Jan, I recall that what felt compelling to me about that claim, back when I
was a comp/rhet grad student, is that spending time pushing grammatical
information toward our students can be harmful _if it takes significant time
away from the business of actually writing_. Fifteen years later, I still
have no problem with that claim. But a couple of qualifications.

First, we ought to admit the same may be true of our attempts to simply
"push information" toward our students about anything, including information
about the writing process, about research, about documentation formats, and
so on. No one develops as a writer by having information pushed at them. We
develop as writers by writing. Anything that takes much time away from the
actual activity of writing can be "harmful" in this sense. Why we've limited
this claim to grammar, I have no idea.

Second, I want to be clear that I'm all for integrating focused discussions
of language and grammar into our students writing activities. But I mean
that word "integrating" very literally. If our talk about grammar is to have
any positive impact on our students' development as writers, then I think we
need to be teaching a "writerly" grammar, one that's sensitive to the
rhetorical concerns for audience, purpose, voice, development, and so
on--the kinds of things writers actually think about as they write. Now I'm
just not enough of a grammarian to advise anyone about what counts as a
"writerly grammar." But I do know that when I read things like Martha's
_Rhetorical Grammar_, or Ed Schuster's _Breaking the Rules_, or Joseph
Williams' _Style_ books, I feel like those folks are reaching much closer to
my own writerly bones in the approaches they take. Actually, I like that
word I just used--"approach." Maybe then a "writerly grammar" isn't really
so much about basic content as basic approach. Maybe the more productive
approach is not to start with the grammar, then ask how it can be used, but
to start with what it is a writer wants to accomplish, then ask what
resources the language provides to do it.

Jeff

Dr. Jeff Wiemelt
Associate Professor, English
Director, SLU Writing Center
Southeastern Louisiana University

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Kammert" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 8:03 AM
Subject: teaching grammar


> >
> > However, the worst of all was the sweeping generalization that was made,
> resulting from an alarming disconnect between what was actually said in
> Harris's study and what everyone seemed to read into it. Harris did not
deny
> that teaching functional grammar might be helpful; he only said that
teaching
> formal, "grammatical terminology" was harmful. But the way Braddock's
report
> presented it, and what everyone seemed to read, was that teaching
GRAMMAR--
> any grammar--was harmful. That interpretation of Harris's dissertation was
> incorrect, and (as Martha said) immensely harmful, and it has stayed that
> way for more than 40 years.
> >
> How can teaching grammar or grammatical terminology be harmful?  Unless I
> teach someone how to commit a crime, I don't know how any information can
> be harmful.  Do people literally think that?
> Jan
>
> 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/
>

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/