Background Essays forBackground Essays for

KISS GrammarKISS Grammar

An Allegorical Figure of Grammar

Laurent de la Hyre, 1650

© Dr. Ed Vavra

August, 2012

2

Contents

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................2

What Is KISS Grammar?.............................................................................................................3The Primary KISS Difference —A Grammar with an End.................................................3A Note on the Voice behind KISS Grammar......................................................................11

What Can KISS Grammar Do?.................................................................................................15The KISS Approach to Improving Writing and to Grammatical Errors........................15More on the KISS Approach to Teaching Punctuation.......................................................48The KISS Approach to Teaching Sentence Style................................................................52An Introduction to Syntax and the Logic of David Hume.................................................66Statistical Exercises and KISS Grammar............................................................................72

How to Teach KISS Grammar—and Why...............................................................................79Teaching Grammar with the KISS Approach: “I Don’t Know”.......................................79The Importance of Method....................................................................................................81Jerome Bruner’s Concept of the Spiral Curriculum..........................................................95Natural Syntactic Development: Vygotsky’s “Zones” and Piaget’s “Plateaus”..............97“KISS” -- The Case for “Stupid”?......................................................................................103The Smartest People Ask the “Stupid” Questions............................................................111Diagramming Sentences within the KISS Approach.........................................................113

Important Perspectives on Grammar......................................................................................117The Structure of Sentences (Nexus & Modification)........................................................117The “Parts of Speech” as Functions....................................................................................141Alternative Explanations......................................................................................................147Sliding Parts of Speech.........................................................................................................152Some Differences between KISS and Traditional Terms.......................................................157

IntroductionIntroductionThe essays in this collection range from the “What is?” to the “How to?” and from the “How

to?” to the theoretical “Why?” Parts of some essays briefly repeat other essays, primarily

because I do not expect everyone to read all of them. Compare this collection to a circular

aquarium that contains KISS grammar. Some people will be interested in one side; others will

want different perspectives. But the perspectives are interconnected. Thus the brief repetition. I

hope you find at least some of these essays helpful.

Ed Vavra

August 11, 2012

3

What Is KISS Grammar?What Is KISS Grammar?

Vincent van Gogh's Mademoiselle

Ravoux 1890, Private Collection, Switzerland

The Primary KISS DifferenceThe Primary KISS Difference

—A Grammar with an End—A Grammar with an End

The trouble with grammarians is that they love grammar. They luxuriate in it. And they love

to teach it. The fact that their teaching of it does not seem to be at all effective doesn’t seem to

bother them. For fifteen years, as editor of Syntax in the Schools, I attempted to convince them

that the traditional approach to teaching grammar does not work. But whether they try to teach

traditional grammar, or one of the new linguistic grammars, they still take the same old,

ineffective approach.

That ineffective approach is a focus on grammar as grammar. Look at any of their grammar

books. You will find chapters on grammatical constructions – nouns and verbs, subjects and

verbs, clauses, phrases, tenses, etc. Whole chapters! Filled with rules, exceptions, and extremely

simple examples! Imposing, yes; practical, no. The chapters are not related to each other, and the

whole picture is never put together. Students learn rules, exceptions, and more rules, and then,

when they graduate from high school, they cannot even identify the verbs in their own writing.

What good was all that instruction in grammar?

The primary KISS Difference is a difference in approach. Instead of focusing on grammar as

definitions, the KISS Approach teaches students how to identify a limited number of

grammatical constructions, learned in a specific sequence, to analyze real texts – including the

students’ own writing. Although this is the primary KISS difference, it results in additional major

differences in what students can do with grammar. For example, once students can identify

clauses they can understand questions of error, of sentence-combining, and of the length,

complexity, and logic of subordinate clauses. No longer will students be dependent on someone

else’s or some textbook’s rules. Students will be able to see and understand for themselves. This

is especially true if students are introduced to some version of the KISS psycholinguistic model.

4

The study of grammar then becomes the study of how human minds make sense of words and

sentences.

Seeing a problem in a new way is not easy, so I want to use as an example one of the many

exercises presented on this KISS site.

Aesop’s “The Ants and the Grasshopper,”Aesop’s “The Ants and the Grasshopper,”

translated by George Tyler Townsend

The Ants were spending a fine winter’s day drying grain collected in the

summertime. A Grasshopper, perishing with famine, passed by and earnestly begged for

a little food. The Ants inquired of him, “Why did you not treasure up food during the

summer?” He replied, “I had not leisure enough. I passed the days in singing.” They then

said in derision: “If you were foolish enough to sing all the summer, you must dance

supperless to bed in the winter.”

This is actually an 80-word, KISS Level Four exercise on verbals, but, as explained below, it can

be used at Level Two.

KISS Level One:

Identifying Simple Subjects, (Finite) Verbs. Complements,

Adjectives, Adverbs, Coordinating Conjunctions, and Prepositional Phrase

The following is the text as students might be expected to analyze it at KISS Level One:

The Ants were spending a fine winter’s day (DO) drying grain collected {in the

summertime}. A Grasshopper, perishing {with famine}, passed by and earnestly

begged for a little food. The Ants inquired {of him}, “Why did you not treasure up

food {during the summer}?” He replied, “I had not leisure (DO) enough. I passed the

days (DO) {in singing}.” They then said {in derision}: “If you were foolish (PA)

enough to sing all the summer, you must dance supperless {to bed} {in the winter}.”

The preceding analysis suggests that students working at KISS Level One might be expected to

explain 64 of the 80 words, or roughly 80% of it. That leaves only sixteen words unexplained.

5

Thoughtful readers should have several questions about the analysis. For example, why isn’t

“for a little food” marked as a prepositional phrase? And why is “enough” marked as an

adjective the first time it appears, but counted as unexplained the second time? And wouldn’t

most students underline “drying,” “collected,” and “perishing” as verbs? These questions are

addressed below. Here we need simply note that in KISS students are always expected to make

mistakes with constructions that they have not yet added to their analytical toolboxes.

Progress Chart for KISS Level One

Total Words = 80 Words % Explained

Total%

ExplainedIn S/V/C Slots 28 35 % 35 %In Prepositional Phrases 19 24 % 59 %Coordinating Conjunctions 1 1 % 60 %Other Adjectives and Adverbs 16 20 % 80 %Level One – Total Words Explained 64 80 % 80 %

KISS Level Two: Expanding the Basics

At KISS Level Two, students are taught how to expand their analytical abilities to include a

number of things that most grammars ignore. These questions all fall into two related categories

—the complexities of S/V/C patterns, and the complexities of prepositional phrases. They

include such things as palimpsest patterns, phrasal verbs, distinguishing finite verbs from

verbals, the “to” problem, and alternate explanations. Not all of these appear in our sample text.

The following is the text as students might be expected to analyze it at KISS Level Two:

The Ants were spending a fine winter’s day (DO) drying grain (DO of “drying”)

collected {in the summertime}. A Grasshopper, perishing {with famine}, passed by

and earnestly begged {for a little food}. The Ants inquired {of him}, “Why did you not

treasure up food (DO) {during the summer}?” He replied, “I had not leisure (DO)

enough. I passed the days (DO) {in singing}.” They then said {in derision}: “If you

were foolish (PA) enough to sing all the summer, you must dance supperless (PA) {to

bed} {in the winter}.”

6

KISS Level Two gives students a short sequence of questions that they can use to distinguish

finite verbs from verbals (verbs that function as nouns, adjectives, or adverbs). At this level, the

purpose of this is simply to teach students not to underline such verbs twice. In our text, these

words are “drying,” “collected,” “perishing,” and “to sing,” (Remember that I said above that

this text could be used at KISS Level Two to teach students how to distinguish finite verbs from

verbals.) In the table below, these five words are counted as “negatively explained verbals.” It is

possible to teach students more about verbals at this level, but clauses (KISS Level Three) are

more important.

At Level Two, however, students can easily understand that verbals can have complements,

so I have marked “grain” as explained. In the analysis for KISS Level One, I marked “singing”

as explained—as the object of the preposition “in.” In working with students, you’ll find that

even at KISS Level One, students will have almost no trouble with verbals that function as

simple subjects, complements, or objects of prepositions.

In the analysis for KISS Level One, I left “by” (in “passed by”), “for . . . food,” and “up

food” as unexplained. In their study of phrasal verbs in KISS Level Two, students can be

expected to see that the “passed by” means “passed by them.” Thus “by” is a prepositional

phrase with its object left out. “By” thus functions adverbially, just as the prepositional phrase

would. (I might note here, that in analyzing texts, students should not always be expected to go

into this much detail.) “For . . . food” and “up food” are two good examples of why students

need to study phrasal verbs (although they do not really need to remember that term). “He

begged for a little food” can be explained in two ways (alternate explanations). “Begged for”

means “requested,” so students can consider “begged for” a verb (phrasal) and “food” as its

direct object. Equally valid, however, some people will prefer to see “begged” as the verb and

“for food” as a prepositional phrase. In KISS, either explanation is acceptable.

I have left “up food” for KISS Level Two because some students will thoughtlessly mark it

as a prepositional phrase. In KISS Level One, this kind of mistake should be expected and

ignored. But in KISS Level Two, students should no longer have to focus on simple subjects,

verbs, etc., and having studied phrasal verbs, they should realize that “up” in “treasure up food”

is part of a phrasal verb, not a preposition.

7

Another construction that students will learn in KISS Level Two is the palimpsest pattern.

This is not a construction that you will find in most grammar textbooks, but most textbooks do

not even try to analyze real texts. “Palimpsest” simply means that one pattern is written over

another. In “you must dance supperless to bed,” I have labeled “supperless” as a predicate

adjective. In essence, “you will dance” has been written over “you will be supperless.” Note that

some people will see “supperless” as an adverb to “must dance.” That is an acceptable alternate

explanation in KISS, but either way “supperless” is now explained.

Although some are defined negatively, twelve words have been added to our progress chart:

Only four words are left to be explained—“Why,” “If,” the second “enough” and “summer.”

Progress Chart for KISS Level Two

Total Words = 80 Words % Explained

Total%

ExplainedLevel One – Total Words Explained 64 80 % 80 %

Negatively explained verbals 5 6 % 86 %Complements of verbals 1 1 % 88 %Palimpsest Pattern 1 1 % 89 %Phrasal Verbs 5 6 % 95 %Level Two – Total Words Explained 76 95 % 95 %

Having learned how to distinguish finite verbs from verbals, students are ready for the most

important of the KISS Levels, Level Three—Clauses. A clause is a subject / finite verb /

complement pattern and all the words and constructions that modify (chunk to) it.

KISS Level Three: Clauses—Subordinate and Main

The study of clauses does not add many words to the number analyzed, but it does bring

together many of the words previously explained into an understanding of sentences. In KISS,

we put brackets [ ] around subordinate clauses and a vertical line | after each main clause.

The Ants were spending a fine winter’s day (DO) drying grain (DO of “drying”)

collected {in the summertime}. | A Grasshopper, perishing {with famine}, passed by

and earnestly begged {for a little food}. | The Ants inquired {of him}, [DO “Why did

8

you not treasure up food (DO) {during the summer}?”] | He replied, [DO “I had not

leisure (DO) enough]. | I passed the days (DO) {in singing}.” | They then said {in

derision}: [DO [Adv. “If you were foolish (PA) enough to sing all the summer,] you

must dance supperless (PA) {to bed} {in the winter}.”] |Note that in KISS Level One, students are expected to be confused about the complements of

words like “inquired” and “said” when those complements are clauses. This, of course, is easily

cleared up in KISS Level Three. I have marked the “Why” after “inquired” as a subordinating

conjunction. Within its clause, of course, it also functions as an adverb. In this passage, the only

other word explained at Level Three is the subordinating conjunction “If.” KISS Level Three,

however, is extremely important. (See the essay “The KISS Approach to Improving Writing and

to Grammatical Errors.”)

Progress Chart for KISS Level Three

Total Words = 80 Words % Explained

Total%

ExplainedLevel Two – Total Words Explained 76 95 % 95 %Negatively explained verbals 5 95 % 95 %Subordinate Conjunctions 2 3 % 98 %Level Three– Total Words Explained 78 98 % 98 %

KISS Level Four: Verbals—Gerunds, Gerundives, and Infinitives

As suggested by Jerome Bruner’s idea of the “spiral curriculum,” at Level Four, KISS

spirals back to verbals, explaining them positively rather than negatively. Here students learn to

distinguish gerunds, gerundives, and infinitives. They learn more about the subjects and

complements of verbals, and they can study what verbals add to style. Obviously, all of the

exercises in KISS Level Four include verbals. As for our progress chart, we can now turn the

negatively defined into positive understanding. Overall, however, in the KISS sequence verbals

to not add many words to our chart. In the version below, the only word that has additionally

been explained is the second “enough.”

The Ants were spending a fine winter’s day (DO) drying grain (DO of “drying”)

collected {in the summertime}. | A Grasshopper, perishing {with famine}, passed by

9

and earnestly begged {for a little food}. | The Ants inquired {of him}, [DO “Why did

you not treasure up food (DO) {during the summer}?”] | He replied, [DO “I had not

leisure (DO) enough]. | I passed the days (DO) {in singing}.” | They then said {in

derision}: [DO [Adv. “If you were foolish (PA) enough to sing all the summer,] you

must dance supperless (PA) {to bed} {in the winter}.”] |Many students can probably understand much earlier that the second “enough” functions as an

adverb to the predicate adjective “foolish.” In the count, I have left it to Level Four because the

infinitive “to sing” functions as an adverb to the adverb “enough.”

At KISS Level Four, students will learn that “drying” can be explained in two different ways

(alternatives). For one, it can be considered a gerundive to “Ants.” Alternatively, it can be

considered a gerund that functions as a noun used as an adverb. (See Level Five.) “Collected” is

a gerundive that modifies “grain,” and “perishing” is a gerundive that modifies “Grasshopper.”

At this level, in other words, students learn what verbals are, and not just (as in KISS Level Two)

what they are not.

Progress Chart for KISS Level Four

Total Words = 80 Words % Explained

Total%

ExplainedLevel Three – Total Words Explained 78 98 % 98 %

“enough” 1 1 % 99 %Level Four– Total Words Explained 79 99 % 99 %

KISS Level Five: Eight Additional Constructions

The constructions in Level Five are here because they are generally less important (and less

frequently used) than the constructions in the first four levels. Some of these constructions, like

the Noun Used as an Adverb, can be taught much earlier. As noted above, our text does not

include some of the important Level Five constructions, most notably appositives, post-

positioned adjectives, delayed subjects, and noun absolutes. For more details on these

constructions, see the “Overview of the KISS Levels.”

10

Here all we need to note is that in our analysis we have one word still unexplained

—“summer” in “all the summer.” It should be fairly obvious that in the phrase “to sing all the

summer,” “summer” indicates how long one would sing. Thus “summer” is a noun used as an

adverb, and we have analyzed 100% of our sample text.

Conclusion

One of the things that you may have noted is that students are able to explain approximately

80% of the words in this text at KISS Level One.! In some texts, working at this level, students

will be able to explain every word! With other texts, of course, the number may be lower, but at

Level One students are usually able to identify more than 70% of the words in any text. Not only

does KISS have a clear primary objective—it enables students to accomplish more than half of it

very quickly and relatively easily. And nothing motivates students as much as success does.

This essay has been an explanation of the primary KISS objective, but on the way to that

objective, students can be taught all the important questions regarding errors, punctuation, logic,

and style. How to do this is explained in some of the other “Background” essays. Especially

when they get to KISS Level Three, students can analyze the style of their own writing and

compare it to that of their classmates and/or to samples of students’ writing from state

assessment documents. Are their sentences too long or too short? Too complex, or too simple?

Well-punctuated, or full of errors? These are just some of the questions that students can

intelligently discuss and use to evaluate their own writing.

One of the major problems in the teaching of grammar is that most teachers themselves have

not been taught how to identify prepositional phrases, subjects and finite verbs, clauses, etc. As a

result, they are very nervous about even attempting to teach grammar. The KISS site, however,

already offers hundreds of passages, with analysis keys comparable to those given above.

Teachers (and parents) can thus start with some of these exercises until they themselves feel

comfortable analyzing sentences. The KISS Differences are summarized in the following table:

KISS TraditionalDirectly applies to students’ reading and writing? Y NPrepares students to be able to intelligently discuss the grammatical function of any word that they find in any sentence? Y N

Is designed as a logical sequence? Y NProvides a cumulative approach that includes automatic review? Y N

11

Provides students with an identifiable goal and lets them see for themselves how far they are toward reaching it? Y N

Is free? (Does not require expensive, confusing textbooks?) Y N

A Note on the Voice A Note on the Voice

behind KISS Grammarbehind KISS Grammar

Edvard Munch's

The Scream1893

National Gallery, Oslo

I don’t really like writing about myself, but you will find a voice in KISS Grammar, a voice

that is usually absent in most grammar books. In many of the analysis keys, for example, you

will find things such as “I would accept this explanation.” Or “I expect students to make a

mistake here.” The question, of course, is “Who is this ‘I’”? You will not find such statements in

most grammar books. Most such books are written as if grammar is a totally objective subject—

the book is giving you the “facts.”

If, however, you look at several different books, you will probably become confused – the

“facts” change from book to book. This happens because there is no “authoritative grammar” of

English. A grammar is simply a description of a language, and different grammarians describe

English in different ways, often using different terms. These differences have caused tremendous

problems in the teaching of grammar in our schools, but that is discussed elsewhere on the KISS

web site. The questions to be addressed here are “Who is Ed Vavra?” “And why should anyone

pay attention to what he says?”

I teach five sections of Freshman English every semester at Pennsylvania College of

Technology. That is what I get paid for, and that is where most of my time and effort is spent.

My job and my education are probably responsible, in large part, for my unique perspective on

the teaching of grammar. Every semester I work with students who have major problems writing

essays because they have major problems with grammar, especially sentence structure. My

education gave me a unique perspective on the problem. In high school, and for a year in college,

I studied Latin, but my B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. are all in Russian Language and Literature, with

12

minors officially in Italian and French. I also had to learn enough German to pass a reading test.

Put differently, for me, the study of grammar is the study of a tool to be used for a purpose.

When, twenty or so years ago, I was asked to teach a grammar course for future teachers, I

looked at the English grammar textbooks and soon realized that none of these books has a

purpose. They taught, and still teach, isolated concepts, terms, and countless exceptions to the

rules. Although some of these books (and their writers) claim that their purpose is to improve

students’ writing, the claims are vague, and I have yet to see any book that even claims to try to

enable students to analyze and discuss the structure of their own sentences. Indeed I have yet to

see any book that even claims to try to teach students how to identify the subjects and verbs in

their own writing. To me, this does not make any sense at all. Thus, the KISS Approach was

born.

To test my ideas, and to share ideas with others, I founded, and for fifteen years served as

editor of, Syntax in the Schools, the only national publication dedicated to the teaching of

grammar. Syntax is now the official publication of the Assembly for the Teaching of English

Grammar, an assembly of the National Council of Teachers of English. In other words, I have

been heavily involved in “The Great Grammar Debate” for over twenty years. During these

years, I published several short articles in English Journal. but I have become convinced that the

teachers (professors) of future teachers and the major educational organizations such as NCTE

are not really interested in helping students.

The preceding summary should suggest that I have some idea of what I write about. In

composition courses such as the one I teach, my credentials are called an appeal to authority. 

Does the writer (or speaker) have a demonstrated expertise in the topic? But, if you care about

my credentials at all, I ask that you use them only as a reason to begin to examine KISS

Grammar. The primary appeal of KISS Grammar is to what, in composition classes, we call

logic. More simply, it is an appeal to common sense.

Even if you are familiar with grammatical terms, you will probably be initially confused by

KISS Grammar because KISS is an entirely different way of looking at the teaching of grammar.

All you need to do to see this difference is to compare the other textbooks with KISS

instructional materials and exercises. Not only do most grammar textbooks not teach grammar

13

effectively – they kill it, slice it, and dice it. (Is it any wonder that students – and most teachers –

hate it? Dead stuff stinks.)

Look at the “Tables of Contents” in almost any grammar book. You will probably find a

chapter on “Parts of Speech,” a chapter on “Basic Sentence Structure,” chapters on verbs and

verb forms, chapters on clauses, etc. Prepositional phrases, one of the most important

constructions for students to understand if they are to see how a living language works, are

usually relegated to a chapter near the end of the book. And the chapters are all separated and

illustrated with very simplistic examples. There is no discussion of how all these parts fit

together. Each chapter is a diced and sliced section (of a living language) as if it were dead and

on a dissecting table. Ouch! Rarely, if ever, will you find a single, relatively complicated

sentence analyzed in full.

KISS exercises, on the other hand, are often either complete works (or verbatim, consecutive

passages from longer works). Instruction proceeds through several levels, and by the last level,

the grammatical function of every word in every sentence in every passage has been explained.

As they learn how to do this analysis, students begin to understand not only why many errors are,

in fact, errors, but also how sentence structure affects writing style and logic. Having mentioned

errors, style, and logic, I would like to address a question that I am frequently asked by teachers

and parents who are considering the KISS Approach—When does KISS address punctuation and

other errors?

The only way to effectively address these errors is to understand what punctuation does—

how does it “work” in sentences? And the only way to understand that is to understand how

sentences work. And the only way to do that is to spend some time learning to recognize

adjectives, adverbs, prepositional phrases, and subjects, verbs, and complements – not just in the

simplistic sentences found in most grammar books, but in real texts such as those in the KISS

exercises. In The Karate Kid, Daniel objects to waxing the car and painting the fence – “Wax on.

Wax off. Wax on. Wax off.” It’s boring, and Daniel wants to quit. But after he has done it, Mr.

Miyagi easily shows him how important those tasks were. The initial levels of KISS Grammar

can be made much less boring than waxing a car and painting a fence, and they are crucial.

Thus far I have asked you to pay brief attention to my credentials and then to judge the KISS

Approach in terms of whether or not it makes sense to you. The latter also applies to the

14

terminology used in KISS Grammar. Confusion about terminology is a major problem in the

teaching of grammar. KISS Grammar has a name because the name designates a systematic,

limited set of grammatical terms and concepts that enable students to discuss the function of any

word in any sentence. Most of the terms used in KISS are traditional, but some, for reasons that

are explained both in the instructional materials and in the notes, are distinctly KISS concepts.

Are these KISS concepts “correct”? You can, of course, compare them with what you can find in

other grammar books, but I would suggest that the more important question is “Do they make

sense to you?” Do you want a name for a concept? Or do you want to understand how words

work together to make meaning in sentences?

KISS owes a great deal to the research and theories of Kellogg Hunt, Roy O’Donnell, and

Walter Loban, to the developmental theories of Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget, and Jerome Bruner,

and to a psycholinguistic model of how the brain processes language, a model that is based on

George Miller’s fundamental work on short-term memory. I also want to thank the many

students who helped develop KISS Grammar, and members of the KISS List, whose questions

have helped me not only improve many of the instructional materials but also restructure their

presentation. All these instructional materials are free. I don’t want more money (although my

family could probably use it). And I don’t want fame. I want to change the way grammar is

taught – across this country, and around the world. I’m passionate about that. (Note the

illustration for this essay.) Our students (and their teachers) deserve better than what we have

been giving them.

15

What Can KISS Grammar Do?What Can KISS Grammar Do?

The KISS Approach to Improving WritingThe KISS Approach to Improving Writing

and to Grammatical Errors and to Grammatical Errors

(It's the same approach.)

Grant Wood'sAmerican Gothic

(1891-1942) 1930Art Institute of Chicago

Note: The on-line version of this essay includes links to various parts of the KISS site.

IntroductionToo many teachers waste way too much time teaching grammar in order to “help students

avoid errors.” It simply does not work. Unfortunately, many teachers, who realize that it does

not work, continue to do so because they don’t know what else to do. (Now, of course, they will

have the KISS Approach.) Those teachers who think that it does work have never been able to

prove so. If they had been able to prove it, NCTE would not have passed a resolution against the

teaching of grammar. Indeed these teachers may be doing more harm than good. They may, for

example, focus on comma-splices and then note fewer such splices appearing in students’

writing. That effect, however, is more likely the result of the well-known phenomenon of the

students writing shorter, safer sentences. The best way to deal with errors is not to deal with

them formally at all. As this essay suggests, if we teach grammar as a way to improve writing,

the errors will probably disappear on their own.

Currently, of course, most classroom teachers cannot effectively teach all five KISS levels.

Will KISS help students improve their writing and avoid errors if the students can only work

with KISS Level One? The answer to that question is “definitely.” After some general remarks,

this essay suggests how each of the five KISS levels relates to these two questions. We need to

keep in mind here that KISS is a structured sequence of instruction that can be started at any

grade level. All students should start at KISS Level 1.1 and work their way through the levels.

KISS Grammar as Instruction in Writing

Before KISS was as developed with exercises as it now is, some people had the impression

that I hate sentence-combining exercises. They were right -- and wrong. As an undergraduate, I

16

signed up for a psychology course. I thought I was going to be studying Freud. Instead I studied

Skinner. I spent three hours a week (for fifteen weeks) training a rat. It was one of the most

influential courses that I ever took. Typical books with sentence-combining exercises remind me

of that course. But students are not rats. Typical books give students short sentences to combine

into longer ones, but they do not expect students to be able to identify the constructions they are

using to make the combinations. Nor do they give students a psycholinguistic model of how our

brains process language. Like the rats, students are not expected to understand what they are

doing. A short book could be written about the problems caused by such instruction, but here I’ll

simply say that KISS respects students’ intelligence.

KISS includes sentence combining and de-combining in the majority of the sections that

introduce new constructions. Even in KISS Level 1.3 (Adding Adjectives and Adverbs) an

exercise asks students to combine two simple sentences (They live in a house. The house is big.)

into one (They live in a big house.) This may seem like an extremely simplistic exercise for older

students, but even for them it addresses a common complaint of college professors (including

many who teach subjects far removed from English and grammar) -- for many college students,

once a sentence is written, it is as solid as cement. Thus, although the exercise is simple, it

introduces the fundamental idea that written sentences can be improved.

The overview below explains how writing exercises are integrated into the learning to

identify various constructions. Remember, however, that each KISS Level is followed by a

“Practice/Application” book. These books include more exercises from what is now called KISS

Level Six. Most of the Level Six sections apply the constructions that students have learned to

identify to questions of writing.

6.1 Studies in Punctuation

6.2 Style -- Focus, Logic, and Texture

6.3 Style -- “Free” Sentence Combining Exercises

6.4 Studies in the Syntax of Little Words

6.5 Statistical Stylistics

6.6 Syntax and Writing

6.7 Additional Passages for Analysis

For more on what each of these sections is intended to do, see the “booklet” that explains them.

17

The KISS Approach to Grammatical Errors

Part of the problem with trying to teach grammar in order to avoid errors is that almost no

distinction has been made among the three types of errors -- usage, syntax, and pronoun

reference. In addition, many teachers have never been taught that syntactic errors should

probably be welcomed instead of being squashed. (Many errors are actually signs of growth -- or

signs of poor instruction.) Usage can be considered the clothing of language -- it may or may not

be appropriate for the occasion; syntax, on the other hand, is language’s skeleton -- without it,

language is meaningless.

When I say that errors should not be dealt with “formally,” I mean that specific errors

should, with one exception, NEVER be the focus of class discussion. There is no reason to do so,

and there is a strong possibility that giving students examples of errors, orally or in writing, not

only reinforces the error among those who make it, but also spreads it to those who don’t. The

remedies for the two types of errors (usage and syntax) differ, and our exception concerns errors

of usage.

Errors in Usage

“Usage” involves the “Don’t” of the rules of etiquette, such as: “Don’t say ‘Me and him

went to the store.’” “Don’t use a double negative.” (“We haven’t got none.”) “Don’t use a double

comparative.” (“Gwynn is a more better batter.”) and “Don’t begin a sentence with ‘but.’” In no

case that I have ever seen does an error in usage result in misunderstanding, or even in lack of

clarity. The rules of usage describe how educated people are expected, by other educated people,

to speak and write. They are rules of etiquette! And in some cases, as in the rule about “but,”

they are themselves erroneous. As teachers, we have no right to force them upon our students

outside our classrooms.

That does not mean that we should not teach them, but we should teach them for what they

are. They are -- at least those that are valid are -- a feature of formal, educated writing and

speaking. Our job as teachers is to make students aware of them and to help students see the

degree of their validity. Here is where the exception to “formal focus” comes in. Individually or

in small groups, students can be given one rule of usage with the assignment of reporting on it,

either orally or in writing. A formal class period can be spent either reading or listening to these

reports. The reports should include what the students found in manuals of style, such as The

18

Chicago Manual of Style, several of which should be in the school library, if not in the

classroom. (The grammar textbooks in the classroom, by the way, should be burned and not

replaced. Teaching will improve and money will be saved.) Each report should also include the

comments of, let’s say, ten educated individuals briefly interviewed by the students. The students

should ask these individuals, in addition to their level of education and brief job title, if they

think that the rule is valid, why they think so, and how bad they would consider a violation of the

rule to be (on a scale of 10 -- very bad, to 1). They might also ask if the interviewee perceives a

difference between violations in something written as opposed to speech.

In addition to getting members of the community involved in education, these reports, and

the class discussions thereof, will show students (as opposed to being told by the teacher) the

validity of whatever rules the teacher assigns. It is then up to the students to decide when and if

they want to wear them. The classroom, of course, is at times a formal place. In correcting

formal papers, responsible teachers should mark errors of usage. The degree to which these

errors should affect the grade should be a matter of individual judgment (or departmental policy).

Note, by the way, that KISS instruction should help with some usage errors. Students who

regularly underline subjects once, and who label complements and identify objects of

prepositions, will soon see part of the problem in “Me and him went to the store.”

Syntactic Errors

Unlike errors of usage, syntactic errors affect the reader’s comprehension of what was

written or said. If a student writes

Thrown from the car, he saw her lying on the ground.

and means that “he” was thrown from the car, everything is fine. But if he meant that she was

thrown from the car, the sentence does not say that. In the KISS Approach, the rules of syntax

are validated by our psycholinguistic model of how the brain processes language. Anything that

violates that model, or that causes the process to crash, is an error.  According to the model, a

brain would chunk “Thrown from the car” into one unit, and then chunk that unit to the next

word that makes sense -- which in this case is “he.” This is, of course, close to the traditionalists

discussion of misplaced modifiers, but whereas traditional grammar says “This is the rule

because I say so,” the KISS Approach says: “This is the model. The model makes sense to your

19

brain. Then according to the model and your brain, the rule has these consequences if you violate

it.”

I have, by the way, been told by one college English teacher that many college Freshmen are

incapable of understanding the KISS psycholinguistic model. I don’t believe that, but I do have

serious questions about whether second graders can understand it. Part of the teachers’ art is in

deciding when and how to introduce the model.

As I hope to show, unlike the rules of usage, the rules of syntax can always be validated in

terms of what will happen in the readers’ brains. And these rules extend even to such problems

as “its” and “it’s” and “to” or “too.” Consider:

It’s raining. He wanted to go too.Its raining. He wanted to go to.

“It’s” means “it is,” so “It’s raining.” is a normal sentence easily processed. But “its” means

“belonging to it.” A reader processes the “Its raining” and expects a verb after it, as in “Its

raining made them cancel the picnic.” The period therefore causes  confusion -- a crash. “To”

always raises the expectation “to what?” “Too” never does. A person who reads “He wants to go

to” is expecting something such as “to the store,” or “to swim.” The period thus causes confusion

-- either something is missing, or the word is spelled wrong.

An occasional syntactic error may be no big deal, but a paper that is salted with them likely

presents pretty barren reading. A reader’s brain must use short-term memory not just for

processing sentence structure, but also to keep track of the writer’s thesis, topic sentences, etc.

Just as blood rushes to any wound, the focus of STM shifts to any crash site. If, in the process of

reading, one’s brain has to deal with a “to” error, then, in essence, STM is invaded by

superfluous questions -- “Misspelling?” “Something missing? “What’s missing?” When these

questions take up slots in a seven-slot STM, something else -- perhaps the writer’s thesis? -- is

likely to get shoved out. Simply put, the more such errors there are in an essay, the less likely the

reader is to get something fruitful out of it.

The way to help students with syntactic errors is not to present them with a bunch of band-

aide rules that focus on covering the errors. Teach them how sentences and punctuation are

supposed to work -- and teach them by using real texts, including samples of their own or their

peers’ writing. Students who know how sentences and punctuation work, and who can apply that

20

knowledge to their own writing and reading, do not need to know the names of, or to be given

examples of, errors. The KISS Approach provides students with the instruction that they need.

Errors of Pronoun Reference

Because the KISS Approach concerns how words syntactically function in sentences, and

because pronouns can function in any way that nouns can, KISS pays only minor attention to

pronouns. As in many other aspects of the teaching of grammar, both too much and not enough

are being done.

I can’t figure out why students need to know the names of so many types of pronouns --

relative, demonstrative, indefinite, interrogative, possessive, reflexive. Year after year we have

been trying to cram all these names into students’ brains, and the students forget all of it,

including the one group they should remember, the personal. The personal pronouns involve

simple distinctions:

First person --  the person speaking/writing(“I,” “me,” “my,” “mine,” etc.)

Second person -- The person spoken/written to(“you,” “your,” etc.)

Third person -- The person spoken/written about(“he,” “she,” “it,” “they,” etc.)

Clarifying these distinctions for students may help those who have troubles with shifts in person.

(“We went to the park. There you saw big elephants.”) We cannot, however, as we now

apparently do, just teach these distinctions and forget them. If we do, then students will forget

them likewise. It isn’t difficult to work these terms into assignments two or three times a year,

just enough to keep students from forgetting. (“In your journal for this week, write to someone

you haven’t seen in a while. Use and underline second person pronouns.”)

I must admit that I myself did not discuss personal pronouns with my students -- that is until

two or three came back to report they were having problems. In fields such as Human Services

and many of the technologies, first person is verboten. The instructors, incorrectly assuming that

we English teachers are doing our jobs, simply told students not to use first person in their

papers. The students didn’t understand, used first person, and either got lowered grades or got

their papers handed back to them to be rewritten. This is, of course, an excellent opportunity to

deal with a question of usage -- in some contexts (for example, the autobiographical), first person

is required; in others, it is optional, and in others prohibited.

21

The other undertaught aspect of pronouns is number. I’m still surprised that so few of my

college Freshmen know what the term means in a grammatical context, especially since the

concept is not that difficult. English currently distinguishes between one (“she,” “he,” “it) and

more than one (“they”). Grammatically, and this, of course, relates to subject/verb agreement as

well,  “singular” refers to words that denote one, whereas “plural” refers to words that denote

more than one. Part of the problem is that students see the three terms (“number,” “singular,” and

“plural”)  as isolated, rather than conceptualizing “singular” and “plural” as the two subdivisions

of “number.” Errors in agreement can present psycholinguistic processing hazards -- “One can

see their own reflections in the pond.” But, more importantly, the distinction between one and

more than one has major logical, philosophical, and psychological implications. A writer who

can’t keep track of whether he is referring to one or to more than one is not thinking very clearly.

And if the writer isn’t thinking, why should a reader bother to read what he wrote?

The KISS Approach, it should be clear, will not solve all of students’ problems with usage

and pronoun reference. Some time will have to be spent on usage, preferably, as noted above,

individually or in small groups, and students should be taught a few things about pronouns. But

because it focuses on meaning, and because it focuses on the meaning and function of every

word in every sentence, the KISS Approach will help. The student who wrote “We went to the

park. There you saw big elephants.” doesn’t really need an explanation of grammatical person;

he simply needs to be asked, “Why should I see big elephants because you went to the park?”

Improving Writing and Avoiding Errors

from the Perspective of the Five KISS Levels KISS Level One --

Basic Subjects, Verbs, Complements, Adjectives, Adverbs, and Prepositional Phrases

Improving Writing

Teachers often ask students to use “string” verbs, but this instruction is not helpful to

students who cannot identify verbs in the first place. In teaching students to identify subjects and

verbs in KISS Level 1.1, KISS includes an exercise on filling in the blanks with verbs. The idea,

of course, is both to help students learn to identify verbs and to help them find stronger and more

22

interesting verbs. This exercise, which is repeated in many of the “Practice/Application”

sections, works best in a classroom situation where students can share and discuss the verbs that

they have used to fill in the blanks.

Some teachers tell students not to use adjectives--to use forceful nouns instead. This is

usually meaningless instruction -- most of my college Freshmen can identify neither adjectives

or nouns. In KISS Level 1.3, students learn to identify both adjectives and adverbs. Once they

can do this, they can explore the question of adjectives vs. forceful nouns for themselves.

KISS applications to writing really begin to kick in at Level 1.4 (Compounding). In the

1960’s and 70’s Kellogg Hunt, Roy O’Donnell, and Walter Loban made major breakthroughs

with the concept of “syntactic maturity.” It is obvious that eighth graders write longer, more

complex sentences than do fourth graders, but until Hunt’s research validated the “T-unit,” there

was no accurate way to measure such maturity. The “T-unit” turns out to be the KISS “main

clause.” It is, in other words, a main S/V/C pattern and all the words that chunk to it, including

any subordinate clauses.

This research resulted in the 1980’s fascination with sentence-combining exercises, but far

too many of those exercises were aimed at increasing the types of constructions that students

used in their writing. Thus second graders were asked to combine sentences with appositives.

The students, of course, were not taught what appositives are, but trying to get second graders to

use appositives is a bad idea (for reasons too complex to go into here). The point here is that if

you start to analyze randomly selected sentences, you will probably be surprised by the

frequency with which writers use compounds (especially compound verbs and compound

complements) as they write longer sentences.

