Ed,
   I find your responses very thoughtful and helpful.  I wasn't in on 
the formation of the list, so I may, like others, have a view less tied 
to direct teaching applications.  I would like to think my own 
(evolving) approach to grammar is internally consistent.  I'll try to 
repress some of my more speculative meanderings (or move them off line).
     To me, the bigger problem is not an inconsistent use of 
terminology, but that there are many people on the list who do not 
believe that grammar should be taught in the schools beyond the fairly 
limited goal of eliminating error.  The big division is not between 
those who feel infinitive structures are phrases or clauses, but between 
those who feel that native speakers already know their native language 
and there's no value (or need) in making that language the focus of 
attention, between those who feel we have to clamp down on errors and 
those who feel that a focus on correctness is counterproductive to 
process approaches to writing. Your own position I think is made clear 
by the comprehensive nature of the KISS site.  The secondary question, 
which you are also trying to address somewhat thoughtfully, is how a 
systemic understanding of grammar might be portioned out at differing 
age and grade levels.
    Every time we being to move our understanding of natural grammar 
forward, someone comes on to say that students don't NEED to know what 
we are talking about. Every time we focus on "rules" related to writing, 
people point out that many of those are archaic and non-functional and 
someone else points out that the direct teaching of correctness just 
doesn't get the desired results. We are at war over theory, and many of 
those battles get played out over and over again in surprising ways.
     As every negotiator knows, there's hope  when the warring parties 
are at the table and talking.

Craig

Edward Vavra wrote:

>    I'll begin with a response to (Karl?), who probably has deleted this. He asks why I had (and often have) such a "hostile rhetorical stance." The answer to that is simple. I was responding to his message in which he called mine a "shill" and closed with "Shame on you." I have been critical of the terminological chaos in the teaching of grammar for the last decade. I'll have more to say about the original question I posed later, but the first point is ― what is the purpose of this list? I am almost certain that there are lists for linguists and there is at least one list for TESOL. It has always been my understanding that the distinguishing characteristic of this list is that it focuses on the teaching of grammar in our schools. (Syntax in the Schools) I have said many times that I do not mind the linguistic discussions on this list. That is not my complaint. My complaint is that such discussion far overweigh the discussions of what should be done in the schools. Thus, I would have understood, as some members have said that they suspected, that any question on this list should be looked at from the PoV of teaching in K-12. As for getting support (with a hostile attitude) from this list, I'll gratefully take what I can and do get. If some members want to stop reading my posts because they don't like my attitude, so be it. 
>      Bill McCleary noted, in his post, that I had asked for help from members of this list long ago, and, to summarize what he said, it would be nice if I got more of it. Some members are helping me, off-list, or at the KISS site. I do not, howver, expect to get much support from this group because this group frames the question poorly. This group is constantly focussing on definitions, and little beyond definitions.
>     Here, perhaps, is the place to note that I really did like Johanna's post on the definition of clause. She said that she wondered if that is the kind of thing that I am asking for, and the answer is definitely a "Yes." At least she is proposing a pedagogical definition of a crucial concept, and, if I understood her correctly, she is suggesting that a pedagogical grammar could be based on it. The problem I have, however, is, as Bob noted, her definition is based on a theory, but she proposes it just as a "definition." I gave "KISS" a name for a reason, and I have always tried to be clear that it is one of many possible descriptive grammars. But within KISS, I have striven to make the pieces internally consistent. Now I would love to see Johanna, or anyone else who wants to, come up with a competing descriptive, pedagogical grammar. But give it a name. Identify it so that, when we discuss it, we all know (or at least could know) that we are (and students would be) working within a specific set of theories and definitions. I have, by the way, Grammar Alive!  on order, but my guess is that the glossary that Johanna refers to includes terms from distinct grammatical frames of reference (theories) but that the glossary presents them as if they are internally consistent.  I hope that I am wrong about this, but we'll see.
>    Note that Johanna wrote:" If there is a small number of terms that are defined differently by different groups, I do not think that is an insurmountable obstacle, as long as the number remains relatively small." However, her description of clauses, which, I hope everyone will agree, is a crucial concept, was debated at some length in following posts. I don't have trouble with that debate, but once again I suggest that those who agree with Johanna should get together, give their perspective a name, and develop it. I have absolutely no problem with this, or with the discussion of it.
