I expected to get some flak from my previous post, but I wasn't expecting over a hundred messages on the site. I read e-mail once a week from my office, and I do not have the time right now to go through all the messages. I would, however, like to respond to Peter's message regarding grammatical errors.

I do not regularly talk about the KISS Grammar site here, simply because I've been criticized for doing so. (Another reason for my looking for different audiences?) I will say, however, that KISS approaches grammatical errors by teaching students how sentences work. Most of the people on this list cannot approach the question this way because their grammars are primarily definitions of terms rather than a sequence for teaching students how to analyze sentences. For the KISS Approach to errors, see:

This summer I have been revising the "Instructional Books" for the five KISS Levels. These are available, for free, as MS Word documents.

Although I have not been able to read all the messages, I would like to clarify the terminological problem as I see it. I have no problem with different grammarians using different terms. The problem arises when teachers and students are presented with "grammar" books that claim to be teaching the same thing ("grammar") but that use terms differently without clearly indicating that they are doing so. Thus teachers are confused, for example, about what a "clause" is because one book defines "clause" one way and another book does so in another.

I finally found the time to read David Mulroy's The War against Grammar, and I can see why ATEG members are not all that enthusiastic about it. He points out that ATEG is an extremely small group, almost comical when compared to NCTE. ATEG, I will suggest, will remain such a small, and ineffective group, until it resolves it terminological problem. Teachers (and professors) simply ignore ATEG because it produces primarily mumbo-jumbo terminology that is not internally consistent.

Once again, why can't ATEG support two, three, five named grammars? WIthin each of these grammars, terms would be defined and internally consistent. Once a grammar gets to that point, students and teachers can begin to apply it to questions of reading, writing, errors, style, logic, literature, etc. Once a grammar gets to that point, one can begin to consider what constructions should be taught first, etc. There is little discussion of the applications of grammar on the ATEG site, primarily because ATEG members cannot agree on which tools (terms) to use in such applications.

Although I will still, for obvious reasons, prefer KISS grammar, I would certainly support ATEG's proposals for distinct, named, pedagogical grammars. Unless that happens, however, ATEG will be a target of criticism.

I understand that the ATEG position is that the teaching of grammar has wider goals than simply "the avoidance of error." And over the years, thanks to this list and to presentations at conferences, I have come to embrace these wider goals. However, the ATEG position sometimes sounds to me to suggest that any concern with the avoidance of error is misguided. I would love to hear some ATEGers agree that reducing the frequency and seriousness of error in student writing is a worthwhile goal of grammar instruction, while recognizing that it should not be the only goal.

Peter Adams