On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:28 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

John,

Could you give us some examples? With some adjectives the adverb is formed by zero-derivation, as in fast/fast. With others the -ly is optional, as in slow/slow/slowly. In some cases the -ly is not adverbial, as in friendly. For an adverb like hardly, the semantic connection to hard is obscure. And then there are cases like careful/carefully, where omission of -ly reflects a difference in dialect or register or both. Do the examples you're seeing cluster into any of these categories?

Herb

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 21:09:06 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Suffix-dropping In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --000e0cd4d8aae9d5220469e9ed76 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, I agree completely. My observation is quite different from yours, and I high-jacked your topic to drop my tangential curiosity on ATEG. Sorry about that! I DO know what you mean though; I'm not sure what to make of it most of the time. I often chalk it up to processing issues because so many of my students seem to struggle with cognitive overload when it comes to the writing process. For so many reasons, they speed write, trying to force the core content of their ideas (which they first twist and gnarl into bulky, stilted constructions that they think I expect) onto the page before they "lose" the thought completely. Perhaps some of the grammatical nuts and bolts are getting lost along the way. In any case, I agree with you that these occurrences are not always dialect-based and are a written, not spoken, phenomenon. John Alexander On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > John, > > > > People who don’t make an “X vs. X-ly” distinction in writing also don’t, as > you point out, make it in speech either. That’s more what I think of as an > effect of normal language change; people are writing what they actually say, > whether or not a usage guide would approve of it. The students who are > dropping the –ing suffixes do say it. It’s almost as if they’re classing it > with expression such as “umm…” or the “like” that’s, like, used to, like, > mark, like, hesitation. > > > > Bill Spruiell > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *John Dews-Alexander > *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:58 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Suffix-dropping > > > > I've been amazed at the loss of the derivational suffix -ly that routinely > marks adverbs. > > Bill's talking about inflectional suffixes, I know, but I couldn't help > mentioning the loss of -ly. > > I'm not one to cling to language bits that are rusting out and > disappearing, but it really took me by surprise that -ly is not a productive > part of the language for many speakers. > > If you focus on it and really listen to current language usage on > television (both scripted and unscripted), in radio, and with the people you > encounter, you'll notice it too. > > John Alexander > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > I’ve read a ton of student papers over the past two weeks, and based on > this batch and those from the last couple of years, I’m starting to get the > impression that a greater percentage of my students every year are dropping > inflectional suffixes (plurals, tense-markers) and finding it difficult to > notice the omissions when proofreading (I haven’t been formally counting, so > I could be mistaking something I’ve just noticed for a trend, though). I’ve > always seen some of this in examples where the suffix isn’t audible in > normal speech, particularly if the suffix is well on the way to being a > kind of fossil in the particular expression(e.g. “ice tea” – you can’t hear > the realization of the {-ed} suffix before [t], and “iced” in that > expression is probably a unitary adjective rather than a participle for most > speakers who do use the –ed in writing). That’s absolutely normal, and over > time the suffix-less form can become the norm (“ice cream” used to be “iced > cream”). > > > > What I’m seeing, though, are forms like “I was read this book” or “These > short story are….”; they’re in papers written by native English-speakers who > don’t speak any of the dialects that would normally drop those suffixes, and > the same students do use the suffixes in speech (it’s exactly the reverse of > the usual situation, in which students don’t know they have to write bits > that they don’t say). If I draw attention to a line in which there’s a > missing –ing, etc., the students frequently **can’t** see anything unusual > about it; their usual reaction is to look at it for a minute, then get rid > of a comma (if there is one) or add one (if there isn’t). It’s that > inability to notice the “gap” that I’m particularly intrigued by. If I read > the section out loud, they immediately notice the omission (and I then tell > them that they need to coerce friends into reading papers out loud for them > as a coping strategy). It’s not a language issue at all; it’s just an > orthographic one. > > > > I know similar effects can be associated with mild forms of dyslexia, but I > find it hard to believe that fully 15 - 25% of the student population is > even mildly dyslexic. I realize this is starting to sound like a variant > of “Geezer Rant #325A; Those Darn Kids Won’t Write Right” but I’m curious > about whether anyone else is noticing similar patterns, or whether this has > been common all along and I’ve somehow managed not to notice it (which, > given the rest of this post, would be rather amusing for everyone but me…). > > > > ---- Bill Spruiell > > Dept. of English > > Central Michigan University > > 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/ --000e0cd4d8aae9d5220469e9ed76 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, I agree completely. My observation is quite different from yours, and I high-jacked your topic to drop my tangential curiosity on ATEG. Sorry about that!

I DO know what you mean though; I'm not sure what to make of it most of the time. I often chalk it up to processing issues because so many of my students seem to struggle with cognitive overload when it comes to the writing process. For so many reasons, they speed write, trying to force the core content of their ideas (which they first twist and gnarl into bulky, stilted constructions that they think I expect) onto the page before they "lose" the thought completely. Perhaps some of the grammatical nuts and bolts are getting lost along the way. In any case, I agree with you that these occurrences are not always dialect-based and are a written, not spoken, phenomenon.

John Alexander

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

John,

People who don’t make an “X vs. X-ly” distinction in writing also don’t, as you point out, make it in speech either. That’s more what I think of as an effect of normal language change; people are writing what they actually say, whether or not a usage guide would approve of it. The students who are dropping the –ing suffixes do say it. It’s almost as if they’re classing it with expression such as “umm…” or the “like” that’s, like, used to, like, mark, like, hesitation.

Bill Spruiell

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:58 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Suffix-dropping

I've been amazed at the loss of the derivational suffix -ly that routinely marks adverbs.

Bill's talking about inflectional suffixes, I know, but I couldn't help mentioning the loss of -ly.

I'm not one to cling to language bits that are rusting out and disappearing, but it really took me by surprise that -ly is not a productive part of the language for many speakers.

If you focus on it and really listen to current language usage on television (both scripted and unscripted), in radio, and with the people you encounter, you'll notice it too.

John Alexander

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I’ve read a ton of student papers over the past two weeks, and based on this batch and those from the last couple of years, I’m starting to get the impression that a greater percentage of my students every year are dropping inflectional suffixes (plurals, tense-markers) and finding it difficult to notice the omissions when proofreading (I haven’t been formally counting, so I could be mistaking something I’ve just noticed for a trend, though). I’ve always seen some of this in examples where the suffix isn’t audible in normal speech, particularly if the suffix is well on the way to being a kind of fossil in the particular expression(e.g. “ice tea” – you can’t hear the realization of the {-ed} suffix before [t], and “iced” in that expression is probably a unitary adjective rather than a participle for most speakers who do use the –ed in writing). That’s absolutely normal, and over time the suffix-less form can become the norm (“ice cream” used to be “iced cream”).

What I’m seeing, though, are forms like “I was read this book” or “These short story are….”; they’re in papers written by native English-speakers who don’t speak any of the dialects that would normally drop those suffixes, and the same students do use the suffixes in speech (it’s exactly the reverse of the usual situation, in which students don’t know they have to write bits that they don’t say). If I draw attention to a line in which there’s a missing –ing, etc., the students frequently *can’t* see anything unusual about it; their usual reaction is to look at it for a minute, then get rid of a comma (if there is one) or add one (if there isn’t). It’s that inability to notice the “gap” that I’m particularly intrigued by. If I read the section out loud, they immediately notice the omission (and I then tell them that they need to coerce friends into reading papers out loud for them as a coping strategy). It’s not a language issue at all; it’s just an orthographic one.

