WHY STUDY GRAMMAR?

One approach described to teaching grammar is the traditional approach that "uses as examples language from formal situations (considered 'the very best use of language') and applies many rules and categories from the study of Latin to the study of English" (p4). This approach is about how "language should be used". A second approach is structural grammar which focuses on the systems that guide the grammar of a language and focus on how "language is used and thus more descriptive." And a third approach is the transformational which "states that in every language user's mind are embedded the basic rules for producing and comprehending meaningful sentences in that language.
These three approaches, traditional, structural and transformational seem to reflect some of the sentiments from our theories/philosophies of teaching writing which might be helpful in considering their implementation in the classroom. The traditional approach seems closely related to the bottom-up technique that was common in early to mid 1900's practice of teaching writing in which process is important to properly informing writing skills. I feel this approach while necessary to establish basic tenets is forcing writers into a container or model that limits their creativity. While grammar might not be the best place for creativity to spawn the Post-Process folks might like to disagree a bit because of indeterminate meaning of speech in general. Perhaps breaking the grammar rules is the type of post process that this philosophy demands? I'm not sure.