>    The problem still remains, however, that this group is simply caught up in a terminological trap. Meanwhile, millions of students are receiving very poor, uncoordinated instruction. The terms and concepts that students need  are not that  complex. In the study that was so highly praised by Hillocks, Faigley's students used the Christensens' A New Rhetoric.  A New Rhetoric consists of two parts -- "I The Process of Writing," and "II The Larger Units of Composition."  In spite of its title, Part I is filled with  (but with a limited number of) grammatical terms: "It is hardly necessary to insist again that the meaning, or perhaps here the interest, is in the modifiers. We need now a language for discussing them. The next few paragraphs are the foundation of our treatment of the sentence. You should master them so well that you can apply the principles creatively, in writing, and analytically, in the discussion of writing. The language we need is of two sorts -- grammatical and what we will call rhetorical." (22, my emphasis) 
>     The paragraphs that follow this statement assume the ability to identify "subjects,"  "verbs," and "subordinate" and "main" clauses. They explain, among others, adverbs, prepositional phrases, verbals, verb phrases, absolutes, relative clauses, adverbial phrases, adjectival phrases, "free noun phrases"  (which turn out to be, and be called, appositives), and "the noun with an adverbial function. . . ."
>    If you have already read the preceding from the link that I referred to last time, I apologize, but I copied it here because it is crucial to the problem of what to do in the schools. The problem with terminology is not how accurate it is, it is not, perhaps, even how extensive it is. The problem is that the focus has been on the terms, and not on getting students to understand, i.e., first be able to identify, and then be able to explore the uses etc. of, very simple grammatical concepts. Little if any of the typical discussion on this list is going to help students learn to recognize subjects, verbs, prepositional phrases, etc.  What should be taught? How? When? Why? are the fundamental questions, but this list rarely gets to them. That is what angers me. 
>     At the risk of being accused of shlling my web site, (actually, I think I'm going to start being proud of doing so), I would like to direct your attention to the newest addition ― Seven selections from The Trumpet of the Swan, by E. B. White. See:
>http://home.pct.edu/~evavra/kiss/wb/G04/Apr/D04/Notes.htm
>Someone earlier in this thread claimed that teachers cannot use the KISS Approach without a school-wide, top-down consenssus. That is simply not true. First of all, some teachers in public and private schools are already doing so. Second, simply look at the material from White's book. In additon to identification exercises, there are punctuation exercises, sentence-combining exercises, and writing exercises. There is a focus on literature, specifically the literary concept of characerization, and there is a focus on writing style with, because of the nature of the selections, an emphasis on compound subjects, verbs, and complements. Although this is, within the workbooks, directed at fourth graders, anyone can use these materials, at any grade level. And the only concepts that are really needed at this level are subjects, finite verbs, and complements. The stuff that students need in order to apply grammatical concepts is SIMPLE. 
>
>Craig posed  several questions that I should reply to: 
>
>"Did you pick a sentence that you believe is easily explained or one that you feel could and should give anyone analysing it food for serious thought?"
>
>I found the sentence as I was reviewing my students' grammatical analysis of their own writing. I found it perplexing, and I knew that, when I put it on the site, I would be including several optional explanations. In KISS, there is no "right" answer. There are answers that make sense to the people who are using the approach, and those answers often differ. At the time I ran across the sentence, I was swamped with papers, but the imp in me said ― send it to ATEG. See if they have done anything to develop systematic approaches to teaching grammar, or if they are still all over the place." The imp won, and I was accused of "shilling." I do plan on putting it on the site soon, but I wanted to finish the selections from White first. Again I want to emphasize that we need to teach the basics, the most common, normal constructions first (hence White). Students won't make any sense of any explanation of the complicated clause sentences if they do not first have a fairly well developed sense of what a clause is. Thus White got priority. I do, however, plan on including a link to the ATEG archives and the thread that discussed the sentence. I regularly remind the users of the KISS site that grammarians diagree, and I find that the links to the ATEG archives are helpful in convincing people of that. [You'll also find that I complain about grammarians and linguists within the KISS workbooks.]