I know similar effects can be associated with mild forms of dyslexia, but I find it hard to believe that fully 15 - 25% of the student population is even mildly dyslexic.   I realize this is starting to sound like a variant of “Geezer Rant #325A; Those Darn Kids Won’t Write Right” but I’m curious about whether anyone else is noticing similar patterns, or whether this has been common all along and I’ve somehow managed not to notice it (which, given the rest of this post, would be rather amusing for everyone but me…).

---- Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University

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/ --000e0cd4d8aae9d5220469e9ed76-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:46:41 +0100 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Suffix-dropping In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable > A British example of the dropping of adverbial -ly. It is the general practice in England, though it would be de rigueur to draw anyone's attention to it, for all sports commentators (except for those on the cricket, rugby union and athletic circuits) to speak with a working-class accent, syntax and vocabulary. Cricket and rugby union have a strong 'public-school' (i.e. private school) connection, even to the use of public-schoolboy nicknames (e.g. 'Blowers' for Henry Blofeld). For other sports, to take snooker and soccer as examples, it would be the height of oddity for someone to use the parlance of the upper classes. This is the pattern for all BBC spots programmes covering them. One commentator, Adrian Chiles, even speaks with an exaggeratedly working-class accent. There are anomalies, for the commentator (always male) will sometimes betray his education by using vocabulary outside what would be expected, but that goes unnoticed. A recurring feature is the complete absence of the adverbial -ly: e.g. 'He played that safety shot fantastic', 'He got out of that snooker magnificent', 'He moved neat to stop him heading the ball', 'He does his passing marvellous'. If it is the common speech that always wins out in the long run, it looks as if 'ly' will disappear 'ever so quick'. Edmond Dr. Edmond Wright 3 Boathouse Court Trafalgar Road Cambridge CB4 1DU England Email: [log in to unmask] Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/ Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256 Bill, I agree completely. My observation is quite different from yours, and > I high-jacked your topic to drop my tangential curiosity on ATEG. Sorry > about that! > > I DO know what you mean though; I'm not sure what to make of it most of the > time. I often chalk it up to processing issues because so many of my > students seem to struggle with cognitive overload when it comes to the > writing process. For so many reasons, they speed write, trying to force the > core content of their ideas (which they first twist and gnarl into bulky, > stilted constructions that they think I expect) onto the page before they > "lose" the thought completely. Perhaps some of the grammatical nuts and > bolts are getting lost along the way. In any case, I agree with you that > these occurrences are not always dialect-based and are a written, not > spoken, phenomenon. > > John Alexander > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Spruiell, William C > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> John, >> >> >> >> People who don¹t make an ³X vs. X-ly² distinction in writing also don¹t, as >> you point out, make it in speech either. That¹s more what I think of as an >> effect of normal language change; people are writing what they actually say, >> whether or not a usage guide would approve of it. The students who are >> dropping the ing suffixes do say it. It¹s almost as if they¹re classing it >> with expression such as ³ummŠ² or the ³like² that¹s, like, used to, like, >> mark, like, hesitation. >> >> >> >> Bill Spruiell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: >> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *John Dews-Alexander >> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:58 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Suffix-dropping >> >> >> >> I've been amazed at the loss of the derivational suffix -ly that routinely >> marks adverbs. >> >> Bill's talking about inflectional suffixes, I know, but I couldn't help >> mentioning the loss of -ly. >> >> I'm not one to cling to language bits that are rusting out and >> disappearing, but it really took me by surprise that -ly is not a productive >> part of the language for many speakers. >> >> If you focus on it and really listen to current language usage on >> television (both scripted and unscripted), in radio, and with the people you >> encounter, you'll notice it too. >> >> John Alexander >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I¹ve read a ton of student papers over the past two weeks, and based on >> this batch and those from the last couple of years, I¹m starting to get the >> impression that a greater percentage of my students every year are dropping >> inflectional suffixes (plurals, tense-markers) and finding it difficult to >> notice the omissions when proofreading (I haven¹t been formally counting, so >> I could be mistaking something I¹ve just noticed for a trend, though). I¹ve >> always seen some of this in examples where the suffix isn¹t audible in >> normal speech, particularly if the suffix is well on the way to being a >> kind of fossil in the particular expression(e.g. ³ice tea² you can¹t hear >> the realization of the {-ed} suffix before [t], and ³iced² in that >> expression is probably a unitary adjective rather than a participle for most >> speakers who do use the ed in writing). That¹s absolutely normal, and over >> time the suffix-less form can become the norm (³ice cream² used to be ³iced >> cream²). >> >> >> >> What I¹m seeing, though, are forms like ³I was read this book² or ³These >> short story areŠ.²; they¹re in papers written by native English-speakers who >> don¹t speak any of the dialects that would normally drop those suffixes, and >> the same students do use the suffixes in speech (it¹s exactly the reverse of >> the usual situation, in which students don¹t know they have to write bits >> that they don¹t say). If I draw attention to a line in which there¹s a >> missing ing, etc., the students frequently **can¹t** see anything unusual >> about it; their usual reaction is to look at it for a minute, then get rid >> of a comma (if there is one) or add one (if there isn¹t). It¹s that >> inability to notice the ³gap² that I¹m particularly intrigued by. If I read >> the section out loud, they immediately notice the omission (and I then tell >> them that they need to coerce friends into reading papers out loud for them >> as a coping strategy). It¹s not a language issue at all; it¹s just an >> orthographic one. >> >> >> >> I know similar effects can be associated with mild forms of dyslexia, but I >> find it hard to believe that fully 15 - 25% of the student population is >> even mildly dyslexic. I realize this is starting to sound like a variant >> of ³Geezer Rant #325A; Those Darn Kids Won¹t Write Right² but I¹m curious >> about whether anyone else is noticing similar patterns, or whether this has >> been common all along and I¹ve somehow managed not to notice it (which, >> given the rest of this post, would be rather amusing for everyone but meŠ). >> >> >> >> ---- Bill Spruiell >> >> Dept. of English >> >> Central Michigan University >> >> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:56:42 +0100 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Suffix-dropping In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable > Re the British example: Sorry, I should have said it was de rigueur NEVER to draw attention to the class difference in the speech of sports commentators. Edmond Bill, I agree completely. My observation is quite different from yours, and > I high-jacked your topic to drop my tangential curiosity on ATEG. Sorry > about that! > > I DO know what you mean though; I'm not sure what to make of it most of the > time. I often chalk it up to processing issues because so many of my > students seem to struggle with cognitive overload when it comes to the > writing process. For so many reasons, they speed write, trying to force the > core content of their ideas (which they first twist and gnarl into bulky, > stilted constructions that they think I expect) onto the page before they > "lose" the thought completely. Perhaps some of the grammatical nuts and > bolts are getting lost along the way. In any case, I agree with you that > these occurrences are not always dialect-based and are a written, not > spoken, phenomenon. > > John Alexander > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Spruiell, William C > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> John, >> >> >> >> People who don¹t make an ³X vs. X-ly² distinction in writing also don¹t, as >> you point out, make it in speech either. That¹s more what I think of as an >> effect of normal language change; people are writing what they actually say, >> whether or not a usage guide would approve of it. The students who are >> dropping the ing suffixes do say it. It¹s almost as if they¹re classing it >> with expression such as ³ummŠ² or the ³like² that¹s, like, used to, like, >> mark, like, hesitation. >> >> >> >> Bill Spruiell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: >> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *John Dews-Alexander >> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:58 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Suffix-dropping >> >> >> >> I've been amazed at the loss of the derivational suffix -ly that routinely >> marks adverbs. >> >> Bill's talking about inflectional suffixes, I know, but I couldn't help >> mentioning the loss of -ly. >> >> I'm not one to cling to language bits that are rusting out and >> disappearing, but it really took me by surprise that -ly is not a productive >> part of the language for many speakers. >> >> If you focus on it and really listen to current language usage on >> television (both scripted and unscripted), in radio, and with the people you >> encounter, you'll notice it too. >> >> John Alexander >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I¹ve read a ton of student papers over the past two weeks, and based on >> this batch and those from the last couple of years, I¹m starting to get the >> impression that a greater percentage of my students every year are dropping >> inflectional suffixes (plurals, tense-markers) and finding it difficult to >> notice the omissions when proofreading (I haven¹t been formally counting, so >> I could be mistaking something I¹ve just noticed for a trend, though). I¹ve >> always seen some of this in examples where the suffix isn¹t audible in >> normal speech, particularly if the suffix is well on the way to being a >> kind of fossil in the particular expression(e.g. ³ice tea² you can¹t hear >> the realization of the {-ed} suffix before [t], and ³iced² in that >> expression is probably a unitary adjective rather than a participle for most >> speakers who do use the ed in writing). That¹s absolutely normal, and over >> time the suffix-less form can become the norm (³ice cream² used to be ³iced >> cream²). >> >> >> >> What I¹m seeing, though, are forms like ³I was read this book² or ³These >> short story areŠ.²; they¹re in papers written by native English-speakers who >> don¹t speak any of the dialects that would normally drop those suffixes, and >> the same students do use the suffixes in speech (it¹s exactly the reverse of >> the usual situation, in which students don¹t know they have to write bits >> that they don¹t say). If I draw attention to a line in which there¹s a >> missing ing, etc., the students frequently **can¹t** see anything unusual >> about it; their usual reaction is to look at it for a minute, then get rid >> of a comma (if there is one) or add one (if there isn¹t). It¹s that >> inability to notice the ³gap² that I¹m particularly intrigued by. If I read >> the section out loud, they immediately notice the omission (and I then tell >> them that they need to coerce friends into reading papers out loud for them >> as a coping strategy). It¹s not a language issue at all; it¹s just an >> orthographic one. >> >> >> >> I know similar effects can be associated with mild forms of dyslexia, but I >> find it hard to believe that fully 15 - 25% of the student population is >> even mildly dyslexic. I realize this is starting to sound like a variant >> of ³Geezer Rant #325A; Those Darn Kids Won¹t Write Right² but I¹m curious >> about whether anyone else is noticing similar patterns, or whether this has >> been common all along and I¹ve somehow managed not to notice it (which, >> given the rest of this post, would be rather amusing for everyone but meŠ). >> >> >> >> ---- Bill Spruiell >> >> Dept. of English >> >> Central Michigan University >> >> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:49:32 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Suffix-dropping In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-61--59515804 --Apple-Mail-61--59515804 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On 14-May-09, at 9:34 PM, John Alexander wrote: > As far as I know, "quickly" has been the adverb form and "quick" > the adjective form for some time now. Dictionaries often list > "quick" as a colloquial adverb only and not a formal one. The OED notes "Now usually considered less formal than quickly, and found chiefly in informal or colloquial contexts." The now at the beginning of that sentence is of interest. The entry has quotations for quick as an adverb from 1300 until the present day with everything in between, and with both formal and informal examples. In other words, this is not a change, but a continuation, though perhaps we are currently on the ebb of an -ly-ful wave. The Corpus of Current American English shows a slight decline in -ly adverb frequency from 1990-2008 with 11,515 instances per million words in 1990-1994, 11, 291 in '95-'99, 11,146 in 200-2004, and 11,074 in 2005-2008 where, over the same period, all adverb actually increased in frequency from 35,072 PMW to 35,373. The Time Corpus shows the same overall increase in adverb use, but for -ly adverbs, it shows a gradual increase from the 1920s with a peak in 1970s followed by a drop off, today's levels being about the same as they were a century ago. Also, check out Jan Freeman's "The Word" column from Sept 17, 2006. Best, Brett ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language Centre Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask] 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/ --Apple-Mail-61--59515804 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 14-May-09, at 9:34 PM, John Alexander wrote:

