Karl,
    I apologize if my remarks often assume that your comments are
adversarial. You are certainly right when you say that your initial
remarks supported my position from a theoretical standpoint. You are,
however, definitely wrong, and I still do not know how many times I am
going to have to write this, when you say that I want theoretical
discussion banned from the list. I am totally sincere when I say that I
want Johanna (or anyone else) to develop a curriculum sequence for
grammar in K-12, based on whatever theory she (or anyone else) wants to
apply. That means that there should be tons of theoretical discussion on
this list. But it is crucial that at least some of that discussion be
tied to what should be done in the schools. I just posted a message on
this list regarding a message I received from a parent about what I
would call a subjective, currently being taught? in second grade. The
student did not understand what was wrong, nor did the parent. The
result of that is that students and parents find grammar to be a
mysterious set of impenetrable rules. They hate it. Then we wonder why
they don't like to study grammar?
Ed

>>> [log in to unmask] 01/13/04 06:56PM >>>
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

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/