The problem with the poetic taxonomies proposed by American poet-critics (most recently Seth Abramson's) is that their scope is strictly limited to American poetry. Take the model elsewhere and it collapses. Take the work of Paul Celan (especially the late work) which is neither pragmatic (again, a very American term), purely syntactic, nor cognitive-semantic, and escapes classification. Or the work of the French poets of Esther Tellermann's generation (Anne-Marie Albiach, Claude Royet-Journoud, Emmanuel Hocquard), whose work might be syntactical at times, but whose study of the phrasé of Victor Hugo, Saint-John Perse, Georg Trakl, George Oppen, Paul Celan ... is an examination of classes in linguistics, of the role of writing and a psychological study. What to make of their interest in the architecture of the Book. What to make of those poets who do not write in the language of their birth countries and whose relationship to the language they are writing in differs in general to that of those who write in the language they were first taught to speak and write. Not to mention that such taxonomies completely ignore the place of translation.

ADDENDUM 4:22PM: I also forgot to mention our friends in the North, where the plethora of government grants encourages and supports directions and concerns not at all described in Seth's taxonomy (e.g., a.rawlings, Jordan Scott, derek beaulieu, the work Ray Hsu is doing at UBC, Darren Wershler-Henry's videogame interest, ...)