As far as I know, "quickly" has been the adverb form and "quick" the adjective form for some time now. Dictionaries often list "quick" as a colloquial adverb only and not a formal one.

The OED notes "Now usually considered less formal than quickly, and found chiefly in informal or colloquial contexts." The now at the beginning of that sentence is of interest. The entry has quotations for quick as an adverb from 1300 until the present day with everything in between, and with both formal and informal examples.

In other words, this is not a change, but a continuation, though perhaps we are currently on the ebb of an -ly-ful wave. The Corpus of Current American English shows a slight decline in -ly adverb frequency from 1990-2008 with 11,515 instances per million words in 1990-1994, 11, 291 in '95-'99, 11,146 in 200-2004, and 11,074 in 2005-2008 where, over the same period, all adverb actually increased in frequency from 35,072 PMW to 35,373.

The Time Corpus shows the same overall increase in adverb use, but for -ly adverbs, it shows a gradual increase from the 1920s with a peak in 1970s followed by a drop off, today's levels being about the same as they were a century ago.

Also, check out Jan Freeman's "The Word" column from Sept 17, 2006.
<http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/17/adverb_is_as_adverb_does/>

Best,
Brett

-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]

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/ --Apple-Mail-61--59515804-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:54:41 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Suffix-dropping In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Another example relating to -ly is its use on adjectives in -ic. These usually require -ical, as in "basically" where the -al is not pronounced (*"basical" is not even a word), over against at least one that doesn't, "publicly." -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:28 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Suffix-dropping John, Could you give us some examples? With some adjectives the adverb is formed by zero-derivation, as in fast/fast. With others the -ly is optional, as in slow/slow/slowly. In some cases the -ly is not adverbial, as in friendly. For an adverb like hardly, the semantic connection to hard is obscure. And then there are cases like careful/carefully, where omission of -ly reflects a difference in dialect or register or both. Do the examples you're seeing cluster into any of these categories? Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander [[log in to unmask]] Sent: May 14, 2009 6:57 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Suffix-dropping I've been amazed at the loss of the derivational suffix -ly that routinely marks adverbs. Bill's talking about inflectional suffixes, I know, but I couldn't help mentioning the loss of -ly. I'm not one to cling to language bits that are rusting out and disappearing, but it really took me by surprise that -ly is not a productive part of the language for many speakers. If you focus on it and really listen to current language usage on television (both scripted and unscripted), in radio, and with the people you encounter, you'll notice it too. John Alexander On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote: I've read a ton of student papers over the past two weeks, and based on this batch and those from the last couple of years, I'm starting to get the impression that a greater percentage of my students every year are dropping inflectional suffixes (plurals, tense-markers) and finding it difficult to notice the omissions when proofreading (I haven't been formally counting, so I could be mistaking something I've just noticed for a trend, though). I've always seen some of this in examples where the suffix isn't audible in normal speech, particularly if the suffix is well on the way to being a kind of fossil in the particular expression(e.g. "ice tea" - you can't hear the realization of the {-ed} suffix before [t], and "iced" in that expression is probably a unitary adjective rather than a participle for most speakers who do use the -ed in writing). That's absolutely normal, and over time the suffix-less form can become the norm ("ice cream" used to be "iced cream"). What I'm seeing, though, are forms like "I was read this book" or "These short story are...."; they're in papers written by native English-speakers who don't speak any of the dialects that would normally drop those suffixes, and the same students do use the suffixes in speech (it's exactly the reverse of the usual situation, in which students don't know they have to write bits that they don't say). If I draw attention to a line in which there's a missing -ing, etc., the students frequently *can't* see anything unusual about it; their usual reaction is to look at it for a minute, then get rid of a comma (if there is one) or add one (if there isn't). It's that inability to notice the "gap" that I'm particularly intrigued by. If I read the section out loud, they immediately notice the omission (and I then tell them that they need to coerce friends into reading papers out loud for them as a coping strategy). It's not a language issue at all; it's just an orthographic one. I know similar effects can be associated with mild forms of dyslexia, but I find it hard to believe that fully 15 - 25% of the student population is even mildly dyslexic. I realize this is starting to sound like a variant of "Geezer Rant #325A; Those Darn Kids Won't Write Right" but I'm curious about whether anyone else is noticing similar patterns, or whether this has been common all along and I've somehow managed not to notice it (which, given the rest of this post, would be rather amusing for everyone but me...). ---- Bill Spruiell Dept. of English Central Michigan University 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/ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 10:25:46 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Suffix-dropping In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0015175113e206530f0469f50fdc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for the OED info (alas, I currently am deprived of my OED access) and for the link to the Jan Freeman article, which I particularly enjoyed. Most of my students (native speakers of English and non-native speakers) turn to much slimmer dictionaries that sometimes lack the kind of information that the OED would be able to clarify. I think the OED's qualifier "now" is in reference to the efforts in the past couple of centuries to prescribe consistency onto English's features, such as the adverb formation process. So many school teachers drilled the -ly version as correct that "now" the bob-tailed version is considered colloquial. I suppose that this could be the case for a lot of -ly adverbs; our language instincts don't need the suffix, but when we drop it, there's that small 19th century grammarian schoolteacher in our head who says, "Well, now, that's just not right." Also, interesting corpus results! You do great corpus-based research! John Alexander On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > On 14-May-09, at 9:34 PM, John Alexander wrote: > > As far as I know, "quickly" has been the adverb form and "quick" the > adjective form for some time now. Dictionaries often list "quick" as a > colloquial adverb only and not a formal one. > > > The OED notes "Now usually considered less formal than quickly, and found > chiefly in informal or colloquial contexts." The *now* at the beginning of > that sentence is of interest. The entry has quotations for *quick* as an > adverb from 1300 until the present day with everything in between, and with > both formal and informal examples. > > In other words, this is not a change, but a continuation, though perhaps we > are currently on the ebb of an -ly-ful wave. The Corpus of Current American > English shows a slight decline in -ly adverb frequency from 1990-2008 with > 11,515 instances per million words in 1990-1994, 11, 291 in '95-'99, 11,146 > in 200-2004, and 11,074 in 2005-2008 where, over the same period, all adverb > actually increased in frequency from 35,072 PMW to 35,373. > > The Time Corpus shows the same overall increase in adverb use, but for -ly > adverbs, it shows a gradual increase from the 1920s with a peak in 1970s > followed by a drop off, today's levels being about the same as they were a > century ago. > > Also, check out Jan Freeman's "The Word" column from Sept 17, 2006. > < > http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/17/adverb_is_as_adverb_does/ > > > > Best, > Brett > > ----------------------- > Brett Reynolds > English Language Centre > Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning > Toronto, Ontario, Canada > [log in to unmask] > > > > > 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/ --0015175113e206530f0469f50fdc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for the OED info (alas, I currently am deprived of my OED access) and for the link to the Jan Freeman article, which I particularly enjoyed.

Most of my students (native speakers of English and non-native speakers) turn to much slimmer dictionaries that sometimes lack the kind of information that the OED would be able to clarify.

I think the OED's qualifier "now" is in reference to the efforts in the past couple of centuries to prescribe consistency onto English's features, such as the adverb formation process. So many school teachers drilled the -ly version as correct that "now" the bob-tailed version is considered colloquial.

I suppose that this could be the case for a lot of -ly adverbs; our language instincts don't need the suffix, but when we drop it, there's that small 19th century grammarian schoolteacher in our head who says, "Well, now, that's just not right."

Also, interesting corpus results! You do great corpus-based research!

John Alexander

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On 14-May-09, at 9:34 PM, John Alexander wrote:

As far as I know, "quickly" has been the adverb form and "quick" the adjective form for some time now. Dictionaries often list "quick" as a colloquial adverb only and not a formal one.

The OED notes "Now usually considered less formal than quickly, and found chiefly in informal or colloquial contexts." The now at the beginning of that sentence is of interest. The entry has quotations for quick as an adverb from 1300 until the present day with everything in between, and with both formal and informal examples.

In other words, this is not a change, but a continuation, though perhaps we are currently on the ebb of an -ly-ful wave. The Corpus of Current American English shows a slight decline in -ly adverb frequency from 1990-2008 with 11,515 instances per million words in 1990-1994, 11, 291 in '95-'99, 11,146 in 200-2004, and 11,074 in 2005-2008 where, over the same period, all adverb actually increased in frequency from 35,072 PMW to 35,373.

The Time Corpus shows the same overall increase in adverb use, but for -ly adverbs, it shows a gradual increase from the 1920s with a peak in 1970s followed by a drop off, today's levels being about the same as they were a century ago.

Also, check out Jan Freeman's "The Word" column from Sept 17, 2006.
<http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/17/adverb_is_as_adverb_does/>

Best,
Brett

-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre

Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]

