However, there are key differences in the way structural linguists and traditional grammarians approach language, which might be viewed as points of disagreement. Here are three key distinctions, though it's important to note that these aren't "fallacies" in the strict sense:
1. Focus on Form over Meaning: Traditional grammar often prioritizes prescriptive rules based on Latin grammar, emphasizing correct usage and focusing on the meaning of words. Structural linguists, on the other hand, emphasize the descriptive analysis of language as it's actually used. They focus on the underlying structure of language, including syntax, morphology, and phonology, without necessarily focusing on "correctness."
2. Abstraction vs. Observation: Traditional grammar often relies on abstract categories and principles, sometimes based on assumptions about how language "should" work. Structural linguists rely heavily on empirical observation of language in use. They analyze real language samples to identify patterns and structures, rather than relying solely on theoretical constructs.
3. Focus on "Parts of Speech" vs. "Function": Traditional grammar often categorizes words into rigid parts of speech (nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.) based on their inherent properties. Structural linguists are more interested in the function of words in a sentence, acknowledging that a word can serve different grammatical functions depending on its context.
Instead of viewing these differences as "fallacies," it's more accurate to see them as divergent approaches to the study of language. Traditional grammar is primarily prescriptive and focuses on correctness, while structural linguistics is descriptive and seeks to understand the underlying structure of language. Both approaches offer valuable insights into the nature of language, and their differences highlight the complexity and richness of human communication.