Hi, Craig,

I don't understand why you say that the descriptive approach to 
language cannot "work in
harmony with composition".  This approach describes all levels of 
language, including the text/discourse level, and it is how we find out 
how successful texts work. We cannot teach about good writing unless we 
know how it is structured in reality -- knowledge that can be 
discovered only through descriptive research on actual discourse. 
Relying on things like logic is not enough: the concerns of formal 
logic are relevant, but impoverished compared to the amount of 
information that is relayed by structures that emerge from the 
particular way the human mind and body work with respect to things like 
where to locate focus points, breath groups in relation to phrase 
structure, iconicity in phrase structure (which is what motivates us to 
put modifiers near what they modify), things that are important to 
humans, but not to logic, such as whether information is first-hand or 
second-hand, etc.

It is absurd to think we can teach anything about language without 
being grounded in how real language is structured -- it would be like 
teaching biology without worrying about what biologists have discovered 
over the last few centuries. Many of the problems associated with 
grammar and composition teaching stem from inadequate training of 
teachers in how language actually works.

Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba

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/