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/ --0015175113e206530f0469f50fdc-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 11:29:24 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Suffix-dropping In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1257" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 I wonder if the distribution of commentator dialects across sports has an analog in the US. I've noticed for some time that football and NASCAR commentators tend to have Southern accents while baseball commentators tend not to. Basketball seems more mixed. Soccer is pretty much non-Southern. With NASCAR and soccer the reasons are fairly clear. NASCAR is a sport(?) with deep Southern roots, and soccer has spread most successfully in the North and West. We lived in Atlanta in the 70s when our children were young and playing soccer. Those leagues also were predominantly staffed and populated by people who were not from the South. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Edmond Wright Sent: 2009-05-15 06:47 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Suffix-dropping > A British example of the dropping of adverbial -ly. It is the general practice in England, though it would be de rigueur to draw anyone's attention to it, for all sports commentators (except for those on the cricket, rugby union and athletic circuits) to speak with a working-class accent, syntax and vocabulary. Cricket and rugby union have a strong 'public-school' (i.e. private school) connection, even to the use of public-schoolboy nicknames (e.g. 'Blowers' for Henry Blofeld). For other sports, to take snooker and soccer as examples, it would be the height of oddity for someone to use the parlance of the upper classes. This is the pattern for all BBC spots programmes covering them. One commentator, Adrian Chiles, even speaks with an exaggeratedly working-class accent. There are anomalies, for the commentator (always male) will sometimes betray his education by using vocabulary outside what would be expected, but that goes unnoticed. A recurring feature is the complete absence of the adverbial -ly: e.g. 'He played that safety shot fantastic', 'He got out of that snooker magnificent', 'He moved neat to stop him heading the ball', 'He does his passing marvellous'. If it is the common speech that always wins out in the long run, it looks as if 'ly' will disappear 'ever so quick'. Edmond Dr. Edmond Wright 3 Boathouse Court Trafalgar Road Cambridge CB4 1DU England Email: [log in to unmask] Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/ Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256 Bill, I agree completely. My observation is quite different from yours, and > I high-jacked your topic to drop my tangential curiosity on ATEG. Sorry > about that! > > I DO know what you mean though; I'm not sure what to make of it most of the > time. I often chalk it up to processing issues because so many of my > students seem to struggle with cognitive overload when it comes to the > writing process. For so many reasons, they speed write, trying to force the > core content of their ideas (which they first twist and gnarl into bulky, > stilted constructions that they think I expect) onto the page before they > "lose" the thought completely. Perhaps some of the grammatical nuts and > bolts are getting lost along the way. In any case, I agree with you that > these occurrences are not always dialect-based and are a written, not > spoken, phenomenon. > > John Alexander > > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Spruiell, William C > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> John, >> >> >> >> People who don¹t make an ³X vs. X-ly² distinction in writing also don¹t, as >> you point out, make it in speech either. That¹s more what I think of as an >> effect of normal language change; people are writing what they actually say, >> whether or not a usage guide would approve of it. The students who are >> dropping the ing suffixes do say it. It¹s almost as if they¹re classing it >> with expression such as ³ummÐ² or the ³like² that¹s, like, used to, like, >> mark, like, hesitation. >> >> >> >> Bill Spruiell >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: >> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *John Dews-Alexander >> *Sent:* Thursday, May 14, 2009 6:58 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Suffix-dropping >> >> >> >> I've been amazed at the loss of the derivational suffix -ly that routinely >> marks adverbs. >> >> Bill's talking about inflectional suffixes, I know, but I couldn't help >> mentioning the loss of -ly. >> >> I'm not one to cling to language bits that are rusting out and >> disappearing, but it really took me by surprise that -ly is not a productive >> part of the language for many speakers. >> >> If you focus on it and really listen to current language usage on >> television (both scripted and unscripted), in radio, and with the people you >> encounter, you'll notice it too. >> >> John Alexander >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I¹ve read a ton of student papers over the past two weeks, and based on >> this batch and those from the last couple of years, I¹m starting to get the >> impression that a greater percentage of my students every year are dropping >> inflectional suffixes (plurals, tense-markers) and finding it difficult to >> notice the omissions when proofreading (I haven¹t been formally counting, so >> I could be mistaking something I¹ve just noticed for a trend, though). I¹ve >> always seen some of this in examples where the suffix isn¹t audible in >> normal speech, particularly if the suffix is well on the way to being a >> kind of fossil in the particular expression(e.g. ³ice tea² you can¹t hear >> the realization of the {-ed} suffix before [t], and ³iced² in that >> expression is probably a unitary adjective rather than a participle for most >> speakers who do use the ed in writing). That¹s absolutely normal, and over >> time the suffix-less form can become the norm (³ice cream² used to be ³iced >> cream²). >> >> >> >> What I¹m seeing, though, are forms like ³I was read this book² or ³These >> short story areÐ.²; they¹re in papers written by native English-speakers who >> don¹t speak any of the dialects that would normally drop those suffixes, and >> the same students do use the suffixes in speech (it¹s exactly the reverse of >> the usual situation, in which students don¹t know they have to write bits >> that they don¹t say). If I draw attention to a line in which there¹s a >> missing ing, etc., the students frequently **can¹t** see anything unusual >> about it; their usual reaction is to look at it for a minute, then get rid >> of a comma (if there is one) or add one (if there isn¹t). It¹s that >> inability to notice the ³gap² that I¹m particularly intrigued by. If I read >> the section out loud, they immediately notice the omission (and I then tell >> them that they need to coerce friends into reading papers out loud for them >> as a coping strategy). It¹s not a language issue at all; it¹s just an >> orthographic one. >> >> >> >> I know similar effects can be associated with mild forms of dyslexia, but I >> find it hard to believe that fully 15 - 25% of the student population is >> even mildly dyslexic. I realize this is starting to sound like a variant >> of ³Geezer Rant #325A; Those Darn Kids Won¹t Write Right² but I¹m curious >> about whether anyone else is noticing similar patterns, or whether this has >> been common all along and I¹ve somehow managed not to notice it (which, >> given the rest of this post, would be rather amusing for everyone but meÐ). >> >> >> >> ---- Bill Spruiell >> >> Dept. of English >> >> Central Michigan University >> >> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 15:38:06 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Ed, I think one of the reasons FANBOY connectives often start sentences is that conjunctions like "but" and "so" don't always simply connect two clauses, but often signal a shift in meaning that can follow several sentences and/or begin many more. "She was always friendly. She always smiled. No one could fault her everyday politeness. But something about her seemed cold." The "but in a sequence like that marks a shift in thinking rather than a connection to the previous clause. This is not just a hypothetical example. It happens very, very often in the best writing. Students come to college thinking they know a few things about grammar, and one of them is that "You shouldn't start a sentence with...." and that list includes "and", "but", "because", sometimes suprising things like "I." I don't see any reason for the rule. I would go even further--it is a foolish rule and foolish advice. I don't believe a single finite clause that starts with "for" is a fragment in traditional grammar. A single clause that starts with "because" would be. The details would differ, but Zwicky's overall point, that the two are not the same, is backed up. Craig I agree that it's not a problem for Zwicky's description (which, > thanks to Herb, I now have a clearer picture of), but sentences--- > indeed, paragraphs---beginning with FANBOYS connectives are quite a > problem for a great many English teachers, even though as Craig > pointed out earlier, college handbooks have never banned the > practice. Warriner neither approved nor disapproved, but a recent > Warriner clone warns against the practice in "formal writing." > > Ed > > On May 14, 2009, at 9:18 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: > >> I don't think a for-initial fragment where "for" means "because" >> would be a problem for Zwicky's description, precisely because it's >> a fragment and so would be interpretable as being the second of two >> clauses, the first being ellipted. >> >> Herb >> >> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. >> Emeritus Professor of English >> Ball State University >> Muncie, IN 47306 >> [log in to unmask] >> ________________________________________ >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >> [[log in to unmask] >> ] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster [[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: May 14, 2009 2:22 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions >> >> Ah, I suppose Arnold and I are talking about two different things. >> Let me give an example from Oates of what I am talking about, an >> example that has many interesting features---fragments especially--- >> besides the initial "for," which starts not only a sentence but also a >> new paragraph. >> >> The "Weidel house," it would be called for years. The Weidel >> property." As