I'm in the midst of other matters right now and will wait to reply to
Martha's comments when I get time--on Monday, I hope.

However, I think it's time to clear up what was actually said by
Harris and by Braddock et al.

The Braddock book quotes Harris as having written that "the study of
English grammatical terminology had a negligible or even a relatively
harmful effect upon the correctness of children's writing in the
early part of the five Secondary Schools."

Note that this is a very limited claim--not that the effect was on
children's writing in general but on the correctness of children's
writing. That limited claim is hardly worth all the hoo-hah that has
been made about it, except that in those days (1962) the main
justification given for the teaching of grammar was that it would
help in leading students to reduce their errors.

More important, the Braddock book itself doesn't even go as far as
Harris went. It says this:

"the teaching of formal grammar has a negligible or, because it
usually displaces some instruction and practice in actual
composition, even a harmful effect on the improvement of writing."
(pp. 37-38)

Note that it does not say that the teaching of grammar itself has a
harmful effect; it only says that using one's time to teach grammar
instead of composition could have a harmful effect. This was a
particularly important claim because in those days (early sixties)
teaching grammar was often thought of as the same thing as teaching
composition. I confess that I did that myself for about three years,
until I saw the light. (Besides, grading grammar tests is much easier
than grading compositions.)

As has been pointed out before, the secondary English curriculum is
crowded and teachers are expected to have a wider range of expertise
than most do have. Some choices have to be made. Devoting more time
to teaching composition and less to teaching grammar seems a
reasonable choice.

Bill

>  >
>>  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/