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