if the very land---which the family had not owned in >> any case, but only rented, partly with county-welfare support---were >> somehow imprinted with that name, a man's identity. Or infamy. >> For tales were told of the father who drank, beat and terrorized >> his >> family . . . . >> >> Ed >> >> On May 14, 2009, at 2:02 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >> >>> Ed, >>> >>> I assume you mean the coordinate clause introduced by "for" comes >>> before the clause that it's coordinate with. I don't have a copy of >>> Oates and Atwan. You might send these examples to Arnold. He would >>> find them interesting. >>> >>> Herb >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>> [mailto:[log in to unmask] >>> ] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster >>> Sent: 2009-05-14 12:42 >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions >>> >>> Herb, >>> I read the Zwicky article, and thanks for it, but I am puzzled by >>> his >>> stance that "for" cannot be used sentence initially. (I hope I >>> haven't misunderstood what he is saying.) Joyce Carol Oates uses >>> "for" initially six times in her 1995 essay, "They All Just Went >>> Away." Susan Sontag uses the same word initially five times in her >>> "Notes on 'Camp'." >>> And this is not a new phenomenon. In "The Handicapped" (1911) >>> "for" >>> is used by Randolph Bourne in sentence initial position 16 times, I >>> believe. It's also used, though much more rarely, by several other >>> writers. >>> (All these essays may be found in "The Best American Essays of the >>> Century" by Oates and Atwan.) >>> >>> Ed S >>> >>> On May 14, 2009, at 11:58 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >>> >>>> English has a lot of equivalent expressions that attract the >>>> attention of writing teachers and grammarians. Consider because/ >>>> for, however/but, which/that, much/a lot, and others you can >>>> probably come up with yourself. Here's a link >>>> (http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/forbecause/ >>>> ) to an extraordinarily lucid and insightful posting on the topic by >>>> that extraordinarily lucid and insightful grammarian Arnold Zwicky. >>>> Follow the internal links, and you'll see a subtle, perceptive, and >>>> witty mind at work. >>>> >>>> Enjoy! >>>> >>>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. >>>> Emeritus Professor of English >>>> Ball State University >>>> Muncie, IN 47306 >>>> [log in to unmask] >>>> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 16:05:12 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-41-60224553 --Apple-Mail-41-60224553 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed But, yet, and nor have to signal a shift in meaning because that is what they mean! These words will always be referencing a previous idea. Should that previous idea be in the same sentence? For experienced writers there is no required rule. But it is helpful for novices to be guided by rules that generally lead to clear writing. The rules our students come to us with may have been very helpful for many beginning writers. Not starting a sentence with "because" is teaching first graders to avoid sentence fragments. Not starting a sentence with "I" is probably not a rule, but might actually be a teacher telling them to vary their sentence starts. I do notice that good readers are never bothered by writing teachers' rules. Good readers are taught by good writing. The students who complain are the very writers (poor readers) who needed those strict rules. They resent their training wheels perhaps because they now see that others were writing without them long ago and getting away with it. Our job is to not to admonish their previous teachers but to explain why those teachers gave them that advice at that time in their education. We can now tell them they are old enough and sophisticated enough to understand the nuances involved in writing and can now decide for themselves when to follow or break a rule. Because I know that some of my writers do not need "training-wheel" advice, I tell all my students they can break my rules if they provide justification in the margin. This is a good technique because it lets students know that my rules are not "real." My rules are just what will usually lead them to success. But writing is an art, and if they think they have mastered it, why then a note in the margin (even "I think this sounds better, but I'm not sure why") is meta-understanding. In Craig's first example, I can imagine a student justifying a separate sentence only because it must negate three previous separate sentences/clauses and not just the third sentence/clause. That is smart justification and meta-understanding of rules and when to break them. On May 16, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > Ed, > I think one of the reasons FANBOY connectives often start > sentences is > that conjunctions like "but" and "so" don't always simply connect two > clauses, but often signal a shift in meaning that can follow several > sentences and/or begin many more. > "She was always friendly. She always smiled. No one could fault her > everyday politeness. But something about her seemed cold." The "but in > a sequence like that marks a shift in thinking rather than a > connection > to the previous clause. > This is not just a hypothetical example. It happens very, very > often in > the best writing. > Students come to college thinking they know a few things about > grammar, > and one of them is that "You shouldn't start a sentence with...." and > that list includes "and", "but", "because", sometimes suprising things > like "I." I don't see any reason for the rule. I would go even > further--it is a foolish rule and foolish advice. > I don't believe a single finite clause that starts with "for" is a > fragment in traditional grammar. A single clause that starts with > "because" would be. The details would differ, but Zwicky's overall > point, that the two are not the same, is backed up. > > Craig > > I agree that it's not a problem for Zwicky's description (which, >> thanks to Herb, I now have a clearer picture of), but sentences--- >> indeed, paragraphs---beginning with FANBOYS connectives are quite a >> problem for a great many English teachers, even though as Craig >> pointed out earlier, college handbooks have never banned the >> practice. Warriner neither approved nor disapproved, but a recent >> Warriner clone warns against the practice in "formal writing." >> >> Ed >> >> On May 14, 2009, at 9:18 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >> >>> I don't think a for-initial fragment where "for" means "because" >>> would be a problem for Zwicky's description, precisely because it's >>> a fragment and so would be interpretable as being the second of two >>> clauses, the first being ellipted. >>> >>> Herb >>> >>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. >>> Emeritus Professor of English >>> Ball State University >>> Muncie, IN 47306 >>> [log in to unmask] >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>> [[log in to unmask] >>> ] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster [[log in to unmask]] >>> Sent: May 14, 2009 2:22 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions >>> >>> Ah, I suppose Arnold and I are talking about two different things. >>> Let me give an example from Oates of what I am talking about, an >>> example that has many interesting features---fragments especially--- >>> besides the initial "for," which starts not only a sentence but >>> also a >>> new paragraph. >>> >>> The "Weidel house," it would be called for years. The Weidel >>> property." As if the very land---which the family had not owned in >>> any case, but only rented, partly with county-welfare support---were >>> somehow imprinted with that name, a man's identity. Or infamy. >>> For tales were told of the father who drank, beat and terrorized >>> his >>> family . . . . >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On May 14, 2009, at 2:02 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >>> >>>> Ed, >>>> >>>> I assume you mean the coordinate clause introduced by "for" comes >>>> before the clause that it's coordinate with. I don't have a >>>> copy of >>>> Oates and Atwan. You might send these examples to Arnold. He would >>>> find them interesting. >>>> >>>> Herb >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask] >>>> ] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster >>>> Sent: 2009-05-14 12:42 >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions >>>> >>>> Herb, >>>> I read the Zwicky article, and thanks for it, but I am puzzled by >>>> his >>>> stance that "for" cannot be used sentence initially. (I hope I >>>> haven't misunderstood what he is saying.) Joyce Carol Oates uses >>>> "for" initially six times in her 1995 essay, "They All Just Went >>>> Away." Susan Sontag uses the same word initially five times in her >>>> "Notes on 'Camp'." >>>> And this is not a new phenomenon. In "The Handicapped" (1911) >>>> "for" >>>> is used by Randolph Bourne in sentence initial position 16 times, I >>>> believe. It's also used, though much more rarely, by several other >>>> writers. >>>> (All these essays may be found in "The Best American Essays of >>>> the >>>> Century" by Oates and Atwan.) >>>> >>>> Ed S >>>> >>>> On May 14, 2009, at 11:58 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >>>> >>>>> English has a lot of equivalent expressions that attract the >>>>> attention of writing teachers and grammarians. Consider because/ >>>>> for, however/but, which/that, much/a lot, and others you can >>>>> probably come up with yourself. Here's a link >>>>> (http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/forbecause/ >>>>> ) to an extraordinarily lucid and insightful posting on the >>>>> topic by >>>>> that extraordinarily lucid and insightful grammarian Arnold >>>>> Zwicky. >>>>> Follow the internal links, and you'll see a subtle, perceptive, >>>>> and >>>>> witty mind at work. >>>>> >>>>> Enjoy! >>>>> >>>>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. >>>>> Emeritus Professor of English >>>>> Ball State University >>>>> Muncie, IN 47306 >>>>> [log in to unmask] >>>>> 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/ --Apple-Mail-41-60224553 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 But, yet, and nor have to signal a shift in meaning because that is what they mean!   These words will always be referencing a previous idea. Should that previous idea be in the same sentence? For experienced writers there is no required rule. But it is helpful for novices to be guided by rules that generally lead to clear writing.

