One way I bring revision of sentence structure to the
international students I teach is to ask a faculty member to come in as a
Visiting Author. I find someone who is willing to talk through a few simple
revisions they did in some writing they are doing. This is shocking and very
effective for these students who believe all native English speakers write
perfectly at first effort, and who heretofore pay closer attention to revision
on their own drafts.
Prudence
From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John
Crow
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions
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--
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/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/