With the recent discussion on linguistic grammar, I find the following
statement by Craig strange.

> (We have no history of talking about grammar in that way. Even
generative grammar largely sees itself as irrelevant.) 

Actually, in the States in the 1950s, major journals in the US (English
Journal and CCC) had numerous articles on how linguistic insights can
inform teaching about grammar.

Martha's post on linguistic grammar make assumptions by "generative
grammarians."  For example, the syntactic description of the English
auxilauxiliarystem in her text really comes from Chomsky.

The notion that most of our grammatical knowledge is innate is a
fundamental assumption of generative grammar.  This innate assumption is
NOT fundamental to systemic functional linguistics.   

Bob Yates
Central Missouri State University

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/