The exercises on compounding do, of course, give students examples of such compounding,

but teachers might also want to stress how compounds can improve writing by replacing an

abstract word with more concrete examples. Instead of “We played games,” a better sentence

would be something like “We played baseball, basketball, and soccer.” Although the exercises in

KISS Level 1.4 do not currently stress this, the “Practice/Application” sections each include an

exercise on abstract and concrete words. (In the “Practice/Application” section for KISS Level

One, this exercise is on “Common” vs. “Proper” nouns, but are not “common” nouns

abstractions and “proper” nouns concrete?)

23

Like many of the later KISS sections, Level 1.4 includes both a combining and a

decombining exercise. (The noted educational psychologists Piaget and Vygotsky both claimed

that cognitive mastery includes the ability to reverse a mental operation. Thus KISS uses de-

combining exercises almost as often as combining exercises. Also like many of the other

subsections, KISS Level 1.4 includes a writing exercise. In this section it is simply “Write a

sentence that has three or more verbs for one subject. Write another sentence that has four or

more complements for one verb.” Teachers, of course, may want to adapt this exercise by, for

example, having students include such sentences in something that they themselves write.

I have, by the way, heard some teachers make fun of having students use specific

constructions in their own writing. They remind me of people who make fun of something that

they do not understand. Perhaps they are examples of such people? Surely, having students use a

specific grammatical construction in something they are writing does no harm -- if students are

studying that construction. Indeed, this type of exercise is precisely what many other teachers

call for when then claim that grammar should be taught only in the context of writing. (The

problem with this side of the balance, of course, is that the students are generally not taught how

to identify grammatical constructions.)

KISS Level 1.5, the addition of prepositional phrases, has three possible objectives.

Teachers can, of course, stop at the first objective, which is simply the students’ ability to

identify such phrases. The second objective is to have the students see how such phrases chunk

to the rest of the sentence (usually as adjectives or adverbs). But the third objective is the most

important for writing -- the logic of prepositional phrases.

In the “complete” books, level 1.5 includes two exercises on the logic of prepositional

phrases. The KISS approach to logic is based on David Hume’s concepts (See the essay.), one of

which is extension in time and space. Many students write narratives that take place in a vacuum

-- they include few, in any details of where and when the story happened. Prepositional phrases

are a major way of adding such details. Thus, once students can identify prepositional phrases,

and can see how these phrases add such details, they find it much easier to include such details in

their writing.

Another important stylistic aspect of prepositional phrases is as sentence openers. I once

received an e-mail from a parent who was very upset that his children’s teacher was encouraging

24

them to begin sentences with prepositional phrases. He was sure that he had been taught that

sentences should not begin with prepositional phrases. He was probably confused by the

nonsense rule (frequently taught) that sentences should not begin with “But,” but given that

students are not usually taught to identify prepositional phrases in the first place, his confusion is

understandable. KISS does not include any exercises specifically devoted to this question, but

students doing KISS analysis exercises will frequently see prepositional phrases are the

beginnings of sentences. Teachers who want to emphasize varying sentence openings should find

it easy to do so once their students can identify prepositional phrases in the first place. (The same

is true for subordinate clauses, verbals, etc.)

KISS Level 1.6 is devoted to “Case, Number, and Tense.” From the perspective of

improving writing, most of this section enables students to understand “error” questions such as

subject/verb agreement, tense shifts, etc., but the use of pronouns, especially personal pronouns,

involves numerous stylistic questions. KISS itself does not address many of these questions, but

it does enable students to understand them. In college, for example, the use of first person

pronouns in actually prohibited in some papers in some disciplines. As a college writing

instructor, I have found that the students’ basic problem is that when they are told not to use first

person, they have no idea what “first person” is. KISS, in other words, primarily addresses

pronouns as a vocabulary question.

Avoiding Errors

Native speakers rarely, if ever, use simple prepositional phrases incorrectly, and when they

do, the problem is usually one of modification. One student, for example, wrote “At the age of

thirteen, my father obtained custody of me.” To help students avoid such errors, teachers should

probably NOT focus on them. As students place parentheses around prepositional phrases and

draw arrows to the word each modifies, errors such as this one will become apparent to the

students themselves, especially in view of the psycholinguistic model of how the brain processes

language.

Subject/Verb Agreement Errors

Prepositional phrases do often contribute to errors in combination with other constructions.

The most widely recognized of these is the slipped pattern in which the object of a preposition is

confused with the subject of a verb, thereby resulting in a subject/verb agreement error, as in

25

“Neither of these are very difficult.” This is one of the reasons why KISS addresses prepositional

phrases. With prepositional phrases neatly tucked in parentheses, students find it much easier to

recognize subjects and verbs. Once they recognize them, many students automatically fix

agreement errors; some students, however, do need a little prompting.

Year after year, students are “taught” the rule that subjects and verbs must agree in

“number” -- if the subject is plural, its verb must be plural; if the subject is singular, its verb must

be singular. This is, perhaps, the most destructive “instruction” that ever occurs in our

classrooms. It is destructive because it is meaningless, hence boring, and it teaches students that

grammar itself is, for them, a meaningless morass of menacing mistakes. In other words, it

teaches students to tune out.

As noted in the discussion (above) of prepositional phrases, once students can identify

subjects and verbs, they can usually fix problems in subject / verb agreement. Their problem is

that typical instruction in grammar has never taught them how to identify subjects and verbs in

the first place. KISS very directly addresses this problem in that students learn to identify

subjects and verbs in Level One, and they will continue to identify subjects and verbs in every

sentence that they analyze. As they learn to recognize subjects and verbs, in any text, including

their own writing, the rule about agreement in “number” makes sense. In fact, they probably do

not even need the rule since, as native speakers of English, they have already taught themselves

that subjects and verbs should so agree.

“Its” and “It’s,” “Their” and “They’re” and Their Relatives

Magazine and newspaper articles about grammatical errors are fairly common. In them, “its”

and “it’s,” “their” and “they’re” and similar homonyms usually rank near the top of the list of

errors. We can, of course, remind students that “it’s,” with the apostrophe, means “it is,” but the

larger problem here is that many students, including those who are most likely to have problems

here, read words and not sentences. Thus our “instruction” is not easily applied to their writing.

In the KISS Approach, however, students will be underlining hundreds, more likely thousands of

subject / verb patterns. Among them, they will quickly discover “it’s” and its relatives -- or they

won’t find them and thus realize that they do not have a subject/verb. Or they will find them,

where they don’t belong, and realize that they wrote “That is it is doghouse.”

The “Of” and “Have” Problem

26

A student once complained to the President of the college I was teaching at. He sent the

President a letter in which he wrote, “I should of passed this course.” The President called me in

to share a laugh. Most experienced writing teachers realize that this problem is the result of

students mastering the language orally, rather than through a lot of reading. The only effective

way to eliminate the problem, however, is to teach students that “of” is a preposition and “have”

is a verb. But even this instruction is useless unless students analyze the prepositional phrases

and S/V/C patterns in numerous sentences. And that, of course, is precisely what the KISS

Approach has them do.

The Logic of Complements

College professors in electronics, automotive, and several other disciplines have complained

to me that their students do not answer their questions. “I ask the students why, and the students

tell me what. I ask the students under what conditions, and the students tell me what. I ask the

students when, and the students tell me what. Whatever my question, the students answer it as a

“what” question.” In KISS, students learn to identify complements by asking the question

“Whom or what?” after the verb. The question cannot be “when?” “why?” “how?” or any

question other than “whom or what?” Every semester, I tell my students what I have just written.

And every semester I am amazed at the trouble that some students have in limiting the question

to “whom or what?” I also tell the students that, in learning how to identify complements, they

should also be learning to stop and think about the questions that their instructors are asking

them. If they answer a “how” question as if it were a “what” question, they are probably

guaranteeing that what could have been a “A” instead comes back with no better than a “C” on

it.

S / V / Predicate Noun Logic

The KISS Approach to teaching complements focuses on meaning. Thus one finds the

complement by asking “Verb + What?,” and if the verb implies equality, and the subject and the

answer to the question are in any way equal, then the complement is a predicate noun. One

student wrote:

Often the practice rooms are the only time one can be alone. 

The verb “are” implies equality, but a room is not a time. Although some people would consider

this to be a minor error, it is a clear reflection that 1) the student wasn’t thinking, or 2) the

27

student cannot distinguish time from space. This error is far more common than one might

expect. It has not been discussed in any detail because traditional grammars don’t have an

effective way of describing it, and even if they could describe it, they cannot address it

effectively because they do not teach students to identify S/V/C patterns. As I try to suggest in

the section on “Syntax and the Logic of David Hume,” the concept of identity (What is equal to

what?) is essential in life, and it is crucial in the technical fields that many students go into. And

the S/V/PN pattern is a fundamental way of expressing such an equality.

Students who have trouble handling the pattern often say things they do not mean. In

technical writing, this causes extremely serious errors, but even in everyday writing it can lead

the reader astray. The problem, moreover, gets worse as students embed more and more

constructions into a single clause. Thus one student wrote:

The taste of a sizzling foot-long hotdog coated with tangy sauerkraut with mounds

of pickle relish is a typical snack when accompanied by a tall, chilled paper cup of Coke.

Having read that sentence, I was basically useless as a reader for the rest of the student’s essay. I

was too distracted, wondering how a “taste” could be a “snack.” I tried to imagine a “taste” as a

snack, but most people I know want more than just a taste when they have a snack. Perhaps the

student was writing for ghosts? My point here is not to make fun of the student, but rather to

suggest that such errors will lead thoughtful readers off track and into a series of questions that

the writer had no intention of evoking.

By teaching students to identify S/V/PN patterns, the KISS Approach enables students to

recognize such errors in their writing and shows them how to fix them. In this case, the

meaningful subject is in the prepositional phrase, and thus the sentence can be fixed by changing

it to “A tasty, sizzling, foot-long hotdog ... is a typical snack....”

KISS Level Two -- Expanding the Basic Concepts

Level Two is where KISS really begins to differ from most grammar textbooks. Its primary

focus is to help students find S/V/C patterns and prepositional phrases in real texts. Thus it deals

with questions that most grammar textbooks ignore. For example, Level 2.1.6 teaches students

how to distinguish finite verbs from verbals. Typical textbooks teach students what subjects and

28

verbs are, but they use very basic, sanitized exercises. When dealing with real texts, however,

students will find sentences such as:

a.) Swimming is good exercise.

b.) They saw her swimming in the lake.

c.) Bob went to the park to swim.

“Swimming” and “to swim” are verbs, and given what is taught in most textbooks, students will

want to underline these words twice, only to find out that they are wrong. This is the type of

problem that Level Two helps students with. As a result, level two does not introduce new

questions of writing or of errors. Note, however, that as students do exercises in KISS Level

Two, they will continue to analyze real sentences from randomly selected texts. Thus all of the

items discussed in Level One can continue to be a focus in Level Two.

Improving Writing

The one thing about writing style that is introduced in Level Two is Level 2.1.2 -- Varied

Positions in the S/V/C Pattern. Many students are surprised to see that complements can come

before subjects and/or verbs, as in “Him I know.” For those of us who have analyzed texts, this is

a very simple idea, but it is a revelation to some students, and, of course, the varied patterns

change the emphasis and variety in the sentence structure.

Avoiding Errors

Here again, not much new is introduced in Level Two, except for some teachers. The

subjunctive mood (Level 2.1.7) is introduced here primarily to make sure that teachers do not

make errors by marking a sentence such as “I wish he were here” as having an agreement error in

“he were.” This material, of course, also enables teachers to explain to students why “he were” is

not an error in such sentences.

KISS Level Three (Clauses)

Improving Writing (and Reading)

The February 1984 issue of English Journal, the dominant publication for high school

English teachers, includes an article by Trevor Gambell. Gambell claimed that his research

showed that many students have problems with exam questions that include subordinate clauses.

Apparently, many students have problems distinguishing the main idea in such sentences.

29

Gambell did not, however, conclude that we should teach these students how to understand

sentences that include subordinate clauses. He concluded that exams should be written in simpler

sentences. Need I comment on this? If you work with KISS Level Three, you may conclude that

it is the most important of all KISS levels. Indeed, KISS Levels one and two may be seen as

preparing students for KISS Level Three. A “clause” is an S/V/C pattern and all the words that

chunk to it. Students who have mastered KISS Levels One and Two should have relatively few

problems with clauses.

Compound Main Clauses

The section below on “avoiding errors” explains why comma-splices and run-ons are serious

errors. But if you look at why students make these errors in the first place, you will probably

find, as I did, that students often use either no punctuation (or just a comma) between main

clauses because they sense a logical connection between the clauses so joined. In other words,

they have not been taught about how experienced writers use semicolons, colons, or dashes to

connect compound main clauses.

Although some writers apparently use these three punctuation marks interchangeably to

separate main clauses, many writers use the semicolon to imply or reinforce a contrast:

(a.) He went swimming. She did the dishes.

(b.) He went swimming, and she did the dishes.

(c.) He went swimming; she did the dishes.

Most readers will interpret both (a.) and (b.) as two equally important statements of fact. The

semicolon in (c.) however, will lead many readers to look for an implied contrast -- which they

will probably find. Example (c.) implies that he’s out there having fun, whereas she is stuck

working in the kitchen.

Colons and dashes, on the other hand, usually suggest that whatever follows them will be a

restatement (often in more detail) of the first main clause:

It was a nice day: it was sunny with a light breeze.

It was a nice day -- it was sunny with a light breeze.

The colon tends to be used in formal writing; the dash, in informal. By teaching students how to

identify main clauses in real texts, and by giving students these generalizations about the

semicolon, colon, and dash, KISS not only addresses two of the most complained about writing

30

errors, it shows students how to change the negative of the error into a logical positive of their

style.

In the “complete” workbooks, KISS begins Level Three with exercises on compound main

clauses. Four of the nine exercises in Level 3.1.1 focus on the logic and punctuation of these

clauses.

Adding Subordinate Clauses

Having learned the concept of “clause” in Level 3.1.1, students add subordinate clauses to

their analytical toolbox in Level 3.1.2. Stylistically, this level is probably the most important in

KISS. Among other things, it includes having students rewrite main clauses as subordinate and

subordinate as main:

He went swimming while she did the dishes.

While he went swimming, she did the dishes.

The stylistics of subordinate clauses is debated; the teaching of the stylistics of clauses should be

more so.

MIMC

For example, if you press most grammar teachers, they will admit that in most well-written

sentences, the main idea is in the main clause S/V/C pattern (MIMC). That idea, however, is too

simple for many teachers of future grammar teachers. They want to focus on the exceptions to

the rule. Admittedly, numerous exceptions can be found. But if you talk with many middle

school teachers, they will probably tell you that their students often have trouble getting their

main idea into the main clause S/V/C pattern. The problem with all of this yakety-yak is that

textbooks do not teach students how to identify clauses in the first place. KISS does, and because

it does, it can introduce students to the questions -- Is the main idea of most sentences in the

main S/V/C pattern? Should it be? Why, or why not? KISS, in other words, gives students the

tools they will need to discuss these questions intelligently and to come to their own conclusions.

Branching

The same is true in regard to left-branching and right-branching subordination. “Left-

branching” means that the subordinate construction comes before the main subject and verb;

“right-branching” means that it comes after:

Left: While she did the dishes, he went swimming.

31

Right: He went swimming while she did the dishes.

What precedes a sentence has, of course, some influence on whether a writer will use left or right

branching, but often writers unconsciously make that decision for other reasons. What troubles

me is that some writing instructors push students (who usually cannot identify clauses in the first

place) toward either left or right branching.

I admire, for example, the work of Francis Christiansen, but I am annoyed when he pushes

students toward right branching constructions, apparently because most writers use it more than

left-branching. (That most people do it is not really a good reason.) On the other hand, I admire

Walker Gibson, who, in Tough, Sweet and Stuffy, suggests that left-branching implies a more

organized brain. His argument is that in order to write a left-branching sentence, the writer has to

have the whole idea organized in his or her mind. Otherwise, the writer would not know what the

subordinate clause is subordinate to. Gibson goes on to note that right-branching is

comparatively easy--and it can reflect thoughts that are simply tacked on to what has just been

said. Personally, I have no position in this debate. In KISS Grammar students can explore this

question and make up their own minds.

The Logic of Subordinate Clauses

In addition to focus (MIMC) and branching, KISS Level 3.1.2 includes exercises on the

logic of subordinate clauses.

“He went swimming while she did the dishes.’ has a focus on “He went,” and a logical

connection of time.

“He went swimming because she did the dishes.’ has a focus on “He went,” and a logical

connection of cause/effect.

“She did the dishes, so he went swimming.” has a focus on “She did,” and a logical

connection of result (a variant of cause/effect).

Some students, of course, unconsciously feel these distinctions and automatically use the version

that reflects their intended focus and logical connection. But many students do not get it. Indeed,

they have no idea that such “subtle” distinctions can be made. KISS exercises on the logic of

subordinate clauses not only help them realize more possibilities than they previously saw, the

exercises give them practice in manipulating clause structures.

32

KISS Level 3.1.3 focuses on embedded subordinate clauses. Actually all subordinate clauses

are embedded in a main clause, but at KISS Level 3.1.3 students explore sentences that have

subordinate clauses within subordinate clauses. “Is that possible?” some students usually ask. My

response is, “Don’t ask me. See for yourself.” For some students the embedding of subordinate

clauses within subordinate clauses is no revelation. But even for many college students, the

analysis of such sentences raises serious stylistic questions. Is heavy embedding good? Or bad?

Our psycholinguistic model provides a context for answering that question, but what yardstick

can one use to determine how deep embedding should be -- or how long main clauses should be?

Although the exercises in the KISS levels include many application exercises, some

“applications” can evolve into major research projects. This is definitely the case with the

questions of how deep embedding should be and of how long main clauses should be. KISS

approaches these two questions (and many others) in statistical exercises in the

“Practice/Application” books that follow each KISS Level. (Note that these

“Practice/Application” books also include additional exercises on the logic and punctuation of

main clauses and on the logic of subordinate clauses.)

Statistical Stylistics

As noted above, Kellogg Hunt did some widely respected research on syntactic maturity

with his basic yardstick, the “T-unit.” And, for Hunt, the “T-unit” was exactly the KISS concept

of the main clause -- a “T-unit” is a main clause defined as including all its subordinate clauses

and other subordinate constructions. Thus the main clause gives students a basic yardstick with

which they can do math in English class. The results of Hunt’s and others’ research is included in

KISS Level 6.5 “Statistical Stylistics.” There are some serious questions about it, but basically it

suggests that third and fourth graders average around eight words per main clause; fifth, sixth,

and seventh graders, around nine; eighth and ninth graders around ten; tenth and eleventh graders

around eleven; and twelfth graders average between thirteen and fourteen. Profession writers,

they claim, average around twenty. My own college Freshmen usually average between fifteen

and sixteen.

Although these numbers offer a general sense of the statistical norm, within KISS grammar

students who can identify main and subordinate clauses can analyze their own writing (and that

of others) and use their own studies to determine how long, on average, and how deeply

33

embedded subordinate clauses (on average) writing should have. Determining words per main

clause, for example, is simply a matter of counting the words in the analyzed text. (Most word

processors will give students that number so that they do not even have to count the words.) In

KISS, we put a vertical line after each main clause. Students, therefore, only have to count the

number of vertical lines that they have put in the analyzed text. If the divide the number of words

in the text by the number of vertical lines (main clauses) they have arrived at Hunt’s “words per

T-unit” or, in KISS, “words per main clause.”

If they are working in a classroom context, they do not even need all those statistics cited

above. Teachers can arrive at an even better norm simply by averaging the averages of the

students in the class to arrive at a “norm” for the students in the class. Almost two decades ago,

Robert Boynton, of Boynton/Cook Publishers, was interested in publishing a book about KISS

Grammar. But he adamantly objected to statistical statistics. Stupidly, I insisted on including

them. I say “stupidly” because I could have agreed, published a book with a well-known

publisher, and then written about statistical stylistics in articles or in another book.

I think I understand why Mr. Boynton objected -- I did a poor job of explaining the

importance of the psycholinguistic model. At that time, sentence-combining was the rage --

students should write longer, more complicated sentences. Mr. Boynton, I think, did not agree

with that, and he was afraid that any move toward statistical analysis would promote the

American fallacy -- bigger and longer is better.

The psycholinguistic model, however, puts an upper “limit” on sentence length and

complexity. Bigger is not better if most readers will have trouble reading the text because of its

long, complex sentences. At the other end, of course, readers will perceive a college student as

immature if he or she is writing, on average, simple main clauses that average ten words. In other

words, I regularly suggest to students that they want to be somewhere close to the norm. True,

some high school (and even some college) English teachers give high grades for long, complex

sentences. But most college professors don’t. What they care about is the content. Note that I’m

not saying that length and complexity of sentence structure it totally irrelevant; I’m saying that

length and complexity for the sake of length and complexity often distracts college professors

from what they are really interested in -- the content of the paper.

34

Statistical analysis can be connected with another important aspect of writing -- the writer’s

intended readers. Would it be surprising to learn that papers written for college courses typically

include more words per average main clause than do articles in popular magazines? How about

professional journals? It would not be difficult to divide a class into groups and to have one

group analyze passages from different magazines, another group passages from newspapers, etc.

Indeed, the students might even be asked to write papers that explain what texts they analyzed

and what they discovered. These papers could then be used by students in later years as sources

of discussion and further study of the typical sentences in different types of texts.

From the students’ point of view, an obviously more practical series of studies could focus

on writing samples from the assessment documents of various state Departments of Education.

Many states have evaluated examples of students’ writing available on the internet. These

usually include the writing prompts, directions, and criteria for the evaluations. Studying these

essays is obviously good preparation for students, but the KISS approach enables students to

extend the study of these essays not only to questions of errors, but also to the statistical analysis

of the various samples. Do the eighth grade essays that get the highest evaluations also have the

highest average of words per main clause? Do those with the lowest evaluations have the lowest?

The KISS site already includes some of these samples, statistically analyzed. But having the

students do the analysis themselves would probably be more convincing for the students. And

even if these studies suggest that bigger is better, the “bigger” would be, as noted above, a

statistical norm appropriate for eighth graders.

If you do have students do statistical studies, you will probably decide that the process itself

is more important than the numerical results. Counting subordinate clauses forces students to

look closely at subordinate clauses. Students particularly find analyzing samples of their own

writing interesting, especially if it is being done against the framework of a norm, whether the

norm be their own class, a set of papers from state standards, or professional writing. When a

student finds no subordinate clauses in his or her own writing, but is convinced by the norm that

most of his or her peers do have such clauses, the student is much more motivated to do

sentence-combining exercises. If, on the other hand, a student finds his or her clauses too long

and too heavily embedded, the student, in light of the KISS psycholinguistic model, is usually

easily persuaded to do some de-combining exercises.

35

But there is more. KISS statistical projects enable teachers to introduce many of the intrinsic

problems of statistical conclusions. How many individual samples have to be analyzed and then

averaged for a “norm” to be credible? Why are definitions of terms important? The credibility of

some of the professional studies that followed Hunt’s is very weak because the researchers for a

vaguely explained reason counted adverbial clauses of cause as separate main clauses. Another

question that students will run into is how to count constructions that can be explained in more

than one way. And, if the samples are hand-written by students, what does one do with “garbles.”

(Hunt and most of those who followed him defined “garbles” as words or phrases that were

illegible.) The point here is that KISS can bring the essence of the scientific method (inductive

conclusions from individual observations) and the whole questions of the methods and credibility

of statistical research into the classroom. And it does this in the context of the students’ research

into the way that their own brains process language.

Avoiding Errors

Some students, especially those who learned the language orally and did not do a lot of

reading, make frequent errors related to clause boundaries. These errors are serious because the

clause is the primary unit in the process of reading. As words enter a reader’s short-term

memory, they are chunked to each other until everything that is supposed to go together is

eventually chunked to the S/V/C pattern of a main clause. At the end of that clause, the writer

should have used punctuation which signals a dump to long-term memory. If parts of the pattern

are missing, or if the punctuation is missing or incorrect, the reader becomes confused. Although

students do not need to know the names for various errors, teachers probably do so that they can

understand the nature of the students’ problems and determine what, if anything, to do about

them. Because clause-boundary errors are a focus of “Cobweb Corner,” my research area, the

following brief explanations include links to the relevant discussions in that research material.

To my knowledge, almost nothing that we are currently doing in our schools helps students

with these problems. The reasons for that are simple. The sentences in the exercises that students

are given to work with are too simple, much simpler than the sentences that the students

themselves often write (and thus have problems with). Then there are the teachers who tell

students to put a period wherever they would make a “long” pause in speech. That advice is

simply stupid. “Because we talk in fragments.”

36

The KISS Approach definitely helps students because as they analyze real sentences from

randomly selected texts, they come to learn how sentences -- and punctuation -- work. We need

to understand, moreover, that we cannot expect immediate results. Under pressure, as in in-class

writing, students will still make mistakes, and as for out-of-class writing, we need to teach

students the difference between editing and revising. Then we need to force them first to revise

and then to edit.

Fragments

As the name suggests, fragments are parts of sentence patterns that are punctuated as

complete sentences. Often, fragments are the result of an overload of the writer’s short-term

memory (STM). With STM overloaded, the inexperienced writer simply puts down a period (or

some other main-clause-ending punctuation mark), and then writes the rest of the main clause

(often a subordinate clause) as a separate sentence. In the KISS Approach, the teacher’s job is to

point out to students that the fragment can probably be connected to the sentence either before or

after it.

The problem with fragments appears to be most common in grades seven through nine. For

anyone familiar with the research of Hunt, O’Donnell, and Loban, this is not surprising because

these researchers have convincingly demonstrated that these years are the period of most intense

growth in the use of subordinate clauses. Unfortunately, most English teachers are not familiar

with this research, and even more unfortunately, almost no thought has been given to its

implications. It is quite possible, for example, that the current attempts to “help” these students

actually do more harm than good.

We know, for example, that as young children we all said such things as “I cutted the

paper,” and “Turn on it” (for “Turn it on.”) Even if no one EVER corrected us, we all learned the

correct forms. But just as the learning of irregular verb forms is part of natural syntactic

development, so is the growth of subordinate clauses. There are, of course, two significant

differences here. Errors such as “I cutted” are made orally. Children will hear the correct forms

and naturally assimilate them. Clause boundary errors are all graphic. Students who read a lot

tend to assimilate the correct forms as they read.

The other difference is that subordinate clause growth occurs well into the school years,

when teachers feel that they have to “do something,” especially because these errors are heavily

37

penalized in the evaluation of state-wide writing exams. But instruction, by its very nature, is an

intervention into the “natural.” And what we tend to do is to impress upon students -- by the very

fact that we give them exercises to avoid fragments -- that there is a problem, but the exercises

we give them do not work -- for the reasons stated above. By interfering, in other words, we

might well be making the problem worse -- adding both anxiety and lack of clarity to it.

I would like to see a lot more research done on actual students’ writing to determine the

nature of students’ fragments, on their relative frequency (per main clause), and on the grade

levels at which they occur. I’m wondering if fragments that occur in students’ writing before

students study KISS Level Three should simply be ignored. (Teachers might correct them in

students’ writing, but not count off for them or do any instruction about them.) In the KISS

Curriculum, students will be learning to analyze the clauses in their own writing. In this process,

they will begin to recognize any fragments in their writing, and, as suggested above, they will

have a clear context for understanding the problem -- and for fixing it.

We should not leave the question of fragments without noting that some fragments are

totally acceptable. Currently, instruction is vague about which are acceptable and which are not,

but the KISS Approach here, as almost always, relies on the psycholinguistic model of how the

brain processes language: a fragment that might cause a crash is bad; one that probably will not,

is not only acceptable but sometimes a sign of good writing. Good fragments usually, but not

always, appear at the beginning of a paragraph, where they establish a topic or attitude that is

developed in the paragraph, or at the end of a paragraph, where the reader can obviously see the

coming paragraph break and will therefore not expect a completion to the fragment.

Comma-splices and Run-ons

Comma-splices and run-ons are related in that two main clauses are joined by only a comma

(CS) or the second main clause runs into the first with no punctuation between them (RO). These

errors create the exact opposite of the problem created by a fragment. Instead of being directed to

dump to long-term memory with only a partial pattern in STM, the reader has a complete pattern

in STM and starts trying to chunk the words from the next pattern into the previous one. Because

they don’t chunk, a crash may occur. I say “may” because, as most grammar textbooks state,

comma-splices are acceptable if the main clauses are short. Unfortunately, they do not say how

long “short” can be.

38

KISS, relying on the psycholinguistic model, states that if the intended readers can be

expected to have no problems processing the sentence, then the splices should be considered

acceptable. Parallel constructions, for example, make sentences easier to process, and adults can

process longer sentences than can fifth graders. This still leaves the question with a subjective

answer. The KISS Approach would settle any questionable case in the student’s favor, provided,

of course, that the student has been taught through the KISS Approach, and therefore

understands that the splices might cause readers to crash. The opening of Dickens’ A Tale of Two

Cities, by the way, was included among the exercises precisely because of his use of comma-

splices and parallel constructions.

Incomplete Subordination

I haven’t had the time or opportunity to collect a lot of examples of it, but teachers should

expect to see cases of incomplete subordination:

Although the author Kent Scheidegger of the essay “Habeas

Corpus is Abused by Convicts” relays many good examples of the

abuse of this procedure, but the fallacies in which the author

commits weakens his essay and argument dramatically.

In this case, the writer has subordinated the first clause with “although,” but has retained the

“but” that would join two main clauses.

Incomplete subordination probably results from one of two things (or perhaps a combination

of both). For one, the student may be in the process of mastering subordinate clauses. Part of that

process involves reducing a main clause in a compound sentence into a subordinate clause. In the

example, the student made it half-way. The other cause is that the main clause that the student is

attempting to write is beyond his (or her) STM processing capacity. As a result, the first part of

the sentence, once written, gets pushed out of STM. The sentence then, to use Mina

Shaughnessy’s term, “slips” into a different pattern. Shaughnessy’s Errors and Expectations, by

the way, should be read by every teacher of grammar and/or writing.

From the perspective of errors, KISS Level Three, the mastery of clauses, is the most

important -- as long as the students are also well-grounded in the psycholinguistic model.

The model addresses the question of modification, and if the students understand it, they will be

39

able to address the errors that are discussed under Levels Four and Five without even studying

the concepts for those levels.

KISS Level Four (Verbals -- Gerunds, Gerundives, and Infinitives)

Compared to KISS Level Three, KISS Levels Four and Five add only a few grammatical

constructions that seriously affect the style of writing. Teachers who want to emphasize the

connections between sentence-structure and writing, can, of course, use additional exercises from

KISS Levels One through Three or from the “Practice/Application” books.

Improving Writing

Of the three types of verbal, gerunds and infinitives tend to develop naturally, and their use

depends on the topic the students are writing about.  They do not need any special focus. They do

“grow,” but they tend to do so by having additional constructions added to (embedded in) them.

Thus “We like playing baseball,” may grow to “We like playing baseball with our friends from

Dover High School on Sunday afternoons when there is no interesting Orioles game on T.V.”

KISS does include “free” sentence-combining exercise (in the Practice/Application” books that

can be used to encourage this type of growth, but special focus on it is probably not needed.

Gerundives are a different question. Most gerundives can be viewed as reduced subordinate

clauses:

Many children like the Harry Potter book. These books were written by J. K. Rowling.

Many children like the Harry Potter books that were written by J. K. Rowling.

Many children like the Harry Potter books written by J. K. Rowling.

In the “complete” books, one exercise in Level Four is devoted to this type of sentence-

manipulation exercise.

Avoiding Errors

Students have few problems in using verbals correctly, but the two problems that some

students do have are fairly serious.

Misplaced or Dangling Modifiers

“Misplaced” and/or “dangling” modifiers are errors that frustrate many high school teachers

(and college professors). They are also known as “dangling and/or misplaced participles”

40

because most grammars don’t make the distinction that KISS does between “participle” as form

and “gerundive” as function.

One student wrote, for example, “Being of an impulsive nature, my mother often

accompanies me when purchasing clothing. “ In that sentence, the gerundive “Being” chunks to

“mother,” but that is not what the writer meant. Her mother accompanies the writer to restrain

the writer’s impulsiveness. Although some English teachers claim that these errors are not

important, they can be very important. Assume, for example, that the following sentence appears

in a police report:

Thrown from the car, he saw her lying on the ground.

If “he” was the one thrown from the car, the sentence is fine, but what if she is the one who was

thrown? The legal case may be entirely different. And writers who cannot control gerundives

(such as the writer of the sentence about impulsiveness) may write this sentence and mean that

she was the one who was thrown.

Obviously not many dangling or misplaced gerundives will have serious legal consequences,

but they can seriously affect communication, especially when they result in a humorous sentence

that the writer did not intend:

Our stomachs were full of butterflies wondering whether, after all this work,

we could pull this performance off as a success.

As I tried to read the rest of this student’s paper, I could not get these wondering butterflies out

of my mind. I pictured them fluttering up to each other, hovering, and chit-chatting -- “What

might go wrong?” “Will we succeed?” Yellow ones, tan ones, white ones! Butterflies. All

wondering. As I wondered about the wondering butterflies, I probably did not give the paper a

fair reading. I was too distracted. And that is, perhaps, the primary problem with misplaced

modifiers. It is the writer’s responsibility to control the structure of sentences. When writers do

not, and readers get distracted, whose fault is it?

In order to help students avoid errors such as these, KISS focuses on the adjectival function

of gerundives -- Gerundives “always” function as adjectives. Actually, most gerundives have

both an adjectival and an adverbial function, but the adverbial function rarely, if ever, results in

any kind of error. The following sentence, which prompted me to add this explanation, was

submitted by a user of the KISS site:

41

She dropped her sword and grappled with his knife hand,

trying to free her left arm from the shield so she could draw her own. 

Doesn’t, I was asked, “trying” function as an adverb to “grappled”? The answer to that question

is a definite “Yes,” but it also functions as an adjective to “She.” Note what happens if we

eliminate the “She”:

Her sword was dropped, and there was grappling with his knife hand,

trying to free her left arm from the shield so she could draw her own.

The sentence may still be comprehensible, but it is more difficult to read because it is not as clear

as to who is doing the “trying.”

Some gerundives have an entirely adverbial function. For example, “Considering the

circumstances, the case is dismissed.” Certainly it is not the case that is doing the considering.

But these gerundives that have no adjectival function are relatively rare, and when they do occur,

the context makes the performer of the action clear. (In our example, it is obviously the judge

who makes the statement who did the considering.)

Having considered the adverbial function of gerundives, we can address the question of how

KISS helps students eliminate dangling or misplaced modifiers. First of all, I have serious

reservations about the typical “correct-the-errors” exercises that present students with sentences

that contain the error and expect the students to make the corrections. I have seen no evidence

that such exercises are effective, and I fear that they may add to the problem. Presenting some

students will visible stimuli of poorly structured sentences may simply confuse them. If many

students are having problems with misplaced modifiers, teachers may want to put on the board

one or two examples and discuss them, but otherwise, let the KISS Approach itself naturally take

care of the problem.

The KISS psycholinguistic model explains that every word in any sentence chunks to

another word or construction until everything is chunked to the words in the main S/V/C pattern.

The brain will chunk words as quickly as it can, and thus it will chunk words and phrases to the

nearest word or phrase that in any way makes sense. This will not be a new idea to students who

have been working within a KISS framework. And, as they analyze sentences, they will be

looking for the adjectival function of gerundives. Thus they will see, over and over again, that

gerundives “chunk” to the performer of whatever the verbal means. In the errors discussed

42

above, for example, students will quickly see that “Being of an impulsive nature” chunks to

“mother”; that “Thrown from the car” chunks to “he”; and that “wondering” chunks to

“butterflies.”

When a dangling or misplaced modifier appears (and they will) in the writing of a student

who is being trained in the KISS Approach, the teacher can simply write “Ref” (for “reference”)

or “SS” (for “sentence structure”) in the margin. And the teacher can expect the student to be

able to correct that error without going to a grammar textbook. In most approaches to grammar,

any “Ref” or “SS” in the margins of a paper might as well be in Greek because the students have

not been taught how sentences work. Note also, that these marks can be meaningful for students

even before they have formally learned what gerundives are.

Assume, for example, that the writer of “Thrown from the car, he saw her lying on the

ground” had not yet been taught about verbals. In the KISS Approach, the principle of chunking

is taught at Level One, with prepositional phrases, adjectives, and adverbs. Thus the student does

not need to know what a gerundive is. All the teacher has to do is to point to “Thrown” and ask,

“What does it chunk to?” If the student appears confused, the teacher can follow up with “Who

was thrown?” At that point, most students are smart enough to see that, according to this

sentence, “he” was. And likewise, most students are smart enough to deal with the occasional

gerundive that has an exclusively adverbial function.

Gerunds as Subjects

Some students have problems using gerunds as subjects. Thus you may find sentences like

the following which was taken from a college Freshman’s paper:

By simply making the request that the ladies wear longer skirts

is not asking too much. 

For students who have been working within the KISS Approach, this error does not have to be

directly addressed. All we need to do is to ask the student to analyze the sentence:

{By simply making [Gerund, object of “by”] the request [DO of “making”] }

[Adj. to “request” that the ladies wear longer skirts (DO)] is

not asking [Gerund, PN of “is”] too much.

43

In performing this analysis, students find that there is no subject for the verb, in this case, “is.”

Realizing this, some students immediately know how to fix it, but others need an explanation and

some practice with examples.

In every case that I can remember, the error occurs because the meaningful subject is

imprisoned in a prepositional phrase. The psycholinguistic model helps students see that, in this

case, for example, the reader will chunk “making,” the meaningful subject, in the prepositional

phrase. By the time they get to KISS Level Four, students have had a fair amount of practice

with prepositional phrases, and they have verified for themselves the rule that objects of

prepositions cannot function as the subjects of verbs that are outside the prepositional phrase.

Thus they need to free the subject (“making”) from the phrase. And this is done by simply

eliminating the preposition:

Simply making the request that the ladies wear longer skirts

is not asking too much.

