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/