Max, I think you've posed some good questions, and I should probably work out a more thoughtful response before running to class. Okay, I'll open up w/ one reason for teaching grammar: it enhances students' ability to think about language, and--in both theory & empirical research--there's good reason to belive that metalinguistic awareness enhances people's ability to learn a language, talk about revision decisions, consider stylistic options, or simply think about the slippery nature of language. Of course there are other ways of having students think about language--sociolinguistic field-research for instance. But I see grammar study not simply as a tool forhelping students deal with 'error' or doing other types of linguistic inquiry. In & of itself, grammar study can promote thought. The fact that some students--such as the one you quoted--was confused by grammar study or diagramming doesn't necessarily mean that the problem is w/ grammar study. I know that I've used diagramming in ways that have prompted the exact opposite sort of response from the aforementioned student. At other times, when I've neglected to go beyond the plug-and-chug of diagramming or when students simply didn't seem to be engaged for whatever reason, my students have reacted much like the stuent whom you quoted. In short, grammar study can be a method of inquiry about language, at its best anyway. I agree it may not be altogether functional & useful at times, but neither are many types of, say, math useful to students--math such as calculus or trig. I've been pushing for more math at my school in fact despite the objections from some teachers that most students don't need to know such higher forms of math. I argue that math--like grammar--allows students to exercise certain types of thinking and even different types of viewing the world. I've gone on too long. Hope some of this makes sense, and thanks for posing the important questions! larry beason