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