent, let's look at a modern linguistic study. Let's follow some researchers exploring the far-reaches of the jungles of Papua New Guinea just south of Borneo. They encounter a tribe of people who have never had contact with English-speaking people and who do not even have a written language.

How would you begin to communicate with these folks?

One could get a basic vocabulary translation by pointing to things and saying the English word--then listening to the natives' response.

For instance, a dog runs by. You point at it and say "DOG"!

The natives look at you and say, for example, "INU".

You might assume that they said their native word for "dog". But then again, they might have said the Papuan equivalent of "food". So, maybe to verify or check this--you see a dog sleeping by a thatched hut--and again you say "dog". If the natives say "inu" again. You may be more likely to have found the Papuan word for "dog" (or "food"). You can verify and check this further by finding a few more dogs and pointing to them and saying "dog".

Of course, if the Papuans say "fido" or "spot" for the other two dogs--you haven't found the word for "dog" (or "food") yet. But you have a start in learning some Papuan nouns.

You can point to yourself and say your name. Then point to them and have a questioning look. They may tell you their name (or they may spear you because what you just did was socially unacceptable to them).

To make this a better learning experience, you may point to the other members of your team and recite their individual names--then, point to the Papuan with the questioning look. This may give you a better result. And you will have some proper nouns to work with.

To find some adjectives, you might first establish a flower (as a noun) by pointing to it and saying "flower". Then, once you have found the Papuan word for "flower" you modify it by saying "red flower". When you have established some other flowers--some big, some small, some red, some blue, some yellow, some pink... you can get some modifying words (adjectives) to add to your vocabulary.

Just because English usually puts the modifying word (adjective) before the word being modified--don't assume that all languages do that.

In English, we use parts of speech called "prepositions" to more clearly indicate time or location of what we are trying to mean. However, in some languages there ARE NO PREPOSITIONS.

Or what might be considered "prepositions" in English (or better, Latin), would be used in strange ways (at least to us) in another language (or, even English!). In fact, there are some uses of words that look like prepositions used in English that are really parts of phrasal verbs! But mis-informed prescriptive grammarians insist that they are incorrectly used prepositions (more on this later!).

This analysis and construction of a vocabulary and grammar for a new-found language is considered "DESCRIPTIVE" grammar.

If one could analyze English as it is used in America today from the Descriptive grammar viewpoint, there would be many discrepancies from what the Prescriptive grammarians insist on pushing down peoples' throats.

A "preposition" is a perfectly good thing to end a sentence with. And conjunctions are commonly used in professional writing to start sentences. An unseemly goal might be to boldly split your infinitives where no Latin-based grammarian has been before.

So, what is the best way to communicate meaning in our writing? Instead of getting hung up on the prescriptive "rules" and "Does this writing keep grammarians happy?", it may be better to write the way we talk--not that of illiterates' conversation, but that of our mainstream culture.

Because this use of the language most effectively communicates with our main audiences. Of course, different writing styles apply to different audiences. If you are writing for an audience of ONE--namely a college English professor, for example--you should use a different style (academic) than what you would use for a newspaper column or feature with an audience of a wide range of readers.

The English language, like all modern, widely-used languages, is alive and constantly evolving to reflect the many changes in our everyday lives. It can't be confined within the rigid confines of Prescriptive grammar, which works for dead, unmoving languages such as Latin or Ancient Greek.

And, of course, this is my humble opinion here--your milage may vary. And, if you want to disagree, go ahead and make your own Squidoo! --teasing, here!

(I AM basing this discourse on some courses I took in formal linguistics while I was in college, many years of taking "foreign language" classes (Japanese, Russian, Mandarin Chinese, and Spanish), personal experience with various languages (Tagalog, Kampampangan, Palauan, Trukese, Chamoru, Hawaiian, and Navajo), and many years of learning and using English grammar and composition as a professional technical editor and writer.)