The rules our students come to us with may have been very helpful for many beginning writers. Not starting a sentence with "because" is teaching first graders to avoid sentence fragments. Not starting a sentence with "I" is probably not a rule, but might actually be a teacher telling them to vary their sentence starts. I do notice that good readers are never bothered by writing teachers' rules. Good readers are taught by good writing. The students who complain are the very writers (poor readers) who needed those strict rules. They resent their training wheels perhaps because they now see that others were writing without them long ago and getting away with it.

Our job is to not to admonish their previous teachers but to explain why those teachers gave them that advice at that time in their education. We can now tell them they are old enough and sophisticated enough to understand the nuances involved in writing and can now decide for themselves when to follow or break a rule.

Because I know that some of my writers do not need "training-wheel" advice, I tell all my students they can break my rules if they provide justification in the margin. This is a good technique because it lets students know that my rules are not "real." My rules are just what will usually lead them to success. But writing is an art, and if they think they have mastered it, why then a note in the margin (even "I think this sounds better, but I'm not sure why") is meta-understanding. In Craig's first example, I can imagine a student justifying a separate sentence only because it must negate three previous separate sentences/clauses and not just the third sentence/clause. That is smart justification and meta-understanding of rules and when to break them.

On May 16, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Ed,
I think one of the reasons FANBOY connectives often start sentences is
that conjunctions like "but" and "so" don't always simply connect two
clauses, but often signal a shift in meaning that can follow several
sentences and/or begin many more.
   "She was always friendly. She always smiled. No one could fault her
everyday politeness. But something about her seemed cold." The "but in
a sequence like that marks a shift in thinking rather than a connection
to the previous clause.
   This is not just a hypothetical example. It happens very, very often in
the best writing.
   Students come to college thinking they know a few things about grammar,
and one of them is that "You shouldn't start a sentence with...." and
that list includes "and", "but", "because", sometimes suprising things
like "I." I don't see any reason for the rule. I would go even
further--it is a foolish rule and foolish advice.
   I don't believe a single finite clause that starts with "for" is a
fragment in traditional grammar. A single clause that starts with
"because" would be. The details would differ, but Zwicky's overall
point, that the two are not the same, is backed up.

Craig

I agree that it's not a problem for Zwicky's description (which,

thanks to Herb, I now have a clearer picture of), but sentences---
indeed, paragraphs---beginning with FANBOYS connectives are quite a
problem for a great many English teachers, even though as Craig
pointed out earlier, college handbooks have never banned the
practice. Warriner neither approved nor disapproved, but a recent
Warriner clone warns against the practice in "formal writing."

Ed

On May 14, 2009, at 9:18 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:

I don't think a for-initial fragment where "for" means "because"
would be a problem for Zwicky's description, precisely because it's
a fragment and so would be interpretable as being the second of two
clauses, the first being ellipted.

Herb

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[[log in to unmask]
] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: May 14, 2009 2:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions

Ah, I suppose Arnold and I are talking about two different things.
Let me give an example from Oates of what I am talking about, an
example that has many interesting features---fragments especially---
besides the initial "for," which starts not only a sentence but also a
new paragraph.

   The "Weidel house," it would be called for years. The Weidel
property." As if the very land---which the family had not owned in
any case, but only rented, partly with county-welfare support---were
somehow imprinted with that name, a man's identity. Or infamy.
   For tales were told of the father who drank, beat and terrorized
his
family . . . .

Ed

On May 14, 2009, at 2:02 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:

Ed,

I assume you mean the coordinate clause introduced by "for" comes
before the clause that it's coordinate with. I don't have a copy of
Oates and Atwan. You might send these examples to Arnold. He would
find them interesting.

Herb

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]
] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster
Sent: 2009-05-14 12:42
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions

Herb,
I read the Zwicky article, and thanks for it, but I am puzzled by
his
stance that "for" cannot be used sentence initially. (I hope I
haven't misunderstood what he is saying.) Joyce Carol Oates uses
"for" initially six times in her 1995 essay, "They All Just Went
Away." Susan Sontag uses the same word initially five times in her
"Notes on 'Camp'."
And this is not a new phenomenon. In "The Handicapped" (1911)
"for"
is used by Randolph Bourne in sentence initial position 16 times, I
believe. It's also used, though much more rarely, by several other
writers.
(All these essays may be found in "The Best American Essays of the
Century" by Oates and Atwan.)

Ed S

On May 14, 2009, at 11:58 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:

English has a lot of equivalent expressions that attract the
attention of writing teachers and grammarians. Consider because/
for, however/but, which/that, much/a lot, and others you can
probably come up with yourself. Here's a link
(http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/forbecause/
) to an extraordinarily lucid and insightful posting on the topic by
that extraordinarily lucid and insightful grammarian Arnold Zwicky.
Follow the internal links, and you'll see a subtle, perceptive, and
witty mind at work.

Enjoy!

