1. The fallacy of the fixed subject-verb-object order: Traditional grammar often assumes a rigid SVO (subject-verb-object) order as the "correct" structure for English sentences. However, structural linguists point out that English sentence structure is more flexible, with variations like object-verb-subject (OVS) appearing in certain contexts (e.g., "The cat, I saw."). Focusing solely on the SVO order ignores the dynamic and flexible nature of language.
2. The fallacy of grammatical categories as inherent properties of words: Traditional grammar often assigns fixed grammatical categories to words (e.g., noun, verb, adjective). Structural linguists argue that these categories are not inherent to words themselves but rather emerge from their function within a sentence. For example, a word like "run" can function as a verb ("I run") or a noun ("a good run").
3. The fallacy of the "logical" basis of grammar: Traditional grammar often relies on logical principles to explain grammatical rules, assuming a close relationship between language and logic. For example, the rule "a singular subject requires a singular verb" might be explained based on the concept of matching singular entities. However, structural linguists argue that language is primarily governed by its own internal structure and patterns, which are not always directly tied to logic. Many grammatical rules are based on historical development and linguistic conventions, not purely logical principles.
These are just a few examples of the fallacies structural linguists identify in traditional grammar. They advocate for a more descriptive and empirically-driven approach to understanding language, focusing on actual patterns of usage rather than prescriptive rules.