Errors in using gerunds as subjects are not very common, but they can be very distracting

because they force the reader to have to reprocess the sentence to find the subject of the verb. In

most cases, however, readers can reprocess and at least determine exactly what the writer meant.

That is not the case with the more frequent, and more serious errors with misplaced or dangling

modifiers.

KISS Level Five (Additional Constructions)

Remember that constructions are labeled “Level Five” because they can be taught after

everything else has been basically mastered. In a sense, they are the least important constructions

for understanding how sentences work. Except for an error by teachers (discussed below), any

errors in punctuation involving these constructions are explored as the students learn to identify

the constructions.

Improving Writing

Level 5.1 - Nouns Used as Adverbs; Level 5.2 - Simple Interjections; and Level 5.3 -

Direct Address

These are three relatively simple constructions that most students naturally use. If you have

the time, they can be taught with the KISS Level Two constructions. Stylistically, the only

44

important point here is probably the KISS explanation of subordinate clauses that can function as

interjections. (For more on this, see KISS Level 3.2.3 - Interjection? Or Direct Object?)

Some teachers simply tell students not to use “I.” What they probably really mean is not to

use first person pronouns, but most students have not been taught to recognize “first person.”

(Teachers can only do so much.) In many writing contexts, however, first person is not only

acceptable but even preferred. What really causes problems is the use of “I think . . . .,” “I

believe . . . . ,” and “in my opinion.”

Professional writers do occasionally begin sentences with these constructions, but

professional writers understand that whatever they are writing is already understood to be their

opinion. Thus, when they use these constructions, they are, in effect, flagging whatever it

attached to these constructions as their opinions that they realize are weaker, more open to

attack, than the other ideas in their writing. It is as if they are saying, “I know what is connected

to this is weaker than my other ideas, but I still think it is relevant.”

Many student writers, however, fill their papers with sentences that begin with these

constructions. In effect, the students are saying one of two things -- either they think that all their

ideas are weak, or they do not understand that the very fact that they wrote it automatically

implies that it is their thought, belief, or opinion. There is some research (supported by my own

experiences with student writers) that many students feel more comfortable writing this way.

Therefore, forcing students to avoid these constructions in their drafts probably hinders the

students ability to focus on their ideas. But students can be taught how to edit their writing to

eliminate many (or all) of these constructions. Usually it is simply a matter of deleting them, but

students can also be taught how to use them effectively.

Effective use usually involves moving them from the beginning of the sentence. “I believe

that women are smarter than men” can be rewritten as “Women are, I believe, smarter than

men.” Here again the KISS psycholinguistic model suggests the reason for the move. In “I

believe that women are smarter than men,” readers process “I believe” as the main subject and

verb pattern -- the pattern that receives the most attention. (See the discussion of MIMC, above.)

The psychological model suggests that in “Women are, I believe, smarter than men,” readers will

process “Women are” as the main subject and verb -- the pattern that receives the most focus.

The “I believe” then becomes what many linguists call a “sentence modifier.” KISS, in keeping

45

the list of concepts simple, considers the “I believe” a subordinate clause that functions as an

interjection. Either explanation reduces the focus that is placed on first person. The writer can

still flag the idea as weaker than others, but can do so in the same way that you will probably

find most professional writers doing.

Appositives, post-positioned adjectives, delayed subjects, and passive voice can be taught

immediately after KISS Level 3.1 (The Basics of Clauses). Note, by the way, that passive voice

could be taught immediately after (or even in) KISS Level One. But the time that you spend on

passive voice will have to be taken away from the more important question of clauses. (Have you

ever seen a grammar textbook that even discusses what constructions should be taught in which

order?) In the “complete” (grade-level) workbooks, these four constructions are included for the

first time in fifth grade, after KISS Level 3.2.

Level 5.4 - Appositives

Students who read a lot will probably have assimilated a command of appositives, but

students who do not may have problems using them. Appositives are an important aspect of a

lean, clean style, simply because most appositives can easily been seen as reductions of S/V/PN

clauses:

Loren Eiseley wrote All the Strange Hours. He was a fossil hunter.

Loren Eiseley, who was a fossil hunter, wrote All the Strange Hours.

Loren Eiseley, a fossil hunter, wrote All the Strange Hours.

The third example (with the appositive) also illustrates the importance of appositives in

indicating the credibility of an author in the framing of source material in a research paper. Some

college Freshmen, even after an exercise on appositives, do not seem to be able to use them.

Instead, they will use the two-sentence version, or I have even seen some students who give the

first sentence, then the quotation or paraphrase, and follow that with a sentence such as “Eiseley

was a fossil hunter.”

Within the KISS framework, every high school student should be able to master basic

appositives, but how soon students should be introduced to them needs to be determined by the

art of the teacher. 

Level 5.5 - Post-Positioned Adjectives

46

Whereas the appositive is a reduction of the S/V/PN pattern, the post-positioned adjective

probably develops as a reduction of the S/V/PA pattern:

The tree fell during the storm. It was old and rotten.

The tree, which was old and rotten, fell during the storm.

The tree, old and rotten, fell during the storm.

The construction surely adds variety to, and even changes the pace and focus of information in,

sentences, but it is not as important as are appositives.

Level 5.6 - Delayed Subjects and Sentences

The subtle stylistic implications of delayed subjects and sentences are probably not

important enough for class assignments. I can, however, see someone collecting examples and

comparing them and their contexts to see when and how writers tend to use them. I’m writing

this soon after reading Edgar Allan Poe’s “The Case of M. Valdemar,” a story that includes

several delayed subjects in the opening paragraphs. For example, “It is now rendered necessary

that I give the facts -- as far as I comprehend them myself.” In the non-delayed version, this

sentence would read “That I give the facts -- as far as I comprehend them myself -- is now

rendered necessary.” Is Poe using the delayed subjects to distance the narrator from

responsibility for what he is about to explain?

Perhaps, but to really understand the stylistic implications of this construction, we would

probably have to collect hundreds of examples from early writing. It seems to have the purpose

of emphasizing the complement in the main clause -- “It is true that he did it.” But the

construction has become so common, that (if it was originally used for emphasis) that emphasis

has probably been lost. The stylistic implications of this construction, in other words, are

probably of interest only to the amateur or the specialist.

Level 5.7 - Passive Voice and Retained Complements

Passive voice is not an error, but there are teachers who tell students not to use it, which is,

in effect, saying that it is erroneous. The trouble with all such instruction is that it is usually

meaningless. “Passive voice” makes sense only to someone who can identify subjects and verbs.

Within KISS, therefore, the primary focus is on enabling students to identify passive verbs in the

first place. Teachers who want to have students explore the effects of using passives can easily

have students find real texts that include passive voice and then discuss why the writer may have

47

used it. Ultimately, students can decide for themselves when it is, and when it is not, an

appropriate writing tool. 

Level 5.8 - Noun Absolutes

When they are used as adverbs, noun absolutes are elegant reductions of subordinate

clauses, clauses whose subjects are not included elsewhere in the sentence:

Bob left. The party became lively.

After Bob left, the party became lively.

Bob having left, the party became lively.

Perhaps this is the place to suggest that students should probably not be pushed into using

appositives, post-positioned adjectives, or noun absolutes until the students are sufficiently

syntactically mature. All three of these constructions can be viewed as reductions of subordinate

clauses, and there are both theoretical reasons and research that suggest that students can

cognitively master these constructions only after they have mastered subordinate clauses. Simply

put, students’ brains have to master the subordinate clause before they can master how to reduce

these clauses to appositives, post-positioned adjectives, or noun absolutes.

This is a complicated question -- these constructions can be found in the writing of some

very young writers. Usually, however, these writers are also avid readers. Or, in some cases, the

students have “mastered” a specific type of appositive or noun absolute as what Roy O’Donnell

explained as a “formula” -- a set phrase that the student has (probably repeatedly) heard or read

-- “The game over, we went home.” 

Avoiding Errors

By the time they get to KISS Level Five, students will find that there are few errors left to be

dealt with. Some students do write fragments that consist of appositives, but they will have

learned how to fix these fragments, in most cases, simply because they will not find and S/V/C

pattern in the fragment. If they have been introduced to the psycholinguistic model, they will

understand how to attach the appositive to the preceding or following sentence.

An Error of Some Teachers

The one serious error that KISS Level Five addresses is an error made by some teachers.

Almost a quarter of a century ago, when I first taught a grammar course for teachers, we came

across the sentence

48

The plane crashed five miles from here, its tail pointed at the sky.

It is a perfectly correct sentence with a noun absolute after the comma. Several of the

experienced teachers in the class, however, noted that in their students’ papers, they were

marking sentences like this as comma-splices. There is nothing worse than teachers telling

students that there are grammatical errors where there are none.

More on the KISS Approach to Teaching PunctuationMore on the KISS Approach to Teaching Punctuation

The rules of punctuation in grammar textbooks are made by grammarians who like to make

rules; the punctuation in real texts is made by people who like to write. These two groups

generally ignore each other. There are, of course, some rules of punctuation that are very clear

and should not be violated. For example, sentences should end with a period, question mark, or

exclamation point. Similarly, quotations belong inside quotation marks. Since these rules are so

definite, many people believe that all such rules can be precisely stated. Most textbooks reinforce

this idea, but the idea is false. Textbooks can make it appear to be true simply because they

present the rule and then give simple exercises limited to cases in which the rule clearly applies.

But as you analyze real texts, you will find that professional writers often do not follow these

simple rules. The reason for that is simply that real sentences are more complex than those in the

textbooks.

We can, of course, start by giving students the simple textbook rules, but the most effective

way to teach punctuation is to study 1) its purpose, and 2) how writers actually use it. The

purpose of punctuation is to guide the reader through the mental processing of the sentence.

Consider, for example, the following passage from a version of “Philemon and Baucis,” stripped

of its interior punctuation:

They had many hives of bees from which they got honey and many vines from which

they gathered grapes one old cow gave them all the milk that they could use and they had

a little field in which grain was raised.

Now consider it as it was actually published:

They had many hives of bees from which they got honey, and many vines from which

they gathered grapes. One old cow gave them all the milk that they could use, and they

had a little field in which grain was raised. 

49

Without the comma after “honey,” many people would have seen the following “and” as joining

“honey” and “many vines.” That does not make sense, but without the comma after “honey,”

readers are not sure of what to expect – it could have been “honey and wax.” The comma after

“honey” tells the reader that what follows the “and” should not be joined to “honey.” As a result,

readers tend to easily see the “and” as joining “vines” and “hives.” Similarly, the period after

“grapes” tells the reader that no more words will chunk back to the previous sentence pattern.

Without the period (and capital letter), readers will tend, if they make it this far into the sentence,

to read “cow” as another direct object of “had”—They had ... many hives ... many vines ... one

old cow . . . .

The point here is that the simple rules in the textbooks cannot cover the infinite variety of

sentence patterns. Thus the best way to teach punctuation is to give the students the simple rules,

explain the psycholinguistic model of how the human brain processes language, and then have

the students study the punctuation in real texts. This can easily be done by stripping the

capitalization and punctuation from any published text, by asking the students to “fix” the

punctuation, and then by comparing it to the original and discussing the results.

Some Comments onSome Comments on

“Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool” by John Dawkins“Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool” by John Dawkins

In a country of freedom, such as ours, it is always surprising to see how, when it comes to

grammar – and especially to punctuation, so many people either want to follow or to enforce “the

rules.” This “fear of the rules,” of course, adds to, if it is not the primary cause of, many people’s

fear of writing. When I was editor of Syntax in the Schools, I even had teachers send me notes –

“I want to write something for you, as soon as I get my writing skills up.” To me, those notes

always implied fear of making grammatical “mistakes.” The problem, however, is that there are

no “rules,” there are only “norms.”

Thoughtful teachers of grammar realize that the rules are only norms, but most grammar

books just teach “the rules.” Then, of course, there are always those people who get a sense of

power by pointing out other people’s violations of such “rules.” And students are in no position

to challenge their teachers. Indeed, because grammar is so poorly taught, very few people are

willing to challenge a statement of a “rule.” Recently, however, I accidentally ran across a most

excellent and important article – “Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool,” by John Dawkins.

50

Dawkins not only proves, in a most convincing way, that the rules are norms, but he also

suggests a superb way of teaching how punctuation really does work—and how to teach it!

Dawkins takes two approaches to proving that the rules are simply norms. For those who

need an authority, he quotes Quirk et al, noting that they have

examined statistical data on the use of the comma to mark coordination and concluded:

“These results show we are dealing with tendencies which, while clear enough, are by no

means rules. In such cases, it is probably that the general truth that punctuation conforms

to grammatical rather than rhetorical considerations is in fact overridden” (1060) (533)

A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, by Quirk et al. is almost a bible for many

modern grammarians, so as an appeal to authority, Dawkins has a very strong case here. But for

those of us who prefer to see the evidence, Dawkins makes an even stronger case by providing

69 examples, most of them from widely-known authors. And along the way, he consistently

points out how the textbook presentations of the rules are either inadequate, or downright

harmful, harmful in the sense that they present “don’t’s” and thus cause fear of errors.

As his title implies, Dawkins suggests that instead of being looked at as potential errors,

punctuation marks should be taught as “rhetorical tools.” They are, in effect, “separators.” In

KISS terms, they separate sentences from sentences or, within sentences, various “chunks” of

sentences—adjectives, phrases, clauses, verbals, etc. But, of course, in the very act of separating,

they also clarify—what, meaningfully, goes with what. One of the most important parts of

Dawkins’ article is the following table (p. 535):

Table 1 Hierarchy of Functional Punctuation Marks

Mark Degree of Separationsentence final (. / !) maximumsemicolon (;) mediumcolon (:) medium (anticipatory)dash (–) medium (emphatic)comma (,) minimumzero (0) none (that is, connection)

51

In the next table, Dawkins explains the “Basic Functions” or norms, associated with the various

punctuation marks. Thus periods and semicolons “separate independent clauses”; colons and

dashes “separate independent clauses, or separate non-independent clause element(s) from the

independent clause.” Finally, the comma (and zero punctuation) “separate non-independent

clause elements from the independent clauses.” (536)

A third table presents three sentence patterns, and then a fourth indicates which punctuation

marks are normally used with each of the three patterns. These are somewhat standard, and for

fear of violating copyright by summarizing and quoting too much, I’ll pass over them, especially

since the best part of Dawkins’ article explains the underlying logic for violations of these rules.

Perhaps the most important thing for us to notice here is Dawkins’ repeated reference to

“clauses” and “clause element(s).” The problems that many people have with punctuation are not

the result of their not knowing the rules. Indeed the situation is precisely comparable to some

people’s problems with subject/verb agreement. They can be told a million times that subjects

must agree with their verbs in number, but if they cannot recognize subjects and verbs, the rule is

useless. Similarly, if people cannot identify clauses and clause elements (prepositional phrases,

verbals, appositives, i.e., precisely those constructions that KISS Grammar explores), the rules of

punctuation will not be very helpful.

Works Cited

Dawkins, John. “Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool.” College Composition and

Communication, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Dec., 1995), 533-548. [If you have access to JSTOR, you

can get it there. Otherwise your library should be able to get a copy for you. The notes

indicate that he also has an article in ERIC, “Rethinking Punctuation,” ED 340 048. 1992.] I

would love to get permission to reproduce the entire article here on the KISS site.

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvic. A Comprehensive

Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.

52

Cinderella 1899 by

Valentine Cameron Prinsep

(1838-1904)

The KISS ApproachThe KISS Approach

to Teaching Sentence Style to Teaching Sentence Style

Cinderella’s fairy godmother changed her fortune primarily by 1) giving her a chance, 2) by

changing her self-image, and 3) by changing her style. As teachers, the KISS Approach enables

us to be our students’ “godparents.” In the process of using the KISS Approach, teachers will

find many opportunities to give students chances to excel. Often, these chances will be related to

opportunities to change their attitudes towards grammar and towards their self-images. These

opportunities may be as simple as telling students about the “advanced constructions” in their

writing. We all blossom under the sunshine of praise, and KISS offers many opportunities for it.

More importantly, however, the KISS Approach can provide students with the opportunity for

substantive control of their writing styles. In effect, it can eliminate the “pumpkin phenomenon.”

By “pumpkin phenomenon,” I have in mind most of the current attempts to improve

students’ writing styles. These attempts come in a variety of methods and exercises, from

sentence combining to teaching students to use appositives, etc. Teachers who make these

attempts believe in their effectiveness (obviously), but there is no proof that they have any long-

term effect on the majority of students. Behavioral theory, moreover, strongly suggests that they

have little lasting effect. The reason for this is simple. Because they do not tie into the students’

conscious understanding of how sentences work, the effects of all these exercises die away, just

as the training of a rat dies away. N1 As in Cinderella, therefore, midnight comes, and the magical

effects of the exercises disappear. Unfortunately, in real life, there is no prince.

The KISS Approach differs in that questions of “style” should be related to the constructions

that the students are learning to recognize and manipulate. If the KISS Approach is spread over a

number of years, it presents students with significant amounts of time, first to learn to identify

the constructions at a specific level, and then to manipulate those constructions for different

stylistic effects -- and to discuss those effects. In essence, the approach enables students to make

53

stylistic decisions on their own. This, in itself, makes the approach far more effect than having

non-understood stylistic exercises imposed on them by teachers. N2

Stylistic exercises are scattered throughout these workbooks, so the rest of this document

provides an overview to some of the questions that are involved.

Sentence Length and Variety

Two fundamental aspects of syntactic style are sentence (or, more precisely, main-clause)

length and variety in the types of constructions that are used. Most textbooks either explain these

aspects of style without enabling students to identify the underlying constructions, or they push

students toward the authors’ stylistic preferences as if the students were rats. [See Note #1.] Our

students are not rats. They can all think, and they are perfectly capable of making stylistic

decisions on their own -- especially if we give them the tools to do so. The fundamental KISS

Approach to style, therefore, is to enable students to identify constructions, and then to give them

examples -- from real texts -- of the various ways in which these constructions affect style.

The question of main-clause length can be somewhat complex, but that it is an aspect of

style is fairly obvious. Young writers write shorter main clauses, and thus shorter main clauses,

in general, suggest a less mature mind behind the writing.  Research by Hunt, Loban, and

O’Donnell suggests that, on average, third graders use 7.6 words per main clause. Sixth and

seventh graders use nine; twelfth graders use fourteen, and professional writers use twenty.

Years of analyzing the writing of my college Freshmen indicate that they average 15.5.

However, we need to remember that these numbers reflect group averages. Some college

Freshmen average nine, whereas others average 25.

For some students, the question of main-clause length is very important. As I point out to

my students, their instructors in history, plastics, automotive or health do not count the words per

main clause in their students’ papers, but they do automatically get a sense of the students’

styles. The psycholinguistic model shows that readers chunk all the words in a main clause to

each other. At the end of a main clause, these words are dumped to long-term-memory and STM

is cleared for the next sentence. These “dumps” create a sentence rhythm in the reader’s head, a

rhythm that is primarily based on main-clause length. If that rhythm is relatively short (and

simple), it may, for example, suggest the mind of a ninth grader. Can (I ask my students) a ninth

54

grader understand the material that they [my students] are studying in college? Will their

instructors think so? Or will the short simple style have a downward pull on grades?

At the other extreme, the psycholinguistic model suggests that students who average 25

words per main clause are putting a heavy strain on the reading ability of their instructors. The

model suggests that the longer and more complex that sentences become, the more “slots” in

STM the reader will need to use just to process the sentence structure. If they are too long, and

too complex, sentences that are perfectly correct may still overwhelm and confuse readers. (Keep

It Simple.)

We need to realize that the generalization about length and mental maturity is complicated

by at least two corollaries. The first is the question of intended audience and purpose. In long,

complicated sentences, ideas have a bad habit of getting in the way of each other. Good writers,

therefore, will at times intentionally simplify their sentence structure to make sure that important

ideas are clearly conveyed. The second corollary is that some advanced constructions shorten

main clause length. Going to the store, he saw an accident. is three words shorter than When he

was going to the store, he saw an accident. Thus words per main clause is an important aspect of

style, but it is not an absolute. As the preceding example suggests, constructions that add variety

to sentence structure may simultaneously make them shorter.

Variety in sentence structure is, without doubt, a stylistic asset. Fourth graders and far too

many college Freshmen write using primarily simple S/V/C patterns. The problem, however, is

that most attempts to help students develop a more varied style simply end in confusion, and

even, perhaps, more errors. Typically, for example, primary school teachers attempt to get

students  to vary sentence structure by having them begin some sentences with prepositional

phrases. But since students are never effectively taught to identify prepositional phrases in the

first place, this SR conditioning has little, if any, long-term positive effect. It may, however, add

to confusion and frustration. Thus a father wrote to me to complain that his daughter’s teacher

was making her begin some sentences with prepositional phrases. He was upset because he was

sure that when he was in school he was taught that beginning a sentence with a prepositional

phrase is an error. It seems probable that this father confused prepositional phrases with that silly

rule about not beginning a sentence with “But.”

55

The KISS Approach clearly deals with sentence variety, but most of the exercises are not so

labeled. That is because most of the exercises are based on passages from real texts. The students

are taught to identify (and thus be able to discuss) the underlying basic constructions, and thus

every exercise becomes a model. Students will regularly note, for example, prepositional phrases

at the beginning of sentences, but they will actually note far more than that. Really sophisticated

sentence variety results not from the use or placement of individual constructions, but rather

from the embedding of constructions within constructions.

Texture

Another fundamental aspect of syntactic style, texture, may be the most important. I start

my presentation on texture by asking students what the word means -- outside the context of

grammar. To help, I suggest that they consider some examples -- the texture of the window glass,

the texture of a wall, the texture of the rug, the texture of someone’s sweater. It usually does not

take students long to name some textures -- soft, hard, smooth, rough. Then I ask them to explain

why some things are smooth and others rough. This usually takes the class a lot longer. Finally,

someone will point out that the fundamental difference is surface structure. If we consider

something to be smooth, our sense of touch cannot perceive any bumps on it -- the surface is flat,

whereas if we consider a surface to be rough, we can feel bumps or ridges on it. I usually draw a

flat and a wavy line on the board to illustrate the difference, and the class as a whole usually

agrees with this distinction.

Most of the students quickly found words to describe textures, but it took a lot longer to

explain an underlying cause of textural differences. Most of the students, although they regularly

describe textures, had never even considered what causes them. I suggest that their teachers in

other courses (history, math, science, construction, etc.) will sense, and even to some extent be

able to describe, textural differences in students’ sentence styles, but they will not have thought

about the causes of these differences. It is, after all, the English Departments’ job to teach

students about writing and style. But because teachers in other disciplines can sense differences

in style, they may give higher grades to students whose writing has a better texture.

Perhaps the best examples of differences in syntactic texture involve clauses. The “sub” in

“subordinate” means “under.” Thus subordinate clauses tend to push the ideas expressed in them

downward, or into the background. That leaves the ideas in the main S/V/C pattern in the

56

foreground -- the “bumps” so to speak. Readers, of course, perceive and process the information

in subordinate clauses, but it is usually perceived as background or supporting information. The

sentence texture thus creates a focusing lens -- main ideas are in the main clause pattern.

One way of demonstrating this to students is to use the first three sentences of the

“Aluminum” passage:

Aluminum is a metal. It is abundant. It has many uses.

The first thing I note to students is that these three sentences are “smooth”: each sentence

consists of a single main clause, and thus, structurally, they are all at the same level -- all equally

important. But smooth is usually not good in sentence structure. It doesn’t make any difference

what field students are in, in every field of study, in any question or paper, some ideas are more

important than others. And their instructors, in all fields, will sense the flatness and lack of focus

in papers that primarily string together main clauses.

They will do so simply because other students will have a better control of texture. For

examples:

1) Aluminum, which is an abundant metal, has many uses.

2) Aluminum, which is a metal and has many uses, is abundant.

3) Aluminum, which is abundant and has many uses, is a metal.

4) Aluminum is a metal that is abundant and has many uses.

5) Aluminum is an abundant metal that has many uses.

By subordinating some of the ideas, the first example foregrounds “uses,” thereby suggesting

that “uses” is the main idea that will be developed. The second example suggests that abundance

will be the focus of what follows. The focus of the third example is “metal.” The fourth example

is even more texturally complex in that it establishes aluminum as a metal and then suggests that

two aspects of this metal will probably be further developed -- its abundance and it uses. In the

fifth example, on the other hand, “abundant” has been reduced to an adjective modifying metal.

Having read this version, most readers would not expect any development of “abundant.”

There are, of course, many other ways in which the ideas in the three sentences from the

“Aluminum” passage can be combined. The point, however, is that because it teaches students to

identify constructions such as subordinate clauses, the KISS Approach enables students to

explore and discuss such questions and to arrive at their own conclusions. Some grammarians

57

and linguists, for example, have objected to the KISS emphasis on MIMC (main ideas in main

clauses). They point to numerous exceptions (which is what most grammarians and linguists are

concerned with). Fortunately, at least some of these grammarians admit that MIMC is a valid

basic principle, but the problem with all of these people with whom I have discussed this

question is that they do not seem to care about the fact that most students cannot identify clauses

in the first place. The KISS Approach enables students to do so.

Two other problems with the teachers who object to the MIMC principle are that they

provide only isolated sentences as examples, and they provide no theoretical justification for

their position. Wanda Van Goor, at Prince George’s Community College, has provided an

excellent example of the MIMC principle in the “Alicia” exercise. In it, students are given seven

compounded sentences and are asked to revise the passage by subordinating the ideas in one of

the main clauses in each sentence. They are to do so by supporting one of two possible topic

sentences:

a) In spite of her many problems, Alicia won the contest for Prom Queen.

b) Alicia, who won the contest for Prom Queen, had to overcome many problems.

The supporting sentences are:

1. Her boyfriend, Ralph, had lots of influence as the captain of the football team, and he

almost missed the deadline for nominating her.

2. All of his teammates promised to vote for Alicia, and most of them did; but some of

them never got around to voting at all.

3. The basketball players originally supported one of Alicia’s rivals; they eventually gave

their votes to Alicia.

4. Alicia had trouble raising enough money for her campaign, so her sorority sisters came

to her rescue.

5. Trudy was Alicia’s campaign manager, and she did a terrific job; however, she came

down with the flu halfway through the campaign.

6. The ballots were counted and re-counted; they clearly gave Alicia the title of Prom

Queen.

7. Alicia experienced many trying times, and she finally became the new Queen.

58

Students end up with two significantly different paragraphs, one of which emphasizes

Alicia’s winning, whereas the other emphasizes the problems.

The KISS psycholinguistic model also supports the MIMC principle. The model suggests

that every word (except interjections) in every main clause is chunked to another word or

construction until everything is chunked to the S/V/C pattern in the main clause.

Psycholinguistically, therefore, every word and construction faces toward (and thus puts focus

on) the words in the main clause S/V/C pattern. Clearly, syntactic texture affects the focus of any

text. It foregrounds some words and ideas, and pushes others to the background. Specific textural

patterns, such as parallel constructions, can greatly enhance the clarity and logic of a text.

Parallel Constructions

The phrase “parallel constructions” refers to placing equivalent ideas into parallel

(equivalent) grammatical constructions. A good example is Lincoln’s “government of the people,

by the people, for the people. . . .” A non-parallel statement of this idea would be “the people’s

government that they control for their own purposes.” In the non-parallel example, the three

ideas expressed by Lincoln in the three prepositional phrases have been scattered into a

possessive noun used as an adjective, a subordinate clause, and a prepositional phrase. Parallel

constructions suggest thoughtful, controlled writing (or speaking), and they are usually

appreciated by readers (or listeners). They are especially important in thesis, focal, and topic

sentences where they often lay out the structure of the entire essay, a section of the essay, or a

paragraph.

Technically, any compounded constructions can be considered as parallel. A simple example

is a string of adjectives that modify the same noun -- the big, old, beautiful, Southern mansion.

Another example is a string of direct objects -- Aleisha likes to play baseball, tennis, soccer, and

hockey. In cases such as these, students do not really need to be taught that the constructions are

parallel. Instead, they often need to be encouraged to include the adjectives, or to use a number

of specific examples instead of a single general word such as “sports” in “Aleisha likes to play

sports.” Formal instruction in parallelism is thus more important as students’ sentences become

longer and include more ideas in each main clause. Exercises on parallel constructions are spread

throughout the KISS workbooks.

59

Some Direct Implications of Texture for Teaching Writing

Thesis Sentences

The thesis sentence is the most important in any essay, but many students have problems,

not just with the concept of “thesis sentence,” but also with their construction.  The texture of a

thesis sentence is very important because it sets the readers’ expectations, and thus the focus for

the entire paper. The following excellent example is from a student’s paper that I use as a model

for the first major assignment in my Freshman composition course:

Almost every FTD rose arrangement can be made-to-order within a

pattern; however, there are exceptions, including color dependent and

dried arrangements.

If you could read the entire essay, you would see that this sentence lays out the entire structure of

the paper. (Some teachers call this type of thesis an “essay map.”) This is a very simple type of

thesis.

But it is a very effective type of thesis, especially for papers in other courses. Instructors in

psychology, metal working, biology, and carpentry, for example, usually assign broad topics for

papers. Students are expected to narrow that topic, focus it, and then show the instructor how

much they understand about their chosen topic. In this situation, thesis, focal, and topic sentences

are crucial. In effect, these sentences state “I’m going to show you what I know about _____.”

The sentences in the body of each paragraph then demonstrate that knowledge. If these sentences

are missing, or poorly focused, then the instructor has little, if any, idea of what the details in the

paragraph are supposed to demonstrate. Grades will suffer. Thus one of the first places to work

with students on syntactic texture is the thesis sentences of their papers.

“I think” and “I believe”

What students are often taught about the use of “I” is troublesome. Some students are

simply, and incorrectly, taught never to use it. In many circumstances, dependent on audience

and purpose, the first person pronoun is perfectly acceptable. Here, however, we are concerned

with the textural implications of “I think” and “I believe.” Many students fill their papers with

these subject / verb combinations, usually at the beginning of sentences. They thereby make the

“I think” or “I believe” the subject and verb of the main clause. The preceding discussion of

MIMC suggests that, by doing so, the students make their thinking or believing the focus of the

60

paper, thereby distracting from the topic of the paper. (Strike One.) It also indicates that the

students do not understand that an essay or paper automatically conveys the thoughts and beliefs

of the writer. (Strike Two.)

Finally (Strike Three.), it suggests that students do not know what these words mean when

they are used by experienced writers. In polished prose (as opposed to informal notes, etc.), most

good writers use “I think” or “I believe” to flag arguments that are weak. They also usually put it

within another clause, thereby making it parenthetical, or in KISS terms, an interjection, rather

than the subject and verb of a main clause:

a) Sally would be a good president.

b) I think Sally would be a good president.

c) Sally would, I think, be a good president.

The first example is obviously the thought or belief of the person who wrote it. Thus (b) does not

add anything to (a), but it does shift the focus to the writer. In (c), the “I think” will be read by

most readers as an indication of some doubt on the part of the writer. In effect, it says, “I do not

know. If you push me on this point, I may be wrong.” In a written text, in other words, good

writers will use “I think” or “I believe” to flag arguments that they realize are weaker than all the

other arguments that they have not so flagged. (Not all arguments are equal.)

Note what this means, however, for the students who fill papers with “I think” and “I

believe” at the beginnings of sentences. Not only does it shift the focus to them as the writers,

but it also screams “I’m not sure about what I am writing about!”  And, if the writer does not

have confidence in his or her own ideas, why should anyone else take the time to read the paper?

Walker Gibson’s Tough, Sweet and Stuffy

Walker Gibson’s Tough, Sweet and Stuffy (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1966) is an easily

readable book, but it is a book that you will probably want to keep handy because it is packed,

not only with ideas, but also with examples of stylistic analyses and questions that you may want

to have your students use. I also like Gibson’s approach to the use of statistics. He uses a fair

number of them, but unlike the educational researchers, he is not interested in a posture of

statistical “validity.” The educational researchers often look very impressive with their “T-tests,”

“stepwise regressions,” etc., but when one looks at what they have counted, how, why, and what

it means, one is often left empty, especially since one does not usually have access to the texts

61

that were analyzed. Gibson, on the other hand, gives us the texts, and he uses simple counts and

percentages to make his points.

Perhaps the most important lesson we can take from Gibson’s book is that there is no one

“good style.” Almost all of the discussions that I have seen about “improving” students’ writing

imply, but never define a good style. The general assumption is usually that students should

write longer main clauses, with a greater variety of grammatical constructions, deeper levels of

embedding, with a minimal use of the passive voice. The accompanying implication is that we

should “train” students to write this way, without giving the students the analytical ability to

make stylistic decisions for themselves. Gibson, on the other hand, distinguishes three different

styles and ends up with a style machine with sixteen countable criteria (134-135). Along the

way, he gives lots of examples of, and discusses the implications of, each of the criteria.

Gibson notes that his style machine is a “Model T” -- a beginning for a way to analyze

styles. The criteria he presents, however, are almost all easily usable in our classrooms (at, of

course, different levels). The first two are the proportion of monosyllables and words of more

than two syllables in the passage. Although this is not directly related to grammar, it suggests a

little KISS-like class group work assignment that could probably be used, with some help from

the teachers, as early as third or fourth grade. The students could each take a short sample of

their own writing, count the words, count the number on monosyllabic words, etc., and then

calculate the results and share them with the class.

Gibson, I think, would strongly suggest that the teacher remain judgmentally neutral in

presenting the results. Third and fourth graders are probably too young to make solid evaluative

judgments about such things, but the class averages will speak for themselves. Students whose

passage contained almost all monosyllables will see for themselves that they are below the class

average, and, like all of us, will probably want to move toward the middle. When this exercise is

used with older students, on the other hand, teachers may want to give the students a brief

explanation of this aspect of Gibson’s style machine, and then let the students discuss both their

own results and the validity of the machine. (According to Gibson, for example, 78% of “tough”

writers’ words are monosyllabic, compared to 68% for “sweet,” and 56% for “stuffy.”) Note also

that this exercise gives students meaningful practice in syllabification, and it also integrates the

teaching of English and math.

62

Gibson’s third criterion involves how many first-person and second-person pronouns a

passage contains. Overall, he suggests that first-person is “tough”; second person, “sweet”; third-

person, stuffy. His distinction could be an interesting way of approaching a problem that we, as a

profession, have not dealt with very well.  Some teachers tell their students never to use first

person; others forbid the use of second. In spite of all such instruction, however, most of our

students get to college without knowing the difference. There, they have instructors -- in

disciplines other than English -- who tell them not to use first person. Many of the students,

however, do not know what that means. Good students have told me that they have had papers

either marked down a grade or returned to them for rewriting, because they used first-person

pronouns.

The fault for that is ours. In some disciplines such as human services and many of the

technical areas, the accepted profession style forbids the use of first person.  Our fault is not in

forbidding, or not forbidding, the use of such pronouns, but rather in our not teaching students to

recognize the differences so that they can adapt to different requirements.

The fourth, fifth, and sixth criteria in Gibson’s machine can all be used at KISS Level Two.

The fourth involves the number of subjects of finite verbs that are neuter nouns as opposed to

nouns that refer to people. (Neuter nouns suggest stuffy style.) Fifth is the proportion of finite

verbs in the total words. Count the words in the finite verb phrases and divide the result by the

total number of words.) Sixth -- the proportion of finite verbs that are forms of “to be.”  As with

monosyllabic words, students who are working at KISS Level Two can do an exercise in which

they analyze their own writing, count the various constructions, and come up with class

averages. If there is time, it is even more helpful to have the class analyze passages from selected

types of published writing.

The seventh criterion is the proportion of verbs that are passive. Within the KISS

framework, in which students are actually taught how to identify passive verbs in the firsts place,

students can actually use this criterion themselves. Have the students work in small groups to

measure the “passive ratio” in different kinds of texts -- newspaper articles, essays, business

communications, explanations of processes, etc. To find the ratio, students would count the

number of passive finite verbs (verb phrases count as one, and the number of active verbs and

phrases. The ratio would be the number of passives divided by the total number.

63

Classroom teachers might want to make this a continuing class research project by starting a

database of the results. One year, for example, the some of the students analyze a newspaper

article. The results would go in the database as a newspaper article. The next year, some students

also do a newspaper article. Their results would also be put in the database as a newspaper

article. Each year, another newspaper article (or more) would be added to the database. Other

students might focus on descriptions of a process. Thus “process descriptions” could be another

category in the database. You might even want to have some students focus on specific writers,

for example, George Will. One article by Will might suggest his typical “passive ratio,” but the

results of ten different studies of Will’s writing would probably be much more accurate.

Note that this type of project introduces students to the logic of statistical studies. A

conclusion based on one sample is called a hasty generalization fallacy. In other words, before

making a conclusion, one should study several samples. If the students have access to the

passages analyzed by previous students, they could actually discuss not only whether or not

Will’s “passive ratio” is the same across passages, but also why he may have opted for the

passive in specific sentences. Such instruction is far more meaningful than exhortations and

prohibitions about passive voice.

Adjectives are the subject of Gibson’s eighth, ninth, and tenth criteria. He makes a

distinction between “true” adjectives and “noun adjuncts”

you call a particular modifier an adjective when you can transpose the

construction in which it appears into a sentence pattern using be or seem.

Thus “the tall children” can be transposed into “the children are tall” or

“the children seem tall.” Furthermore you can inflect the modifier: taller

children, tallest children. Tall then is a true adjective. But the noun adjunct

school  children won’t work. “The children were school.” “Schooler

children.” “The schoolest children seemed school.” (78)

This distinction between “true” adjectives and noun adjuncts is not part of KISS. But Gibson’s

distinction here gives me the chance to explain, from a slightly different perspective, how KISS

differs from traditional approaches to teaching grammar, including those that claim to be new

and linguistic. The traditional approach is to teach the rules of grammar, isolated from how they

are used and what they imply. Gibson, however, uses the distinction to suggest an aspect of

64

stuffy style. In stuffy style, 5% of the words are noun adjuncts, as opposed to 1% for tough and

4% for sweet. At some point within the KISS sequence, therefore, teachers may want to

introduce this distinction, not as a definition and rule for itself, but rather as a tool for discussing

style.

