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/