Johanna,
   I want to make my statement even stronger this time.  And I do so because I worry about what happens if someone takes your ideas seriously without a strong feel for what's happening to a beginning writer. I am not trying to criticize your approaches so much as present an alternative view.  (I'm using a generic "you"). Forgive me if I seem argumentative or criticize positions you never intended.
     If you tell students that opening with adverbials is awkward or wrong and don't pay attention to the cases when it works well, you may do terrible damage to their writing. Whether we call it "marked theme" (Halliday) or "fronting" (Perera), the effective use of such structures is one mark of a mature writer. (Yates & Kenkel make that point also in their article.)   These are important syntactic (and rhetorical) options, not just "mistakes." Another way we do terrible damage to student writers is by asking them to write within our style and by doing so with little terminology. I work with student writers all the time and see the confusion when their writing has been "corrected" by teachers with little or no explanation, especially when this seems just a matter of "style."  Students don't learn to write by trying to guess how someone else might say it.  Of course, many of these teachers have no way to judge the correctness of writing beyond whether THEY would say it that way or not.  They have been told that knowledge of grammar is harmful.  If it feels right, it must be right. They want their students to make the same decisions they would make, with no respect for the impossibility of that.
    If a student is to develop an effective writing voice, it can't be because they left their old voice at the door. If they are going to build a writing voice out of their own language, then speech is no doubt where we can expect them to start.  
    You can't deal adequately with the way language is "portioned out" without some sense of the intonation patterns of speech.  Marked themes, nonrestrictive modifiers, parenthetical insertions, subordinate clauses, and the like give us intonation patterns that often help considerably in the processing of information. A reader reads the default patterns, and an inexperienced writer may falsely predict how something will be read or simply fail to "orchestrate" what they hear in their own minds by effective use of punctuation. What we call "awkwardness" is often just our need to rewrite the sentence or repunctuate the sentence in order to process it easily.  When we give that information to the writer (thoughtful feedback), they will adjust and will do so if, in fact, we take their ideas seriously.  We have to make them feel we are deeply interested in human contact. (This is a wonderful sentence, but I had to go back and add these commas to make it work.  Something like that.)
    Many academic writers could improve their writing dramatically by bringing it closer to speech, and I recommend Joseph Williams for a useful introduction to that. Halliday and Martin also cover it well in Writing Science.  Nominalization tightens, but it often obscures. When students' attempts at academic papers don't make sense, it's often because they think the form of the writing is more important than its substance.  They have plenty of models to show them that. They look for better words and sentences rather than better meanings.  
    Writing can be lexically dense without being heavily nominalized (see, for example, the writing of Annie Dillard), and when it does so, it is often very clear and rich.  
    Good writing is thoughtful and clear. Lexical density is  not and should not be an end in itself.  So much academic writing is self-important, and when you translate it into much clearer terms, it turns out to be not worth the effort.  Clarity is one way to test your writing for soundness.  If we don't hide behind fancy words and thick structures, maybe we'll find out more rapidly how useful (or useless) our ideas are.
   Sentence combining is a system that helps students play with  lexically denser structures. But the big payoff comes when we play with (not correct) their own writing, and we should be very careful about taking editing decisions out of their hands.
   It scares me when people say we can do things "without terminology."  Too often, it means we change what they do without deepening what they know.  A student's writing evolves, and they need to trust that the language they currently have is up to the task.  If we keep them focused on being thoughtful and interesting and clear and offer new ways to accomplish that, they can be highly effective writers over time. They have to make it their own.
    My own view, against the prevailing  "wisdom" of the times, is that we should try to pass on everything we know about language and not hold back.  Knowledge of language is not just for the specialists.  
   

Craig
Johanna Rubba wrote:
[log in to unmask]">Thanks for posting the various references on 'awkward' writing. I've been interested in the syntactic properties of awkward writing for a long time -- I'm glad someone else has done the research already!!

As to the context of the particular construction in question, in my student writing, it does not occur in the sort of contrastive context that Craig describes. If it did, I wouldn't notice it, because it would work! There is a delicate balance between making writing so dense that it is hard to read, and so spread out that it sounds simplistic.

Along with Bob and Jim, I think there is a strong mental processing factor here. Putting one's thoughts down on paper is somewhat laborious, and the mind can generally hold only a small amount of information at a time in the short-term memory. I think this is what leads to the less-dense character of speech syntax. Also, I believe the rhetorical factor of using the topic-structure to set the scene for the new information in the rest of the sentence plays a big role. The writer does this in his/her own thoughts, as well as wanting to orient the reader to the context within which to situate the new information. Combine these two factors, and you get the orientation material put into its own construction with a repetitious reference in subject position.

As to terminology, it's nice to have terms like subject, topic, etc. But I think this particular structure can be handled with little to  no terminology.

My own writing is not so hot today. I'm off to England for a conference on Friday, and frantically trying to finish everything. Writing these notes is a major symptom of procrastination and stress avoidance ...

Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba

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/