The same is true for Gibson’s ninth criterion, the number of adjectives modified by adverbs.

He primarily has in mind the word “very.” I once had a teacher who told me not to use that word.

But such judgments can be made by students themselves -- if we give them the conceptual tools

with which such judgments can be intelligently discussed.

The next three criteria are appropriate for KISS Level Three. KISS actually suggests a lot

more that can be done with clauses, but Gibson includes # 11) length of included (i.e.,

subordinate) clauses, # 12) the proportion of total passage inside such clauses, and #13) the

number of words separating subjects from their verbs. High average length, high proportion, and

large separation are, according to Gibson, all reflections of stuffy style. I urge you to read his

book for the details and the reasoning. My point here is that, within the KISS Approach, these

are all questions which students can study, discuss in class, and then decide for themselves.

Gibson’s fourteenth criterion is of particular interest for the debates about what grammar

should be taught, why, and how. It involves the frequency of the “determiner the.”  Within the

“pro-grammar” community, the linguists want determiners taught as a separate part of speech. 

As always, the reasoning is complex, and I can understand why ESL students (who have

particular problems with them) need to see determiners as a separate category (but I would keep

it as a sub-category of adjectives). For native speakers of English, however, the distinction may

simply add to the grammatical clutter and confusion. The linguists argument, to the extent that I

understand it, is that determiners function differently than do “adjectives.” This is true, but once

we let them start down this path, the linguists make all kinds of distinctions -- in all parts of

speech. They make so many distinctions that all of our students’ time will be spent in studying

their [the linguists’] categories, with none left to focus on those that are stylistically interesting or

important.

Gibson’s approach is significantly different. He began, after all, with some randomly

selected passages which he put into three categories, and then he asked himself if there is any

way to establish some measurable criteria for distinguishing the categories.  He discusses not all

65

determiners, but just “the,” to show “its function as an implied expression of intimacy” between

the writer and the reader (130). Here, as always in Gibson, grammatical terminology is

subordinate to the objectives of stylistic analysis.

The last two of Gibson’s criteria involve fragments, contractions, parentheses, italics,

dashes, question marks, and exclamation points. Punctuation can be taught at various levels

within the KISS Approach. The important thing to note here is that Gibson considers these as

characteristics of different styles, not as “do’s” and “don’t’s.”  He suggests, throughout the book,

that the three styles are extremes, often used for different purposes. His examples of “tough” are

primarily from novels; of “sweet,” from advertising; of “stuffy,” from official documents.

Gibson’s book is not a text to be dumped on students. Currently, even if the students could

understand it, they could not apply his ideas for the simple reason that we do not teach them how

to identify all the subjects and finite verbs in a text. The most important thing about the book is

Gibson’s method -- making judgments based on the analysis of real texts. Along the way, Gibson

suggests a variety of stylistic questions that teachers may want to have students discuss.

We need to remember, however, that life is not a fairy tale, and that teachers are not really

fairy godmothers. We cannot perform miracles. Cinderella’s fairy godmother changes

Cinderella’s fate by using a pumpkin for one evening.  In real life, however, even instruction

throughout an entire year can simply result in a pumpkin effect unless that instruction builds

upon what came before it. Simply giving students definitions and rules is not going to do the job.

If we really want students to improve their writing styles, don’t we need to give them the ability

to analyze sentences such that they can make their own judgments?

1. As an undergraduate, I was “fortunate” enough to take a course in behavioral psychology. I

spent fifteen weeks training a rat, and learning about S-R conditioning. Teachers who

advocate the isolated use of exercises should either take such a course, or produce proof that

such exercises have a lasting effect.

2. I attended a series of workshops on “Outcomes Assessment.” The Director of the workshops

repeatedly emphasized that all decisions on outcomes, and on their assessments, have to be

faculty initiated and faculty owned. Otherwise, they will be resisted and ignored. I note this

because, in teaching grammar, we usually ignore the fact that in almost all cases, we, as

66

teachers, impose stylistic exercises on students. We never give them the chance to make

decisions on their own.

An Introduction to Syntax An Introduction to Syntax

and the Logic of David Humeand the Logic of David Hume

Portrait of David Hume

1766by

Allan Ramsay(1713 - 1784)

[On Yeat’s Vision] “... it suggests what seems to me on other grounds highly probable: that a good deal of our thinking is elaborated from subconscious diagrams. This comes out not only in the geometrical figures we use, ‘a point of view,’ ‘a sphere of influence,’ ‘a line of action,’ and so on, but also in the spatial implications of the most ordinary particles: ‘beside,’ ‘between,’ ‘on the other hand,’ and the like.”

– Northrop Frye, Fables of Identity, p. 230.

For the several years, my students had to analyze the following sentence as part of our work

on clauses:

As we were still in our Renaissance costumes from a previous performance, a

number of people followed us into the cathedral.

Most of the students can find the beginning and the end of the “As” clause, but when I ask them

what the clause chunks to, most of them are lost – they do not see the cause/effect relationship

between the narrator’s group being dressed in Renaissance costumes and their being followed

into the cathedral. We are, of course, studying “grammar,” but I began to wonder what happens

when students meet similar sentences in “content” courses. Suppose these students were reading

the text, not for grammar, but for content, and suppose that I asked them “Why did the people

follow them into the cathedral?” Many of the students would get the question wrong. I know,

because when they tell me that they do not know what the clause chunks to, I ask them that

question next – and many still have trouble answering it.

For years I have been telling students that it is the “little words” that give them the most

problems, and, as I began to think about that, I realized that most of those “little words” are

syntactic connectors. My students in my Introduction to Literature course, for example, also have

trouble with “as.” Donne’s “Valediction Forbidding Mourning” begins with “As.”

67

As virtuous men pass mildly away,

And whisper to their souls, to go,

My students, almost without exception, interpret this “as” as establishing a temporal relationship,

and thus they interpret the entire poem as being about the speaker’s death. The little words, the

syntactic connectors, often cause the most problems, and I would like to suggest that the study of

syntax is an excellent place to address some of those problems. To do so, we need to think about

“thought.”

Although I have been unable to relocate the specific reference, it was, I believe, Ann

Berthoff who defined a thought as “a mental apprehension of a relationship between an A and a

B with reference to a C.” That definition has continued to intrigue me, and it has done more so

since I became familiar with the philosophy of David Hume. If I understand him correctly, Hume

explains human understanding in terms of perceptions and logic. Our perceptions give us

concepts on which we then operate with logic. I would like to suggest that perceptions become

embodied in words, and that syntax (grammatical structure) expresses the logical relationships

(Berthoff’s “thoughts”) which we perceive among the concepts.

If this is true, then a conscious, analytical knowledge of syntax can be integrated into a

fundamental study of logic. Hume claimed that logical relationships fall into three categories –

identity, extension, and cause/effect. How does syntax convey these relationships?

Identity

Nouns, especially proper nouns, identify, but I doubt that either Berthoff or Hume would

consider a name as a thought or logical relationship. Perhaps the most basic syntactic

construction to express identity is the S / V / PN pattern.

The S / V / PN Pattern

In a sentence such as Mary is president, we have “Mary (an “A”), and “president” (a “B”)

embedded in an S / V / PN pattern which itself expresses the relationship of identity. Among

other things, the S/V/PN pattern is the expected beginning to any formal definition. Definitions

are expected in many courses, but, because grammar is taught so poorly and inconsistently,

teachers cannot explain this to students. It is simply meaningless to students who cannot identify

the pattern.

Appositives

68

An appositive is, from one point of view, a reduction of an S / V / PN pattern: Mary is a

biologist. Mary, a biologist, studies marine life. Thus, whenever we are dealing with appositives,

we are dealing with a logical relationship of identity.

The S / V / PA Pattern

Within Hume’s three categories, it seems that the S / V / PA pattern would also fall under

identity. The tomatoes are big describes the tomatoes and thus helps to identify them.

Adjectives

If we accept the S / V / PA pattern as expressing identity, then most, if not all, adjectives

must also be seen as expressing the same relationship since transformational/generative grammar

has shown that a sentence such as Tony grows big tomatoes is a combining of Tony grows

tomatoes. The tomatoes are big.

Prepositional Phrases and Subordinate Clauses

Having accepted adjectives into the group of grammatical structures which express identity,

it seems that we must also make room for prepositional phrases and clauses which function as

adjectives: The boy in the straw hat stole my banana. The boy who is in the straw hat stole my

banana.

Extension

By “extension,” Hume seems to have in mind extension in space and time. Most people

don’t think of space and time as involving logical relationships, but if it was good enough for

Hume, it is good enough for me. This is especially true since primary school students often need

to learn to get details of space and time into their own writing. Thus the logical concepts of space

and time can be an excellent way of introducing primary school students to the study of logic.

Prepositional Phrases

Many prepositions are used to indicate spatial and/or temporal relationships: The house is

beyond the hill. After Sue, Bill sang his song. Note, however, that the same phrase that expresses

extension may be used to express identity. In The house beyond the hill is not for sale, “beyond

the hill” is used to identify which house is being talked about.

Clauses

Adverbial clauses of time and place probably all fall under the category of extension. In

After Sue sang her song, Bill sang his, we have, in Berthoff’s terms, (A) “Sue sang her song,”

69

and (B) “Bill sang his song,” with a relationship (C) in time indicated by the subordinate

conjunction “After.” Likewise for place, I saw him where the accident occurred establishes a

spatial relationship between “him” and “where the accident occurred.”

Nouns Used as Adverbs

Nouns used as adverbs establish spatial or temporal relationships. In The accident occurred

five miles from here, “five miles” establishes spatial relationship between the accident and

“here.” In temporal relationships, as in He worked all day, we could consider the (A) to be “He

worked,” and the (B) to be the noun phrase “all day.” The grammatical function of the noun

phrase (Noun Used as an Adverb) is the (C) the temporal relationship between his working and

“all day.”

Cause/Effect

Although it would seem that basic cause/effect logical relationships would need little

explanation, in working on fallacies with college Freshmen I have found that many students have

real problems in identifying cause/effect statements.

Prepositional Phrases

The most obvious preposition for expressing a cause/effect relationship is “because of”—

Sam missed class because of illness. Phrases that express purpose also come under this category.

In He did it for her, the implied cause is his desire to please her or do as she desired.

Clauses

Clauses of cause, purpose and result obviously fall into this category.

Infinitives

Infinitives are frequently used to express purpose: She worked hard to win the game.

Noun Absolutes

Some noun absolutes clearly express cause/effect relationships. In Mary being absent, Bill

acted as president, most readers will see her absence as a cause of his acting as president.

Beyond Hume?I am not competent enough to be a serious critic of Hume, but in the course of studying the

logic of syntax, I have found what appear to be “logical” relationships that are not clearly

included in Hume’s triad.

70

Same and Different

Logical Operators: “And,” “Or,” and “But” (Coordinating Conjunctions)

In their discussions of fallacies, philosophers refer to “and” and “or” as “logical operators.” I

have added “but” because it appears to have a similar function. “And” reflects a sameness, but

not identity. The sameness appears not in the concepts themselves, but rather in their contexts.

Within clauses, this can be seen in the fact that the clauses can almost, if not always, be restated

as two separate clauses with the context repeated:

She plays baseball and football.

She plays baseball, and she plays football.

The use of “and” to join main clauses probably has a similar function. To my knowledge this has

never been studied, but it would be interesting to see which main clauses writers join with “and”

and which they do not.

The fame of “or” as a logical operator is most obvious in Boolean logic. “Or” seems to

require that either the concept or the context be identical (or at least similar), the other being

different: For example, if the concept (“boat”) is identical, the context is different – The boat will

float, or sink. If the concepts (“boys” and “girls”) are different, the context is identical – Either

the boys or girls will win.

When used as a coordinating conjunction, “but,” like “or,” implies both similarities and

differences – He wanted to play, but he couldn’t (play). It would be interesting to see if “but”

always implies some sort of negation or exception, but I am unaware of any studies that explore

this question. [Note the implied negation – There are no such studies.] Such a study, of course,

would require the collection of numerous examples, preferably from recognized “good” writers

and from novices, and then the exploration of the relationships expressed by “but.”

Semicolons

Many writers have, and still do, use a semicolon to join main clauses which include implied

similarities and differences. My favorite example of this is still He went swimming; she did the

dishes. In order to understand the implied difference in this example, however, one must also use

another logical operation, movement from the specific to the general – He played; she worked.

The semicolon, in this function, appears to be close to the “, but.”

71

General / Specific

Colons, and Dashes

Whereas semicolons can be used to emphasize contrasts in the ideas in main clauses, colons

(in formal writing) and dashes (in informal writing) are often used to express a general / specific

relationship: The weather is bad: it’s twenty degrees with a slow drizzle.

Appositives

Dashes are also used to set off appositives that reflect a general / specific relationship They

saw the animals at the zoo – the lions, tigers, bears, monkey, and giraffes.

Comparison / Contrast

Comparison / Contrast is, of course, related to similarities and differences, but a focus on

comparison / contrast involves specific syntactic markers, namely the prepositions “like” and

“as” and the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs. It also involves

(sometimes implicitly) the notorious “than,” which students have a bad habit of confusing with

“then.”

Manner (or Method) – Responses to the Question “How?”

I’m not sure that logicians would consider “manner” a logical relationship, but a quick scan

of students’ revisions of the Aluminum passage suggests that manner (method) needs to be

considered as a separate category. Whereas some students treated Workmen extract these other

substances from the bauxite. They grind the bauxite. as two statements of fact, others emphasized

method—Workmen extract the other substances by grinding the bauxite, .... This version has the

effect of distinguishing “extract” as the purpose, and “grinding” as the method for achieving that

purpose. Some students did the same with Workmen separate the aluminum from the oxygen.

They use electricity – Workmen separate the aluminum from the oxygen by using electricity.

Adverbs

Adverbs are, of course, often used to express manner – She stood rigidly at attention.

Prepositional Phrases

As suggested above, the most common preposition for expressing manner is “by.”

Clauses

In his discussion of clauses of manner, Roberts claims that the most commonly used

conjunctions are as, as if, as though, and in that. (Understanding Grammar, 321).

72

Gerundives

In their revisions of the Aluminum passage, some students used gerundives—Using

electricity, workmen separate the aluminum from the oxygen.

Commencement?

This essay is far too short to reach any conclusion, but it does suggest another way of

looking at syntax. Syntax is usually considered to be only “the relationships among the words in

sentences.” I hope that this essay has demonstrated that many, if not all, of those “relationships”

are logical, and that instruction in syntax can, and probably should, be extended into basic

instruction in logic.

Ballet Dancersin the Wings

(c. 1900)by

Edgar Degas(1834-1917)

Statistical ExercisesStatistical Exercises

and KISS Grammarand KISS Grammar

Although many English teachers are not enamored by statistics, statistical exercises are very

important for two reasons. First, they can provide useful information about students’ writing, not

only to teachers, but also to the students themselves. Second, used within the KISS framework,

they can be a primary source of motivation for students.

Most of the research on natural syntactic development was based on statistical studies. In the

1960’s, Kellogg Hunt demonstrated that the average length of students’ main clauses (which he

called “T-units”) naturally increases with age. Hunt called them “T-Units” because of the lack of

a standard definition for “main clause.” Hunt’s “T-unit” is the same as the KISS definition of a

main clause. Before Hunt’s work, researchers had been looking for a “yardstick” to measure

“syntactic maturity”—the way and rate at which sentences naturally grow longer and more

complex as people become more mature. Attempts to count words per sentence fail because third

and fourth graders write long sentences by compounding main clauses, especially with “and.”

Hunt’s work was reinforced by the studies of Roy O’Donnell and of Walter Loban. In the

following two tables, Loban’s data was taken from Language Development: Kindergarten

73

through Grade Twelve. Urbana, IL.: NCTE. 1976. 32. Hunt’s and O’Donnell’s data is from

Frank O’Hare’s Sentence Combining. Urbana, IL.: NCTE. 1971. p. 22.

Average Number of Words per Main Clause by Grade Level

Grade Level Loban’s Study Hunt’s Study O’Donnell’s Study

3 7.60   7.67

4 8.02 8.51  

5 8.76   9.34

6 9.04    

7 8.94   9.99

8 10.37 11.34  

9 10.05    

10 11.79    

11 10.69    

12 13.27 14.4  

Professional Writers   20.3  

The differences in the studies (such as O’Donnell’s showing 9.99 words/main clause for 7th

grade students and Loban’s showing 8.94) should raise questions, but there is little doubt that the

average number of words per main clause increases with age. Because a reader’s brain dumps to

long-term memory at the end of main clauses, the clearing of STM creates a rhythm to the text.

Even if readers can not identify main clauses, they can surely sense the difference in rhythm.

There are many questionable aspects to these studies. For example, what kind of writing did

the student do? Narrative writing (stories), for example, almost certainly involve fewer

cause/effect statements than do some expository topics. Then there are questions about the

students’ preparation on the topic that they were asked to write about. Perhaps most important,

exactly how were the writing samples analyzed—what counted for what? Sometimes, for

example, students’ writing is illegible. How does one count what one cannot decipher? It was, I

believe, Roy O’Donnell, who referred to these as “garbles.” Many of these studies simply

omitted garbles from the text. But how many garbles were there in the samples?

74

I had the opportunity of meeting Roy O’Donnell at a national conference, and I asked him

where the original samples were. His response was that they were probably in a box in

someone’s garage. It is an understandable response—at that time, of course, there was no

internet. If the samples of students’ writing were scanned and put on the internet (which is now

easily possible), such studies would be much more valid. Statistical studies, however, are

typically expensive and very time-consuming, and few, if any, such studies have been done to

follow up on this work after the seventies. (That is why the KISS statistical studies section is

called “Cobweb Corner.”)

All of these questions should make us cautious about how we use the results of such studies,

but as general guidelines for what should be taught when, and as instructional exercises for

students, these studies can be very helpful.

The studies that analyzed words per main clause, for example, also explored subordinate

clauses per main clause:

Subordinate Clauses per Main Clause by Grade Level

Grade Level Loban’s Study Hunt’s Study O’Donnell’s Study

3     .18

4 .19 .29  

5 .21   .27

6 .29    

7 .28   .30

8 .50 .42  

9 .47    

10 .52    

11 .45    

12 .60 .68  

Professional Writers   .74  

The large increase between seventh and eighth grade led Hunt and some of his colleagues to

conclude that subordinate clauses are mastered in seventh grade. This is an extremely

provocative and complicated question that I cannot discuss here in detail. It is interesting to note,

75

however, that in my experience seventh grade teachers are the ones who are most likely to

complain about the comma-splices, run-ons, and fragments in their students’ writing. These are

all clause-boundary errors that could be the result of their average and below-average students

struggling to get subordinate clauses into their writing.

Also interesting and relevant here is O’Donnell’s concept of “formulas”—strings of words

that children master as wholes without total mastery of the grammatical construction. By the

time they enter school, for example, most children have used subordinate clauses as direct

objects thousands of times after “formulas”” such as “Daddy said I could go.” Similarly, they

may learn and use many adverbial clauses as strings—“When it gets dark, come home.” My

point here is that if the results of these studies are valid, they pose a serious question about what

we should expect from—and what grammar we should teach—to students before they enter

seventh grade.

Unfortunately, the work of these researchers was abused as some educators began to assume

that longer equals better. Thus, many of the studies that supposedly show that teaching grammar

is useless (or even “harmful”) were based on sentence-combining exercises and then considered

the longer sentences as simply better—even if they contained more errors.

The trend toward sentence-combining led to many teachers simply bringing sentence-

combining exercises into their classrooms—for everyone to do. The teachers were almost always

unaware that in the studies that claimed sentence-combining is better, errors in the students’

writing had been eliminated before the final results were tallied. In one study that I am aware of,

the errors tripled in the writing of the students who did the sentence-combining.” And, as might

have been expected, sentence-combining is most effective with those students who are already

good at combining shorter sentences into longer ones. [1] When such exercises are brought into

the classroom for everyone to do, they simply push all students into writing longer sentences,

thereby, perhaps, pushing good writers into longer and weaker sentences.

The KISS Approach, of course, enables students to see what, how, and why when they are

combining sentences so that errors will not increase, but statistical exercises in KISS grammar

also enable students to see where they themselves are in relation to their classmates (and

everyone else for that matter). If nothing else, students can be given the results of the studies by

Hunt, O’Donnell, and Loban (above). Then, instead of an emphasis on longer, longer, and longer

76

sentences, most students should be encouraged to aim for the average. If, for example, they are

between eighth and eleventh grades, they (and their teachers) should be satisfied if they are

averaging ten words per main clause. Instead of pushing for more length, the instructional

emphasis should be on sentence variety, and control (i.e., avoiding errors.) With that control,

they will progress, naturally, into longer main clauses.

In the KISS Approach, students can start doing such studies of their own writing as soon as

they are fairly comfortable in KISS Level 3 (Clauses). In the approach, students put a vertical

line at the end of each main clause. To arrive at a figure comparable to that in the studies, all they

have to do is to count the words in the passage they wrote and are analyzing, and then divide that

number by the number of vertical lines. Most students will find themselves pleasantly pleased.

Some, however, will see for themselves that they are below the norm, and, human nature being

what it is, they will probably want to catch up, especially since the KISS Approach can give

them good, usable guidance for doing so.

The students that find themselves well above the norm raise some additional questions. The

first two are How much above the norm are they, and how error-free is their writing? If their

writing is basically error-free, and they are not much above the norm for professional writers (20

words per main clause), then they are fine. If their writing contains numerous errors, they should

be encouraged to simplify and gain control.

My college Freshmen often did such a study. As a class, they always averaged between 14.9

and 15.5 words per main clause. But I usually had three or four students who average close to 25

words per main clause. These students are, I firmly believe, hurting themselves. The KISS

psycholinguistic model helps students understand how and why. The model suggests that we

process incoming information in a very tight, seven-slot, working memory. Within those seven

slots, we probably handle not just the syntactic “chunking” of the sentence, but also some global

questions—such as the point of the entire paper, the topic sentences, etc. Any crash in the

processing may therefore cause a reader to lose track of important points of the paper. And the

longer the main clauses are, the more likely it will be that some readers will have trouble

processing them. An error that might be minor in a short main clause can cause a major crash in

a 30-word main clause. Students understand this, and thus statistical exercises can put a brake on

77

the push for more and more length. And, of course, the KISS Approach includes exercises in de-

combining as well as sentence-combining.

The National Council of Teachers of English has often claimed that students have a right to

their own language, but that right is meaningless unless students have some perspective on how

their language, their writing, compares with everyone else’s. Statistical exercises can give

students that perspective.

Kellogg Hunt raised another very interesting point in his “Early Blooming and Late

Blooming Syntactic Structures.” [2] In essence, he claimed that most high school students use

few, if any, appositives or gerundives. Both of these constructions can be seen as reductions of

subordinate clauses.

Subordinate Clause: Martha, who is a high school senior, wrote an excellent paper on

nuclear physics.

Appositive: Martha, a high school senior, wrote an excellent paper on nuclear physics.

Subordinate Clause: For a long time he struggled, as he tried to get the egg to go

through the neck of the bottle.

Gerundive: For a long time he struggled, trying to get the egg to go through the neck of

the bottle.

In an introduction to statistical studies, I cannot get into all the questionable aspects of this study,

but my own research supports it as does developmental theory—students cannot very well

master the reduction of subordinate clauses before they master subordinate clauses themselves.

Hunt’s essay is one of the primary reasons for KISS focusing on clauses in Level 3, and

leaving gerundives (and other verbals) to Level 4. Appositives are in Level 5. (The other primary

reason is that almost any text will include more clauses than it will gerundives or appositives.)

Another nice aspect of Hunt’s idea of “late blooming” constructions is that it enables teachers to

praise the “advanced” constructions that do occasionally appear in the writing of even the

weakest student writers.

For students, the value of doing a statistical analysis of their own writing probably cannot be

overstated, especially if it is done in the context of their classmates’ writing, or, if that is not

possible, in the context of the research studies discussed above. One advantage is that counting

78

constructions makes them look at the syntax of their own writing much more closely than they

normally would. For example, once they learn how to identify prepositional phrases, students can

place them in parentheses almost without thinking about them. Counting the prepositional

phrases, however, requires more time, but also provides a different perspective—how many do

they actually use? This becomes even more interesting if they can compare the number they use

to what their classmates are doing. In other words, let the students analyze their own writing and

then compare it to a norm.

I used to have my college Freshmen analyze a sample of their own writing for words per

main clause and for subordinate clauses per main clause. One class period was spent in small-

group work with the students checking each others’ analyses and statistics. In was not unusual

for a student to bring her or his paper to me and say, “Doctor Vavra, I don’t have any

subordinate clauses.” A quick check verified that, and I suggested sentence-combining exercises

from the KISS site. The students appeared to take the problem and the suggestion seriously,

especially since they could see for themselves, from what was going on in the class, that most of

their peers had at least a few subordinate clauses in their samples.

They could also see that other students were coming up to me to ask, “I have a subordinate

clause within a subordinate clause that is itself within a subordinate clause. Is that o.k.?” In such

cases, my answer was usually, “Yes, but you might want to consider some de-combining

exercises.” It was, I knew, near the end of the semester and most of these students would never

have formal work on grammar again. Few of them probably used my suggestions. But the point

is that these students were beginning to see and understand some basic aspects of their own

writing styles in the context of the writing of their peers. Students should probably do at least one

such statistical analysis of their own writing every year. And these studies should be kept so that

the students can see for themselves how their writing styles change as they grow older.

Perhaps an even more important example is a retired gentleman who was in an advanced

essay course that I was teaching many years ago. He wanted to write a book, but he said that first

he needed to improve his writing. The class met once a week, and after most classes, he and I

would chat about his writing. I couldn’t find any problems with it, and I kept probing to see what

he thought his problem was. Finally, he stated that one of his teachers had told him that his

sentences were too long. As soon as he said that, I knew what to do.

79

We took several samples of his writing and simply counted the number of words per main

clause. We then compared the result (21 words per main clause) with those of Hunt, O’Donnell,

and Loban. There was, in essence, nothing “long” about this gentleman’s sentences. But a

subjective comment by one of his teachers resulted in his feeling insecure about his writing not

only throughout the rest of his education, but also throughout his entire professional career!

Teachers, often without thinking, can do that. I have often heard teachers refer to sentences as

being “short and choppy,” although I myself have no idea of what they mean by “choppy.”

Subjective comments can hurt students, often seriously.

Statistical research, done by students on their own writing, and done in the context of that by

Hunt, etc. (and of some on this site) eliminates the subjectivity. And, as noted above, the

objective of the project is not only to enable students to see how their writing matches the

“norm,” but also to keep their writing within a reasonable range of that norm.

1. See “Words Enough and Time: Syntax and Error One Year After,” by Elaine P. Maimon and

Barbara F. Nodine. and “Sentence Expanding: Not Can, or How, but When,” by Rosemary

Hake and Joseph M. Williams in Daiker, Donald A., Andrew Kerek, & Max Morenberg,

eds. Sentence Combining and the Teaching of Writing: Selected Papers from the Miami

University Conference, Oxford, Ohio, October 27 & 28, 1978. The Departments of English,

University of Akron and the University of Central Arkansas, 1979.

2. “Early Blooming and Late Blooming Syntactic Structures.” In C.R. Cooper & L. Odell (eds.)

Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring, and Judging. Urbana: NCTE, 1977. 91-104.

How to Teach KISS Grammar—and WhyHow to Teach KISS Grammar—and Why

Harvestby

Maxfield Parrish

(1870-1966)

Teaching Grammar with the KISSTeaching Grammar with the KISS

Approach: “I Don’t Know”Approach: “I Don’t Know”

Many teachers and parents have been poorly prepared to teach grammar, and thus they are

extremely uncomfortable when they either want or have to teach it. I would like to suggest how

80

anyone can comfortably, even enjoyably, teach grammar by using the KISS Approach. The key

is in three simple words: “I don’t know.”

A major flaw of our educational system is that teachers are expected to have, and to be able

to dish out, the “correct” answers. Unfortunately, even most teachers have bought into this poor

assumption. But feeding students correct answers does not teach the students the really important

stuff – how to think and cook out good answers for themselves. Ideally, the KISS approach

invites any student to bring in any sentence to be analyzed in class. Even most teachers who

think they understand grammar are afraid to do this; for teachers who feel ill prepared, it seems a

nightmare. Obviously teachers need some understanding of the basic concepts, but they can get

what they need from the KISS web site. Among other things, they can start by using some of the

hundreds of free exercises and answer keys from the KISS site.

The real fun will begin, however, when a teacher has no answer keys. In the KISS approach,

a sentence goes up on the board (or on an overhead) and the STUDENTS do the analyzing. The

teacher’s job is mainly to act as moderator. When the students get stuck, the teacher’s response,

generally speaking, should be “I don’t know.” I learned this many years ago, when I was first

working out the fundamentals of the KISS Approach. I regularly took into the classroom

randomly selected passages that I myself had not yet analyzed. The students, who were working

at Level Five, got stuck on “Bill” in a sentence such as “Bill, close the door.” At the time, I had

not included Direct Address among the additional constructions. I was seated in the middle of the

room, and the students all turned to me for an answer. Stuck myself, I, as bravely and as calmly

as I could, said “I don’t know” while I frantically searched for an explanation. A minute or two

passed, and then a student said, “’Bill’ is an appositive to the implied subject, ‘you’.” “Brilliant!”

I said. And then all the students turned to me and said, “You knew all along. You just wanted us

to figure it out for ourselves.”

I lucked out, of course, but I also learned two things. First, Direct Address was added to the

additional constructions. Since that time, I have used the constructions and concepts of the KISS

Approach to analyze hundreds of passages. In the process a few additions and changes have been

made, such that you will probably not meet a word in a sentence for which KISS does not offer

an explanation. Second, and more importantly, I learned that students do not believe me when I

claim ignorance, and thus I learned to claim to be ignorant even when I am not. Doing so forces

81

students to think – and they actually enjoy it. I have, over the years, made many mistakes in front

of students. I have, for example, accepted infinitives as prepositional phrases, dutifully marking

them off in parentheses, only to be told by students that that answer is wrong. “Whoops, missed

that one, didn’t I?” Some students think I do it intentionally; others simply realize that teachers

are human and, like all humans, can make mistakes. Sometimes I even leave a question

unresolved at the end of class – “Think about it ‘til next class.” This gives me time to think

and/or consult colleagues. (Now, by the way, we have the KISS List, where you can post

questions and quickly get responses.

Sometimes a student will offer – and insist on – an explanation that I don’t like. I’ll try to

explain my reasons, but my ultimate response is to turn to the class with two questions. First, do

the members of the class understand the explanation? If they do not, then it’s not an effective

explanation. (It is, after all, that simple.) If members of the class do claim to understand, then I

ask if they like the explanation – and why. This procedure leads to what we’re after in the first

place – an intelligent discussion of the structure of English grammar. Such cases, by the way, are

extremely rare. They have never occurred in relation to something that was graded, but if such a

case should occur, I would put the question to the class, letting the class vote on whether or not

the student should get the points. Respect for students earns students’ respect. And it makes

teaching grammar a lot of fun.

Raphael'sSchool of Athens

Detail of Plato &Aristotle, 1511, FrescoStanza della Signatura,Vatican Palace, Rome

The Importance of MethodThe Importance of Method

Although the essays in the preceding section address what KISS Grammar can do, perhaps

the most important thing that KISS can do for students is to teach them the importance of

method. Although many educators make fun of the Grandgrind approach to education (memorize

and regurgitate), they continue to use it. In K-12, math may be the only subject in which teachers

insist on “showing one’s work,” but the very fact that math stands alone may explain why our

students have so much trouble with math. The importance of method in all areas of education is

82

so important that I ask you to bear with me and briefly explore the educational research of Arthur

Whimbey and Carol Dweck.

In 1993, Arthur Whimbey et al. published Blueprint for Educational Change. One of the

most important parts in that book is Whimbey’s report on his research. He attempted to

distinguish the differences between what he called “strong students” (those who get A’s and B’s)

and “weak students” (those who get D’s and F’s). He found two major differences. First,

“strong” students break almost every task down into steps—methodical procedures. “Weak”

students consider any task a one-shot job—either one knows how to do it, or one doesn’t.

Second, “strong” students are very concerned with details. They will do whatever they need to in

order to understand details and to use details in their work. “Weak” students don’t care about the

details.

For years I used to devote an entire class period (a huge investment of time for me) to a

presentation on Whimbey’s work. He gives, for example, a page of typical national exam

questions and then discusses what strong and weak students said about how they “solved” them.

We did several of them in class. One was “Which letter is as far away from K in the alphabet as J

is from G?” (p. 7) Whimbey notes that several “strong” thinkers “admitted they counted with

their hands in their pockets to avoid embarrassment—to conceal this hidden activity. The reason

for their secrecy is that there is a common myth that counting on one’s fingers is a childish

activity, reflecting lower mental ability when done by an adult.” Whimbey, however, argues that

such efforts to handle details are not at all childish. They are characteristic of “strong thinkers.”

But Whimbey explains still another important aspect of this example. The test is multiple-

choice, and there are two possible answers to the question—“H” and “N.” Some people did the

problem, arrived at “H,” but were frustrated, and apparently quit,” because “H” is not one of the

possible answers. Good thinkers, however, are not discouraged by failure. They tried counting in

the other direction and arrived at “N,” the correct choice on the exam. The class period devoted

to this presentation helped (I hope) at least a few students, but I continue to be frustrated by the

failure of many of my students either to break their writing down into some version of the

“writing process” or to be concerned with details. I’ll skip the numerous possible examples

related to writing, and focus on one related to KISS Grammar.

83

Recently a student came to see me to discuss the course work. Among other things, she said

she could not understand complements. I asked her for the rule on identifying complements.

(“Ask ‘whom or what?’ after the verb.”) She had not memorized it. Apparently, this detail was

not important. I pulled up the instructional material, went over the rule (which had “Memorize”

written next to it), and turned to an exercise. “This word is a verb. What is its complement?” She

hesitated, so I said “What answers the question “what?” after it. She told me. “So,” I said, “that

word is the complement.” Then I asked her for the rule on how to identify the types of

complements. (“If the complement describes the subject, it is a predicate adjective. If not, then if

the complement equals the subject in any way, and if the verb in any way means equals, the

complement is a predicate noun. If that is not the case, in our course, I will take indirect as direct

objects. In other words, the only choice left is “direct object.” (This is discussed in more detail

below.) Once again I had to lead her through the sequence, even though we had done this several

times already in class. We repeated the process two or three times. Then she said, “Oh, I guess I

can understand complements.” Many students are like her. They need to be led and re-led

through the use of simple procedures several times before they “get it.”

Carol Dweck, in Mindset (Ballantine, 2006), argues that the problem is deeply

psychological. Her discussion of “fixed” and “growth” mindsets parallels Whimbey’s in many

ways. Basically she argues that people with “fixed” mindsets believe that one either knows the

answer or does not. Like Whimbey’s “weak” thinkers, they avoid both process (method) and

details. People with “growth” mindsets, on the other hand, like Whimbey’s “strong thinkers,”

thrive on challenges, on the possibility of failure, and they go out and find the methods they

might need to succeed at a problem. But according to Dweck, it is not enough to simply inform

students about the differences between “strong” (“growth”) thinkers and “weak” (“fixed-

mindset”) thinkers. One has to repeatedly show people with fixed mindsets the importance of

method. They need to learn that there are no stupid people—everyone can learn—if they learn

how to learn. The KISS Approach to grammar is an excellent tool for doing this.

The key to KISS is the ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES—the methods. Instead of giving

definitions and a few simplistic examples, KISS gives students procedures (methods) that will

enable them to identify all the major grammatical constructions. If KISS is spread over several

84

years, as it should be, students will, in other words, be reinforced in the idea of both “method”

and “details” at several different stages of their work.

KISS Level One - The Basics

Identifying Verbs

Perhaps the most difficult thing for students to do in their study of grammar is to learn how

to identify verbs. Most textbooks define verbs as words that “show action or a state of being.”

When I was sixty, I finally guessed that “state of being” may have originated because many of

those verbs are forms (states?) of the verb “to be” -- “am,” “is,” “are,” “was,” and “were.” That

makes sense, however, only after one can identify verbs. For students, it is pure nonsense -- non

sense, as one philosopher loved to point out.

Approximately 80% of my college Freshmen cannot identify “was” or “were” as verbs. We

have 28 “lessons” in which to enable them to identify clauses. Because they have a lot of other

things to learn, in the first grammar lesson they are told to memorize “am,” “is,” “are,” “was,”

and “were” as verbs, verbs that must always be underlined twice. If you have more time, you can

add more words to this list, but the list is effective for making another point. There are some

things that I expect students to always get right. The underlining of these five verbs is one of

them. On the other hand, there are many mistakes that I expect students to make. As we go

along, I explain these, but the point is important. Students are expected to make mistakes as they

analyze sentences in the KISS Approach, but they should quickly learn that there are some things

that they must always get right. Details are important.

Beyond the listed verbs, students learn to identify verbs by practice. Definitions do not help.

Thus, expect students to make mistakes. Brief in-class reviews of exercises are excellent for this

purpose.

“Complements”

Sometimes, more is less. Traditional grammars rarely discuss “complements.” Instead, they

try to teach intransitive verbs, transitive verbs, linking verbs, and to define predicate nouns,

predicate adjectives, indirect objects, and direct objects. Such instruction is not effective.

Intransitive verbs are verbs that do not have a direct or indirect object. Transitive verbs have an

indirect and/or a direct object. “Linking verbs” have a predicate adjective or a predicate noun.

