Grammar trick compromise

["Dr. Beth Rapp Young" <youngbr@email.uah.edu>]

I've been following this thread with interest--here's a possible
compromise to the tricks vs. underlying system debate:

John Dawkins wrote a wonderful article called "Teaching Grammar as a
Rhetorical Tool," in CCC 46.4 (1995): 533-48.

He describes punctuation rules according to how they affect meaning,
with lots of examples from published writers.  Then he boils the whole
thing down into 1 chart of punctuation hierarchies, 3 sentence
patterns plus 3 rules. It's tricks plus underlying logic in one!  Well
worth reading.

The only problem: since Dawkins describes how punctuation is used to
affect meaning, he can't forbid comma splices and sentence
fragments.  So I worry about teaching this system to basic
writers.  On one hand, it is far more logical & less byzantine
than "traditional" methods.  On the other hand, what happens when they
purposely use a comma splice and some future teacher goes nuts?

I've only had the opportunity to introduce this system to advanced
writers, who love it.  Later, I'll probably tell students that
Dawkin's system is "cutting edge research."  Then I can teach sentence
fragments & comma splices as "exceptions to avoid until you're more
sure of a noncritical audience," at least until the "cutting edge" is
more commonly understood.  Given the state of handbook
publishing/purchasing, I wonder how long this sensible system will
remain cutting edge?

Beth

Dr. Beth Rapp Young
U of Alabama in Huntsville
YoungBR@email.uah.edu