Speaking of Syntax

This last week has really helped to quell some of my concerns about the idea of contextualizing grammar lessons. Though I still feel like there is some value in teaching grammar on its own, I am beginning to understand how beneficial it is to let children practice their grammar skills in conjunction with other skills.

I really enjoyed the fishbowl discussion, not only because we were able to practice the Socratic Seminar technique, but also because of the topic we discussed. I found it to be very illuminating how interested people were in the idea of having students write poems to practice using adjectives and adverbs. I also felt a little relieved that not everyone thought this was an effective tool for cultivating grammar skills, but perhaps more for the creative process. This activity has given me an idea, however, to look at other poets’ work to practice first recognizing adverbs and adjectives in others’ writing, second practicing using such descriptive words, and third identifying these words in their own writing. Descriptive poets like Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Dylan Thomas, and e.e. cummings would be a good place to start. Reading e.e. cummings would even make for an interesting study in syntax.

Speaking of syntax, I loved the magnetic poetry exercise! My partner and I got stuck with a box which included both “genius” words and “naughty” ones. It made for an incredibly interesting and giggly class period. I think this activity would really help students strengthen their sentence structure while also practicing the verb types. However, I wonder if students, especially at a younger age, might get stuck on creating interesting or weird sentences rather than actually focusing on the types of verbs. I admit my own immaturity by saying that this was the case with my partner and me. Is there a good way to keep squirrely, word-loving kids on the task at hand rather than on a creative tangent?

At this point I feel pretty comfortable with the different types of verbs and combinations of verbs. However, I could use a little more practice recognizing which sentences are using transitive, intransitive, or linking verbs. It seems like some could be more than one of these types, or maybe I’m just still a bit confused as to what the direct object of the verb is. It’s tough when those tricky prepositional phrases get in the way. I wonder if we will cover the difference between a direct object and an indirect object, since these terms escape my memory. I also found my mind a bit boggled wondering where and how the rules for transitive, intransitive, and linking verbs come into play with gerund-start sentences. Ahh, syntax…


since feeling is first

since feeling is first
who pays any attention
to the syntax of things
will never wholly kiss you;

wholly to be a fool
while Spring is in the world

my blood approves,
and kisses are a better fate
than wisdom
lady i swear by all the flowers. Don't cry
- the best gesture of my brain is less than
your eyelids' flutter which says

we are for each other: then
laugh, leaning back in my arms
for life's not a paragraph

and death i think is no parenthesis

-ee cummings


Question: Can a prepositional phrase, or part of a prepositional phrase, ever be the direct object of a verb, or is it always just extra descriptive information which modifies the noun or the verb?