One problem here is that the textbooks give a sample list, always incomplete, of “linking verbs.”

85

Thus students are forced to memorize an incomplete list, but may still be left wondering what

type of verb “equals” is in “Two plus two equals four.” Another problem arises with “direct

objects.” They are often defined as the words that “receive the action of the verb.” But what

“action” does “books” receive in “They have five books”? (Every grammarian that I am aware of

considers “books” in that sentence to be a direct object.)

All of this ineffective and sometimes nonsensical “instruction” can be avoided by adding the

concept of “complement.” A complement is any word that answers the question “whom or

what?” after a verb. The question must be “whom or what?”, not “when?” “where?” “why?”

“how?” or anything else. Teaching students to identify complements is easy, but, as noted above,

many students will resist mastering a method (how) rather than facts (what). But as I tell my

students, many instructors in other fields (electronics, automotive, math, etc.) have complained

that students answer every question as if it were a “what” question. Instructors ask “How?”

Students tell them “what.” Instructors ask “Why?” Students tell them “what.” Thus, the very act

of focusing on the distinction between “whom or what” and all the other possible questions may,

in itself, improve students’ grades -- they will stop, think, and answer the question that is being

asked.

There are five, and only five types of complements -- zero (none), predicate adjectives,

predicate nouns, indirect objects, and direct objects. Having found a complement to a verb,

students can learn to identify its type by using a series of questions.

1. Does the complement describe the subject? If so, it is a predicate adjective. If not,

2. Does the complement in any way equal the subject and does the verb in any way

mean “equals”? If so, the complement is a predicate noun. If not,

3. Does the complement indicate what the verb is done to or for? If so, it is an indirect

object. If not,

4. The complement has to be a direct object.

The preceding sequence does not give traditional definitions (thereby excluding both the

distinctions in the three kinds of verbs and the nonsensical definition of “direct object”), but it

always works.

It also provides students with a systematic, easily applied procedure for identify the S/V/C

patterns in any text:

86

1. Find a verb.

2. Find its subject by asking “Who or what?” before the verb.

3. Find its complement by asking” Whom or what?” after the verb.

4. Use the sequence for determining the type of the complement (zero, predicate

adjective, predicate noun, indirect and/or direct object).

5 Check to see if there is another verb in the sentence.

It’s important to teach students to work systematically. Some students will underline a verb

here (without finding its subject), a complement there, etc. They never know when they are done,

and they usually do a poor job. Learning to work systematically is important in all subjects

(including math), and KISS Grammar can help students to learn that.

“Complement” is an important concept for another reason. The complement of one verb can

never be the subject of another verb. In a sentence such as “They saw the man who wrote the

book,” many students have trouble identifying the subject of “wrote.” If, however, they learn this

rule, they are forced into the right answer. Because “man” is the complement (direct object) of

“saw,” it cannot be the subject of “wrote.” The only other possibility is “who,” the correct

answer.

The last thing that we might note here is the effectiveness of the sequence for finding the

type of a complete as compared to the traditional list of “linking verbs.” “Groaned” has never, to

my knowledge, been included in a list of such verbs, but in Mary Renault’s The King Must Die,

students will find the sentence “The gate groaned open.” By using the KISS sequence, it is easy

to see that “open” is a predicate adjective because it describes the final state of the gate.

Note! Especially in the early grades, KISS includes some exercises devoted

specifically to the identification of predicate adjectives, predicate nouns, and indirect and

direct objects. They are provided for people who may want or need them, but you will be

doing you and your students a favor if you start with the exercises on “mixed”

complements. The “mixed” exercises will more or less force students into using the

sequence for determining the types of complements. You may not need to use the

exercises on specific types of complements.

Adjectives and Adverbs

87

Some textbooks spend a fair amount of time and space defining and describing adjectives

and especially adverbs. But not all adverbs end in “-ly,” and some adjectives do (“friendly”).

KISS focuses on the functions of words within a sentence. Thus:

If a word describes a noun or pronoun, it is an adjective.

If a word describes a verb, adjective, or another adverb, it is an adverb.

This explanation can be found in many textbooks, but it often gets lost in a mass of other

material. Note that if students learn to identify adjectives and adverbs in this way, they will have

little trouble in adapting the method to the prepositional phrases, subordinate clauses, verbals,

and other constructions that function as adjectives and/or adverbs. (See the essay on “Nexus and

Modification.”)

KISS Level Two - Expanding the Basics

Phrasal Verbs, the Importance of Meaning, and Alternative Explanations

I love the sentence “Put on your thinking cap!” in part because it demonstrated to me that

many grammarians, including those who write textbooks, don’t think. In English, many verbs are

actually phrases with words that look like prepositions at the end of them -- “put on.”

Grammarians give these verbs a variety of names, of which “phrasal verbs” is one. The

grammarians, however, don’t try to teach students to use their knowledge of grammar to analyze

real texts. Instead, they “discuss” grammatical terms.

When I used this sentence as an example, I noted that students need to think about the

meaning of the sentence. I did so because if you ask students to put parentheses around

prepositional phrases, many students will unthinkingly place parentheses around “on your

thinking cap.” The sentence, however, does not mean to place something “on your ... cap.” It

means to place your thinking cap on your head.

The grammar teachers to whom I was writing, however, ignored the problem of teaching

students, and instead debated the various terms for describing such verbs and whether or not

specific verbs are, or are not, phrasal. Thus one teacher said that “put on” is one because it can be

replaced by “donned.” (What fourth grader will think of “donned” as a substitute for “put on”?)

KISS method should stress the meanings of sentences, and it should allow alternative

explanations.

88

Some grammarians, for example, consider “look at” as a “must be” phrasal verb, whereas

other grammarians consider it to be a verb “look,” plus a preposition. Because grammarians

disagree, KISS allows alternative explanations. For example, in a sentence such as “They were

looking at the doggie in the window,” KISS allows students to explain “look at” as the verb, and

“doggie” as its direct object, or to explain “look” as the verb and “at the doggie” as a

prepositional phrase. Note how this example differs from “put on” in that either explanation

reflects the meaning of the sentence.

Distinguishing Finite Verbs from Verbals

Verbals are verbs that function as nouns, adjectives or adverbs. In order to identify clauses,

students need to learn to distinguish verbals from finite verbs -- the verbs that form clauses. I am

unaware of any pedagogical grammars that even attempt to enable students to do this, perhaps

because “finite verbs” are almost impossible to define to people who do not understand

grammatical tense and person. Here again, therefore, more (the term “verbal”) is actually less

complicated and process (method) is important. To teach students to distinguish finite verbs from

verbals, make them learn the three “tests”:

1. The Noun Test -- A verb that functions as a noun (a subject, a complement, or the

object of a preposition) is not a finite verb. (Do not underline it twice.)

2. The ‘To” Test -- A finite verb phrase cannot begin with “to.” Thus in “Bob went to his

room to do his homework,” “to do” is not a finite verb. (Do not underline it twice.)

3. The Sentence Test -- If you are not sure about whether or not to underline a verb twice:

a. Find the subject of that verb.

b. Make a simple sentence using that subject and verb --without adding any

words, and without changing the form or meaning of the verb.

c. If the sentence does not seem to be an acceptable sentence, the verb is not

finite.

Remember that the details of verbals are the focus of KISS Level Four. Here, your objective is

simply to enable students to know which verbs to underline twice and which not to. It will take a

little practice, but the tests almost always work.

KISS Level Three - Clauses (Subordinate and Main)

KISS Level 3.1 - The Basics of Clauses

89

The Definition of a Clause

A clause is a subject / finite verb / complement pattern and all the words that chunk to

it. Make students memorize and use that definition. There are no exceptions to it. Any part of a

clause can be compounded, and, as you will see if you examine random sentences, subjects,

verbs, and/or complements can all be ellipsed (left out). But for students who have learned to

identify S/V/C patterns, clauses are relatively easy to master if they use the definition and

another method—another Boolean sequence.

Always have students analyze sentences systematically. Prepositional phrases first, then

S/V/C patterns. Because a clause is an S/V/C pattern and all the words that chunk to it, there will

be one clause for every such pattern. If there is only one pattern in a sentence, have students

simply put a vertical line | after it.

Identifying Clauses

KISS introduces the term “clause” in KISS Level Three with exercises on compound main

clauses. You will find exercises on compound main clauses in many different sections of the

KISS materials--for an interesting reason. Students’ inability to sense main clause boundaries

results in three of the most discussed punctuation errors -- comma-splices, run-ons, and

fragments. And most of these errors reflect thought on the students’ part -- and failure in current

instruction. These errors often result from the students’ sense that there is a logical relationship

between the two sentences that are spliced or run together. (A “comma-splice” denotes joining

two main clauses with just a comma; a “run-on” denotes running one main clause into another

with no punctuation that separates them.) Most traditional instruction tends to tell students to

“fix” their errors by using a period and a capital letter. Doing so, however, hides the very logic

that resulted in the error. In most cases, these errors are better fixed with a semicolon, colon, or

dash. Thus KISS starts with compound main clauses AND the logic behind their being

compounded.

Once students get a general sense of compound main clauses, KISS introduces the

subordinate clauses. The grade-level book for third grade introduces students to compound main

clauses, and then to subordinate (noun) clauses that function as direct objects. The latter is

simply because these students read and write so many sentences of the type “He thought

[subordinate clause]” and “Mary said [subordinate clause]” As always, KISS attempts to

90

introduce constructions in terms of their frequency, thereby enabling students to analyze of much

of real texts as possible.

Here we come to a point where the teachers’ art is extremely important. Our objective is to

enable students to explain the clause structure of as many real sentences as possible. Teachers

need to decide whether they want a long, slow learning curve, or a short fast one. The curve,

moreover, has two slopes -- students have to determine the type of each subordinate clause

(noun, adjective, adverb), and they also need to learn how to untangle sentences that have

subordinate clauses within subordinate clauses that are within subordinate clauses, etc.

The method for identifying clauses is relatively simple:

1. If a sentence has only one S/V/C pattern, put a vertical line after it and go on to the

next sentence.

2. If a sentence has more than one S/V/C pattern:

A. Check for subordinate conjunctions.

B. Start with the last S/V/C pattern and work backwards.

The instructional materials include a list of words that can function as subordinating

conjunctions.

Distinguishing the Types of Clauses

In the KISS Approach, clauses, like almost every other construction, are distinguished by

their functions. Consider, for example, the sentence

Kara saw John playing soccer in the park where she was playing baseball with her friends.

Because students are expected to learn how to distinguish finite verbs from verbals in KISS

Level 2.1.6, they should realize that “John playing soccer” is not a finite verb, and thus this

sentence has only two S/V/C patterns:

Kara saw John (DO) playing soccer in the park where she was

playing baseball (DO) with her friends.

If they follow the procedure, students should recognize “where” as a subordinating conjunction.

Thus “where” will be the first word in a subordinate clause. If students are paying attention to

meaning (which is a major aspect of the procedures), they should also realize that “with her

friends” goes with “was playing.” Thus (even if they do not recognize “with their friends” as a

prepositional phrase) they should see that the last word in this clause is “friends.” Therefore they

91

should put an opening bracket before “where” and a closing bracket after “friends.” In this

sentence, the clause further identifies, and therefore chunks to “park.” Because “park” is a noun,

the clause is adjectival.

Note that if the sentence were “Kara saw John playing soccer where she was playing

baseball with her friends,” the “where” clause would chunk to “saw” and/or “playing” and thus

function as an adverb.

Again applying the definition of a clause, the first word of the “Kara” clause is “Kara,” and

the last word, since the “where” clause chunks to “park,” is “friends.” And since every sentence

must have at least one main clause, this must be it. A vertical line after “friends” thus completes

the analysis of clauses in this sentence. Learning and applying the procedure will enable the

students, with some practice, to identify adverbial, adjectival, and the various types of noun

clauses.

The question for teachers here is “Should you start with separate exercises on the various

types of clauses (adverbial, etc.), or should you start with mixed exercises--exercises that include

all three types of clauses. In the grade-level books, KISS presents a group of mixed exercises

first. These are followed by groups of exercises on the various types of clauses, should your

students need them.

Untangling Embedded Clauses

The other slope of the curve is learning to untangle embedded clauses. Consider the

following sentence, written by a fourth grader:

I was putting the bacon (DO) in the microwave [when my sister asked

Alice (IO) and me (IO) [how high she should put the eggs (DO) on]]. |Beginning at the end of the sentence, the “how” clause functions as the direct object of “asked,”

and is therefore part of the “sister asked” clause. The “when” clause functions as an adverb to

“was putting,” and “I was putting bacon” is the S/V/C pattern of the main clause.

Students will need some practice with untangling clauses like these. In the instructional

books, you will find a group of exercises on these placed before the group on additional noun

clauses, simply because embedded clauses are more frequent than are clauses that function as

subjects, predicate nouns, or objects of prepositions. (Exercises on noun clauses used as direct

92

objects--perhaps the most frequent use of subordinate clauses--immediately follow the group of

mixed clauses.)

Remember that the grade-level workbooks are intended as an example of how KISS can be

taught and for your convenience. If you are working on clauses with fourth graders, you might

want to ignore the workbooks and use the set of nineteen sample essays written by fourth

graders. The instructional materials and the procedures will still work, students can learn to

recognize clauses simply from the texts of their peers, and you can expect them to make mistakes

with the “Advanced Questions.”

KISS Level 3.2 - Advanced Questions about Clauses

The “Advanced Questions” probably involve less than five percent of the clauses you will

find in randomly chosen texts. Teachers should probably browse the instructional materials and a

few examples of these, but they should focus on Level 3.2 only after students have a fairly firm

mastery of Level 3.1. The grade-level books do introduce the “So/For” (Level 3.2.2) question in

grade four, simply because many of the stories third and fourth graders read include “for” as a

conjunction. Note Also that in the grade level books, fourth grade is basically devoted to KISS

Level 3.1, and fifth grade to KISS Level 3.2.

There are, it should be noted, some clauses that students should not be expected to be able to

explain in KISS Level Three. These are primarily subordinate clauses that function as retained

complements, as delayed subjects, or as appositives. The reason here is that all three of these

types depend on an understanding of KISS Level Five constructions. (See KISS Level Five,

below.)

KISS Level Four - Verbals (Gerunds, Gerundives, and Infinitives)

In KISS Level 2.1.6, students learn to distinguish finite verbs from verbals so that they will

not underline verbals twice. The remaining instruction in verbals (understanding the three types,

their subjects, and their functions) is left to KISS Level Four because an understanding of clauses

is more important than an understanding of verbals. Note also that if students cannot recognize

finite verbs, they will try to explain them as verbals.

Learning to distinguish the types of verbals is a little complex in that students need to

recognize verb forms, especially “participles.” Although some participles are irregular, most end

93

in “-ing” or “-ed.” Gerunds and gerundives are participial in form; infinitives are usually not so.

Learning this distinction will take some practice, but here again procedure is important. Having

identified a verbal, students should follow this analytical sequence:

1. Look for gerunds first. Gerunds always function as nouns.

2. Any participle that is not a gerund is probably a gerundive. Gerundives function as

adjectives.

3. Any verbal that is not a gerund or gerundive has to be an infinitive. There is no other

option. Infinitives can function as nouns, adjectives, or adverbs.

This procedure eliminates the cumbersome (and often incomprehensible to students) definition

of an “infinitive.” Many, but not all infinitives can be identified by the “to” that marks them, and

some tenses of infinitives end with participles. You will find, however, that these tenses appear

relatively infrequently.

Another important part of instruction here is the exercises you use to teach students to

identify the various verbals. As always, KISS presents a section on “Mixed Verbals” first. If the

students use the procedure just described, they should be able to learn to identify the types and

functions of almost any verbal in any text fairly quickly -- without a special focus on gerunds,

gerundives, or infinitives. The students, after all, already know the functions. Gerunds can

function in any what that a noun can (subject, direct object, etc.) Gerundives always function as

adjectives, and infinitives can function as adjectives, adverbs, or in any way that a noun can.

True, they can also function as interjections, but students who have learned to identify

interjections should even be able to realize when an infinitive is functioning as an interjection.

The section on mixed verbals is followed by sections that focus on gerunds, on gerundives,

and finally, on infinitives, and these three sections include two or three exercises that do focus on

identification, just in case you feel that your students need them. In most cases, I suggest you

skip the ID exercises, but these three sections also contain exercises on style, logic, sentence-

combining, and punctuation which you may want to use.

The sections on infinitives are the longest, with eleven exercises, the first three of which are

devoted to mixed exercises on infinitives. Of the three types of verbals,, infinitives have the

widest range of functions -- subjects, predicate adjectives, predicate nouns, direct objects, objects

of prepositions, appositives, interjections, delayed subjects, and, of course, adjectives, and

94

adverbs. There is also the question of ellipsed infinitives, as in “They made Judy president.” You

may want to have your students do the mixed exercises, but be frugal (of time and energy) in

determining to use all the exercises in this section.

KISS Level Five - Noun Absolutes and Seven Other Constructions

KISS Level Five was originally designed as a “mop-up” operation that includes eight

constructions. If you are trying to teach KISS in a single year, you will almost certainly not be

able to do a good job and include these constructions. But if you spread KISS across several

years, you can include many of these constructions earlier in the instructional sequence. Indeed,

the noun absolute is the only construction that must remain at KISS Level Five--the end of

instruction. That is because the noun absolute is a noun plus gerundive (KISS Level Four)

construction. If you try to teach noun absolutes before students can recognize gerundives, you

will confuse many of your students. Note that throughout the KISS Approach, instruction is

cumulative, and students should always be expected to identify prepositional phrases, S/V/C

patterns, clauses, and then verbals. They will recognize verbals because they are the verbs that

the students have not underlined twice. They will recognize many noun absolutes because they

are a noun plus gerundive construction that they have not chunked to the rest of the sentence, as

in “Yet here she was now, her pale profile outlined against the moonlight.”

When and if you want to introduce the other seven constructions depends on your objectives

and how much time you want to spend on grammar each year. In the grade-level books, simple

interjections, nouns used as adverbs, and direct address are introduced in grade three, primarily

because they are relatively easy to understand and because they appear frequently in the reading

and writing of primary school students. Delayed Subjects and Passive Voice (including retained

complements) are introduced in grade five. In part, the objective here was to introduce passive

voice as early as possible because passive voice is an important stylistic question. The last of the

eight, appositives, and post-positioned adjectives, are introduced in grade six, although they

could probably be introduced earlier if students have a good command of subordinate clauses.

Throughout this essay, I have tried to suggest the importance of method both for the

students, who need to learn how to identify constructions, and for teachers, who need to think

about the sequence in which they expect students to learn. To expect students to understand “B”

(clauses) without having given them the ability to identify “A” (S/V/C patterns) will simply

95

confuse and frustrate them. But perhaps more significantly, emphasizing “method” repeatedly

and in different contexts impresses on students the most important characteristics of “strong,”

“growth-mindset” people. In teaching KISS, you are not just teaching grammar. You are

teaching students how to think better.

Jerome Bruner’s Jerome Bruner’s

Concept of the Spiral CurriculumConcept of the Spiral Curriculum

The lower middle section of

Diego Velazquez'sLas Meninas

1656, Oil on canvas, Museo del Prado,

Madrid

The KISS pedagogical perspective is highly influenced by the work of Jerome Bruner.

Among other things, Bruner argues for “a spiral curriculum in which ideas are first presented in a

form and language, honest though imprecise, which can be grasped by the child, ideas that can

be revisited later with greater precision and power until, finally, the student has achieved the

reward of mastery.” (On Knowing, 107-8)

KISS Grammar is built around this philosophy. One linguist, for example, objected to the

initial KISS presentation of prepositional phrases, noting that it is too simple and does not

include phrases that include clauses. But, as is explained in several of the other essays, KISS is

designed around five levels that form a spiral curriculum. The levels are also designed to teach

the easiest and most frequently occurring constructions first. Consider the question of

prepositional phrases.

In the first level, students are taught to identify simple prepositional phrases -- “in the

house,” “around the yard,” “with blue eyes.” At this level, the KISS objectives are to enable

students to understand the concept of a prepositional phrase, to learn to recognize the most

common prepositions, and to learn how to ask the question “whom or what?” after a preposition

to identify the phrase. Later, in Level Two, KISS spirals back to prepositional phrases. At this

level, students refine their concept by learning to distinguish prepositions from words that look

like prepositions, but that may not be, as in “Put on your thinking cap.” Level Two also gives

students a clearer concept of prepositional phrases by helping them distinguish when “to” is and

is not a preposition. (Some grammar textbooks may touch on this question, but if students are

going to analyze real sentences, they will need more practice here than most textbooks provide.)

96

At this level, students also learn to use a simple sentence-test to distinguish when words

such as “after” function as a preposition, and when they do not. If a sentence answers the

question “what? after a word that looks like a preposition, then the word is not a preposition:

a.) They watched television after dinner.

b.) They watched television after they ate dinner.

Because “they ate dinner” could be a sentence, the “after” in (b.) in not a prepositional phrase.

Some teachers might want to rush in and teach students that in (b.) “after they are dinner” is a

subordinate clause. In KISS, however, it is perfectly acceptable to tell students that it is a

subordinate clause, but KISS suggests that you not teach subordinate clauses at this point.

Simply tell the students that they will learn about clauses in KISS Level Three. For now, they

need to learn how to identify prepositional phrases in real texts.

KISS Level Three begins with the concept of “clause” and compounded main clauses. It

does not take most students long to master these two concepts, and once they have, KISS

introduces subordinate clauses. Here, the concept of clauses that function as objects of

prepositions is formally introduced -- “They were talking about what they want to do on Friday.”

In the fifth level, the concept is expanded still more to include phrases with noun absolutes --

“With paint splattered all over, it didn’t look like a professional job.” As Bruner suggests,

students cannot master all of this at one time. The simple concepts need to be presented and

mastered first.

Bruner makes another important point that probably also distinguishes the KISS Approach

to grammar from almost all others: “Perhaps the most basic thing that can be said about human

memory, after a century of extensive research, is that unless detail is placed into a structural

pattern, it is rapidly forgotten.” (Process, 24.) Most approaches to grammar focus on individual

constructions. The students study them, and then leave them to go on to another construction.

These pieces are never put together into a structural pattern that students can use to analyze and

discuss their own writing. A KISS approach, on the other hand, teaches students to use a limited

number of grammatical concepts to analyze (and thus be able to discuss) the structure of

sentences. It adds constructions to the students’ analytical toolbox, but the student must always

use the constructions that were previously studied. In effect, the students gain conscious mastery

of the “structural pattern” of English.

97

As you use the KISS Approach, you may see that it spirals with other constructions. For

example, simple subordinate clauses are taught in Level 3.1. Here students should learn to

identify the frequent clauses that function as nouns, adjectives, or adverbs. Once students have

mastered these, KISS Level 3.2 introduces several advanced questions about clauses, for

examples, semi-reduced and other ellipsed clauses and clauses that can be explained as

interjections. But even at this level, students will not be able to explain the function of every

clause they may find in a text. Both subordinate clauses that function as appositives and

subordinate clauses that function as delayed subjects are introduced in KISS Level Five. The

principle is simple--start with the simplest and most frequently used types of a construction.

Once students have mastered these, KISS spirals back to add examples from the outer fringes.

(See the following essay on Piaget and Vygotsky.)

Natural Syntactic Development:Natural Syntactic Development:

Vygotsky’s “Zones” Vygotsky’s “Zones”

and Piaget’s “Plateaus”and Piaget’s “Plateaus”

Destinyby

John W. Waterhouse

(1849-1917)

Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky are generally recognized as major founders of what is known

as “cognitive psychology.” If you explore what grammar is currently being taught in our schools,

you may find that some linguists are now proposing that students be taught one or another form

of “cognitive” grammar. It may be that such grammars have some use somewhere, but basically

they miss two primary educational principles proposed by both Piaget and Vygotsky. First, both

Piaget and Vygotsky claimed that cognitive mastery entails “reversibility.” Second, both argued

that natural intellectual development is “developmental,” a term now frequently used in

education, but often misunderstood. Both of these principles apply to KISS Grammar.

Reversibility?

“Reversibility” simply means that a mental operation is not cognitively mastered until and

unless the learner can reverse that operation. As a simple example, no one really understands the

concept of addition unless he or she also understands the idea of subtraction. One does not

understand how a car engine works unless one can take it apart and put it back together again

98

correctly. In grammar, no one cognitively understands passive voice unless they can restate the

same basic idea in active voice.

In KISS, reversibility is most important in stylistic exercises in which students are asked, for

example, to rewrite compound main clauses by making one clause subordinate and then are

asked to rewrite sentences that have a subordinate clause as compound main clauses. In essence,

these are exercises in stylistic flexibility, but how they should be used is best seen in the context

of “developmental” education.

What is “Developmental”?

Simply put, for both Piaget and Vygotsky “developmental” means that some things naturally

need to be learned (mastered) before a child can possibly do or understand other things. A child

must be able to walk before he can run. A child must be able to play catch before she can play

baseball. Children must understand words before they can begin to talk in sentences. These

examples, of course, are almost silly, but they illustrate the principle, and the principle applies to

vast areas of knowledge. A person who cannot understand percentages cannot make wise

decisions about interest rates. Although both psychologists developed the concept of

“developmental,” they used different images to illustrate their ideas.

Vygotsky used the image of two concentric

circles to explain what he called the “zone of

proximal development.” The inner circle

symbolizes knowledge that the child has already

mastered. The area between the two circles is the

“zone,” and the area beyond the outer circle

represents concepts that the child simply will not

be able to understand until the material within the

“zone” has been mastered. In math, for example,

multiplication makes no sense to a child who

cannot understand addition, and algebra makes no

sense to a student who cannot understand multiplication.

Vygotsky’s “zone” has major implications for understanding both the learning and the

teaching of grammar. Consider, for example, how children learn the forms of the past tense. At

99

first, they have no concept of it at all. At that point, the regular, most frequently used forms of

past tense are in their “zone.” The irregular forms are beyond the zone. Thus we all said things

such as “Daddy readed me a story.” It is only after the child has mastered the regular forms that

the zone expands to include the irregular forms. At that point, children teach themselves the

correct forms -- “Daddy read me a story.”

The KISS Levels reflect Vygorsky’s zones. KISS Level One teaches students how to

identify basic subjects, verbs, and prepositional phrases. It takes students time to learn to identify

the prepositions and the very concept of “phrase.” Once they have mastered those constructions,

their “zone” expands such that they are capable to understanding KISS Level Two questions

such as when “to” is and is not a preposition. If students are introduced to KISS Level Two

materials before they have mastered KISS Level One, the materials will be outside their zone of

proximal development. Students will not understand, they will be confused, and they will begin

to hate grammar.

Vygotsky’s zones not only justify Bruner’s “spiral curriculum” (discussed in the previous

essay), but they also explain why we should expect students to make mistakes when we ask them

to analyze randomly selected texts. It is very easy to distinguish what mistakes we expect

students to make. Irregular forms and irregular constructions will be beyond the zone of students

who have not mastered the normal, most frequently used constructions. But as the example of

“readed” suggested, exercises should also include items which students are expected to get

wrong. Perhaps one major reason for the failure of our educational system is that what is taught

has been extremely oversimplified, specifically so that students will “get it” and not make any

mistakes. The result has been that our students have become conditioned to being “right.” The

minute they hit anything that confuses them, they simply give up. As Agatha Christie suggested

in The Murder at the Vicarage, “They take refuge behind a mask of stupidity.” But that mask is

the death-mask of their education.

Two concentric circles form an interesting image for understanding and discussing how

cognitive learning takes place, but they do not easily reflect the time required for cognitive

mastery.

Piaget used the image of plateaus, primarily perhaps, because

he wanted to emphasize that, as we watch a child develop, there

100

appear to be long periods when nothing seems to be happening. He argued that we should expect

and accept this. In essence, children need to consolidate and become comfortable at one level

before they can advance to the next, no matter what the “learning” may concern. If we apply

Piaget’s plateaus to instruction in grammar, we should make a distinction between the ability to

consciously identify and discuss the structure of sentences and “natural syntactic development.”

The ability to identify and discuss is, of course, what KISS Grammar is all about. From this

perspective, the “levels” in Piaget’s plateaus can be compared to the KISS instructional levels.

Students need not just to learn, but to become comfortable with their ability to identify subjects,

verbs, etc. before they can begin to master identifying clauses. Thus each KISS level can be

viewed as a plateau at which students will need to spend a fair amount of time, even a year or

more, before they move up to the next level. But this instructional sequence should probably be

introduced in the context of natural syntactic development, a concept proposed by Kellogg Hunt

and his colleagues.

Unlike conscious analytical ability, “natural syntactic development” refers to children’s

ability to use various grammatical constructions in speech and writing. There is a wealth of

research on natural syntactic development, but most of it focuses on how language develops

before students enter school. For example, when do children learn to distinguish words that

denote one (singular) from those that denote more than one (plural). Hunt and his colleagues,

however, focused on how students’ syntax develops after they enter school. Their conclusions

resulted from statistical studies on the appearance of various grammatical constructions in the

writing of students at different grade levels. There are numerous questions about their research,

but their basic conclusions deserve much more consideration than they have been given.

One of their more interesting conclusions is that subordinate clauses blossom around

seventh grade! In essence, graphs of the appearance of subordinate clauses (per main clause)

show a spike at seventh grade. Even many grammarians have derided the idea that most students

“master” subordinate clauses only as late as seventh grade, but these grammarians (and others)

have not taken the time to understand the complexities discussed in the work of these

researchers.

Obviously subordinate clauses can be found in the writing of much younger students. Hence,

the deriders simply dismiss the conclusion. But Roy O’Donnell, one of Hunt’s colleagues,

101

proposed that the “subordinate clauses” in the speech and writing of many young children are

“formulas.” As children we mimicked the speech that we heard. Young children, for example,

frequently hear “When daddy gets home , . . . .” “When we get there, . . .,” “When it stops

raining, . . . .” They assimilate these “strings” into their speech (and writing) as formulas.

O’Donnell does not discuss cognitive grammar, but he would probably have said that these

“formulas” are just strings -- they do not represent cognitive mastery of subordination and

subordinate clauses.

This whole question of the natural development of subordinate clauses deserves far more

study, but the National Council of Teachers of English banned the teaching of grammar and

thereby killed any interest (and funding) for such research. Additional statistical studies would

either support or undercut the conclusion. But another way of researching the question would be

to apply the concept of reversibility. At what grade level can students learn, relatively easily, to

reverse subordination, i.e., to take a passage that includes subordinate clauses and change most,

if not all, of the subordinate clauses into main clauses?

Hunt suggested another interesting theory about natural syntactic development when he

claimed that participles (KISS gerundives) and appositives are “late-blooming constructions. He

basically suggested that these two constructions develop after subordinate clauses, perhaps as

late as high school, or even later than that. This idea has also been pooh-poohed by many

educators (perhaps because they have a lot of pooh in them?) Unfortunately, Hunt based his

conclusion on writing samples in which students were given a short text written in very short

sentences. The students were asked to rewrite the text so that it sounded better to them. In other

words, the students were not writing; they were rewriting someone else’s text in their own

words. The implications of this difference deserve a lot of questions, but it is highly probable that

the “writing” task resulted in fewer gerundives and appositives than would have appeared in

samples derived from the students’ expression of their own ideas. The difference, however,

would probably only affect the time-frame in Hunt’s conclusion. Put differently, Hunt was

almost certainly correct that these are “late-blooming” constructions, but they probably bloom in

the writing of many students well before the end of high school.

What neither Hunt nor his detractors considered was any theory of natural syntactic

development. Hunt and his colleagues used statistical studies to prove that natural syntactic

102

development really happens, and that it happens in a fairly well-determined sequence. They did

not fully consider why or how it happens. The process is complex, but its basic motors are

probably very simple -- compounding, reduction, and embedding.

The fundamental idea of natural syntactic development is, of course, that children’s

sentences naturally become longer and more complex as the children age. In its earliest stages

such development is reflected in the production of what are still very simple sentences. The

child’s “Sally played a game. And Billy played the game.” becomes “Sally and Billy played a

game.” The compound subject is created by reducing “And Billy played the game” to “and

Billy” which becomes embedded in the first sentence, thereby creating the compound subject.

There are numerous variations of this simple process which result in a “simple” sentence. A

simple S/V/PA pattern disappears when the predicate adjective is embedded in the preceding

sentence. “We live in a big house. The house is brown.” becomes “We live in a big brown

house.” An adverbial prepositional phrase disappears as its own S/V pattern is reduced to

nothing and the phrase is embedded in a preceding pattern: “We went to the store. The store is on

Billings Street.” becomes “We went to the store on Billings Street.” It was, if I remember

correctly, Hunt who described natural syntactic being “glacially slow,” but it probably appears

slow to use because the changes just described appear so simplistic to adults that adults don’t

even sense them as growth. But they are, and it takes a long plateau for students to master them.

The development of the subordinate clause, on another hand, is significantly different. Here

we have an entire S/V/C pattern -- which remains an S/V/C pattern -- embedded into another

S/V/C pattern. As noted previously, students will probably have been using “subordinate

clauses” as formulas before they develop cognitive mastery of such clauses. But that mastery

takes time and in many cases may not even occur. (See below.) Hunt and his colleagues

suggested that such mastery occurs around seventh grade. Why should the mastery of appositives

and gerundives occur after that?

For most students, gerundives and appositives are probably mastered as reductions of

subordinate clauses:

Main Clauses: Bill was going to the store. He saw an accident.

Subordinate Clause: Bill, who was going to the store, saw an accident.

Gerundive: Going to the store, Bill saw an accident.

103

Main Clauses: Tom Hanks is an actor. He played Forest Gump.

Subordinate Clause: Tom Hanks, who is an actor, played Forest Gump.

Appositive: Tom Hanks, an actor, played Forest Gump.

Obviously, this explanation for the late blossoming of gerundives and appositives requires more

research to support it, but it does explain why gerundives and appositives probably are late-

blooming constructions.

Why Should Anyone Care about Natural Syntactic Development?

Many years ago, when my son was in second grade, I was trying to help him with his

English homework. It was a sentence-combining exercise. Among other things, he was asked to

combine two sentences by using an appositive:

Mary is a biologist. She studies fish.

He couldn’t get it, so I did it for him -- “Mary, a biologist, studies fish.” He didn’t like the

sentence. My version wasn’t any good. The moment stuck in my mind. Years later, I read Hunt’s

explanation of late-blooming constructions. Aha! I thought! There are some stinky fish in what

we are trying to teach. It’s no wonder that my second-grade son did not like that sentence.

“KISS” -- The Case for “Stupid”?“KISS” -- The Case for “Stupid”?

Marc Chagall's(1887-1985)

RussianThe Parting

of the Red Sea1966,

Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald’s, had in his office a sign reading “K.I.S.S.,” which, he was glad to tell anyone, meant “Keep It Simple, Stupid.” “Simple” does not have to mean simpleminded. Keeping it simple means avoiding the complexity of too many competing, confusing factors.

--David R. Williams. Sin Boldly!: Dr. Dave's Guide to Writing the College Paper. Cambridge: Perseus, 2000.p. 9.

Lately a number of people have scoured the KISS site seeking the meaning of the acronym

“KISS,” or they have simply written to ask what it means. Having learned that it stands for

104

“Keep It Simple, Stupid,” some people have considered it to be insulting. Since it is not my

intention to insult readers, the acronym requires some explanation.

First of all, although many readers do not seem to be aware of it, the acronym has a history.

I was first made aware of the acronym many years ago by my son’s fifth grade teacher. It

immediately stuck, since it echoes Occam’s razor, the widely known philosophical principle that,

in any given case, the simplest explanation -- the explanation that requires the fewest number of

rules and principles -- is the best. In the 1980’s, when I was developing this approach to teaching

grammar, “KISS” was the obvious choice for a name. To see why, we need to look at the

meaning of “stupid.”

I recently heard Whoopie Goldberg say that “stupid” is her least favorite word. Many people

may agree with her. But eliminating the word will not eliminate what it stands for, and, unable to

discuss what it stands for, we will, I would suggest, seriously hurt our children (who are, I want

to note, much more intelligent than they are usually given credit for). Merriam-Webster

Dictionary (online) gives the following definitions for “stupid”:

Etymology: Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stupEre to be numb, be

astonished -- more at TYPE Date: 1541

1 a. slow of mind: OBTUSE b: given to unintelligent decisions or acts: acting in an

unintelligent or careless manner c: lacking intelligence or reason: BRUTISH

2. dulled in feeling or sensation: TORPID <still stupid from the sedative>

3 marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting: SENSELESS

4 a. lacking interest or point b: VEXATIOUS, EXASPERATING <this stupid

flashlight won’t work>

No one enjoys being called “slow of mind,” but note that even that first and most insulting

definition refers to “unintelligent decisions” and “acting in an unintelligent or careless manner.”

Stupidity is, in other words, essentially a matter of choice. And choice is what the KISS Principle

emphasizes -- “Keep It Simple, Stupid” implies that we have a choice between the simple and

the complex (and confusing). And, like Occam’s razor, it suggests that the intelligent choice is

the simple one. If we fail to keep it simple, we are, in other words, stupid. As I will attempt to

show, the KISS Principle is fundamental, not only to KISS Grammar, but also to other aspects of

education.

105

A Brief History of KISS Grammar

My interest in the teaching of grammar began in the 1970’s, when I was a graduate assistant

at Cornell University. I taught Freshman Composition in the context of Russian literature. (My

degrees are all in Russian language and literature.) My students were having problems with the

use of semicolons, and time, and time again, I tried to explain that a semicolon is used to

separate two main clauses with contrasting ideas -- “He went swimming; she did the dishes.” The

lessons never took, and it was not until after a semester was over, and I was discussing the

problem with a student from one of my classes that I learned what the problem was. “We can’t,”

she told me, “identify clauses.”

