This message was originally submitted by Kathleen Ward ([log in to unmask])
to the ATEG list at
MIAMIU.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU. in response to the note from Martha Kolln:
------------------------------
 
Can I second Martha Kolln's remarks and add a few of my own?
 
Like her, I do not understand the hostility to teaching the terminology and
methods of analysis necessary for discussing texts.  In the absence of a
common vocabulary for this task, we have to fall back on lame comments like
"it sounds better this way."
 
 In addition, such inane comments make us, as teachers, sound as if we
don't ourselves _know_ what is going on.  Back in my composition teaching
days, I would overhear my office mates trying to explain why something
"sounds wrong" without using any gramma
  There just was not common ground for describing those errors.
 
Trying to reach the student with grammar only at those rare 'teachable
moments' gives the teacher an added problem. The student may be ready to
hear about modifier placement for best effect, but it would help get the
point across more immediately if the s
 
There is also the added factor that grammar and linguistic analysis is just
plain interesting and fun for at least some of the class.  I don't buy the
argument that the cohort that finds (or would find, if it were taught)
grammar interesting is too small
 
 I also contest the relevance of the  belief that "students learn
sophisticated sentence writing and sentence grammar mainly from reading,
and somewhat from writing,"   and that this is a sufficient basis for
writing instruction.  As someone whose teachin
r, I know that they did most of this reading on their own, during their
leisure time.  The amount of reading we can assign in language classes is
just too small to provide the same benefit.  And, can I mention, with
diffidence, that in my experience most