Here's a rewrite of John's essay, with varied sentence openings:
Today I going to tell you about George Washington. During colonial
times, he was a great man. When he was about twelve, he chopped down
a cherry tree. Also, he did not tell lies. When he was older, he
fought in a war.
Better?
On May 19, 2009, at 8:15 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:
> I think Susan's point, at its core, is one that we all find
> ourselves trying to make sometimes (perhaps while banging our heads
> up against a wall): "Please, just try something different!"
>
> When writers create texts that read something like, "I am going to
> tell you about George Washington. George Washington was a great man.
> He was the first president. He chopped down a cherry tree. He did
> not tell lies. He fought in a war," asking them to vary sentence
> openers is just ONE form of a larger request. What we really want
> them to do is care. Their writing seems robotic because it, for all
> practical purposes, lacks any style. In order to elicit style,
> voice, and variety, I believe we first have to tackle motive.
> Composition hinges on motive and intent; the "because it is an
> assignment" motive is often the cause of simple prose that lacks
> "mature" sentence constructions.
>
> I don't like to teach the "vary sentence openers" lesson because it
> misses the point. For writers who are unmotivated, it falls on deaf
> ears. For students who are motivated, it lacks precision. That's not
> to say that I don't agree with Susan about the value of variety.
> However, I suggest high school teachers focus on variety throughout
> the sentence. What about varying predicate structures? Verb types?
> Modifiers? Sentences are robotic not because they are parallel in
> sentence openers; they're robotic because they are parallel in all
> function slots (like basic readers for very young children..."See
> Spot run. See Spot play. See Spot sit.")
>
> I've used Killgallon's sentence composing books before and am a big
> fan of them. His books encourage manipulation of structure (while a
> little soft on meaning), and are very helpful tools for developing
> writers. If the writers are even trying, that is! Getting students
> to care about writing is "a whole nother" ballgame though!
>
> John Alexander
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:39 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]
> > wrote:
> Craig says: One way to respond is to point out how often writers
> keep the same subject in focus for larger stretches of text. In
> other words, a close look at
> structure argues against varying sentence openers, not for it.
>
> Using a prepositional phrase, a subordinate clause, or a gerund will
> usually not change the subject of the sentence. Therefore sentence
> start variation does not play havoc with the content (or the
> structure). Don Killgallon's Sentence Composing for High School is
> very useful in providing exercises that bring an awareness of the
> possible constructions. I'd be interested in you take on it if
> you've ever run across it. I only use it for honors and AP.
>
> Craig says: Varying sentences openers for the sake of "variety" is a
> different kind of goal.
>
> The variation is not for the sake of itself. It is to counter the
> very real problem of robotic writing in which the student repeats
> "He" or "There is" for five sentences in a row and has had no
> instruction in how he might try something new (as these writers are
> generally not readers and have not seen these variations in print).
> For most writers this stuff is intuitive. Many students do
> flounder, and for those who really struggle, explicit examples of
> how they might change up their writing is very helpful. I take it
> you have never encountered this type of writer.
>
> Craig says: It implies that form and meaning are separate, that
> meaning needs to be dressed up.
>
> Well, if you have a tin ear (or tin fingers), then you need help
> getting dressed. Untangle that metaphor! But there are writers who
> need concrete guidance in improving their style.
>
> 4) Sentence variety is not a goal I would advocate. The form of the
> sentences should mirror purpose.
>
> But that is the point. The purpose is to intrigue the reader and
> make her want to read on. A robotic writer needs to fix his form or
> he has lost purpose and audience.
>
> " There are REASONS for these [repetitions] choices, and variety
> seems to me a distraction.
>
> If there is a purpose for a repetition than that supersedes the
> variety rule. We have agreement on that. I am speaking of
> students who repeat "He" or "There is" five times in a row and
> perhaps in 75% of all their sentence starts. I wish I had an
> example essay to send to you, but, of course, it's the end of the
> year, and I already covered this mini-lesson so now my students all
> write perfectly. (wink, wink)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig, I have to respectfully disagree with your
>> anti-varying-sentence-openers stance and take Susan's side on this
>> one.
>> In
>> no particular order--
>>
>> 1. Students are exposed to tens/hundreds of thousands of well-
>> formed
>> sentences as they read literature and professionally written
>> texts from
>> other content areas. However, most of them remain oblivious to
>> (and
>> unmoved
>> by) their structure.