Clauses are one of the simplest and most fundamental grammatical constructions, but,

instead of helping students learn to recognize them (and thus learn how they function),

instruction in grammar has bombarded students with hundreds of terms, many of which are

poorly defined, and many of which are totally useless. We have a choice here. We can focus on

the basic, simple, and meaningful, or we can continue to overwhelm students with confusing

terminology. If we opt for the second, are we not being stupid? I named this approach “KISS”

because the primary idea behind it is to keep the required number of terms as limited in number

as possible while still enabling students to discuss all the important aspects of grammar and style

in any English sentence, including the most complicated.

Note that the KISS Principle here refers to us as teachers, not to students. (I’ll have more to

say about its importance for students later.) And it is a constant concern. The “KISS” in the name

of KISS Grammar is intended to remind me that whenever I consider adding a construction or

concept to the KISS toolbox, I need to have a good reason. Otherwise, I am just adding

confusion. As a simple example of this, consider “transitive,” “intransitive,” and “linking” verbs.

These three categories are a result of the primary focus of traditional grammar -- the placing of

words into grammatical categories. But when we look at verbs in context, the only way to tell if a

verb is transitive, intransitive, or linking is to examine the sentence pattern:

He grew quickly. (S / V = intransitive)

He grew tomatoes. (S / V / DO = transitive)

He grew tall. (S / V / PA = linking)

106

If, ultimately, we need to look at the sentence pattern, why do we need “transitive,”

“intransitive,” and “linking”? Of course, grammarians who understand the terms claim that we

need them -- but I have yet to see any good reasons. On the other hand, these terms clearly add to

the confusion. A teacher on NCTE-Talk, arguing that we should teach grammar, stated that we

need to teach these “transient” and “intransient” verbs. Note what has happened here. Poor

choices (I will say stupid choices.) by the supposedly educated (the teachers of teachers) has led

to “dulled” “feeling or sensation” among many teachers. Most instruction in grammar involves

too many terms, most of which are poorly defined.

NCTE and the Teaching of Grammar -- A Case Study in Educational Stupidity

I must admit that, when I gave it the name, I did not realize just how appropriate KISS was

(and still is) to the problems in the teaching of grammar. In the Fall of 2000, I was invited by an

NCTE editor to submit a TRIP book manuscript on KISS Grammar to NCTE. “TRIP” means

“Theory and Research into Practice.” Thus I was to review the theory and research and then to

show how it supports the KISS Approach. I was already aware that, in 1985, NCTE had passed a

resolution against the teaching of grammar that is not supported by theory and research, but I had

not spent much time studying the research that supposedly supports that resolution. Was I

surprised!

Perhaps I missed it, but I never found a clear bibliography of the specific research that

“supports” that resolution. Within the professional journals, the sources that were most often

referred to are two megastudies on the state of research in English composition. These are known

as The Braddock Report (1963) and The Hillocks Report (1986). When I examined them closely,

I could come to only one conclusion -- their conclusions about grammar are simply stupid.

Although The Braddock Report refers to other studies without specifically naming them, it

focuses on a study by Roland J. Harris. In fact, Braddock’s conclusion echoes that of Harris --

with one major difference. Harris concluded that the study of grammatical terminology was

confusing and not helpful. (In his post-test, only one in five of his experimental sections scored

better than 50% on the grammar exam.) The logical conclusion to draw from the Harris study,

therefore, is that perhaps the terminology used in grammar instruction should be both clarified

107

and simplified. Braddock, however, made the senseless conclusion that grammar should not be

taught at all! (See definition #3 of “stupid.”)

The Braddock Report was bad, but The Hillocks Report was worse. Simply referring to The

Braddock Report, Hillocks extends Braddock’s general condemnation of teaching grammar to

include “identification of parts of speech, the parsing or diagramming of sentences, or other

concepts of traditional school grammar.” (138) And, although Hillocks claims that his research

found no support for the teaching of grammar, he gives extremely high praise to a study by

Lester Faigley, claiming that the Faigly study proves that writing can be improved without

instruction in grammar. But if one looks carefully at the Faigley study, one finds that the students

spent a great deal of time learning to identify, manipulate, and discuss the stylistic implications

of, an important, but limited number of grammatical concepts. Thus, Hillocks’ conclusion is not

only invalid, it is obtuse. (See definition #1 of “stupid.”)

Most teachers have a lot to do. They do not have the time to read the research carefully, and

thus, given that these studies were sanctioned by NCTE, teachers accepted them. The result,

however, was a very long lasting dulled and torpid sense of grammar. (See definition #2 of

“stupid.”) Note that this is not the fault of the teachers -- it is the fault of the teachers of teachers

and of organizations such as NCTE. The sensible conclusion of The Braddock Report should

have been that the terminology used to teach grammar in K-12 should be simplified. And The

Hillocks Report nonsensically claims that there is no support for teaching grammar while

simultaneously praising the effectiveness of instruction in a study in which students were taught

a simpler set of grammatical concepts. The obvious conclusion of both reports, in other words,

should have been KEEP IT SIMPLE!

That conclusion, however, was vexatiously ignored. (See definition #4 of “stupid.”) As a

result, it was all but impossible to publish an article about improving instruction in grammar.

Manuscripts were simply returned with reviewers’ comments that implied the stupidity of the

writer who was not aware of “the research.” As a result, in 1989 I founded a small newsletter

called Syntax in the Schools. The newsletter had no budget for advertising, so I was surprised to

find it attracting articles from across the country. The reason was that the force of the NCTE

resolution had closed almost all other outlets for such articles. In 1990, I arranged a conference

108

which resulted in the formation of what is now the NCTE Assembly for the Teaching of English

Grammar (ATEG).

But the result has been that ATEG has attracted a fair number of linguists, many of whom

have backgrounds in structural, transformational, tagmemic, and other kinds of grammar. Each

of these grammars has its own set of terminology, and these are what these members want to

teach. Thus, instead of simplifying the grammar that is taught in the schools, ATEG is actually

making it more complicated. Various members are arguing for their definitions, and some of

these discussions become very complex. (To verify this, visit the ATEG list archives at

http://www.ateg.org. February 2003, for example, has interesting threads on “Contradictory” and

“Contrary” definitions.) Although many members of ATEG claim to be teaching teachers how to

analyze texts, I have yet to see any of them put out, either in books or on the web, the type of

analysis of students’ writing, literature, and other texts that you will find on the KISS web site.

Instead what I see is a rather sterile and senseless (Definition #3) complicated discussion of

grammatical terminology. When I named my approach “KISS,” I was primarily thinking of the

complex and often useless terminology of traditional grammar, but now the situation is getting

even worse. If the “Stupid” in KISS offends these teachers of teachers, perhaps they deserve to

be offended.

The Importance of the KISS Principle for Students

As noted above, stupidity is primarily a matter of choices. In effect, “KISS” means Keep It

Simple, or Choose to Be Stupid.” Twenty-five years of teaching college Freshmen has shown me

that a major problem for many students is that they make assignments, almost any assignment,

more complicated than it actually is.

In my Freshman composition course, for example, I have been using an assignment in which

students are expected to choose a controversial topic, find four articles about it, and write a short,

six-paragraph essay in which each of the four body paragraphs is a summary of one of the

articles. This is a very simple assignment, aimed at preparing the students to write the reviews of

previous research that they will have to include in many papers for upper division courses. I tell

the students that the paragraphs in their summaries should begin with statements such as

“___________ claims that” or “According to _____.” Then the paragraph simply explains the

109

main ideas in the article. Far too often, however, what I get from students are complicated

“research” papers, organized not by the articles but rather by ideas on the topic, with ideas from

different sources mixed in the same paragraphs. These students have turned a relatively simple

assignment into a complicated one, and, in so doing, they have missed the objectives of the

simple assignment.

The attitude of the teacher is, I should note, important in the teaching of the KISS principle.

As noted above, I believe that students are much brighter than we usually give them credit for,

and I have to wonder if, perhaps, those teachers who dislike the KISS principle do so because

they believe that either they or their students really are stupid (per definition #1). I even go so far

as to tell students to KEEP IT SIMPLE BECAUSE THEIR INSTRUCTOR [That’s primarily

me.] IS STUPID. Not only do I really believe that, but I also suggest that it may apply to all

instructors. What I have in mind here is the second definition, “dulled in feeling or sensation.”

Instructors regularly take home anywhere from a dozen to a hundred student essays, often on

the same assignment. Simply reading that many papers on the same topic is enough to dull one’s

sensations. And instructors do have personal lives -- they cannot spend the entire weekend

reading one paper, taking a short break, and then starting another. Thus they (we) often plow

through sets of papers, and, as many instructors in different fields have also told me, we are often

looking for very specific things. The specifics, of course, vary, but in most papers the most

important things are the thesis (main idea of the paper) and the topic sentences.

English teachers have a variety of opinions on introductions, and even on the location of a

thesis, but as I suggest to my students, instructors in other areas generally expect the thesis of a

paper to be at the end of the introduction. That is the “simple,” standard place for it. Some

students, however, like to get fancy and put the thesis in the very first sentence of a paper. That is

a stupid choice because an instructor is liable to miss it -- and thus the entire point of the paper.

Not only might the instructor be dulled from the sheer number of papers, both read and to be

read, but most instructors are probably not going to be expecting that thesis in the first sentence.

In fact, while reading through the first paragraph of the paper, they may still be thinking

about the validity of the grade that was just put on the previous paper. I often do that, and if I get

two or three sentences into a paper and still find myself thinking about the grade on the previous

paper, I put the paper I am reading down and go back to the previous paper. But sometimes I

110

decide that that previous grade was just, and then I simply keep on reading. If I missed the thesis

of this paper because it was in the first sentence, whose fault it that?

I might note here that in a small survey of faculty members from across the curriculum, the

most frequently cited weakness of students was that the students do not follow simple directions.

Hmmmm. In my own experience, students’ failure to follow directions often has the result of

making their task more complicated. In my Introduction to Literature course, students write a

paper in which they are expected to use three literary concepts (symbolism, setting, etc.) to

support their view of the theme of a story. Instead of simply using the three concepts that they

best understand, far too many students discuss four, five, or even six concepts. The same

happens in my Freshman Composition course. In one paper, students are expected to find an

editorial and discuss three logical fallacies in it. (Note that in this assignment, the requirement of

three shows up in the grading sheets for thesis and for details.) Logical fallacies are not easy

concepts, but some students insist on making the assignment more complex than it is -- instead

of discussing just three fallacies, they try to explain four or five. Examples of students making

assignments more complicated than they are could go on at length. It is, in other words, another

context in which the KISS principle is relevant and very important for some students.

Alternative Meanings for “KISS”

Some people who like the KISS Approach but who still do not want to tell students that the

acronym originates from the “Keep It Simple, Stupid” principle have offered alternative

meanings. My least favorite of these is “Keep It Simple, Silly.” Personally, I consider this

interpretation to be more demeaning than “Stupid” might be. In effect, it treats students as if they

are all little kiddies, incapable of being competent, and thus, incapable of making stupid choices.

In addition, it demeans the subject matter.

Another suggestion was “Keep It Super Simple.” My problem with this is that it may be

misleading. For people who are already familiar with grammatical and linguistic terminology,

KISS may be not only super simple, but also overly simplistic. Experience has taught me,

however, that people who are not familiar with grammatical concepts will initially find KISS to

be confusing. Many people, for example, expect instructional material on grammar to teach them

the “right” answer -- even the possibility of alternative explanations confuses them. Add to that

111

the fact that KISS almost immediately dives into the analysis of randomly selected texts. The

sentences in many of these texts are not the super simple sentences that are found in most

grammar textbooks. And then there is the fact that the workbooks offer a variety of ways and

types of exercises to reach the required and desired objectives. Many people will find this

confusing, so calling the approach “Keep It Super Simple” may add to their frustration.

The suggestion for an alternative that I like the best is “Keep It Simple for Style.” The

implication here seems to be to keep the grammar itself (the terminology and constructions)

simple so that students can actually get to effectively applying it to the style of their own writing.

And that is what the KISS Approach is designed to do. The name “KISS” originated from the

“Keep It Simple, Stupid” principle, but I have no trouble with considering “KISS” to mean

“Keep It Simple for Style,” or perhaps even “Keep It Simple and Smart.” Of course, if you are

really smart, you don’t object to the word “stupid.”

The Smartest People The Smartest People

Ask the “Stupid” QuestionsAsk the “Stupid” Questions

Jan Vermeer's(1632-1675)Girl with

a Pearl Earringc.1665.

Mauritshuis, the Hague,Netherlands.

[This little essay was written for my college Freshmen, but some users of the KISS site also appreciated it.]

It was one of those ephiphanic moments that become etched in one’s brain. I can still

remember the scene – the parking lot of the auto parts store, my father’s 1968 blue-green Chevy,

the blue sky and cumulous clouds. It was, perhaps, the most important event in my life – it was

when I learned to ask stupid questions. Since then, I have learned that the smartest people are

never embarrassed when they ask stupid questions.

It was the middle of the summer. My father came out of the house and asked if I wanted to

go to the auto parts store with him. I wasn’t doing anything special, so I agreed to go. We entered

the store and walked up to the counter. The person behind the counter looked only a little older

than I was. My father looked at him, pointed at something on the counter, and asked if they were

brake pads. I was stunned, stunned and embarrassed. My father was a car mechanic in World

War II. He knew that they were brake pads. I didn’t know much about cars, but even I knew they

were brake pads. (I’d swear that it said “brake pads” on the package.) As a teenager, I didn’t

112

want to be associated with anyone who was stupid, especially if it appeared that it might be a

member of my own family. Attempting to give the impression that we had come in together by

accident, I walked away from the counter and started browsing.

While I “browsed,” I watched my father talking to the guy behind the counter. The

conversation took a few minutes, after which my father bought something and left the store,

apparently sensing my desire not to be associated with him. A few seconds later, I too left. I

caught up to him in the parking lot, facing that Chevy and beautiful blue sky.

“How,” I asked, “could you ask such a stupid question?”

He smiled and said, “I didn’t know the person behind the counter, so I asked him some

questions. The first might have been silly, but then I asked him some harder ones. Since he got

those right, I asked a few still tougher ones. When he got those right, I figured I could trust him,

so I asked him what I needed to know.” It was very clear that my father did not care if the person

behind the counter thought he was stupid.

The moment stuck, and I began to watch my teachers. The smartest ones almost always

asked “stupid” questions. Most were so simple, so “stupid,” that I have forgotten them. I will,

however, always remember George Gibian, Distinguished Professor of Russian Literature at

Cornell University. It was the beginning of a semester, and the Russian lit department office was

crowded with students. Professor Gibian came out of his office, looked at us, put his hands on

both sides of his mouth, wiggled his forefingers, and said, “What does a mouse do when it goes

like that?” A student reminded him that the word he was looking for was “tvigat’.” He smiled,

said “Thanks,” and went back into his office. The new students, who didn’t know who he was,

looked at others in the room with an expression of “Who is that dumb cluck?” Those of us who

knew him simply smiled.

Like all of us, Gibian had forgotten – or didn’t know – some simple information. He needed

it, so he asked. That is how he got to be a Distinguished Professor of Russian Literature. I don’t

mean to suggest that he didn’t work hard, or that he wasn’t intelligent in other ways, but I do

mean that he probably would not have achieved the success he did if he had been unwilling to

ask those “stupid” questions. No one can know everything, and we all forget things. Ask.

I have, of course, been on the other side of the teacher’s desk for a couple of decades. Some

students think I know a lot, but if I’m “smart,” it is not necessarily in terms of IQ. I simply

113

learned from my father, from Gibian, and from dozens of others – “Don’t worry if people will

think you are stupid. If you need to know something, ask.” I ask lots of stupid questions.

I have asked you to read this little essay because it may describe the most important

difference between students who do very well and those who do not. In discussing things with

students out of class, we frequently stumble over things that I think they should have asked in

class. When I ask why they didn’t ask, the usual response is that they were afraid that their

classmates would think that they were stupid. Please remember, the smartest people ask the

stupid questions. Doing so gives you the information you need to succeed at whatever you are

working on. Not doing so leaves you lost and confused.

Diagramming SentencesDiagramming Sentences

within the KISS Approachwithin the KISS Approach

InterruptedReading

1870by

Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot

(1796-1875)

Once a year or so I am asked about Reed-Kellogg diagrams in conjunction with KISS

Grammar. Such diagrams can surely be used within KISS Grammar, but there are a few

problems. In the first place, years ago I included a few such diagrams on the KISS site, only to

be told that my diagrams were "wrong." Just as there are disagreements about definitions of

grammatical terms, so, it turns out, are there disagreements about Reed-Kellogg diagrams. Add

that to the fact that such diagrams take time to make and take up a lot of space, and you may

understand why I took down the diagrams.

I do understand, however, that such diagrams can help some students better understand

sentence structure. It is certainly true that diagrams can help some people see how the parts of a

sentence fit together. Consider the following diagram of the sentence:

Hard work in our youth pays well in old age.

114

The diagram is from English for Use, by John H. Beveridge and Bell M. Ryan,  p. 381. I'll

never forget being in a doctor's office. When he learned that I teach English, he raved about how

much he loved such diagrams. Some people not only find such diagrams helpful, they love them.

Diagrams also present compounding much more visually than KISS analysis does. The

following is from the same book:

What I like most about diagramming is that, in relatively simple compound sentences,

diagrams can show how all the words in one main clause connect to one main S/V/C pattern, and

all the words in another main clause connect to the other S/V/C patterns, as in the following from

the same book:

Unfortunately, the diagrams that students are given are, as this one is, simplistic. The focus

is on how to draw the diagram for various constructions, rather than on how to diagram real

sentences.

And, as constructions are added, they quickly become more complex. What rules, for

example, do students need to memorize in order to make the following diagram?

115

This diagram, also from the same book, illustrates how to diagram a noun clause that

functions as a subject.

If we turn from diagramming simple constructions to diagramming real sentences, consider

the following from Kitty Burns Florey's Sister Bernadette's Barking Dog (Melville House

Publishing, 2006, p. 109.

116

Imagine the time it takes to make such a diagram! In a recent discussion of diagramming on

the KISS List, most contributors much preferred the KISS system of analysis, which is much

easier and faster to use.

Still, for those who like diagramming, there is nothing to prevent you from making diagrams

for KISS exercises. I would suggest that there may be disagreements about what lines go where,

and that complications may arise from possible alternative explanations. But if someone wants to

send me images of diagrams for a KISS exercise (sentences or passage), I'll be happy to put it on

the KISS site.

Sentence Diagramming Web Sites Sentence Diagramming Web Sites

Programs to Assist with Diagramming

117

Diagramming Sentences, by Prof. G. Dalgish. http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/gdalgish/NewDiagramming/diagramguide.htm

This program enables people to drag and drop words into a pre made diagram structure. It is interesting, but there are some problems in getting the words to stay where they belong. (It does not allow for alternative explanations. For example, expletives are always explained as expletives.

SenDraw, by UCF Department of English http://www.sendraw.ucf.edu/

I have not tried this one, but it appears to be a program comparable to "Diagramming Sentences" by Prof. Dalgish.

Other Resources on Sentence Diagramming

Hagen, Carl, "The Early History of Sentence Diagrams," http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=olddiagrams

Kimball, Sara, "Basics of Reed-Kellogg diagrams," http://www.utexas.edu/courses/langling/e360k/handouts/diagrams/diagram_basics/basics.html

A search of the web will lead you to numerous other resources.

Important Perspectives on GrammarImportant Perspectives on Grammar

Marguerite

Gerard's

(1761-1837)

First Steps

The Structure of Sentences The Structure of Sentences

(Nexus & Modification)(Nexus & Modification)

1. IntroductionMost grammar books make sentence structure appear to be much more complicated than it

is. We need to remember that pre-school children master sentence structure all on their own. We

can’t teach it to them because, in order to do so, we would have to use sentences. Talking with,

and reading to, pre-schoolers is extremely helpful because it gives them a rich language

environment in which to work, but the children still have to figure the system out all on their

own. Every child manages to do this, usually before the age of three. The system of sentence

118

structure, therefore, cannot be that complicated. Perhaps the best way to begin to explain it is by

looking at the primary concepts of nexus and modification.

A “grammar” is simply a description of the language. Many people think that there is simply

the grammar of English, such that, whatever grammar text they look at, they will be looking at

the same thing. Although the language remains the same, the descriptions of it differ widely in

the terminology and perspectives from which the various grammarians describe the language. [1]

Even such a basic term as “clause” may mean one thing in one book, and something entirely

different in another. These differences can result in major confusion for people who attempt to

use several different sources to begin their study of the language.

Even more important than the confusion in terminology, most grammar textbooks treat all

grammatical constructions as equally important. They focus on the constructions as parts, and

rarely even explore how the parts fit together in real sentences.

The Difference Between Structure and Form

To see the difference, we need to explore the difference between “structure” and “form.” If

we look at a house, we can describe its form by noting the floors, the ceilings, the walls, the

doors, the windows, the windowsills, etc. If, on the other hand, we consider the house’s structure,

some things become significantly more important than others—not all the walls, for example,

structurally support the roof. They are all part of the form of the house, but they can be removed

if they do not support the roof. Structure, in other words, involves the necessary

interrelationships among the things that constitute an object’s form—what depends on what?

The same is true of sentence structure.

Unfortunately, most grammar books give the beginner a massive amount of “formal” (and

often unnecessary) terminology, but rarely get around to the important structural concepts. A

simple example of this is the formal instruction about adjectives and adverbs found in most

grammar textbooks. There you will find things like “Adverbs often end in -ly.” You will also

find a fair amount of information on the comparative and superlative forms of adjectives and

adverbs. Most books also include the following:

Adjectives modify nouns and pronouns.

Adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, and other adverbs.

119

These two sentences, however, assume that all the word-form information they have given

enables students to identify adjectives and adverbs. It does not.

The KISS Approach, on the other hand, enables students to identify all adjectives and

adverbs simply by their structural functions:

A word or construction that modifies a noun or a pronoun functions as (and

therefore is) an adjective.

A word or construction that modifies a verb, adjective, or another adverb

functions as (and therefore is) an adverb.

The KISS Approach assumes that students understand (unconsciously) English sentence

structure. And students do. In a sentence such as:

So first of all came the youngest Billy Goat Gruff to cross the bridge.

every student knows that the words “the” and “youngest” go with “Billy Goat Gruff,” and not

with “came.” In other words, once students have learned how to identify nouns, pronouns, and

verbs, the KISS explanation of adjectives and adverbs enables students to identify all adjectives

and adverbs simply by looking at their functions—how the words in a sentence relate to one

another.

The KISS Approach is not only simpler for teaching students to identify simple adjectives

and adverbs. The majority of words and constructions in sentences function as modifiers, in other

words, as adjectives or adverbs. These are described below, but here we can simply note that

they include prepositional phrases and subordinate clauses. Thus, once we teach students to

identify nouns, pronouns, and verbs—the primary structural parts of sentences, the students can

use the KISS explanations to easily tell whether any modifier function as an adjective or adverb.

The fact is that all sentences, even the most complicated, are built by using a very limited

number of structural principles (constructions), almost all of which are described in this essay.

The complexity of English sentences results from the fact that adults build sentences by

embedding one construction into another. (“Embedding” is explained below.)

The Concept of “Chunking”

KISS introduces “chunking,” a very important concept, into the teaching of grammar. It may

be nice to know that adjectives modify nouns or pronouns, but this information does not get

students very far into an understanding of how sentences work. Indeed, most textbooks fail

120

because they instruct students on small parts of sentences, but they never can get into the

complicated sentences that students actually read or write because they do not focus on how all

the parts of sentences are connected. “Chunking” explains how our brains learn to automatically

connect all the parts of a sentence into main nexal patterns.

Consider the sentence:

Old Bill usually fishes in the river.

As a student reads this (or any) sentence, his mind expects to find the simple sentence structure

he has known since toddler hood. His mind chunks the adjectival modifier “Old” with “Bill”,

connecting them into a single conceptual unit. Recognizing “Old Bill” as a subject, the student’s

mind begins to look for a verb. “Old Bill usually” doesn’t make sense, so the mind keeps

reading. Aha! “Fishes” is a verb. The mind chunks the adverb “usually” with “fishes”, and then

connects that chunk with the first part to create the basic subject/verb sentence structure it was

seeking:

Old Bill / usually fishes…

The student has identified a meaningful structure, but he hasn’t yet reached the period. The

sentence is offering more information. “In the river” easily chunks together, and because this

phrase tells where the fishing happens, the student’s mind naturally links it as an adverb to the

verb.

Whereas the word “modifier” focuses on how a word or construction affects the meaning of

the thing modified, “chunking” focuses on how our brains process the structural connections in

the sentence—how we put the words together to make meaning. The KISS “Psycholinguistic

Model of How the Human Brain Processes Language,” explains this in more detail with a more

complex example.

Here, however, we might note that an understanding of “chunking” helps students

understand major aspects of style and errors. As an overly simplistic example, many subject/verb

agreement errors reflect the writer’s problem with chunking. In a sentence such as “One of the

men are here,” the writer has mistakenly chunked the object of the preposition “of” as the subject

of the verb “are,” and therefore used “are” instead of the correct “is.”

The model also shows that the primary purpose of punctuation is to assist the reader in

chunking. Punctuation should not be taught as “right” or “wrong,” but as “effective” or

121

“ineffective.” The most notorious punctuation errors, for example, are comma-splices, run-ons,

and fragments. The reason they are so notorious is not that they infringe Emma’s Rules of

Etiquette, but because they confuse readers. As previously implied, when we read, we chunk

words into phrases and phrases into sentences. Technically at the end of a main clause (but for

our purposes here, at the end of a sentence), we stop chunking in short-term memory, dump the

ideas into long-term memory, and clear short-term memory for the next sentence. A comma-

splice joins two sentences with just a comma, but a comma is not a signal to dump to long term

memory. A run-on joins two sentences together with no punctuation. The following sentence

could be considered either a comma-splice or a run-on:

It sounded just like our front door does when you try to open it, it screeched.

Does “when you try to open it” chunk to “does” or to “screeched”? It has to be one or the other.

If you think it chunks to “does,” then the sentence contains a comma-splice. It should be written

as:

It sounded just like our front door does when you try to open it. It screeched.

The period after “it” cuts “when you try to open it” off from “it screeched,” thereby leading the

reader to chunk it to “does.” But the sentence might instead be a run-on:

It sounded just like our front door does. When you try to open it, it screeched.

The point here is that punctuation signals what chunks to what. Comma-splices and run-ons

leave the chunking ambiguous, leaving the connections for the reader to make—but that is not a

reader’s job.

“Fragment” literally means a broken piece of a sentence that does not chunk to a main nexal

pattern:

It sounded just like our front door does. When you try to open it. It screeched.

Except for two constructions discussed below, every word in every sentence has to chunk, either

within a nexal subject/verb pattern or as modification to a such a pattern.

A Final Introductory Comment

There is one additional thing that I must ask beginners to do, and that is to change their

conception of what it means to study sentence structure. Reading books and articles about

grammar (including this one) won’t do it. The only effective way to gain an understanding of

English sentence structure is to study the structure of individual sentences, one after another,

122

preferably in context. The easiest way to do this is to focus on one construction at a time (starting

with the structurally most important), studying it until recognition becomes almost automatic,

and then adding another construction. This is, of course, the KISS Approach, and materials for

using it are provided on the KISS site. (See the Printable Books page.)

The difference of this approach—its strangeness, so to speak—is demonstrated to me every

semester by my students. Having been given a brief definition, a list of words that function as

prepositions, and a brief procedure, they are given a short text and asked to find the prepositional

phrases in it. But instead of simply using the definition, the list, the procedure, and the text,

numerous students report having searched other grammar books for more information about

prepositional phrases. All that information does, however, is confuse them.

2. NexusNexus [2] denotes the strong bond between subjects, verbs, and complements—the three

fundamental parts of sentences. The basic English sentence names something (thus giving it a

“subject”) and then uses a verb to say something about what has been named:

Phil sings.

Mary exercises.

Children play.

This is that very simple structure which allows toddlers to master language on their own, without

anyone explaining it to them. It is the skeletal structure that students unconsciously recognize

when their minds chunk words together to create meaning as they speak, listen, read or write.

And even very young children unconsciously understand that to complete their meaning, many

verbs require what we call a “complement” [3]:

Phil sings ballads.

Mary exercises.

Children play games.

Some sentences cannot be made meaningful without a complement:

Sarah is pretty.

Bush is president.

123

This nexal S/V/C sentence pattern is the work-horse of the English language. We name

something, use a verb to say something about it, and the verb may require (for our meaning) a

complement.

One way of looking at nexus is as strong magnetic forces—a subject attracts and attaches to

itself a verb, and some verbs require complements that they attach to themselves. The magnetic

attractions within nexal patters are much stronger than the attractive forces between modifiers

and the words that they modify. This explains why we can almost look at sentences as trains. The

nexal patterns are the trains themselves—the subject leads us to expect a verb, and some verbs

lead us to expect a complement. This expectation pulls us through the sentence. If an expected

element is missing, the train crashes. The modifiers, on the other hand, are the cargo. In our

heads, we load ideas into these sentence trains, and send them out to our listeners or readers,

who, in turn, unload them in their heads.

The Types of Complements

A complement answers the question “What?” (or “whom?”) after a verb. The question must

be formed with “what” (or “whom”). Things that answer questions such as “Why?” “When?”

“How?” etc. are not complements—they are modifiers. In the KISS Approach, the complement

has five possible variations.

1.) “Zero” Complements: the S / V variation

In many S/V/C patterns, there is no complement:

Mary exercises daily.

The book was returned to the library.

Here the questions “exercises what?” or “was returned what?” simply do not make sense. If

nothing answers the question verb + what?, then there is no complement. (Some linguists refer to

this as a “zero” complement.)

2.) Predicate Adjectives: the S / V / PA variation

In many cases, the word that answers the question “what?” after the verb is an adjective that

describes the subject:

The flowers are pretty.

He looks old.

124

These are called “predicate” adjectives because they appear in what was traditionally called the

“predicate” of the sentence, and, unlike most adjectives, they appear after the noun or pronoun

that they modify.

3.) Predicate Nouns: the S / V / PN variation

In other cases, the word that answers the question “what?” after the verb is a noun (or

pronoun) and the pattern suggests that the complement is, in some way, equal to the subject:

George Bush is president.

Sleeping children resemble angels.

Note that the pattern (essentially the verb) must imply some type of equality or identify

between the subject and the complement. In “He washes himself,” “himself” is not a predicate

noun because “washes” does not imply identity.

4. & 5.) Indirect and Direct Objects: the S / V / (IO) DO variations

If something answers the question “verb & what?” and it is not a predicate adjective or a

predicate noun, then it must be an indirect or direct object. (There are no other possibilities, and

no exceptions.)

Sam gave Bill [IO] a dollar [DO].

The evening sun gave the church windows [IO] a warm glow [DO].

An indirect object answers the question “to or for whom or what?” Thus Sam gave a dollar to

Bill, and the sun gave a warm glow to the windows.

If you continue to study KISS Grammar, you will see that these patterns permeate

everything. They will be referred to so often that talking about five of them becomes

cumbersome, especially when there is a way to simplify. Every sentence has a subject, and every

sentence has a verb. But after that, a sentence can be complete, or it can require a indirect and/or

direct object, or a predicate noun, or a predicate adjective. Instead of listing all these options

every time we want to talk about them, it is much easier to group them all together and give them

a name. We call them “complements.” Thus the five patterns can be seen as five possible

variations of the one fundamental S/V/C pattern of English sentence structure. This nexal pattern

is the fundamental engine of English sentence structure.

125

3. ModificationWe all know that most sentences are not made simply of a noun subject, a verb, and then a

noun or adjective complement. Although these nexal patterns can be expanded by compounding,

the primary growth of sentences results from modification. Here again, everyone naturally

(without instruction) learns how to write longer, more complicated sentences. This natural

development, however, develops in a more or less set sequence. The first part of this section

explores the simple constructions that normally develop first. The last part examines the three

principles that probably underlie natural syntactic growth.

Adjectives and Adverbs

The words that fill the S/V/C slots are usually modified by adjectives and adverbs:

The little mouse helpfully saved the big lion.

The KISS approach to adjectives and adverbs was discussed above, but here we need to

emphasize that there are many other constructions that can function as modifiers, but when they

do, they still function as either adjectives or adverbs.

Prepositional Phrases

Questions from users of the KISS site indicate that some people are confused by the term

“phrase.” A “phrase” is a group of words that chunk together. Thus a noun and its modifiers

constitute a noun phrase, and a verb and its modifiers make a verb phrase.

Prepositional phrases are phrases that begin with words such as “in,” “over,” “under,”

“about,” etc. There are approximately ninety words that can function as prepositions, so students

require some practice in order to be able to identify these phrases. But the process is not that

difficult because the students already have an excellent unconscious command of such phrases.

Pre-schoolers use them all the time.

Unfortunately, most textbooks underestimate the importance of these phrases—often they

are discussed somewhere in the last half of the book. But the writing of many third, fourth, and

even some fifth graders is composed almost entirely of simple S/V/C nexal patterns, adjectives,

adverbs, and prepositional phrases. Most textbooks also underemphasize the functions of these

phrases—the way in which they chunk to the main nexal pattern. In other words, once again the

textbooks focus on individual constructions without emphasizing how the constructions work

together to form sentences.

126

The KISS Approach teaches students how to identify these phrases (and their functions) as

soon as students can identify S/V/C patterns, nouns, pronouns, adjectives and adverbs. As a

result, if KISS instruction starts in third, fourth, or fifth grade, students can understand and

intelligently discuss the entire structure of many of their own sentences.

Most prepositional phrases function as adjectival or adverbial modifiers, but sometimes a

phrase can be seen as both. For example, in “She saw the man in the house.” is “in the house” an

adverb to “saw,” or an adjective to “man”? Because different people justifiably see this

differently, KISS Grammar accepts either answer as correct. (Note, however, that the context of

the sentence often makes one explanation better than the other.)

Occasionally, prepositional phrases are complements in an S/V/C nexal pattern. Imagine, for

example, the sentence “He’s in a blue suit.” Some grammarians would consider “in a blue suit”

as an adverb that describes “how” he “is”—his “state of being.” But if the sentence is meant to

identify which “He” is meant, it would be more meaningful to say that “in a blue suit” functions

as a predicate adjective that identifies the subject in a S/V/PA pattern. Grammarians also give

different explanations of “to Tim” in a sentence such as “Scrooge gave a Christmas turkey to

Tim.” One explanation is that the “to Tim” phrase functions as an adverb to “gave,” but an

equally valid explanation is to consider the phrase as functioning as an indirect object—the

equivalent of “Scrooge gave Tim a Christmas turkey.”

There are some complications with prepositional phrases that students will not be able to

explain at this stage in their work, but in KISS students are expected to make mistakes in such

cases. This expectation does not cause a problem because around 95% of the prepositional

phrases in most texts can easily be explained in one of the ways described above. KISS focuses

students’ attention on how much they can explain. Exceptions to norms are mastered only after

the norm is. Every child at some point says “Mommy readed me a book.” After they have

mastered the past tense “-ed” form, they automatically master the exceptions—no one ever

teaches students all the irregular verb forms.

Compounding, Reduction, and Embedding

Three additional concepts not only simplify instruction in grammar—they can also help us

understand many aspects of style and of the way in which the more complicated forms of

modification naturally develop.

127

Compounding

A “compound” is simply something that is composed of several parts or things. The

grammar textbooks in most of our schools complicate grammar by suggesting that some things

can be compounded and others cannot be. [4] But, as you already know, any construction in

English, whether it be nexal or modificational, can be compounded:

Mary and Bill exercise daily.

Cats sleep and chase mice.

Phil sings English and French ballads.

Many children play football, soccer or baseball.

Two S / V / C sentence patterns can also, of course, be compounded:

Phil sings English ballads, and he also sings French ballads.

Many children play soccer, or they play baseball.

Mary exercises daily, but Bill does not.

Compounds are almost always joined by one of the three coordinating conjunctions “and,” “or,”

or “but.” “Ordinate,” in “coordinating,” comes from the Latin “ordo,” which means “order.” The

prefix “co-“ means “with” or “jointly.” And “junction” means “to join.” Thus “coordinating”

conjunctions join things of equal order and equal value—subject and subject, verb and verb, etc.

Reduction (Ellipsis)

Ellipsis is simply the omission of understood words. Some readers probably noticed the

ellipsis in “Mary exercises daily, but Bill does not.” The second part of the compound is missing

something. By itself, “Bill does not” would be meaningless, but within the context its meaning is

perfectly clear—we all understand that it means “Bill does not exercise daily.” Similarly, in

“Close the door,” the subject “you” is ellipsed. Ellipsis is an important concept that is

underplayed in most grammar textbooks. If you are confused about the structure of a sentence,

think about what the sentence means—you will probably find that part of the sentence has been

ellipsed.

Modern linguists have expanded the concept of ellipsis into a concept they call “reduction,”

but to understand “reduction,” we must first look at “embedding.”

Embedding

128

“Embedding” simply refers to putting one word or construction into (the bed of) another. In

other words, we “plant” one idea into the space of another, thereby connecting the two.

Embedding is the driving principle of almost all further expansion of basic sentences, but it also

sheds additional light on simple modification and compounding. Consider the following two

sentences:

The house was on the corner.

The brown house was on the corner.

In this example, the adjective “brown” has simply been embedded into the first sentence as an

additional modifier of “house.”

How we learn to do this was suggested by Noam Chomsky, the “father” of transformational

grammar. Chomsky was primarily interested in how our brains “generate” sentences. He argued

that our brains begin with the smallest possible sentences, which he called “kernel sentences.” In

Chomsky’s view, our example derives from two kernel sentences:

The house was on the corner. The house was brown.

To arrive at our embedded sentence, Chomsky would say that we reduce (delete) the repetitive

part of the second sentence:

The house was on the corner. The house was brown.

