ATEG Archives

November 1999

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"William J. McCleary" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:26:00 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (49 lines)
Let me second what Michael has to say and add that, if students are to
retain the grammar that we teach them, they must use it. (Use it or lose
it.) And using it to study literature is a fine idea. There are several
authors (Hemingway and Faulkner come to mind) that cannot be fully
appreciated without an understanding of the grammar of their style.

Bill

>Fr. Laurence wrote:
>> Why should the study of "literature" preclude the study of "grammar"? In
>> fact, can you really explain the effectiveness of a literary passage
>> without studying the precise relationship of the verbal units (words,
>> phrases, clauses) to each other? And isn't that what we mean by grammar
>> and syntax? Grammatical and syntactical choices have rhetorical effects.
>> The division between these two "camps" is false and to the detriment of
>> both. The Advanced Placement English Program of the College Board nicely
>> recognizes the influence of language choices on style. Surely it is time
>> for a marriage of these two approaches to written expession. How can ATEG
>> promote this?
>
>I think we have to go back to beginning of this discussion to find
>out what the "two camps" are in regards to the discussion on this
>forum.  At the beginning of the discussion, the two camps seemed to
>be (a) those who favor heavy teaching of the technical terminology of
>grammar (from early grades onward) and (b) those who think that
>grammar is very important and interesting but do not feel that
>teaching all children the traditional technical terminology has
>proven its benefit. 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


William J. McCleary
3247 Bronson Hill Road
Livonia, NY 14487
716-346-6859

ATOM RSS1 RSS2