Dear All:
I'm coming into this conversation late, and so apologize in advance for
any wheel-reinvention (I've read over the thread, but there's a lot to
take in!).
I suspect this may be a situation in which it's useful to distinguish
two different kinds of judgment systems that we habitually bring to bear
on student writing, although the distinction inevitably becomes fuzzy.
On one hand, there's a kind of practical approach, which lets us
evaluate writing in terms of its management of information flow for the
audience. An analogy would be evaluating food on the basis of its
digestibility and nutritional appropriateness to the group eating it. On
the other hand, there's a set of customs that have evolved in particular
genres that enable a more aesthetic approach, allowing judgments of what
is viewed as "lively" or "artistic" writing (with the food version being
an evaluation on the basis of taste).
Sentence variety *as* a desideratum is part of the aesthetic judgment
system. Every language has ways to manage information, and every
language appears to use given vs. new distinctions as part of that, but
not every language group places a high value on sentence variation.
Having an immensely long series of parallel constructions connected by
'and' is a perfectly good style in many cultures.
That doesn't mean variation without value, of course, just as no one
would ignore the way food tastes. But a nutritional definition of "good
food" is different from a restaurant-review definition, although both
have merit. One can, as Craig notes, have perfectly good information
management without major variation in the way sentences in the text
begin, and in some genres info-management takes precedence over most
other factors. At the same time, that kind of writing can seem boring
(although there are so, so many other ways to be boring, as I'm probably
demonstrating). In short, I think *some* of the disagreement here may
derive from use of different definitions.
As a side note, I am going to argue a bit with John's assertion that
"[s]tudents are exposed to tens/hundreds of thousands of well-formed
sentences as they read literature and professionally written texts from
other content areas [but] remain oblivious to (and unmoved by) their
structure." While I realize that even a short novel has a large number
of sentences in it (except if it's by Faulkner), I've found that many of
my students, particularly the developmental writers, *haven't* read very
much at all, or managed to get by with reading tasks that involved
scanning for specific pieces of information (an activity that can
frequently be done by attending to noun phrases, rather than whole
sentences). They were *assigned* books, but that's a different thing
entirely. Their reading outside of assignments is confined almost
entirely to chatrooms and texting (and they do emulate that style
flawlessly, even in contexts where it's not appropriate). They find
professional writing foreign, and I suspect Janet's recent example of
student writing (and a lot of what I read this semester) is the
student's attempt to produce something equivalently foreign. They
succeed!
Sincerely,
Bill Spruiell
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions
Janet,
What an interesting example! It almost seems as if each sentence is
backward, with the important information first. I suspect this student
would never talk this way, but is treating writing as if it were a
strange language. We sometimes eat too much because we buy food in big
containers? I'm guessing.
You're right; all the information seems in the wrong places.
Craig
I have always worked with developmental writers at the college level
(32
> years). In all that time, I don't think I have ever tried to teach
> students to vary sentence starts. The only time I talk to students
> about how sentences start is if they are starting sentences in a way
> that interferes with such things as old-new information placement,
> coherence and other factors which interfere with the reader's ability
to
> understand.
>
> The following is a passage written by a student exiting a
developmental
> composition class. Several of the sentences seem to illustrate this
> problem. It's not that the sentences are too uniform; it's that the
> information seems to show up in the wrong place. My personal take on
> this is that the student is learning to use sources and write more
> sophisticated sentences, but she hasn't had a lot of practice. It's
> pretty easy for students to get into a sentence and then not be able
to
> figure out how to get out. Also, she may not have been taught to
> consider the needs of her audience. We use a sentence combining
workbook
> in these classes; I think I see evidence that she is trying to use
some
> of those structures. I think students at this stage need assistance
in
> learning to make conscious choices about sentence structure which will
> lead to clearer, more coherent, and reader-friendly writing. Of
course,
> I am fortunate that at my institution, classes are small, so I have
time
> to work with students individually.
>
>
> "For example, eating a great amount of popcorn in a large container
> proves a behavior in mind and not of hunger. It is an amazing
discovery
> of what this can do in our behavior. A choice that is made by the mind
> and not the stomach is part of a behavior and choice that we tend to
> make. An educator discovered that food size does matter in the way of
> making the right choice. This is one study of method discovered by an
> educator by the name of Brian Wansink, who attempted several different
> scientific tests. Comparing size portions of food and the size of
> dishware has a lot to do with how choices and behaviors are made by
> people discovered by Mr. Wansink, the author of the book," Mindless
> Eating." Decisions made by people are like a structural design of
> choices was another discovery made by a psychologist. The way choices
> are presented to people is a question of making the right one. The
point
> is, we need to consider the importance of making the right decisions,
> eating habits, and the state of mind."
>
> Janet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 5:59 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions
>
> 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/
|