Note the similarity between reduction and ellipsis. As in ellipsis, understood ideas are left out,

but in the case of reduction we do not sense the omission because the remaining meaningful part

of the sentence is embedded into the preceding sentence to arrive at “The brown house was on

the corner.”

The example may seem extremely simplistic, but if you examine the writing of many third

and fourth graders, you will find many short sentences such as “The house was on the corner.

The house was brown.” As the students mature, these sentences disappear, and Chomsky’s idea

is a neat explanation of how and why they do so.

But the concept of embedding goes far beyond that. Indeed, perhaps the most important

aspect of mature writing can be understood in terms of increasing mastery of compounding,

reduction, and embedding.

4. Clauses—Nexal Patterns Become Modifiers

129

Clauses and Embedding

School textbooks and grammarians make a confusing mess of the question of clauses.

Textbook definitions are often incomplete, and grammarians cannot agree on what is and what is

not a clause. In the KISS Approach, the definition of “clause” is very important and very precise:

a clause is a (nexal) S/V/C pattern and all the words that modify it. There are two primary types

of clauses—main and subordinate.

Main Clauses

Perhaps the best way to teach the concept of “clause” (as opposed to “sentence”) is to start

with compounded main clauses (the focus of KISS Level 3.1.1) We have already seen that

sentences can have more than one clause:

Mary exercises daily, but Bill does not.

In this example, the coordinating conjunction “but” indicates that the two clauses are of the same

grammatical order, and thus they are two (compounded) main clauses. Students who are already

comfortable identifying basic S/V/C patterns and their modifiers can easily understand and learn

to identify main clauses.

Subordinate Clauses

In many cases, one clause can be embedded in another clause:

1) She did the dishes, and he went swimming.

2) She did the dishes [while he went swimming].

Whereas the two clauses in (1) are joined by the coordinating conjunction “and,” the same two

clauses in (2) are joined by the subordinating conjunction “while.” “Sub” means “under.” Thus

“subordinating” conjunctions create clauses that are “under,” and (usually) less important than

the main clause to which they are attached.

Note that in (2) the second clause has become an adverbial modifier of the verb in the first—

it answers the question “Did when?” This means that although both (1) and (2) consist of two

clauses, the clause structure of the two sentences is significantly different. Example (1) consists

of two main clauses:

She did the dishes

he went swimming.

130

Example two, on the other hand, consists of a subordinate clause “while he went swimming” in a

main clause that includes the subordinate clause: “She did the dishes [while he went

swimming].” Remember that the KISS definition of a clause is “an S / V / C pattern and all the

words that modify (chunk to) it.” Because the “while” clause modifies “did,” it is part of the

“She did the dishes” pattern, just like any other modifier would be. [5]

Subordinate clauses function either as modifiers, or as part of the S/V/C nexal pattern.

Subordinate clauses, for example, can function as subjects or complements:

Subject: [That he was hurt] is bad news.

Predicate Noun: The news is [what I feared].

Direct Object: Ron said [that the job was done].

We have already seen a subordinate clause functioning as an adverb, and, of course, they can

also function as adjectives: “The book [he was reading] was interesting.” Note that a

subordinate clause does not have to start with a subordinate conjunction. What makes a clause

subordinate is that it functions within another clause as a noun, adjective, or adverb.

Finally, we need to note that subordinate clauses can be embedded within subordinate

clauses: “The book [he was reading [when I last saw him]] was interesting.” Here, “when I last

saw him” is adverbial to “was reading” and thus part of the subordinate clause “he was reading

when I last saw him,” which, in turn, functions as an adjective to “book” in the main clause (the

entire sentence).

As noted above, much of the complexity of English sentence structure results from our

embedding one clause within another, and many of the “errors” that people worry about in their

writing involve keeping clause boundaries (and the relationships among clauses) clear. The only

really effective way to eliminate these problems is to understand, and be able to analyze, clause

structure.

Most grammar textbook don’t teach students to do this because they focus on forms and

individual constructions. For example, they give lists of subordinate conjunctions that “usually”

introduce adverbial clauses. In such lists, students are likely to find “when” and “where,” but

both of these conjunctions can also introduce adjectival clauses. In “He thought of the time

[when he went to New York],” the “when” clause modifies “time” and is therefore adjectival.

131

Similarly, in “Sam thought of the lake [where he first went fishing],” the “where” clause

functions as an adjective to “lake.”

Because the writers of most textbooks do not think about how sentences are actually

structured, they tend to ignore nexus and modification. As a result, their textbooks rarely explore

subordinate clauses within subordinate clauses. Because KISS does focuses on the nexal and

modificational functions of clauses, it helps students understand how complicated sentences

work.

5. Clarifying VerbalsMany grammar books (and grammarians) also confuse beginners because they do not make

a distinction between finite verbs and verbals. Students look at a sentence such as “Swimming

is good exercise.” and they correctly identify “swimming” as a verb. Then the teacher tells them

that “swimming” is not the verb in that sentence. (It is a verb. It is not a verb. What’s going on?

Is it any wonder that students find grammar confusing?) What we need is a distinction between

those verbs that fill the “V” slot in an S/V/C pattern (finite verbs), and those that fulfill some

other function (verbals).

Verbals are simply verbs that function as nouns, or adjectives, or adverbs (modifiers) within

an S/V/C pattern. In KISS Level 2, students learn to distinguish finite verbs from verbals. They

do not, however, study the various types of verbals. More about verbals could be taught before

clauses (KISS Level 3), but clauses are far more important for questions of style, errors, and

logic. As a result, the detailed study of verbals is left to KISS Level 4.

There are three, and only three, types of verbals—gerunds, gerundives, and infinitives.

Gerunds and gerundives are easily recognized by their participial form (usually ending in “-

ing”). Any remaining verbals must then be infinitives. Because verbals have subjects and

complements comparable to those of finite verbs, verbals can often be viewed as reductions of

finite verbs.

Gerunds

Gerunds are verbs that function as nouns. As such, they usually occupy a nexal slot in an

S/V/C pattern, but they can be parts of modifying phrases when, for example, they function as

the object of a preposition. With a little practice, they are easily recognized:

132

Swimming is good exercise.

He likes swimming.

They are writing (about swimming).

Many grammar texts discuss gerunds, but they usually fail to explain adequately that like finite

verbs, all verbals can have complements and be modified by adverbs. Thus, in the sentence

Complaining that you have been misunderstood is usually useless.

“Complaining” is a gerund that functions as the subject of the finite verb “is,” and “that you have

been misunderstood” is a subordinate clause that functions as the direct object of “complaining.”

The difference between nexus and modification explains a subtle distinction in two related

gerund patterns. An editor once asked me for an explanation to convince a client (an architect)

that he should be using the phrase “designing buildings.” The architect insisted on using the

phrase “the designing of buildings.” The architect has a better ear for English than does the

editor. The architect wanted to focus on “designing.” His preference does so in two ways. First, it

reinforces the noun function of the gerund “designing” by preceding it with “the.” Second, it

reduces “buildings” to a modifier in a prepositional phrase, thereby eliminating the stronger

nexal connection in “designing buildings.” That nexal pattern does put “designing” first, but as

the direct object, “buildings” receives more emphasis than it does in a prepositional phrase.

Gerundives

Gerundives are verbals that function as adjectives. [6] In “Sarah found Tom sitting under

a tree,” “sitting” is a gerundive that modifies “Tom.” Gerundives are often the culprit behind

“misplaced” (also known as “dangling”) modifiers. A student wrote:

Thrown from the car, he saw her lying on the ground.

What the student meant is that she was thrown from the car; but what the sentence means is that

he was thrown from the car. Our brains tend to chunk modifiers to the nearest word that makes

sense. (Here again the KISS psycholinguistic model helps students actually understand the

problem.)

Infinitives

As stated above, any verb that is not finite, not a gerund, and not a gerundive has to be an

infinitive. Some infinitives are easily recognized by an initial “to.” But many infinitive phrases

133

do not have that initial “to.” Infinitives can function in any way that nouns, adjectives, or adverbs

can. For examples,

Noun (Subject and Predicate Noun): To know her is to love her.

Noun (Direct Object): He wanted to go home.

Noun (Object of a Preposition): Carl did everything but win.

Adjective: It is time to go.

Adverb: He went to buy groceries.

An important simplifying difference between KISS and traditional grammar involves the

infinitive. Based on both nexus and the relatively new transformational grammar theories, KISS

uses the infinitive to eliminate the traditional “objective” and “subjective” complements. [7] Thus,

in a sentence such as

She wanted Bill to buy bread.

KISS considers “Bill” as the subject, and “bread” as the direct object of the infinitive “to

buy.” The entire nexal infinitive phrase functions as the direct object of the finite verb “wanted.”

Many traditional grammars use this same explanation, but KISS extends it to include sentences

such as

They made their house a home.

Most traditional grammars would consider “house” to be the direct object of “made,” and

“home” an objective (?) complement. KISS eliminates these extra complements by viewing

“their house a home” as a reduced nexal pattern with an ellipsed, structural “to be,” thereby

making the construction analogous to “Bill to buy bread”—“house” is the subject” and “home” is

the predicate noun of the ellipsed infinitive “to be,” and the entire infinitive phrase is the direct

object of “made.” Note that the KISS explanation fits the meaning better. They did not, after all,

make their house. They made their house to be a home.

6. Eight Additional ConstructionsIn order to discuss how every word in any sentence fits into the sentence structure, KISS

includes eight additional constructions. Some of these are very simple; others really require an

understanding of other constructions before they can be understood. (Think of Vygotsky’s

“zones of proximal development.”) In the KISS framework, these are all considered “Level 5

134

constructions” because they do not need to be learned before students can understand clauses or

verbals. In the new curriculum design, the first three of these have been put into Level 2.3. The

others all still have a level five designation.

6.1. Interjections

“Interjection” is derived from the Latin for “thrown into.” In other words, interjections are

“thrown into” a sentence—they do not chunk in the same way that other words and constructions

do. They are neither parts of S/V/C nexal patterns, nor are they typical modifiers. Many

traditional grammar books appear to limit “interjections” to single words such as “Gee,”

“Golly!” “Uh,” etc. Other books include some prepositional phrases such as “of course.” Many

modern linguists consider these interjections as “sentence modifiers,” which is a good way of

looking at them. KISS goes beyond this to include other constructions, such as parenthetical

expressions, as interjections—“It was (he said) a good idea.”

6.2. Direct Address

“Direct Address” denotes the naming of the person or persons addressed—“Bill, please

close the door.” Although it is usually considered a separate construction, note that it is really a

sentence modifier and thus could be considered a specific type of interjection.

6.3. Nouns Used as Adverbs

In a sentence such as “The plane crashed three miles from here,” “miles” is a noun that

functions as an adverb indicating “how far.” Nouns are fairly commonly used as adverbs.

A Note on Gerunds That Function as Nouns Used as Adverbs

A frequent question in internet discussion groups about grammar is how to

explain words such as “fishing” in “They went fishing.” The question usually evokes a

variety of responses, some of them very complex. Within KISS, the answer is simple.

“Fishing” is a gerund, and since gerunds can function in any way that nouns can,

“fishing” is a gerund that functions as a Noun Used as an Adverb.

6.4 Appositives (KISS Level 5.4)

Traditionally, “appositive” denotes a noun that “chunks” to another word in a sentence

entirely based on meaning. (In other words, there is no preposition or conjunction to make the

135

connection.) An example would be—“They live in Ithaca, a city in New York.” One way of

looking at these appositives is to consider them a reduction of an S/V/PN pattern in a subordinate

clause—“They live in Ithaca, which is a city in New York.” In essence, a nexal pattern (“which

is a city in New York”) is reduced to an appositive that can be viewed as a modifier of the word

to which it stands in apposition. The advanced reduction may partially explain why appositives

generally appear in students’ writing well after the development of subordinate clauses. If you

study KISS Level 5.4, you will probably agree that many other constructions (finite verbs,

clauses, verbals) can also function as appositives.

6.5 Post-Positioned Adjectives (KISS Level 5.5)

A few adjectives usually follow the noun they modify, as in “They all went to the park.”

KISS treats these a regular adjectives, reserving the “post-positioned” designation for the less

frequent, and stylistically more advanced adjectives that can usually be viewed as a reduction of

an S/V/PA pattern in a subordinate clause. “The trees, tall and dark, made the trail difficult to

follow” can be seen as a reduction of “The trees, which were tall and dark, made the trail

difficult to follow.” (Note the structural similarity between appositives and post-positioned

adjectives.) Students do not really need the concept of “Post-Positioned Adjectives” to

understand that these words function as adjectival modifiers, but KISS includes the concept

because it can be studied as a later stylistic development.

6.6 Delayed Subjects and Sentences (KISS Level 5.6)

In a fairly common variation of the nexal S/V/C pattern, the meaningful subject is delayed

and its place is taken usually by “It”—“It was impossible to see him in the darkness” means

“To see him in the darkness was impossible.” The most common delayed subjects consist of

infinitives or clauses.

Delayed Subjects are another good example of how the KISS Approach differs from most

others. When they do deal with this construction, most textbooks refer to them as “cleft

sentences,” and they give examples comparable to the one above. But delayed subjects can

appear within sentences, as in “The boy thought it useful to look for hazel rods.” KISS explains

“it useful” as an ellipsed infinitive—“it *to be* useful.” The infinitive phrase “to look for hazel

rods” is then easily seen as a delayed subject of the infinitive—“The boy thought to look for

hazel nuts *to be* useful.” In other words, where most grammars simply name and describe

136

various constructions, KISS has developed these constructions as concepts that can be used to

explain how almost any word functions as part of a nexal pattern or as a modifier.

6.7 Passive Voice and Retained Complements (KISS Level 5.7)

Passive voice is another variation of the basic nexal pattern. In passives, the subject is

passive, but that passivity is expressed in the form of the verb—“Bill was given a dollar.”

Complements after passives (in this example “dollar”) are considered to be “retained” from the

active voice version of the sentence—“Someone gave Bill a dollar.” Much nonsense has been

written (and taught) about the passive voice, primarily because students have not been taught

how to identify subjects and verbs in the first place. KISS first teaches students how to identify

passives—and only then begins to explore their stylistic functions.

6.8 Noun Absolutes (KISS Level 5.8)

Stylistically, noun absolutes are the most advanced type of reduction of the nexal pattern of

a clause. In them, a gerundive (a verbal) replaces the finite verb in what would be a subordinate

clause:

137

Main clauses: The snow stopped. They decided to leave their cabin and head to town.

Subordinate clause:

When the snow stopped, they decided to leave their cabin and head to town.

Noun Absolute: The snow having stopped, they decided to leave their cabin and head to town.

As with infinitives, the verb “to be” is often ellipsed as in the following example from Theodore

Dreiser’s wonderful “The Lost Phoebe”:

Main clauses: He fell asleep after a time. His head was on his knees.

Subordinate clause: He fell asleep after a time, while his head was on his knees.

Noun Absolute: He fell asleep after a time, his head on his knees.

Because current grammar instruction begins with the eight parts of speech, grammar textbooks

rarely cover noun absolutes in any detail.

Almost all grammarians define noun absolutes only as adverbial modifiers, but noun

absolutes can also function as nouns. Here again, the grammarians’ problem is that they focus on

individual constructions and not the underlying nexal and modification patterns. [#8] Like clauses

and verbals, noun absolutes can function as objects of prepositions or as subjects or complements

in nexal patterns. Consider, for example, the following sentence from Eric Knight’s Lassie,

Come Home:

His problem was his mother staring at him.

Most grammar textbooks would analyze this sentence by saying that the subject, verb, and

complement are “problem was . . . mother.” They would then explain “staring” as a modifier of

“mother.” But modifiers are less important than the words in nexal patterns, including reduced

nexal patterns. Thus this analysis suggests that the main idea is that his problem was his mother.

But that is not what the sentence means. The “staring” is just as much a part of the problem as is

his mother.

The KISS analysis explains “mother staring” as the core of a noun absolute, in other words,

as a reduced nexal pattern. That absolute functions as a predicate noun. As a result, the basic

pattern of the sentence is “problem was . . . mother staring.” Whereas most grammars treat all

138

grammatical constructions as equally important, the KISS focus on nexus and modification

highlights the structural relationships in sentences such that the explanations expose the meaning

of the sentences. If you study KISS Level 5.8, you will probably agree that noun absolutes can

also function as nouns.

To understand noun absolutes, students really need to be able to identify gerundives, so the

noun absolute should probably be the last construction that students study.

7. Conclusion—Nexus, Modification, and the Teaching of GrammarLeonard Bernstein’s six brilliant Harvard Lectures on The Unanswered Question explore the

history and theory of classical music in an interdisciplinary perspective, including philosophy

and modern linguistics. In the second lecture, “Musical Syntax,” he analyzes musical notes and

phrases in a way that is similar to the grammarians’ analysis of words and phrases. He observes

that it is a form of parsing, similar to grammatical parsing, but he actually makes fun of

traditional grammatical parsing. (What good does it do, what understanding does it give us, to

know that in this sentence “sentence” is a singular noun in the nominative case?) In its place, he

uses the concepts of compounding, reduction, and embedding, concepts that have been

fundamental to this essay, to parse and explain the structures of music. The lecture ends with a

very informative analysis of Mozart’s Symphony No. 40, punctuated by Bernstein’s comments on

the reductions, etc. [#9] His point is that understanding the structural principles of the whole is

more meaningful than being able to name the individual parts.

The two most important structural concepts of grammar are nexus and modification. They

should probably be taught as soon as students are old enough to comprehend them. Consider the

KISS approach to teaching adjectives and adverbs (discussed above). The traditional approach is

to teach descriptions of the forms of the words, the different kinds of adjectives and adverbs, etc.

As I noted in the “Introduction,” the KISS Approach, on the other hand, not only emphasizes the

function of these words as modifiers, it has the students identify adjectives and adverbs by first

determining how the words function:

A word or construction that modifies a noun or a pronoun functions as (and therefore is)

an adjective.

139

A word or construction that modifies a verb, adjective, or another adverb functions as

(and therefore is) an adverb.

In the “Introduction,” I suggested this approach makes it easier for students to then learn how to

identify the adjectival and adverbial functions of prepositional phrases and clauses. The

discussion of prepositional phrases and subordinate clauses then suggested that students can

identify the adjectival and adverbial functions of these phrases and clauses in exactly the same

way that they identified the functions of single-word adjectives and adverbs. Then the often

inaccurate information such as that adverbial clauses often begin with “where” or “when” can be

dropped. (Keep It Simple.) We can now look at the rest of the constructions.

The very definition of verbals emphasizes their functions—“Verbals are simply verbs that

function as nouns, or adjectives or adverbs (modifiers) within an S/V/C pattern.” Here again,

students can easily learn to identify the functions by using what they have previously learned

about nexus and modification. The eight additional constructions introduce two (Interjections

and Direct Address) that are “thrown into” an S/V/C pattern, but Nouns Used as Adverbs are

again easily understood by their function as modifiers. Appositives and Post-Positioned

Adjectives can be understood as modifiers that result from the reduction of an S/V/C pattern, and

Delayed Subjects and Passive Voice are variations on the basic S/V/C pattern. That leaves Noun

Absolutes, which again function either as adverbs, or as objects of prepositions (as parts of a type

of modifier) or as filling the subject or complement slots in an S/V/C pattern.

If the preceding paragraph seems to say a lot of the same thing, that is the point. Once

students understand nexus and modification, they can understand how almost everything “fits.”

The KISS Approach is not only more meaningful, it can also be a lot easier to understand. Note

also that the KISS sequence follows the natural mental development of syntactic structures,

starting with the simplest sentence pattern and adding on to it. And most of the words in any text

function in those simple ways—as subjects, finite verbs, complements, adjectives, adverbs, etc.

Thus even at KISS Level One, students can see that they can already identify and meaningfully

discuss most of the words in any sentence that they read or write. (Reading instructors, by the

way, have told me that one of many students’ problems is that they read individual words—in

other words, they do not see the nexal and modificational connections.)

140

Even more importantly, perhaps, an emphasis on nexus and modification can help students

understand not only working systematically, but also the nature of a “system.” One can work

systematically without understanding a system. For example, students identifying S/V/C patterns

should be taught to work systematically, one S/V/C pattern at a time (rather than finding a verb

here, and a subject there, as some students try to do). But working systematically will not

necessarily result in understanding a “system.” Whether one is talking about electrical systems,

economic systems, or political systems, understanding a “system” means to understand how all

the relevant parts interrelate. Too much of our teaching in all disciplines focuses on individual

facts. Students (and even many adults) don’t realize the problem with this because they are rarely

asked to think about the nature of a “system.” If students work systematically through all of

KISS, the concepts of nexus and modification will enable them to understand the total system of

sentence structure. Once they do that, all of those silly definitions, rules of punctuation, and

prohibitions about beginning a sentence with “But” will appear to be what they are—mostly

nonsense.

I want to thank Denise Gaskins, from the Yahoo KISSGramamrGroup for her very helpful suggestions for improving the organization and explanations in this essay. I have literally adopted some of her suggested sentences. (She is not, of course, responsible for the mistakes and value judgments.) Mrs. Gaskins’ website is at http://letsplaymath.net/ . Her books are described at http://letsplaymath.net/my-lets-play-math-books/.

- Dr. Ed Vavra

Notes

1. For more on this see Chapter One of Teaching Grammar as a Liberating Art.

2. The fundamental importance of “nexus” and “modification” was first suggested by Otto

Jespersen in his 1924, widely-respected The Philosophy of Grammar. Jespersen used the

term “junction” to refer to what most traditionalists call “modification,” so I have used the

traditional term in place of “junction.” (Note, however, that “junction” itself implies the

concept of “chunking” that was described above.)

3. Philosophically, to say something about something else is “to predicate,” and thus traditional

grammars refer to the second part of the sentence as the predicate. The term “predicate,”

however, obscures the importance of complements.

141

4. I should note here that KISS Grammar also has a section and various other exercises devoted

to compounding, but if you use them, you will probably agree that the KISS exercises focus

on the stylistic implications of compounding.

5. Most traditional textbooks really mess this up in that they consider some subordinate clauses

to be parts of main clauses and others not. And it is often not clear which is which.

6. Some grammarians like to emphasize the adverbial function of gerundives. Although it is true

that most gerundives can be seen as also having an adverbial function, the problems that

some writers have in using gerundives (misplaced or dangling modifiers) always result from

their missing the adjectival function of the gerundive. Thus the KISS Approach basically

ignores the adverbial function.

7. Don’t ask me for a definition of “objective” and “subjective” complements. You are welcome

to search other grammar resources, but please check more than two. You will get anywhere

from two to two dozen different answers. Because KISS eliminates the need for them, I have

stopped thinking about what “objective” and “subjective” complements are.

8. Even though George O. Curme is acknowledged as one of the two greatest early twentieth

century grammarians, graduate students in English or Linguistics apparently do not study his

work. Curme discusses noun absolutes as nouns in Volume II of his A Grammar of the

English Language (Essex, Conn.: Verbatin, [1931], 1986, pp. 155-158).

9. These lectures, which are well worth watching more than once, are available on DVD.

The “Parts of Speech” as FunctionsThe “Parts of Speech” as Functions

Cherubs Architecture

by Angelica

Kauffmann (1741-1807)

Many of the problems in teaching grammar result from an unstated confusion about the

nature of the eight “parts of speech.” Some people still think of the eight parts of speech as boxes

into which words can be sorted – this word is a noun, it goes in the noun box. This view works

well with inflected languages, such as Latin and Russian, in which the endings of words indicate

a specific part of speech. But English does not work this way.

Paul Roberts clarifies the problem in a brief discussion of “Three Bases of Definition”:

142

Some confusion and argument can be avoided if we understand the bases of

our definitions. There are at least three possible bases, which will be called in this

book the formal, the syntactic, and the notional. By formal definition we shall

mean definition based on form – sounds in the spoken language, spelling in the

written. By syntactic definition we shall mean definition based on syntax – the

relation of words to other words in the sentence. By notional definition we shall

mean definition based on our understanding of the relationship of words to the

actual, real-world phenomena represented by the words.

For illustration, let us make three brief and incomplete definitions of noun:

Formal: A noun is a word that forms a plural in -s.

Syntactic: A noun is a word that may serve as subject of a verb.

Notional: A noun is the name of a person, place, or thing.

Obviously none of these adequately defines noun, but each of them might be

expanded and qualified so as to approach adequacy. Grammarians use

sometimes one kind of definition and sometimes another, and sometimes a

combination, as circumstances require or as their temperament leads them.

(Understanding Grammar, 10-11.my emphasis)

This might seem like much ado about nothing, but it is actually a major point if we want to make

instruction in grammar efficient and effective. Students, for example, are often given a formal

definition of adverbs as “words that end in -ly.” There is nothing wrong with this, unless it is

where instruction stops. In an essentially syntactic approach to sentence structure (like KISS),

this formal definition can help many students identify many adverbs, but instruction should

simultaneously include the functional definition – adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, and other

adverbs.

And instruction should be reinforced by having students use both definitions to identify

adverbs in real sentences. Pre-school children have an excellent subconscious command of

English syntax. If we assume that by third grade students have had some basic work in

recognizing nouns and verbs, then in third grade, any child can easily be taught to look at a

sentence such as “They came late,” and be expected to identify “late” as an adverb modifying

“came.” Note that this identification is made on the basis of the word’s function in the sentence,

143

not on its form. The formal definition is simply a crutch, a tool to help students get started. It is

not an end in itself, especially since it does not include all adverbs. The syntactic definition, on

the other hand, is the definition that students really need because it applies to all adverbs and will

easily enable students to identify other constructions that function as adverbs:

Prepositional phrases: They came in the morning.

Subordinate clauses: They came after we had breakfast.

If we want to make our instruction as simple and as clear as possible, we need to concentrate

on syntactic definitions, using formal and/or notional definitions, when helpful, as starting

points.

The primacy of syntactic definitions becomes still clearer once we realize that the “part of

speech” of many words in context can only be determined by considering their function. The

word “like,” for example, can function as a

Noun: I have never seen the like.

Adjective: They gave a like sum to the church.

Verb: They like her.

Preposition: I don’t know anyone like him.

Subordinate Conjunction: No one sings like he does.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary even defines “like” as an adverb and gives “like mad” as

an example. Traditional prescriptive grammars often attempted to stop people from using “like”

as a subordinate conjunction. Teachers might want to discuss this with students, but it is a

question of usage rather than a question of syntax. In “No one sings like he does,” “like” clearly

functions as a subordinate conjunction.

Although “like” is an extreme case, there are thousands of words in English than can

function as more than one part of speech. Many of them, for example, can function as noun,

verb, or adjective: His love is a rose. He loves roses. His love life is full of thorns.

Teaching the Eight Parts of Speech as Functions

144

Given the preceding theoretical (philosophical?) discussion, we are left with the question of

a practical approach to teaching the eight parts of speech as functions. From the students’

perspective, there are two questions involved here. 1.) Can the word function as a specified part

of speech? 2.) Does the word function as that part of speech in a particular sentence? (I am

tempted to explore some of the problems for students created by conflicting bases of definitions,

but I will try to refrain in order to Keep It Simple, Stupid. [That’s me.] As one example,

however, note that the formal definition of noun, given by Roberts (above) would exclude “New

York” as a noun since the word does not form a plural in -s.)

# 1 & 2: Nouns (and Pronouns)

For primary school children, the best entry into a formal understanding of nouns is probably

the old notional definition – “a noun is the name of a person, place, or thing.” This definition has

been severely criticized from two different directions. Some people claim that “thing” is too

vague – it includes everything. Others argue, for example, that “virtue” is not a “person, place, or

thing.” Although the attacks can be justified on a philosophical level, they ignore the fact that the

definition is extremely helpful to young children, children whose world and especially whose

writing is filled with relatively concrete “things.” Thus this definition will enable young children

to easily and correctly identify the majority of nouns in what they read and write. This ability

will enable them to study the basic characteristics of nouns – plurals, possessives, etc.

Because pronouns simply function in any way that a noun can, KISS does not pay much

attention to pronouns. Young students should be introduced to the concept of pronouns, but I’m

not sure that they need either to memorize the words that so function, or, with one exception,

memorize the various sub-types. The exception is the personal pronouns – first person (those that

refer to the speaker: “I,” “we,” etc.), second person (that refer to the person or people spoken to:

“you,” “your,” etc.), and third person (those that refer to the person, people or things spoken

about: “she,” “he,” “it,” :”they,” etc.).

The reason for the exception is simple – these terms are used outside the direct study of

grammar. In studying literature, for example, most students will be expected to learn about point-

of-view – first person narrators as opposed, for example, to third-person omniscient. And, on an

even more practical level, first person is prohibited in the writing styles of many academic

professions and disciplines. Instructors in social services, civil engineering, and many other

145

disciplines will simply tell students not to use “first person.” Students have told me that they

have either had to rewrite papers, or lost a full letter grade, because they did not follow those

directions. Never, on the other hand, have I heard of the other sub-types of pronouns

(“demonstrative,” “interrogative,” etc.) being discussed outside the context of the formal study of

grammar.

The notional definition of “noun” enables students to begin to recognize them before the

students begin a study of sentence structure. The functional definition, obviously, must await the

study of sentence structure. It can begin, however, as soon as students begin to study

prepositional phrases – whatever answers the question “[Preposition] what?” functions as a noun.

It must, therefore be either a noun or a pronoun. This functional approach, moreover, expands

and clarifies the notional definition – any word (or grammatical construction) that can fill the

blank in “They were talking about (a) _____.” can be a noun or pronoun. “Virtue” may or may

not be a “thing,” but it is clearly a noun because one can talk about virtue.

This functional, “slot” approach can then be extended as students progress through the KISS

Approach. Whatever functions as a subject has to be a noun or a pronoun. Complements must be

either nouns (pronouns) or adjectives. (If they are not predicate adjectives, they must be a noun

or a pronoun.

# 3: Verbs

Verbs are the most important, and also the trickiest part of speech. The function of finite

verbs is to make a statement (predication) about a subject: “Bread is ....” “Bread needs ....”

“Bread tastes ....” The old notional definition (A verb is a word that shows action or a state of

being.”) is not helpful. Many nouns (not even considering verbal nouns such as “fighting”) show

action—“a run,” “a hit,” etc. To understand the meaning of either “shows” or “state of being” in

that definition, once must either already be able to identify finite verbs or have an advanced

course in philosophy.

The easiest way to enable students to identify finite verbs is to rely on their already very

well developed sense of sentence structure and to use what Wittgenstein calls an “ostensive”

definition – point to them. Simply give students texts in which the finite verbs are underlined or

in bold such that the students can see the examples. Then give the students the same (or other)

texts in which the finite verbs have not been identified and have the students underline the finite

146

verbs. Repeat the process until the students can identify all the finite verbs. This procedure is

best done in grades four through six, before the students’ writing becomes “cluttered” with

verbals.

“Cluttered” was in quotation marks because verbals are “clutter” only in the sense that they

confuse older students who are trying to learn to identify the finite verbs in their own writing.

Verbals are actually important signs of mature writing, but they do not add to the parts of speech.

Every verbal is simply a verb that functions as a noun, adjective, or adverb.

# 4 & 5: Adjectives and Adverbs—the Modifiers

As noted in the section on basic sentence structure, adjectives and adverbs function to

modify (clarify, or make more specific) the meaning of nouns, verbs, or other adjectives and

adverbs. And, as suggested previously, the easiest way to teach students to identify adjectives

and adverbs is to teach students to rely on their well-developed sense of sentence structure. If a

word modifies a noun or a pronoun, the word is an adjective. If it modifies a verb, an adjective,

or an adverb, it is an adverb.

# 6 & 7: Prepositions and Conjunctions – the Connectors

Both prepositions and conjunctions function to establish connections (usually meaningful)

between (or among) the ideas represented by other words or constructions. The difference

between the two categories is that prepositions connect nouns (or pronouns) to other words or

constructions, whereas conjunctions can connect anything to anything – noun and noun, verb and

verb, clause and clause, etc. Prepositions, of course, create prepositional phrases, 99.9% of which

function as simple adjectives or adverbs. The situation with conjunctions is more complex.

If I were to change the traditional “eight parts of speech,” the only thing I would do would

be to make them nine in number by distinguishing coordinating from subordinating

conjunctions. Coordinating conjunctions (“and,” “or,” and “but”) join grammatical (and ideally

logical) “equals” – subject and subject, verb and verb, adjective and adjective, main clause and

main clause, etc. (“So” and “for,” which can function as either coordinating or subordinating

conjunctions are the two exceptions. See the section on “Sliding Constructions.”).

Subordinating conjunctions form subordinate clauses that function to make one whole

sentence (predication) a noun or a modifier in another sentence. Thus every subordinate clause

147

functions as a noun, adjective, or adverb within another S/V/C pattern. Simple examples would

be:

Noun: He was late. She knew it. She knew [that he was late].

Adjective: He was expecting someone. Someone could help him. He was expecting

someone [who could help him].

Adverb: He was expecting her. She could help him. He was expecting her [because she

could help him].

# 8: Interjections

“Interjection” comes from the Latin for “thrown in,” and they are so called because they are

thrown into sentences without having a regular syntactic function, i.e., unlike the other words

and constructions, they do not “connect” to a specific word or other construction in the S/V/C

pattern. Instead, they express the writer’s or speaker’s emotional or intellectual attitude toward

the sentence as a whole. (Thus many linguistics call them “sentence modifiers.”) The simplest

and most common interjections, often found in the writing of young children, are single words or

phrases – “Golly!” “Gee whiz!” “Oh!” These words and phrases tend to disappear in the writing

of older students, and are usually verboten in formal writing styles, but they are replaced by

interjections in the form of more complex constructions—prepositional phrases, clauses, etc.

Looking at the eight parts of speech as functions, rather than as word categories, expands

and clarifies much of sentence structure. Students who understand simple adjectives in terms of

their function will have little, if any problem in extending this concept to adjectival prepositional

phrases, to adjective clauses, to gerundives, or to infinitives that function as adjectives. Every

word and every construction in any English sentence can be identified and explained in terms of

one of the eight parts of speech – if the parts are defined as functions.

Alternative ExplanationsAlternative Explanations

Morning, or Spring

by Maxfield Parrish

(1870-1966)

Many grammar textbooks make it seem as if one and only one explanation can be given for

the grammatical function of a word in a sentence. As noted previously, however, the textbooks

148

(and their writers) often disagree as to what that explanation should be. Within the KISS

approach, therefore, more than one explanation is often acceptable. Rather than having one

explanation forced on them, students should be allowed to choose the explanation that makes

most sense to them. This section is devoted to some of the cases that show up frequently, but the

primary point is the principle – there is often more than one “right” answer.

Occasionally, students will insist on an explanation that does not seem to make sense.

Depending on the circumstances, I do one of two things. If I feel that the discussion would only

confuse or waste the time of the rest of the class, I invite the student to discuss his or her

explanation with me outside of class. The other response is to give the student time to make his

or her explanation to the class as a whole. I then ask for two votes. First, the students vote (by

show of hand) on whether or not they understand the explanation. If the majority vote “no,”

then the student usually sees for him or herself that the explanation is not very explanatory. If

they vote “yes,” then I ask how many students agree with the explanation. This sometimes

results in a “valid,” but clearly minority alternative explanation.

Prepositional Phrases: Adjective or Adverb?

Different people often see prepositional phrases as modifying different words in a sentence.

For example, in “The Ant and the Grasshopper,” Aesop writes:

“I am helping to lay up food {for the winter.”}

Some people will see “{for winter}” as an adjective modifying “food”; others will want to

consider it as an adverb (of purpose) explaining “lay up.” Both explanations are within the rules

of KISS grammar, and both make sense. Thus, unless a teacher can provide a reasonable

explanation for considering one view or the other as incorrect, either explanation should be

considered correct.

“Than”—Preposition or Subordinate Conjunction?

As I frequently tell students, little words cause the most problems. My favorite dictionary

(Webster’s New Collegiate, 1961) claims that “than” is a conjunction, not a preposition. It seems,

however, both more logical and easier to consider it as both, depending on the context.

Because “than” is often used with ellipsis, it is sometimes necessary to consider it as a

subordinate conjunction. My favorite example of this is a sentence written by a young lady:

No one can train a horse better than me.

149

Expanded, this sentence can be interpreted as meaning

No one can train a horse better than *they can train* me.

That is not what the woman meant, but a number of young men may have, as a result of the

sentence, had thoughts in that direction. When we view “than” as a conjunction, we need to

consider the full S/V pattern that follows it.

But should we always consider “than” as a conjunction? If I write:

Her explanation is better than mine.

do I necessarily mean:

Her explanation is better than mine *is good.*

What if mine is bad? What if both hers and mine are bad, but hers is simply a better bad than

mine? To me, there are cases in which the explanation using the preposition simply makes more

sense.

It is, of course, also easier, especially because the KISS approach begins with prepositional

phrases. At that level of study, I would never consider as incorrect an answer that marked “than”

as a preposition unless the answer to “than what?” was itself a sentence. On the other hand, at

that level, I would never consider a “than” that was not marked as a preposition as an incorrect

answer either. In other words, at the level of prepositional phrases, I would simply ignore the

problem of “than.” Once students are learning about clauses, we would confront the problem,

solving it, as always in the KISS approach, by appeals to meaning.

The following example from Aesop’s “The Hares and the Frogs” clearly suggests that,

despite the dictionary, “than” can be considered a preposition:

There is always someone worse off than yourself.

[”Yourself” cannot be viewed here as the subject of an ellipsed clause – “yourself *is bad off.*

Certainly it makes more sense to see “than yourself” as a prepositional phrase.]

Verbal Tags

Verbal tags are words which look like prepositions, but which do not function as such.

Consider:

She ran up the hill; he ran up the flag.

