Craig,
You say the "I" subjects don't pose a problem, but I wonder: Don't the multiple repetitions, in this context, give the word "I" a conspicuous and distracting emphasis? To me, this repetition is so noticeable and insistent that it looks like an example of the rhetorical device of anaphora. Defined as "the repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive phrases, clauses or lines," anaphora is exemplified in this passage from Churchill: "We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight....We shall never surrender." (The definition and example are from http://facstaff.bloomu.edu/jtomlins/rhetorical_devices.htm, though I have abbreviated the example.) To me, Churchill's repetition works because the word "we" bears repetition, as it is more or less the point of the whole passage; Churchill is invoking the unity and solidarity that can be summed up in the first person plural.
By contrast, the repetition of "I" in Susan's joking paragraph seems to be, as she intended, a good example of bad repetitiveness, in that it might make a reader feel that the word "I" defines the paragraph's topic and that the writer is focusing only on herself, when that does not seem to be the desired effect. On the contrary, as I read it, the ostensible point of the paragraph was that there was something in common between your writing and hers, and that you should acknowledge in theory a "rule" that you both share in practice. Had she not been kidding, I think it might have made more sense to move from "you" to "I" to "we" as subjects, in a kind of thesis-antithesis-synthesis structure.
Ultimately, though, I think this just proves your point--that repetition of sentence openers isn't bad in itself, but the writer should ask what effect or meaning such repetition (or any other grammatical/writerly choice makes) is likely to convey. Right?
Of course, the bigger question is how (and when) to lead young students being able to ask just strategic questions about their writing instead of just looking for rules to follow.
Brian
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill
Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of English
Director of the Writing Center
St. Mary’s College of Maryland
Montgomery Hall 50
18952 E. Fisher Rd.
St. Mary’s City, Maryland
20686
240-895-4242
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Craig Hancock
Sent: Mon 5/18/2009 9:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions
Susan,
If I saw the same writing, I might very well agree that change is
needed, but I wouldn't use "sentence variety" as a motivation. I'm sure
we can find many instances where good writers maintain subjects for
longer stretches than that. The last time this came up on the list, I
was teaching Frost's "Acquainted With the Night" and observed that ALL
the sentences in that poem begin with "I have." Look closely at Obama's
acclaimed speech on race, and you'll see many instances of sentence
openers repeated many times. I kn ow that because my grammar class
worked on a passage as an optional final.
Francis Christensen deals with many of these issues in "Notes toward a
new Rhetoric" in an essay called "Sentence Openers." (Among other
things, he reports in his samples that 8.75% of sentences in expository
writing for professional writers start with the fanboy conjunctions. In
fiction, it was 4.55%. He called it a sign of "a mature style.") The
essay is largely an argument against calls for unique sentence openers
for purposes of variety.
He ends the essay in this way: "What we need is a rhetorical theory of
the sentence that will not merely combine the ideas of primer
sentences, but will generate new ideas. In such a rhetoric, sentence
elements would not be managed arbitrarily for the sake of secondary
concerns such as variety. They would be treated functionally and the
variety--and its opposite, parallelism and balance--allowed to grow
from the materials and the effort to communicate them to the reader."
since Ed brought up the issue, I would add that he found about 28.5% of
sentences in professional expository writing open with adverbials. The
number is smaller (20%) for fiction. There is great variability,
though, byu author. The highest he found was for Rachel Carson's "The
Sea Around Us", 79/200, almost 40%. The most common subject in fiction,
by the way, is a pronoun.
Craig>
Craig,
>
> Varying sentence starts and known-new are different concepts.
> Students should do both. You have nicely analyzed my writing, but
> your analysis is irrelevant to my point.
>
> My students start their sentences with "He" five times in a row. Or
> "There is" or "It is" five times in a row.
>
>
> On May 17, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>
>> Susan,
>> I honestly didn't get the point. But let me try again to
>> describe your
>> own writing. "We" brings you and I into focus. "a teacher" is the
>> subject of the subordinate clause that starts sentence two. "I" is
>> main
>> clause subject. "That" refers back to the previous two sentences
>> and is
>> hardly "stylistic" in its choice. Do you start the second paragraph
>> with "but" to prove a point? It seems a very good example of what I
>> was
>> talking about earlier. "A teacher" heads that sentence, a carryover
>> from the previous paragraph and very much a given. Students then come
>> into play, with "they" in the subordinate clause subject slots. "A
>> teacher" is again the subject of the next sentence. "I" is the subject
>> of the next two sentences, and "they" (standing in for students) ends
>> the paragraph. You are doing what I am talking about, making the
>> starts
>> of your sentences "given", even repeating subjects ("a teacher",
>> "they", "I")to build coherence. In almost every case, there is nothing
>> about the subject itself that calls attention. It's "given", with
>> attention on the new information to follow.
>> If you are speaking/writing about your own understandings (your
>> surprise at what I believe, what you have noticed, your intentions and
>> expectations), then "I" is the natural choice of subject. The "new"
>> information comes in the second part of the sentences. I suspect that
>> the sentences in the third paragraph are short and clipped because you
>> want them to sound simple, but the "I" subjects don't pose a problem.
>> I do not vary my subjects. If anything, I work hard to keep a
>> topic in
>> focus for longer stretches of text, something I'm told the computer
>> assessments are designed to pick up as a sign of sophistication.
>> Inexperienced writers jump topics (and subjects) much too
>> quickly, and
>> it's not unusual for them to say they have been taught to do that.
>> (Notice how "Inexperienced writers" is followed by "them" and
>> "they" in
>> the above compound sentence. "It's" is a dummy subject. "They" also
>> starts the sentence to come.) They may be naturually coherent, but
>> have
>> been advised against following those instincts when they write.
>> If you pick up a collection of award winning essays, you'll find
>> the
>> point verified essay after essay. Good writers repeat. They sustain
>> subjects for long stretches, building in new information as they go.
>> You also seem to do that when you write, at least in your recent post.
>> I always spend time with classes looking at exactly this coherence
>> building in effective texts. I underline the subjects in a
>> paragraph of
>> student writing just to direct attention to how quickly a topic is
>> shifting in their text. They see it right away and adjust.
>> Our advice should be based on observations about how meaning
>> happens
>> and on how effective writing works.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 16, 2009, at 9:20 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>> You don't help students by giving them
>>>> a false description of language because you believe they aren't
>>>> capable
>>>> of the truth.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe we don't actually disagree. If a teacher actually told her
>>> students that good writers never start sentences with the word
>>> "because" or an essay that doesn't have a thesis at the end of the
>>> first paragraph is wrong and an example of bad writing, then I am
>>> with you. That is false information.
>>>
>>> But a teacher who tells her students that they can only write in
>>> pencil, or that they must show their work, or that their essay must
>>> have 5 paragraphs is not giving them false information. Should a
>>> teacher clarify that the rule about "because" is only for this class
>>> and that when they are older they may break this rule? Yes. I think
>>> that probably does happen. I think it is too much for some students
>>> to process, and what they retain is just the rule itself.
>>>
>>>> "Vary sentence starts" would be another example of bad advice.
>>>
>>> I am surprise that you believe this. I notice you vary your sentence
>>> starts. I do too. I would only break that rule to prove a point. I
>>> hope I have proved it. I am not sure if I have. I hope you will let
>>> me know.
>>>
>>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>>> interface
>>> at:
>>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>>
>>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>>>
>>
>> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>> interface at:
>> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>> and select "Join or leave the list"
>>
>> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