>
>
>"How would you deal with your porblem sentence within the KISS program? Do you have an answer to that already, or were you legitimately interested in our responses?   
>
>I'm still not sure of what I will propose as the best, easiest explanation, and yes I was truly interested in the responses. Even though they were not usually in terms that KISS uses, they gave me additional perspectives for possible explanations. 
>
>"If more than one answer is given, is it reasonable to say that all but one is "wrong"?
>
>As I noted above, a "wrong" answer in KISS is one that does not make sense. At times in the workbooks I suggest that when a student offers a strange explanation, he or she should be encouraged to explain it to the class, and the class should then vote. Does it make sense to them? If it doesn't, it is not a very good explanation. And, if it does, but I am not happy with it, there is no real problem. Over and over again, if you read the notes to KISS exercises, you will find that I say  that grammarians and linguists disagree, so students should be able to also.
>
>"If KISS is an evolving approach and an incomplete one, (You have said so, and I don't see this as a negative), is ATEG a place where its evolving positions could be looked at from a range of perspectives, or do you see that as outside the goals of the list?"
>
>KISS is evolving. I just backed into adding expletives to the KISS Toolbox. I would welcome critical discussion of KISS on this list, discussion from any perspective. That is one reason for my being so annoyed at being accused of "shilling."  Within the KISS List, I do not want, and will not allow, the kind of discussion of KISS that  I would like to see here. Remember that most of the users of the KISS site are themselves worried about their understanding of grammar. They want, and I would suggest that they need, explanations to be clear. Complex theoretical discussions confuse and discourage them. There are places on the KISS site where I direct people to this ATEG list if they would like more theoretical discussions, but such discussions on the list itself would only lead to people unsubscribing. 
>
>
>"Are we, in fact, doing harm to the list every time we answer one of your questions?"
>
>   I don't think that answering my questions would do harm to the list, but members of this list may become really annoyed with me if there is not more discussion of what to do in K-12 classrooms. The web has given me the option of putting an entire KISS curriculum for grades 3-11 on the web site, where it is available for free. As some people on this list noted, people from around the world are finding the site, and finding it very helpful. The problem, however, is that the web is a massive place, and the educational hierarchy (including many members of this list) is not supportive of the approach. When Peter Feeley invited me to submit a book manuscript to NCTE, I told him they would not publish it. He, however, said that he would help me get it published. That, for a number of reasons, turned out not to be the case. From my perspective, however, the NCTE attempt means that I have done my duty ― I have tried to work within the system. That having failed, it is time to move beyond the system. Since KISS material is all free, and I want it to remain so, no publisher is going to print and advertise a KISS 'textbook." [In rereading this, I want to insert that many users of the KISS list would prefer linear books. I am creating some, in word and pdf files, but the thought has crossed my mind that perhaps I should ask a publisher such as Dover if they would be interested in publishing inexpensive KISS workbooks. But here again, my primary motive is not to publish the book or books, but to make the materials available to more people in formats that they find useful.]
>     How then do I get the general public aware of the problems in the teaching of grammar, and of course, of KISS. The only answer that I can think of is another book, this time aimed at the general public. (Something like Ravitch's The Language Police. Since the book would not be a textbook, it would focus on the problem and a general discussion of what can be done about it. NCTE, of course, will have a chapter of its own. Obviously, it seems to me, so should ATEG.
>     Now obviously there is no guarantee that I could get such a book published, but, in response to your question, the question here is what would I say about ATEG. On the one hand, I could say that ATEG is an association of grammarians and linguists who are seriously working on developing internally consistent, clear, distinct, and practical ways of teaching grammar in K-12. On the other, I could say that it is a group of grammar lovers who like to show off what they know about grammar, but never seriously address the problems in K-12. 
>    What are my chances of publishing such a book? I don't know. But then, I have to do something with my time. The KISS site itself is looking better and better. There is still a lot to do, but at least the basic instructional material is in and more and more exercises are being added. But my focus is, and always has been, the chaos in the schools, chaos that is definitely hurting millions of students. I think the KISS Approach can help, but it won't do much if only a relatively few people know about it. 
>
>Thanks,
>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/
>
>  
>

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/