4.2.2　Form

（1）Structuralist grammar sets up precise and verifiable definitions in that it is based exclusively on formal and distributional criteria.

Taking again as an example parts of speech，every English speaker is easily able to identify the parts of speech to which the lexemes in the following sentence belong：

The slithy loves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

Despite the fact that they were created as neologisms by Lewis Carroll and therefore ought to have no meaning.Sentences like this are proof that it was unnecessary，in the view of structuralist linguistics，to have recourse to meaning as did traditional grammar，in order to define parts of speech.The particular words（of the example）are characterized by formal features，e.g.the final s on stoves.Paul Roberts introduced his definitions of parts of speech in a similar way in his book Patterns of English，‘if words occur regularly in the same patterns—the same positions in sentences，it could be said that they belong to the same form class or to the same structure words.In English there are four form classes，called nouns，verbs，adjectives，and adverbs.They are called form classes because many of them have special forms-endings and the like which mark them off one from another’.

（2）Structuralist grammar presents linguistic units in structures or patterns.

In criticizing the analytical approach of traditional manuals，Hornby puts forward the advantages of his new method of presentation：‘analysis is helpful，but the learner is，or should be，more concerned with sentence-building.For this he needs to know the patterns of English sentences and to be told which words enter into which patterns’.What is put forward then is a framework of sentence-slots as in the following sentence：

which the pupil can modify by substituting new elements in one or other of the slots（substitution exercises），

or by changing the order of the slots without changing either the number or the nature of the constituents，

or by transforming certain constituents and by changing the order of the slots without modifying the number of the items，

or finally by modifying the number of slots，

thus producing different types of transformational exercise.This technique in particular rapidly produces a quantity of substitution tables that a large number of sentences to be derived from a single pattern presented in the form of a series of slots and a limited number of elements.

It appeared that such great progress was being made both in the analysis of form and of content of the grammar that the structuralists were not at all reluctant to maintain that they had finally discovered a precise and complete model that could definitively replace traditional grammar，both in terms of language description and of language teaching.In this way the deductive mode of presentation of traditional manuals：

Examining the contribution of structuralist grammar to language teaching today and taking account of Chomsky's work，progress beyond traditional grammar appears less extensive than one might have thought in the 1950s.Indeed，it even appears that in certain areas，structuralist grammar representsa step backwards in comparison with traditional grammar.Chomsky makes this clear in his preface to Paul Roberts'work English Syntax（p.Xi）.Modern structural linguistics has reached levels of vigor that often exceed those of traditional grammar，and it has revealed previously unrecognized aspects of linguistic structure.However，it provides little insight into the processes of formation and interpretation of sentences.Study of these questions has been outside the scope of modern structuralism，which has limited itself，almost completely，to the system of inventories of elements（phonemes，morphemes）and to analytic procedures that may assist in determining these elements.There has been some discussion of syntactic patterns.But it has been fairly primitive as compared with traditional grammar.