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:
"R. Michael Medley" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 19 Nov 1999 17:44:48 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (56 lines)
Robert,
In case you have deleted all the messages from the list in the last
couple of days, I want to remind or inform you that the issues of
of grammatical labels and learning terminology is where the
current discussion started. You can ignore this point if you want and
carry on an emotional discussion of the issues on your own terms.
(If so, I don't intend to listen any further.)  I have not tried to
change the grounds of any argument; I am only seeking clarity.

> 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
>
>
R. Michael Medley, Ph.D.
Director, Intensive English Program
Eastern Mennonite University
Harrisonburg, VA 22802
Office: (540) 432-4051
Home: (540) 574-4277

ATOM RSS1 RSS2