Hi Rick,
How about "stylistic considerations" or "writing conventions" as catch-all
phrases? I think the term grammar (glamourous or not) always puts the user on
difficult terrain. Just think of all the different ways it's used from
"grammar" school, to comp studies, to Derrida, to Chomsky, etc. Nevermind the
fact that it causes a range of reactions from hyperventilation to narcolepsy.
Let us know what you choose. Jean
--
Prof. Jean S. Mason, PhD
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
Professional Writing & Communication - Erindale College
Curriculum, Teaching & Learning - OISE-UT
http://www.jeanmason.ca
Rick Coe wrote:
> Thank you all for your helpfulness. This is fun, too.
>
> Yes, I love that grammar and glamour have the same origin--I think of the
> connection as "spelling. And the various Latin spins are consistent with
> the Greek _logos_ (which signifies logic or grammar or other such
> structures, as in Burke's _GRAMMER of Motives_).
>
> My immediate need obviously needs to be contextualized (a rhetorician
> should have known that). This is not a significant problem conceptually
> and one that can be solved in my teaching along the lines of Cathy
> suggests. Taking "grammar" in its modern linguistic sense (i.e., as
> syntax), what I need is a term to use when I am talking about writing to
> other faculty members, who make no distinction between grammar and usage
> (and even include punctuation and mechanics as "grammar"). So I was
> looking for a standard term, one that would be clear to most people in our
> field, for all this surface stuff. If no such term exists, that is
> probably a sign of something significant.
>
> My immediate context, I am reminded to stipulate by Theresa (because out of
> context most anything is ambiguous), is that the chair of a Senate
> Committee looking at reforming writing instruction at SFU. The are
> considering writing-intensive courses in the disciplines; specialized
> courses in the English Department called, "Writing in the Sciences,"
> Writing in the Humanities, etc.; short non-credit "Grammar for Writers"
> courses; a redesigned Writing Centre staffed by TAs, and so forth. So I am
> looking for Canadian programs or parts of programs that the Senate
> committee might want to look at as models.
>
> At SFU, Linguistics and its Language Centre do ESL. We don't have the
> expertise in English, so we deal with ESL as it comes up, but do not focus
> on it.
>
> Sorry I wasn't more specific in the first place.
>
> Rick
>
> Rick
>
> At 08:51 AM 1/14/2002, you wrote:
> >The word "grammar" itself has a lovely etymology and convoluted history.
> >
> > >From the OED: "ad. OF. gramaire (F. grammaire), an irregular
> > semipopular adoption (for the form of which cf. OF. mire repr. L.
> > medicum, artimaire repr. L. artem magicam or mathematicam) of L.
> > grammatica, ad. Gr. (scil. art), fem. of adj., of or pertaining to
> > letters or literature, f. letters, literature, pl. of letter, written
> > mark, f. root of to write. Cf. Pr. gramaira (prob. from Fr.). Old Fr.
> > had also a learned adoption of the L. word, gramatique, parallel with Sp.
> > gramática, Pg., It. grammatica, G. grammatik, Welsh gramadeg.
> >
> >"In the Middle Ages, grammatica and its Rom. forms chiefly meant the
> >knowledge or study of Latin, and were hence often used as synonymous with
> >learning in general, the knowledge peculiar to the learned class. As this
> >was popularly supposed to include magic and astrology, the OF. gramaire
> >was sometimes used as a name for these occult sciences. In these
> >applications it still survives in certain corrupt forms, F. grimoire, Eng.
> >GLAMOUR.
> >
> >"Glamour: Originally Sc., introduced into the literary language by Scott.
> >A corrupt form of
> >GRAMMAR; for the sense cf. GRAMARYE (and F. grimoire), and for the form
> >GLOMERY.] 1. Magic, enchantment, spell; esp. in the phrase to cast the
> >glamour over one (see quot. 1721). 2. a. A magical or fictitious beauty
> >attaching to any person or object; a delusive or alluring charm.
> >
> >So we have letters, literature, inscription, magic, and glamour all packed
> >into this gorgeous word. I'd use it, Rick.
> >
> >Whatever grammar is, it's based on that which can (theoretically) be
> >systematized and is (more or less) rule bound. It's useful, I think, to
> >contrast grammar with that which cannot be systematized (e.g., syle).
> >
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
> > [log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
> > write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]
> >
> > For the list archives and information about the organization,
> >the annual conference, and publications, go to the Inkshed Web site at
> > http://www.StThomasU.ca/inkshed/
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
> [log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
> write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]
>
> For the list archives and information about the organization,
> the annual conference, and publications, go to the Inkshed Web site at
> http://www.StThomasU.ca/inkshed/
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
Prof. Jean S. Mason, PhD
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
Professional Writing & Communication - Erindale College
Curriculum, Teaching & Learning - OISE-UT
http://www.jeanmason.ca
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To leave the list, send a SIGNOFF CASLL command to
[log in to unmask] or, if you experience difficulties,
write to Russ Hunt at [log in to unmask]
For the list archives and information about the organization,
the annual conference, and publications, go to the Inkshed Web site at
http://www.StThomasU.ca/inkshed/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