>> 2. You tend to portray this teaching position as robotic. It
>> doesn't
>> have to be at all. If students are properly exposed to and
>> encouraged
>> (not
>> forced) to consider sentence variety when they write or revise,
>> some of
>> them, at least, will begin to move toward a style of writing that
>> readers
>> unconsciously consider to be more mature.
>> 3. One of the key players in this transition is helping students
>> become
>> more aware of stylistic devices that professional authors have
>> used to
>> create their work.
>> 4. Sentence openers is only one way of achieving sentence variety.
>> Susan
>> isn't saying that it's the only tool that she employs as she
>> tries to
>> encourage her students to make their writing more
>> sophisticated. But
>> it's a
>> good one.
>> 5. Don showed two paragraphs written in beautifully parallel
>> style that
>> exhibit no variety of sentence openers. Certainly one can write
>> parallel
>> passages without varying sentence openers and have a masterpiece
>> as a
>> result. And certainly if one tried to force Canton to vary his
>> sentence
>> openers in these two paragraphs, the result would be negative.
>> Just
>> because Canton chose not to employ sentence opener variety for two
>> paragraphs does not support the assertion that such variety is not
>> desirable. In fact, research clearly shows that good writers
>> *do* vary
>> sentence openers occasionally across a piece of writing, as
>> cited both
>> by
>> Christensen and Ed Schuster. Many students will remain mired in
>> their
>> stylistic muck unless they are helped and encouraged to break
>> out of
>> it.
>> 6. You analyze Susan's email postings and show that she does not
>> vary
>> her
>> sentence openers. Of course not! She's not trying to write
>> polished
>> prose;
>> she's writing short, off- the-cuff messages, explaining her
>> position
>> very
>> clearly in the process.
>>
>> I firmly believe that making students consciously aware of ways to
>> vary
>> sentence openers, pointing them out (or having students do so) in
>> common
>> readings, and encouraging them to try them in their own writing are
>> all
>> steps in a very positive direction.
>>
>> I agree with so much of what you have to say, but God forbid that we
>> should
>> see eye to eye on everything!
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It's a delight to be away from the list for a day and then find my
>>> position so well argued in the meantime.
>>> The "training wheels" metaphor would work if "varying sentence
>>> openers"
>>> was an easier way to write. It's not. It's a little like trying to
>>> get
>>> kids to learn to ride with one eye shut. It's not good advice or
>>> good
>>> training.
>>>
>>> Craig>
>>>
>>> Varying sentence openings is a topic in every handbook ever
>>> written,
>>>> beginning in very early years---at least by grade seven, I'm
>>>> sure---
>>>> and continuing into every college handbook on the market. You'd
>>>> think
>>>> with that much repetition, it would have taken hold somewhere along
>>>> the line.
>>>> I'd rather see the space devoted to how to achieve coherence.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>> On May 18, 2009, at 9:58 PM, Jan Kammert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think it was someone on this list who, months ago, talked about
>>>>> training wheels in teaching. Telling students to vary the way
>>>>> their
>>>>> sentences start seems to me like training wheels.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eventually the wheels come off. It is hard to get those wheels
>>>>> off
>>>>> for some kids, though. Today a student told me that a sentence
>>>>> cannot start with a pronoun. I have never heard that one before!
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you familiar with 6 trait writing? One of the traits is
>>>>> sentence fluency. One part of sentence fluency is starting
>>>>> sentences in different ways. Craig, if you can look at 6 trait
>>>>> writing, I'd love to hear what you think about it.
>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Original message from Susan van Druten
>>> <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>> : ----------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Craig,
>>>>>> Unless you have taught average students in high school (or
>>>>>> younger
>>>>>> grades), I think you should rethink your stance. Don't just
>>>>>> trust me
>>>>>> on this. Maybe others who are on this list will chime in: Is
>>>>>> teaching struggling writers to consider varying their sentence
>>>>>> start
>>>>>> is a helpful strategy? If you were intimately familiar with that
>>>>>> type of student writing, you would know that I am not
>>>>>> exaggerating
>>>>>> just how robotic their essays can be.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I cover parallel structure in AP and honors classes, we talk
>>>>>> about the difference between purposeful repetition (emphasis,
>>>>>> humor,
>>>>>> known-new, hooks, etc.) and repetition born by uninspired, lazy
>>>>>> writing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 18, 2009, at 8:30 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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/
>
> 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/
|
