In his response to Fr Laurence, Michael Medley is conveniently
changing the grounds of the argument.

The debate, all of a sudden, is no longer between "teach literature
vs. teach grammar."

(What was Fr Laurence thinking of!)

The real debate was all the more vague ... "Teach grammar, of
course, who ever said we shouldn't! it's just when, what kind, how
much..."

So, then why are we hearing about all of these studies that prove
that grammar is not possible to learn?  Why are we hearing about
those who define "English" as a "literature" department?  Why are
we hearing that the history of grammar teaching as we know it
never happened?

Personally, I don't see a need to "go back to the beginning of this
discussion" and re-trace our steps to find out what we're talking
about.

If the debate is "how much, when, how," then there's really no
debate:  we all say "teach grammar."

R. E.

>As I see it
> the participants in this discussion do NOT fall into the camps  "teach
> literature" vs. "teach grammar." Neither camp is precluded from talking
> about the rhetorical effects of grammatical and syntactic choices. The
> crux of the issue is what or how much terminology do we need in order to
> talk about those things.  Or what is the most helpful, illuminating, or
> transparent terminology for talking about those things?  I believe there
> is an ATEG subcommittee working on this question, is there not? Are they
> getting anywhere? R. Michael Medley, Ph.D. Director, Intensive English
> Program Eastern Mennonite University Harrisonburg, VA 22802 Office: (540)
> 432-4051 Home: (540) 574-4277