Ed, etc.
   I have been away from the computer for awhile, so I get to look at a
range of responses to this and enjoy the discussion. I may be part of
the problem Ed is complaining about, but, like Karl, I don't think a web
site with a free ranging, wide-open approach to solving tricky problems
is at all incomaptible with the ultimate goal of clear and reasonable
teaching.
    Like Bruce, I suspected Ed's question was a trick one from the
start, but I let myself be pulled in in ways that would be embarassing
if anyone thought I was proposing ways to teach this in a classroom.
 Perhaps a better or fairer question would have been "How should this
sentence be explained to high school students interested in grammar," or
"What sorts of problems would a sentence like this give to a young
student of grammar", or even "How would you approach this sentence or a
sentence like this with the students you are currently working with, at
whatever level."  It was a question about a clause analysis, not a
question about teaching. We seem very capable of doing both and being
clear about it when we do.
    I am a fan of what Ed is doing as well, though I am also baffled by
the occassional hostility.  So I would turn the tables a bit.  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?  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? What, in short, do you think is the "right"
answer to the question you asked?  If more than one answer is given, is
it reasonable to say that all but one is "wrong"?
     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?
    Are we, in fact, doing harm to the list every time we answer one of
your questions?
    Just as a secondary aside, I'm struck by how many of us still seem
to equate the teaching of grammar with "correctness" in writing. If we
talk about "effective" use or "thoughtful" use or "deepened
understanding of language", we can widen out the discussion.  Is there
anyone on the list who doesn't believe a deep understanding of language
has to include some understanding of  syntax? Those of us who teach
grammar as a subject have developed ways to test (monitor and develop)
our students' understanding. If they somewhat unanimously tell us that
the course is enormously useful, is that worth something? Could it be
that they may find uses well beyond somewhat superficial notions of
correctness? I know I do.
    Shouldn't the ultimate goal of education be to produce students who
know what we know and are prepared to move that understanding forward?
    I am deeply uncomfortable with any view of education that proposes
we use our "superior understanding" to help our students behave
properly. One reason I like the KISS site is that it seems more focused
on an understanding of language than it is on "correct" behaviour.
    Notions of correctness are themselves problematic, and only a deeper
understanding of grammar will  allow us to approach them in any kind of
effective way.

Craig

Karl Hagen wrote:

> Ed,
>
> I found your website before I joined this list, and at the time, I was
> quite sympathetic to your main points, although a little sceptical about
> some of the technical details. For that matter, I still am. I must
> admit, though, that your hostile rhetorical stance on this list has
> completely alientated me.
>
> How you think you can infer what my--or any list member's--classroom
> practice is from the topics here is beyond me. You can't, of course, and
> trying to do so is exactly the sort of specious sophistry that makes me
> want to dismiss everything you have to say.
>
> The truth is, the things I teach in my grammar for teachers class are
> much closer to what you call for than you seem to assume. But I don't
> really feel inclined to justify myself. I'll talk about what I want to
> talk about on this list. I refuse to accept that there is a single
> question to which this list must be devoted, or that we must all join in
> lock-step in adhering to a single grammatical analysis so as not to
> confuse the uninitiated. To me, the multi-leveled discussion here, and
> the multiple audiences, is a strength of the list, not a weakness.
>
> You've given abundant evidence that you don't really care how list
> members react to your posts, but I can only wonder how you hope to
> convince people to adopt KISS, or any program at all, when your ethos is
> so disastrously counter-productive as to turn a once receptive reader
> like me into someone who no longer finds it worthwhile to read what you
> have to say.
>
> 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/