{”Up the hill”} indicates where she ran, but he probably ran the flag up the flagpole. Sometimes,

as in “Come on,” it is almost impossible to imagine a word that would make the verbal tag into a

150

preposition. Often the verbal tag can simply be left out without much loss of meaning: “Come

on” = “Come.” A general rule of KISS grammar is that:

If a verb plus verbal tag can be replaced with one word (“ran up” = “raised”),

or if the verbal tag can be left out without major loss of meaning (“Come on” =

“Come”), then the tag is simply considered either as an adverb or as part of the

verb phrase.

This rule enables alternative explanations for several verbs, the most frequently used of

which is “look at” (= “watch”). Thus

They were looking at the doggies in the window.

can be analyzed either as “They were looking {at the doggies}” or as an S / V / DO pattern:

“They / were looking at / the doggies (DO).”

Examples of other verbs that can replace verbal tags:

cry out = scream

go on = continue

look like = resemble

look out for = seek, guard, avoid, watch

put up with = endure

think of = remember

think up = invent

went in = entered

went up = approached

Remember that this list is not comprehensive. Just use your head and think about the meaning of

what is being analyzed.

Although it may occasionally be fun to explore the different implications of alternative

explanations, in general, teachers should accept both – and move on. One of the primary reasons

for the failure of current instruction in grammar in our classrooms is that it gets too focused on

details – and students never get to see the big picture.

Finally, please remember that KISS is one of many grammars of English. If you study some

of the other grammars, you will find numerous other ways of explaining various constructions.

Both the research and my experience, however, suggest that the primary problem in the teaching

151

of grammar is the confusing terminology. KISS has been intentionally developed for teaching

students in K-12, and it uses as few grammatical terms as possible. The KISS glossary, for

example, explains several traditional terms that KISS eliminates. If you feel that those terms are

helpful, by all means, use them. Questions are always welcome on the KISS List, and if you

would like to see still more alternatives, you can post a question to the list of the Assembly for

the Teaching of English Grammar (www.ateg.org). Good luck.

Direct Object? Or Main Clause?

In a difficult, but wonderful essay called “Examsmanship and the Liberal Arts,” William G.

Perry distinguishes “cow” (raw facts) and “bull” (the contexts that make facts meaningful). In

essence, Perry’s bullster understands that facts have meaning only in terms of what Perry refers

to as “frames of reference.” Put more simply perhaps, Perry argues that facts have different

meanings depending on the perspective from which one approaches them. Understanding the

relevant frames of reference, therefore, is extremely important. Consider, for example, the

following sentence from Ouida’s A Dog of Flanders:

And a little child with curling fair hair, sobbing bitterly as she clung to her

father’s arm, cried aloud, “Oh, Nello, come! We have all ready for thee. The

Christ-child’s hands are full of gifts, and the old piper will play for us; and the

mother says thou shalt stay by the earth and burn nuts with us all the Noël week

long — yes, even to the Feast of the Kings! And Patrasche will be so happy! Oh,

Nello, wake and come!”

One of the questions that I have never seen a grammar textbook address is What is the direct

object of “cried”? Obviously, from one perspective, it is the entire quotation. I certainly would

not tell anyone who argued that perspective that they are wrong, and, within KISS, we can even

easily analyze it:

... child ... cried aloud, “[DO Oh, Nello, come!] [DO We have all ready for

thee.] [DO The Christ-child’s hands are full of gifts,] and [DO the old piper will

play for us;] and [DO the mother says [DO thou shalt stay by the earth and burn

nuts with us all the Noël week long — yes, even to the Feast of the Kings!]] [DO

And Patrasche will be so happy!] [DO Oh, Nello, wake and come!]” /

152

But in the frame of reference of the KISS psycholinguistic model, i.e., from the perspective of

how readers actually process such sentences, we probably do not process all the sentences within

such quotations as subordinate clauses that function as direct objects. We probably process most

of them as main clauses. Thus KISS uses an alternate explanation that reflects this perspective:

... child ... cried aloud, “[DO Oh, Nello, come!] / We have all ready for thee.

/ The Christ-child’s hands are full of gifts, / and the old piper will play for us; /

and the mother says [DO thou shalt stay by the earth and burn nuts with us all the

Noël week long — yes, even to the Feast of the Kings!] / And Patrasche will be so

happy! / Oh, Nello, wake and come!” /

As noted, either explanation is acceptable. The only time a choice is important is in stylistic

statistical studies, when, for example, one is counting and comparing the number of subordinate

clauses that various writers use per main clause.

The Frog Prince

-

Greeting the

Frog by

Walter Crane

Sliding Parts of SpeechSliding Parts of Speech

One of the reasons for allowing alternative explanations is that grammatical constructions

often slide from one part of speech, or one grammatical category, into another. Whereas

alternative explanations imply differences in the way people may perceive grammatical

constructions, “sliding” implies slippage from one grammatical category to another within the

language itself. A major problem, not only of traditional grammars, but also of many modern

linguistic grammars, is that they view grammatical categories as thick-walled boxes and assume

that a grammatical construction “belongs” in one such box. But the more one studies the

structure of actual sentences, the more one will get a sense that constructions literally slide from

one category into another.

Adjective or Adverb?

153

Consider the sentence “His tears fell hot and fast.” Some people will argue that “hot” and

“fast” are adverbs that modify “fell.” Other people, however, will counter that “hot” and “fast”

are adjectives that modify, either as predicate adjectives or as post-positioned adjectives, “tears.”

Both explanations are logical, so, instead of considering “hot” and “fast” as either adjectives or

as adverbs, why can’t we say that they are both?

Adverbs that Function as Adjectives?

Consider function of the “as” clause in the following sentence from Ouida’s The Dog of

Flanders:

His owner sauntered on without noticing him otherwise than by the crack of the

whip as it curled round his quivering loins.

An “as” clause is almost universally considered to be adverbial, but if we ask what this clause

modifies, we have a dilemma. We could say that it modifies the gerund “noticing,” but in terms

of meaning, it makes much more sense to take it to the noun “crack,” especially since the normal

noun “crack” is here equivalent to the gerund “cracking.” Thus, in some cases, it makes more

sense to say that an adverb can modify a noun and thus function as adjectives do.

Adverbs / Ellipsed Prepositional Phrases / Ellipsed Clauses?

In a sentence such as “She did this before,” some grammarians consider “before” an adverb,

but if we ask the perfectly reasonable question, “Before what?” we see that there is, if the

sentence has meaning, an implied answer, an answer that would function as the object of

“before” as a preposition, or, depending on context, as a subordinate clause:

She did this {before today}.

She did this [before Bill arrived.]

Traditional grammar focused on categorizing words, not sentences. Even less did it consider how

the structure within one sentence may depend on the context established by preceding sentences.

Note how, in the following passage from a student’s paper, “underneath,” in the second sentence,

gets its object, and thus its meaning, from the preceding sentence:

154

But the most vivid impression left on me this summer by this theater came not

from the stage; instead, it came from the rooms underneath the theater. In this

world underneath existed an atmosphere of mystery which made me feel as if I

was exploring an old dungeon in a decaying castle.

Finite Verb, or Gerundive?

Perhaps the best example of literal “sliding” may be that from a participle as part of a finite

verb phrase to the participle that functions as a gerundive. Consider the following sentence:

The king was counting out his money in his counting house.

Most grammarians would consider “was counting” as the finite verb phrase. But look at the

sentence as it appears in “Sing a Song of Sixpence”:

The king was in his counting house counting out his money.

In a sense, we could say that the prepositional phrase “in his counting house” has slid between

the two parts of the finite verb phrase. Is “was counting “ still the finite verb, or has it become a

gerundive? On this, grammarians will almost certainly disagree. But then what happens if we

slide the end of the sentence to the beginning:

Counting out his money, the king was in his counting house.

Most grammarians and linguists do not like the KISS term “gerundive,” but they would almost

all consider the “Counting” phrase as a participle that functions as a verbal adjective, i.e., a KISS

gerundive. Not a word in the sentence has changed, but we surely have what looks like a clear

slide from “counting” being part of the finite verb phrase to its being a gerundive.

Passive Verb, Gerundive, or Simple Adjective?

Consider the following sentences:

1.) The eggs were scrambled.

2.) Eggs scrambled by his mother were just right.

3.) Paul likes scrambled eggs.

Different grammatical theories have different ways of explaining “scrambled,” and the

discussions can become very complex. KISS follows traditional grammar in (1), considering

155

“were scrambled” as a passive finite verb. In (2), however, “scrambled” is usually considered a

gerundive (the traditional “participle”). But what is “scrambled” in (3)?

Although many grammarians would consider it to be a gerundive, I suggest that it might be

considered as a simple adjective. The question, I suggest, depends on how one learns the word.

Paul, like many other people, may never have seen eggs scrambled, or, even if he did, the

meaning of the word may be more tied, in his head, to the texture etc. of the resulting eggs. In his

head, the word may primarily be registered as a simple adjective, comparable to “cold,” “warm,”

or “fresh” eggs.

Depending on the context, the speaker, etc., the verbal meaning of a participle (the action)

slides into the adjectival (the qualitative). A “well-done steak” is not a steak that has been done

well; it is a steak, at least for many of us, that has been cooked such that the middle is not pink.

When we speak of a “dilapidated house,” we are not usually interested in the process that led to

its dilapidation. The origin of the word may be in the verb, but most of us who might use

“dilapidated” have probably never used “dilapidate” as a verb.

A similar “problem” occurs with present active participles. Paul Roberts, in one of his

books, devotes half a page to the problem of whether “moving” in “moving van” is a participle

or a regular adjective. His problem, in this case, is that he was working in the context of a

structural grammar that attempts to describe English syntax without references to what words

mean. In the KISS Approach, which depends on meaning, the distinction is simpler. In “The

moving van hit the pedestrian.” “moving” would be a gerundive if the speaker/writer meant that

the van was in motion; if, on the other hand, the speaker used “moving” to define the type of van,

“moving” would be a regular adjective.

Some students prefer to analyze “The eggs were scrambled.” as an S / V / PA pattern. When

they do so, I state that it is an interesting, logical interpretation, and that some grammarians do

consider it this way. However I push students toward recognizing it as a passive finite verb

phrase so that they will be able to discuss passive verbs.

Gerundive? or a Gerund in a Noun Absolute Functioning as a Noun?

You may have already read the basic KISS explanation of noun absolutes. Traditional

grammar books give little attention to the noun absolute used as a noun, so I would like to

explore the construction more here. Please remember that the noun absolute is a Level Five KISS

156

construction. Please don’t confuse students by explaining noun absolutes when they are working

on gerundives (Level Four). For students working at Level Four, each of the following examples

should simply be considered as a gerundive.

The case I want to make, however, is that if we want to align grammatical explanations with

meaning, the best KISS explanation (i.e., for students at Level Five), often uses the noun

absolute. The two constructions (noun modified by gerundive vs. noun absolute), in essence,

slide into each other. The difference is perceptible only when we consider meaning.

Consider:

1. A fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of grapes just

ripening on a vine.

2. As soon as the hares saw a single animal approaching them, off they used to

run.

In (1), the fox came to a bunch of grapes. That the grapes were ripening is important, but non-

essential information. In (2), however, the hares did not run off as soon as they saw a single

animal. It had to be an animal that was approaching them. Thus, by considering “animal

approaching” as a noun absolute, and that absolute as the direct object of “saw,” we can align the

grammatical explanation with the meaning of the sentence.

In some cases the noun absolute used as a noun is close to the gerund with a subject.

Consider:

1. They hear the children’s screaming.

2. They heard the children screaming.

In (1) “children’s” is a possessive noun, and thus functions as a modifier of the gerund

“screaming.” The emphasis, therefore, is on the direct object, “screaming.” In (2), we could

explain “children” as the direct object, and “screaming” as a gerundive modifying it. But such an

explanation seems to undercut the meaning of the sentence. The explanation of “children

screaming” as a noun absolute (used as a noun and here functioning as the direct object of

“heard”) in effect puts equal emphasis on the children and on the screaming.

The following are additional examples of noun absolutes used as nouns.

157

One day [the Hares] saw a troop of wild Horses stampeding about, and in quite a

panic all the Hares scuttled off . . . (Aesop, “The Hares and the Frogs”)

[In itself, the troop does not cause the panic; the panic and flight are caused by the

troop stampeding.]

As he glided over the floor he felt his skin pricked by a file lying there. (Aesop,

“The Serpent and the File”)

[He didn’t feel his skin; he felt his “skin pricked” (noun absolute). But he was

pricked by a “file.” Thus “lying” is simply a gerundive.]

The Delphic

Sibyl1508-12

by Micheangelo

Some Differences between KISSSome Differences between KISS

and Traditional Termsand Traditional Terms

KISS has been specifically designed to enable students to apply the grammar that they are

learning to an understanding of the style (and possible errors) of their own writing. In order to

achieve that objective, some of the definitions and perspectives typically found in traditional

textbooks have been modified. Most of these modifications are based on concepts from newer

structural and transformational grammars of English. KISS terminology, however, remains very

close to the traditional, and where it does not, the differences are noted and explained below.

The S/V/C Pattern rather than Subjects and Predicates

"S/V/C" stands for "subject / verb / complement." Grammarians define "complement" in

different ways, but KISS is not the only grammar that defines it as whatever answers the

question "What?" after a verb. This definition makes "complement" a single "cover" term for the

traditional predicate adjective, predicate noun, indirect object, and direct object. Here again

traditional grammars attempt to teach students what these four constructions are, but they barely

begin to help students recognize complements in real sentences. Instead, they get caught up in

partial (and confusing) explanations of transitive, intransitive, and linking verbs. Once again, in

other words, they get caught up in word categories rather than functions.

158

But if you can find a book that explores the question in any detail, you will find that

ultimately the type of complement is determined by its function. If the complement describes

the subject, it is a predicate adjective. (In other words, it is an adjective that is essential to the

predication.) If the complement is in any way equal to the subject, and the verb in any way

means "equals," the complement is a predicate noun. This is a particularly important pattern

for students to understand. Not only should formal definitions always begin with an S/V/PN

pattern, many students say things other than what they mean by using a verb that means equals

without realizing what it means. Thus one student essentially wrote, "My girlfriend is a beautiful

body." The sentence was actually heavily modified and much longer, but the essential S/V/PN

pattern (girlfriend = body) was probably not what he meant, or at least his girlfriend probably

hopes it was not. This problem with subject / verb / complement logic is fairly common, and my

main point here is that looking at sentences as S/V/C patterns, rather than as subjects and

predicates, helps students recognize and understand the problem.

Some readers have probably noted that we are in a process of elimination for determining

the type of a complement. Of course if nothing answers the question "Verb plus 'What?'," we

have what linguists call a "zero complement." If there is a complement, and it is not a predicate

adjective or a predicate noun, it has to be either an indirect or a direct object. An indirect object

indicates "to" or "for" whom something is done, as in "Our cat brought us a mouse," or "The sun

gave the windows a soft glow." Anything else has to be a direct object. I might note here that

the definition of "direct object" creates problems. The typical definition — A direct object

receives the action of the verb. — is meaningful only to those who have not thought about it.

What "action" does "Latin" receive in "She studies Latin"? Some people will claim that they do

see received action here, but they do so only because they already understand what a direct

object is. For students who do not, the definition is often useless. In 99.9% of actual cases, the

process of elimination will result in precisely the same identification (direct object, predicate

noun, etc.) that one would get in traditional (or other) grammars. In the .1% of cases about which

there might be disagreement, there will be disagreement among grammarians of all schools.

Helping to clarify complements is one advantage of the S/V/C pattern, but there is another,

perhaps even more important one. Traditional grammars (and, to my knowledge, most modern

159

linguistic grammars) view the sentence as a subject plus a predicate. There is logic behind this

view. Basically a sentence names something (subject) and then says something (predicates)

about what was named. If students had to deal only with very simplistic sentences, there would

be nothing wrong with this definition, but, if students are expected to deal with real texts, this

definition presents students with a serious problem.

Consider, for example, the not very complicated sentence, "They saw the rat that ate the

cheese." Conventional grammar would have the students identify the subject ("They") and then

the predicate ("saw the rat that ate the cheese"). So far, so good. But in looking for the next

subject & verb pattern, students will find the verb "ate." Then, following the rules they have been

taught, they will ask "Who or what ate?" and determine that "rat" is the subject of "ate." But that

is the wrong answer. And I have yet to find a traditional (or linguistic) grammar that explains to

students why it is the wrong answer -- or how to find the right one.

The explanation, very simply, is that the brain will NEVER process the complement of one

finite verb as the subject of another. And, subconsciously, every student knows that. It is,

moreover, easily demonstrable to students by using whatever example has come up and deleting

the pronoun subject. In this example, the resulting sentence ("They saw the rat ate the cheese.")

is an acceptable sentence, but it means something different than the original sentence. Every

student will recognize this difference in meaning, and, in my experience, every student who is

introduced to the idea accepts the fact that the brain will not process the complement of one

finite verb as the subject of another. If we want to enable students to analyze the structure of

multi-clause sentences, the S/V/C pattern makes much more sense -- and it makes the process

much easier -- for students.

Finite Verbs, Verb Phrases, and Palimpsests

Finite Verbs

Whereas the KISS focus on the S/V/C pattern is a fundamental difference from most

grammars, the KISS focus on finite verbs is simply a shift in focus. Almost all grammarians

recognize "finite" verbs. For a number of reasons, too complicated to get into here, the concept

rarely appears in pedagogical grammars. If, however, we want to teach students how to analyze

the structure of their own sentences, the concept is very important. Consider the following

sentences, sentences that very young students might easily write:

160

Swimming is good exercise.

They went to the park to swim.

We saw them swimming in the pool.

When we speak of teaching students to identify subjects and verbs, we usually mean subjects and

finite verbs. Given these sentences, however, many students will sensibly underline

"Swimming," "to swim," and "swimming" as "verbs." How do we teach students that they are not

finite verbs and thus that students should not underline them twice?

If we look at how verbs function in sentences, many verbs (those that we call "finite")

function as the core of a basic S/V/C pattern. Other verbs, however, function as nouns

("Swimming"), as adverbs ("to swim"), or as adjectives ("swimming"). KISS has revived what

many linguists consider an old and outdated category to label verbs that are not finite. They are

"verbals." Every verb in a sentence functions either as a finite verb or as a verbal.

Linguists apparently do not like this category because they prefer to discuss the various

types of verbals as individual categories. But then linguists have yet to develop an effective

pedagogical grammar. If you try to teach these individual categories (gerunds, infinitives,

participles) to students before the students can identify finite verbs, you will almost certainly

overwhelm the students. The instructional material below explains a series of short tests that

students can use to distinguish finite verbs from verbals. When they are beginning their study of

grammar, all that students need to know is that verbals are not underlined twice. (They do not

even need to know that they are called verbals.)

Verb Phrases

One of the main reasons why most textbooks can not prepare students to apply what they are

learning to their own reading and writing is that the texts are vague when it comes to what does,

and what does not, count as part of a finite verb phrase. As a result, even when they can basically

identify a finite verb, students are often unsure about which words are (and are not) part of the

finite verb phrase. In Level Two, KISS considers all the words in a verb phrase as parts of the

finite verb:

They will be going.

The book was read.

Paul had to leave.

Sheila ought to participate.

The preceding examples are essentially the same as those in most traditional grammars.

161

One of the things that is not clear in many grammars is whether verbs after words such as

"begin," "started," "stopped," "kept," etc. are part of the finite verb phrase.

Sue began to sing.

Sam began singing.

They kept going.

She was preparing to leave.

Here again, KISS, at Level Two, considers these as parts of the finite verb. But at Level Two,

KISS extends this perspective.

Sue wanted to sing.

Sam loved singing.

They hoped to go.

She was intending to leave.

Although the grammar textbooks are not usually clear about cases such as this, most

grammarians would consider "to sing," "singing," "to go," and "to leave" as verbals that function

as direct objects. At KISS Level Four (Verbals), students will be encouraged to explain these

verb phrases precisely in this way, but at Level Two, we have a pedagogical problem.

The research that supposedly shows that teaching grammar is harmful actually shows that

students have simply been overwhelmed by the typical clutter of grammatical terms. Students

who are working at KISS Level Two will have enough to do simply in mastering the

identification of S/V/C patterns in real sentences. Attempting to teach them to identify verbals

will almost certainly overwhelm most students. Fortunately, Jerome Bruner comes to our aid

here with his concept of the "spiral curriculum." Bruner argues for

a spiral curriculum in which ideas are first presented in a form and language,

honest though imprecise, which can be grasped by the child, ideas that can be

revisited later with greater precision and power until, finally, the student has

achieved the reward of mastery. (On Knowing, 107-8)

Applied to our problem, this suggests that there should be little, if any problem in having

students working at KISS Level Two identify all the verbs in these phrases as parts of the finite

verb phrase. Once students have mastered S/V/C patterns and clauses (which are more important

for an understanding of sentence structure than verbals are) students can return to these S/V/C

patterns and distinguish the verbs in them that function as complements.

Palimpsest Patterns

162

To my knowledge "Palimpsest Patterns" is a concept unique to KISS Grammar.

"Palimpsest" is a scholarly term that refers to ancient scrolls and other documents in which the

original writing has been "rubbed out" and a new text has been written over it. If we have

students analyze their own writing or randomly selected texts, they will almost certainly run

across sentences such as "They came running from the park." Here again, most grammar books

offer little if any explanation. Some grammarians would probably consider "running" here as a

verbal that modifies "came," but KISS views patterns like these as palimpsests. In effect, "They

came" is written over "They were running."

Fortunately, palimpsest patterns are infrequent, but the concept can be very helpful. As

another example, consider the following sentence from Mary Renault's The King Must Die:

As I rode under the gate-tower, the gates groaned open (PA), and the watchman blew his horn.

Grammarians will debate a number of explanations of "open," but do we really want our students

to become bogged down in these debates? Within KISS, we can simply look at this as a

palimpsest, with "the gates were opened" overwritten by "the gates groaned."

As a final example, consider the following sentence from "The Twelve Months -- A Slav

Legend," by Alexander Chodzko:

"I am come to look for red apples,'' replied Marouckla.

For linguists, this is a fascinating construction that they should explore with their graduate

students. Within KISS, however, we can simply explain it as a palimpsest pattern composed of "I

am here" and I have come." In this case, of course, the "am" shows over the "have," and the

"come" overwrites the "here."

Transitive, Intransitive, and Linking Verbs

Many grammar textbooks attempt to teach students to distinguish "transitive," "intransitive,"

and "linking" verbs. In most grammar books, "transitive" verbs are defined as verbs that have

indirect or direct objects; intransitive verbs have no complement, (i.e., a zero complement), and

"linking" verbs denote "state of being." Since "state of being" is a somewhat meaningless

concept, students are often required to memorize a list of "linking verbs."

The first problem with these categories is that, no matter how they are defined, ultimately,

whichever grammar you use, the only way to tell if a verb is transitive, intransitive, or linking is

to use the KISS test, i.e., to identify the complement, or absence of one, and then determine the

163

type of the verb by the type of the complement. If the complement is a direct or indirect object,

the verb is transitive; if there is no complement, the verb is intransitive; if the complement is a

predicate adjective or a predicate noun, the verb is linking. Thus, we must ask, of what use are

the categories "transitive," "intransitive," and "linking"?

To my knowledge, they have use only as vocabulary words. As one teacher noted,

dictionaries distinguish transitive and intransitive verbs. (They do not usually distinguish

"linking" verbs.) Thus, in looking up new words in a dictionary, students may be helped by

knowing what "transitive" and "intransitive" mean. Basically, however, these three categories are

holdovers from the Latin perspective on grammar. (Latin grammars focused on categorizing

words; English grammars should focus on sentence structure.) One of the ironies of most

instruction in grammar is that the textbooks spend so much time and effort on categories such as

these, but they never enable students to identify verbs in the first place.

There may be no harm in teaching these categories, if such instruction does not detract from

enabling students to recognize subjects, finite verbs, and complements, and if it does not confuse

the students. The research that supposedly shows that teaching grammar is harmful actually

shows that teaching too much grammatical terminology is harmful. And I will never forget the

teacher on NCTE-Talk, who argued for teaching grammar, and specifically for teaching

"transient" and "intransient" verbs. Since some teachers who advocate the teaching of grammar

are confused by these terms, I would hesitate to try to teach them to students.

Expletive "It" and Expletive "There"

My Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary (1983) defines "expletive" as "1. An

exclamation, often profane. 2 A word or syllable added solely for the completion of a syntactic

pattern." Dictionaries are not the best source of grammatical definitions, but I note this one

because some people may interpret the following as an expletive about expletives.

Most traditional grammars include explanations of "it" and "there" as expletives. In effect,

"expletive" refers to an "it" or "there" that appears in a subject slot, but has no meaning, the

meaningful subject appearing later in the sentence. For example:

It is true that he was late. [That he was late is true.]

There were five apples on the table. [Five apples were on the table.]

164

From a KISS perspective, "expletive" simply adds to most students' and teachers' confusion.

They can be taught within the KISS framework, and I always accept the expletive as an

explanation from any students who have learned and remembered it. (These are, however, few

and far between.) No one is ever going to test students on their knowledge of expletives, so there

really isn't much reason for teaching them.

As expletives, "it" and "there" usually involve two different types of constructions. Both can

be explained without referring to "expletives." Most modern linguists describe the "It" in "It is

true that he was late" as a "cleft sentence." This is fine as far as it goes, but pesky me wants to

know how they would explain the "it" in "He found it sad that they were alone." Here, the "cleft"

appears in a subordinate construction, so it does not make much sense to call it a "cleft sentence."

In developing KISS by analyzing texts (not by studying grammar books), I took the liberty

of creating a construction, the "Delayed Subject." I later learned that Francis Christensen called

the same construction a "Postponed" Subject, but by then I had already used the term "Delayed"

so frequently that I kept it. I would simply suggest that "Delayed" (or "Postponed") Subject

makes the meaning of this construction more comprehensible for students than do either

"Expletive" or "Cleft." In a KISS analysis of the first example, "It" is the subject, "is" is the verb,

and "true" is a predicate adjective. "That he was late" is a subordinate clause that functions as a

delayed subject and thus chunks to the syntactic subject "it." In "He found it sad that they were

alone," "that they were alone" is likewise a delayed subject to "it," but in this case the "it"

functions as the subject of an ellipsed infinitive construction — "it to be sad," and the infinitive

phrase functions as the direct object of "found."

Sentences with "there" usually do not involve delayed subjects. Within KISS, they can be

explained in either of two ways. One is simply to consider the "There" an adverb. In "There were

five apples on the table," this perspective makes "apples" the subject of the sentence. Note that

this is precisely what we do with "Here are five apples." The alternative explanation is to

consider the "there" as filling an "empty" subject slot in an S/V/PN pattern. (Note how this

perspective coincides with the dictionary definition above.)

Some grammarians have argued that we must include the expletive construction because the

"there" is meaningless, but my students find it to be no more meaningless than the "it" in "It is

raining." Thus KISS normally treats sentences of this type simply as S/V/PN patterns. I have

165

been asked how, in this explanation, KISS can deal with subject / verb agreement problems, as in

"There is five apples on the table." The answer to that is simple. The S/V/PN pattern is based on

an equality between the subject and the predicate noun. Thus, if the predicate noun is plural, the

subject must be also.

KISS is, of course, designed to provide students with an analytical grammar using the fewest

terms possible. Anyone who wants to can add expletives and/or cleft sentences to it. But don't

complain if the students become confused.

Objective (& Subjective) Complements

Two other confusing holdovers from traditional grammar are subjective and objective

complements. The various ways in which different grammar textbooks use these two terms, and

their reasons for doing so, would be an excellent subject for a 50+-page master's thesis. A

thorough examination would probably require a much longer book. Here, my objectives are

simply 1.) to show that the two terms are used differently in different grammar books — and thus

confuse students rather than help them, and 2.) that neither term is needed to understand how

sentences work.

Many textbooks define "subjective complement" as alternative or cover term for "predicate

adjective" and "predicate noun" (which itself is often referred to as a predicate "nominative").

Paul Roberts, for example, defines it as

A noun, noun-equivalent, or adjective placed after a linking verb to complete the meaning

of the subject. An adjective as subjective complement modifies the subject, as in "The

man is young," in which young describes man; a noun as subjective complement renames

or represents the subject, as in "The man is a plumber," in which plumber and man both

refer to the same person. (Understanding Grammar. N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1954, 527).

From the students' perspective, this definition raises a number of problems. First, what is a

"noun-equivalent"? Second, what is a "linking verb"? And third, if students are going to learn

what predicate adjectives and predicate nouns are, of what use is "subjective complement"?

As in almost all the textbooks, students here get caught up in cross-references and additional

terms. The focus of grammar textbooks is on explaining terms that have been used by

grammarians, whether those terms are useful or not. Interestingly, it was Roberts, in one of his

later books, who pointed out that the only way to determine if a verb is a "linking" verb is to first

166

identify its complement. Thus, if there is no complement, the verb is intransitive. If the

complement describes the subject, the complement is a predicate adjective, and the verb is

"linking." If the complement equals or represents the subject, the complement is a predicate

noun, and the verb is "linking." Otherwise, the verb is transitive. As was noted in the discussion

of transitive, intransitive, and linking verbs (above), this functional approach to determining the

types of complements eliminates the need for the three "types" of verbs, including the always-

incomplete lists of "linking verbs."

Grammar textbooks, however, are obstinate. Thus in 2002, Diana Hacker presents

essentially the same definition of "subjective complement," still assuming that students will be

able to identify linking verbs. (The Bedford Handbook, Sixth Edition. Befdford/St. Martin's,

2002, 312-3, 788-791). The same is true of Hodges' Harbrace Handbook (Fifteenth edition,

Thomson, Heinle, 2004, 15-16). In this book, however, predicate nouns have disappeared

(replaced by "subjective complements"). Predicate adjectives, however, are still mentioned:

"Predicate adjectives are adjectives that follow linking verbs (such as be, seem, and become)

…." (7). Predicate adjectives are included in the explanation of subjective complements, but

unlike the explanations by Roberts and Hacker, predicate nouns are not.

Whereas we might say that the Bedford definition of subjective complement is missing a

concept, Max Morenberg notes that grammarians often extend the concept of subjective

complements to include adverbs — "Grammarians often classify predicate adjectives, predicate

nouns, and predicate adverbs that follow BE as SUBJECTIVE COMPLEMENTS" (Doing

Grammar. Third edition. N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2002, 15). Perhaps this is the place to

note that still other grammarians refer to these as "completers" rather than "complements."

What we have been looking at thus far is simply one example of the fact that grammar

textbooks are written to define grammatical terms. Different grammarians define terms

differently, and the textbooks never even try to enable students to explore the structure of their

own sentences. Indeed, the differences in the definitions confuse both students and teachers and

thus make such exploration almost impossible. KISS effectively eliminates all of this confusion

by eliminating "subjective complements." "Predicate noun" and "predicate adjective" suffice.

167

Whereas grammarians often use "subjective complement" to refer to different types of

constructions, they are more in agreement when it comes to "objective complement." Roberts

gives a fairly typical, definition:

A word that completes the meaning of the object. An example is foolish in "I thought him

foolish." This sentence would be incomplete if it ended with the object: "I thought him."

It needs a word — an objective complement — to tell what I thought him. The objective

complement may be a noun, a noun-equivalent, or an adjective. (510-511)

The general consistency of this definition makes "objective complement" a possible addition to

KISS grammar, but the question is — Do students really need it?

First of all, there is some disagreement about what is, and what is not, an objective

complement. Let me note first that I admire Max Morenberg as a dedicated teacher of teachers.

His Doing Grammar, however, is essentially transformational-based and overly complex. Thus

he explains objective complements:

Vc verbs (pronounced vee cee) are also two-place transitives. But they are followed

first by a noun phrase that functions as a direct object, then by another noun phrase, an

adjective, or an infinitive phrase. These phrases function as OBJECT COMPLEMENTS.

Vc verbs are like the verb consider as it occurs in

Republicans consider Democrats big spenders.

OR

Some rock fans consider Bob Dylan old-fashioned.

OR

Thomas Jefferson considered the Missouri Compromise to be the death of the

nation. (12)

His first two examples fit the definition proposed by Roberts and also those in The Bedford

Handbook and in Hodges' Harbrace Handbook. Most textbooks, however, would probably

consider his third example to be an example of an infinitive phrase (the Missouri Compromise to

be the death of the nation) that simply functions as a direct object. I say "probably" here because

most textbooks don't address the question. Hacker, for example, explains subjects of infinitives

on page 297, but her explanation of infinitives that function as direct objects does not include

any infinitives that have subjects (808).

168

Untangling the structure of sentences is difficult enough with clearly defined terminology. If

the meaning of terms keep shifting, students will soon get lost. Thus, if you want to add objective

complements to the KISS toolbox, you really should clarify the definition. But this brings us

back to the question of whether or not students need the concept in the first place.

If we exclude infinitives, objective complements are, in essence, predicate nouns or

predicate adjectives that equal or describe the direct object.

They made Mary president.

My wife thought me silly.

We can totally eliminate "objective complements" by comparing such sentences with sentences

that have infinitive phrases based on "to be" as direct objects:

They wanted Mary to be president.

In that sentence, "Mary to be president" is an infinitive phrase that functions as the direct object

of "wanted." Most grammars, including KISS, will explain "Mary" as the subject of the

infinitive, "president" as a predicate noun after the infinitive "to be," and the infinitive phrase as

the direct object of "wanted."

Infinitive phrases that function as direct objects are very common -- I am unaware of any

grammar text that excludes this concept. But since students have to learn this concept, why can

they not simply consider sentences such as our first examples in almost the same way by, if

necessary, assuming an understood "to be"?

They made [Mary *to be* president].

My wife thought [me *to be* silly].

In twenty years of teaching the KISS Approach, my students have never had a problem with this

explanation, and we have never met a sentence in which this explanation could not be used to

avoid the "objective" complement.

Many modern linguists, I should note, do note like this explanation because they want to

study, categorize, and come up with rules for which verbs require the presence of the infinitive,

which do not, and which are optional:

They made her president.

They chose her to be president.

169

They elected her president. They elected her to be president.

No native speaker of English would say "They made her to be president," but the logic of the

sentence certainly supports the idea that she became equal to the president. Thus to view "her

president" as an ellipsed infinitive phrase that functions as the direct object of "made" clearly fits

the logic of the sentence. I would further suggest that it underlines the logic of the sentence better

than "objective complement" does. Like "subjective complement," "objective" blurs the

fundamental distinction between equality (predicate noun) and attribute (predicate adjective).

If the linguists want to study which verbs do, and which do not, require "to be," that is their

choice. But in twenty-five years of teaching composition, I have never seen a single student use

this construction incorrectly. It seems to me, therefore, not only that "objective" complement is a

superfluous category, but also that those professors who are trying to teach this to future teachers

are fundamentally unethical unless they have first enabled the future teachers to identify most

subjects, finite verbs, and complements in any text. And currently, most teachers cannot do so.

Since the KISS sequence does not deal with infinitives until Level Four, teachers working

with students at Levels Two and Three will face a (minor) pedagogical problem if they are

having students analyze randomly selected sentences. Compared to normal complements,

objective complements are relatively infrequent, but they are not uncommon. What, therefore,

should teachers expect from students who are trying to analyze a sentence such as "That made

me angry"? And how should teachers explain such cases?

Here again Jerome Bruner's concept of the "Spiral Curriculum" comes to our assistance —

get the most basic concepts mastered first, and then return to the exceptions. First of all, in any

sort of homework or test at these KISS levels, I would never grade students on this construction.

In discussing such sentences with students, explain that the phrase "me angry" functions as the

direct object. Clearly the meaningful answer to the question "That made what?" is "me angry,"

and most primary school students will see and agree with that explanation. If the students are

further along, you can explain that the "me angry" is an ellipsed infinitive construction, and you

can tell the students that they will be studying this construction in more detail in KISS Level

Four.

Retained Complements

170

The KISS view of "retained complements" is a corollary, so to speak, of the KISS

elimination of objective complements. Some modern grammar books, after explaining passive

voice, note that passive verbs have "retained complements." As Roberts explains,

When a verb that may take a direct and an indirect object is put into the passive voice, one

of the objects becomes subject and the other is retained in the object position; the latter is called

a retained object." He goes on to note that either direct or indirect objects can be "retained." As

an example of a retained direct object, he gives:

Active: Pipkin gave me five dollars.

Passive: I was given five dollars.

As an example of a retained indirect object, he gives:

Active: Pipken gave me five dollars.

Passive: Five dollars was given me.

Roberts then notes that the "objective complement construction behaves in a similar way. When

the verb is put into the passive, the object becomes subject, and the objective complement is

retained." Among his examples he gives:

Active: I found him reliable.

Passive: He was found reliable.

Active: We made Melborn secretary.

Passive: Melborn was made secretary.

Interestingly, for our discussion, he then notes that "Some books call such a word as reliable in

"He was found reliable" a retained objective complement. Some describe it as 'a subjective

complement after a verb in the passive voice'." (272-3, my emphasis)

The KISS difference here is simply to specify the types of retained complements. Thus, a

complement after a passive verb is "retained." If it is an adjective, it is a retained predicate

adjective. Likewise, it might be a retained direct or indirect object, or even a retained predicate

noun as in "Melborn was made secretary." Note also that most textbooks never effectively teach

students how to identify passive verbs. The first step in doing so is to teach students to identify

finite verbs in the first place.

As they learn how to do this in the KISS Approach, students will run across some sentences

that have retained complements. But these can simply be considered regular complements. Thus

171

in "I was given five dollars," students will see "five dollars" as the direct object. In "Five dollars

was give me," students will see "me" as an indirect object. In "He was found reliable," "reliable"

can be considered a predicate adjective, and in "Melborn was made secretary," "secretary" can be

explained as a predicate noun. Again following Bruner's "Spiral Curriculum," once students learn

to recognize passive verbs, they can then see all of these complements as retained. (Students

can't learn everything at once.)