> Bob,
   Now that I have had time to seriously read the essay, I admire it in
many ways and find the one sentence I picked out to be weak, but not as
serious a problem in the context it occurs. I shouldn't have been so
quyick to grab it as an example.
   In paragraphs previous to this, the writer talked about the need for
teachers to model how insights from oral discussion might find their
way into a written response. So the complex noun phrase that opens our
sentence up is giving us something somewhat "given" within the
discourse. The "written translation" would be the teacher's modeled
version. "Such an exercise requires the instructor to ground literary
discussion, which may become quite freeform and impressionistic in
verbal class discussions, in written discourse, the major component for
student evaluation in a composition class. The modeling refocuses
students and instructors on written texts."
   The sentence in question immediately follows this. "Another reason that
students' critical thinking might be unwittingly limited through oral
discussion without written translation might be the passion and
eloquence with which the instructor's theoretical position is
communicated." Later in the paragraph, this comes closer to my own
rewritten version: "...using comparable enthusiasm to present views on
literature from alternate positions would promote the idea that there
may be multiple valid interpretations of a work."
   The article is about a critical thinking component in beginning
composition courses, and it is well worth the time to read. So I
apologize for taking a sentence out of context and using it as an
example.
   There are, of course, highly functional reasons for building complexity
into noun phrases. Writing tends to be lexically dense, and noun
phrases are where that density tends to be built. Processes tend to be
nominalized. These can have the effect of shutting out the uninitiated
or being dense enough to require much effort in unpacking.
   My main point is that we can and should focus attention on this, that
attention to how meaning is built in technical texts can help us help
students mature as readers and writers. Looking at how it can go wrong
can help us help writers struggling to make complex ideas accessible
and clear.
   Whether or not Schleppegrell's book sheds light on this or whether
Halliday and Martin bring us closer can be thought of as a seperate
argument.
   Even the essay the sentence came out of acknowledges this--"the
differences in diction, development, and structure that accompany the
translation from one type of discussion to another..."
   Hope that helps.

Craig



Craig,
>
> Thank you for the rewrite.
>
> Here is the sentence you rewrote:
>
> Another reason that students' critical thinking might be unwittingly
> limited through oral
> discussion without written translation might be the passion and
> eloquence with which the instructor's theoretical position is
> communicated.
>
> ****
> I read this sentence as being about how students' critical thinking can
> be limited in oral discussion.
> One factor is the passion and eloquence an instructor may use in
> expressing his/her position.
>
> I appear to suffer from a reading deficit.  This rewrite doesn't capture
> my understanding of the problematic sentence.
>
>  "Teachers should give contrary views, and they should argue for
> alternative sides with equal passion. This will help students go from
> class discussion to a written response without feeling that a "correct"
> view is called for."
>
> It is interesting how the rewrite changes the entire focus of the
> sentence away from how instructors can negatively influence critical
> thinking of students to how to help students not feel they need to give
> a "correct" view.  Perhaps there is little difference between critical
> thinking and a correct view, but I think they are not the same.
>
> I thank you again for your time in answering my questions.
>
> Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> 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/