I did more than "acknowledge" that KISS presented students with the
constituency problem. I said that constituency was the really important
question for students, rather than terminology. AFAIK, we're entirely in
agreement on that point.

I also never said anything about KISS's (in)adequacy. If you reread my
message, I think you will find that I essentially defended, on technical
grounds, the interpretive options that you provide. I _really_ wish you
would stop reflexively interpreting my messages as adversarial.

As for the accusation that I'm making grammar too technical, my question
is too technical for whom? I don't disagree with you that such
discussions are largely irrelevant to students and parents, and for
those teachers who are working at lower levels.

But--and here we probably part company--I don't see that has a direct
bearing on the present discussion.

Terminology implies an underlying theory, whether or not that theory is
made explicit to the student. As I intimated before, beginners need to
master a basic conceptual framework before they can start to think about
the underlying issues. And I have never disagreed with you about the
need to simplify at the early stages of learning. But textbook writers,
and the people who evaluate them for merit, hardly fall into that category.

It is fair to ask of our textbooks that they present an account that is
accurate, within the limits of level-appropriate simplification. It is
fair to ask that a textbook follow a coherent set of underlying
principles. And it is also fair that whatever simplifications we make
for pedagogical purposes not do too much violence to the underlying
facts of language use. Mind you, I'm not faulting KISS for failing in
this respect, but I do defend the right of people to poke under the
hood, as it were. You cannot do that without technical discussion. That
discussion, of course, is not a direct answer to the question "how do we
teach this?" but it does, or should, inform the answer to that question.

Finally, I have a suspicion that you want two things that push in
contrary directions. On the one hand, you want us to agree on a basic
set of consistent principles and terminology. On the other hand, you
want to banish technical discussion from the list. The first seems a
rather quixotic hope considering the wide variation even within
traditionally-oriented grammar books, to say nothing of those influenced
by linguistics. And even if it were possible, how could we reach
consensus without technical discussion? The only alternative I can think
of is an appeal to authority. And given the history of grammar teaching,
such a rhetorical move makes me, and I suspect many others, suspicious
when it isn't grounded in more solid principles.


Karl Hagen
Department of English
Mount St. Mary's College

Edward Vavra wrote:

>       No, I did. But the last part of your message suggests that what
> you suggested is a bit much for K-12 students. You did not suggest what
> you would teach students in K-12. In the KISS approach, students would
> have no trouble with "look up" "Up" would simply be consdiered as an
> adverb. From my perspective, you are making grammar too technical, and
> then saying that KISS won't be adequate because it does not address the
> technical questions that you want to have addressed. But my question
> still is What would you teach students in K-6 about, for example, verbs
> and prepositions. If I understood you correctly, you are acknowledging
> that KISS does present students with the constituency problem. Does "on"
> form a constituent with the verb, or with the following "your hat." I
> would suggest that, not only for third graders, but even for most
> adults, that is the primary concern.
>       And, once again I would suggest that unless we can develop a
> basic, consistent approach to grammatical terminology, most teachers,
> students, and parents will never really care about discussions of, for
> example, "intransitive prepositions." Most teachers hate grammar because
> it is too confusing. If, however, we could develop a basic grammar that
> would be less confusing and more meaningful, I don't think there would
> be much problem in getting into the kinds of questions you discuss, even
> perhaps in tenth grade. Currently, I do not see us, as a profession,
> getting anywhere near that point because members of this list want to
> discuss technical points and, it appears to me, object to simplified
> presentations, even though those simplified presentations may be
> essential groundwork for understanding the more complex issues. Again, I
> may be wrong. But the question is, if not the KISS Approach, then what
> would you teach?
>
> Ed
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/