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
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/ --Apple-Mail-41-60224553-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 17:33:33 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Jane Saral <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --001636c5b526215866046a0e5025 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Or start a new sentence with *and* or *but* because you want a longer pause, which would serve to add more weight to the ensuing sentence. Jane Saral On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > *But, yet, *and* nor* have to signal a shift in meaning because that is > what they mean! These words will always be referencing a previous idea. > Should that previous idea be in the same sentence? For experienced writers > there is no required rule. But it is helpful for novices to be guided by > rules that generally lead to clear writing. > The rules our students come to us with may have been very helpful for > many beginning writers. Not starting a sentence with "because" is teaching > first graders to avoid sentence fragments. Not starting a sentence with "I" > is probably not a rule, but might actually be a teacher telling them to vary > their sentence starts. I do notice that good readers are never bothered by > writing teachers' rules. Good readers are taught by good writing. The > students who complain are the very writers (poor readers) who needed those > strict rules. They resent their training wheels perhaps because they now > see that others were writing without them long ago and getting away with it. > > Our job is to not to admonish their previous teachers but to explain why > those teachers gave them that advice at that time in their education. We > can now tell them they are old enough and sophisticated enough to understand > the nuances involved in writing and can now decide for themselves when to > follow or break a rule. > > Because I know that some of my writers do not need "training-wheel" advice, > I tell all my students they can break my rules if they provide justification > in the margin. This is a good technique because it lets students know that > my rules are not "real." My rules are just what will usually lead them to > success. But writing is an art, and if they think they have mastered it, > why then a note in the margin (even "I think this sounds better, but I'm not > sure why") is meta-understanding. In Craig's first example, I can imagine a > student justifying a separate sentence only because it must negate three > previous separate sentences/clauses and not just the third sentence/clause. > That is smart justification and meta-understanding of rules and when to > break them. > > On May 16, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > Ed, > I think one of the reasons FANBOY connectives often start sentences is > that conjunctions like "but" and "so" don't always simply connect two > clauses, but often signal a shift in meaning that can follow several > sentences and/or begin many more. > "She was always friendly. She always smiled. No one could fault her > everyday politeness. But something about her seemed cold." The "but in > a sequence like that marks a shift in thinking rather than a connection > to the previous clause. > This is not just a hypothetical example. It happens very, very often in > the best writing. > Students come to college thinking they know a few things about grammar, > and one of them is that "You shouldn't start a sentence with...." and > that list includes "and", "but", "because", sometimes suprising things > like "I." I don't see any reason for the rule. I would go even > further--it is a foolish rule and foolish advice. > I don't believe a single finite clause that starts with "for" is a > fragment in traditional grammar. A single clause that starts with > "because" would be. The details would differ, but Zwicky's overall > point, that the two are not the same, is backed up. > > Craig > > I agree that it's not a problem for Zwicky's description (which, > > thanks to Herb, I now have a clearer picture of), but sentences--- > indeed, paragraphs---beginning with FANBOYS connectives are quite a > problem for a great many English teachers, even though as Craig > pointed out earlier, college handbooks have never banned the > practice. Warriner neither approved nor disapproved, but a recent > Warriner clone warns against the practice in "formal writing." > > Ed > > On May 14, 2009, at 9:18 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: > > I don't think a for-initial fragment where "for" means "because" > would be a problem for Zwicky's description, precisely because it's > a fragment and so would be interpretable as being the second of two > clauses, the first being ellipted. > > Herb > > Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. > Emeritus Professor of English > Ball State University > Muncie, IN 47306 > [log in to unmask] > ________________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [[log in to unmask] > ] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: May 14, 2009 2:22 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions > > Ah, I suppose Arnold and I are talking about two different things. > Let me give an example from Oates of what I am talking about, an > example that has many interesting features---fragments especially--- > besides the initial "for," which starts not only a sentence but also a > new paragraph. > > The "Weidel house," it would be called for years. The Weidel > property." As if the very land---which the family had not owned in > any case, but only rented, partly with county-welfare support---were > somehow imprinted with that name, a man's identity. Or infamy. > For tales were told of the father who drank, beat and terrorized > his > family . . . . > > Ed > > On May 14, 2009, at 2:02 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: > > Ed, > > I assume you mean the coordinate clause introduced by "for" comes > before the clause that it's coordinate with. I don't have a copy of > Oates and Atwan. You might send these examples to Arnold. He would > find them interesting. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > ] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster > Sent: 2009-05-14 12:42 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions > > Herb, > I read the Zwicky article, and thanks for it, but I am puzzled by > his > stance that "for" cannot be used sentence initially. (I hope I > haven't misunderstood what he is saying.) Joyce Carol Oates uses > "for" initially six times in her 1995 essay, "They All Just Went > Away." Susan Sontag uses the same word initially five times in her > "Notes on 'Camp'." > And this is not a new phenomenon. In "The Handicapped" (1911) > "for" > is used by Randolph Bourne in sentence initial position 16 times, I > believe. It's also used, though much more rarely, by several other > writers. > (All these essays may be found in "The Best American Essays of the > Century" by Oates and Atwan.) > > Ed S > > On May 14, 2009, at 11:58 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: > > English has a lot of equivalent expressions that attract the > attention of writing teachers and grammarians. Consider because/ > for, however/but, which/that, much/a lot, and others you can > probably come up with yourself. Here's a link > (http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/forbecause/ > ) to an extraordinarily lucid and insightful posting on the topic by > that extraordinarily lucid and insightful grammarian Arnold Zwicky. > Follow the internal links, and you'll see a subtle, perceptive, and > witty mind at work. > > Enjoy! > > Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. > Emeritus Professor of English > Ball State University > Muncie, IN 47306 > [log in to unmask] > 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/ > 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/ --001636c5b526215866046a0e5025 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Or start a new sentence with and or but because you want a longer pause, which would serve to add more weight to the ensuing sentence.

Jane Saral

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

But, yet, and nor have to signal a shift in meaning because that is what they mean!   These words will always be referencing a previous idea. Should that previous idea be in the same sentence? For experienced writers there is no required rule. But it is helpful for novices to be guided by rules that generally lead to clear writing.

The rules our students come to us with may have been very helpful for many beginning writers. Not starting a sentence with "because" is teaching first graders to avoid sentence fragments. Not starting a sentence with "I" is probably not a rule, but might actually be a teacher telling them to vary their sentence starts. I do notice that good readers are never bothered by writing teachers' rules. Good readers are taught by good writing. The students who complain are the very writers (poor readers) who needed those strict rules. They resent their training wheels perhaps because they now see that others were writing without them long ago and getting away with it.

Our job is to not to admonish their previous teachers but to explain why those teachers gave them that advice at that time in their education. We can now tell them they are old enough and sophisticated enough to understand the nuances involved in writing and can now decide for themselves when to follow or break a rule.

Because I know that some of my writers do not need "training-wheel" advice, I tell all my students they can break my rules if they provide justification in the margin. This is a good technique because it lets students know that my rules are not "real." My rules are just what will usually lead them to success. But writing is an art, and if they think they have mastered it, why then a note in the margin (even "I think this sounds better, but I'm not sure why") is meta-understanding. In Craig's first example, I can imagine a student justifying a separate sentence only because it must negate three previous separate sentences/clauses and not just the third sentence/clause. That is smart justification and meta-understanding of rules and when to break them.

On May 16, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Ed,

I think one of the reasons FANBOY connectives often start sentences is

that conjunctions like "but" and "so" don't always simply connect two

clauses, but often signal a shift in meaning that can follow several

sentences and/or begin many more.

   "She was always friendly. She always smiled. No one could fault her

everyday politeness. But something about her seemed cold." The "but in

a sequence like that marks a shift in thinking rather than a connection

to the previous clause.

   This is not just a hypothetical example. It happens very, very often in

the best writing.

   Students come to college thinking they know a few things about grammar,

and one of them is that "You shouldn't start a sentence with...." and

that list includes "and", "but", "because", sometimes suprising things

like "I." I don't see any reason for the rule. I would go even

further--it is a foolish rule and foolish advice.

   I don't believe a single finite clause that starts with "for" is a

fragment in traditional grammar. A single clause that starts with

"because" would be. The details would differ, but Zwicky's overall

point, that the two are not the same, is backed up.

Craig

I agree that it's not a problem for Zwicky's description (which,

thanks to Herb, I now have a clearer picture of), but sentences---

indeed, paragraphs---beginning with FANBOYS connectives are quite a

problem for a great many English teachers, even though as Craig

pointed out earlier, college handbooks have never banned the

practice. Warriner neither approved nor disapproved, but a recent

Warriner clone warns against the practice in "formal writing."

Ed

On May 14, 2009, at 9:18 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:

I don't think a for-initial fragment where "for" means "because"

would be a problem for Zwicky's description, precisely because it's

a fragment and so would be interpretable as being the second of two

clauses, the first being ellipted.

Herb

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.

Emeritus Professor of English

Ball State University

Muncie, IN 47306

[log in to unmask]

________________________________________

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

[[log in to unmask]

] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster [[log in to unmask]]

Sent: May 14, 2009 2:22 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions

Ah, I suppose Arnold and I are talking about two different things.

Let me give an example from Oates of what I am talking about, an

example that has many interesting features---fragments especially---

besides the initial "for," which starts not only a sentence but also a

new paragraph.

   The "Weidel house," it would be called for years. The Weidel

property." As if the very land---which the family had not owned in

any case, but only rented, partly with county-welfare support---were

somehow imprinted with that name, a man's identity. Or infamy.

   For tales were told of the father who drank, beat and terrorized

his

family . . . .

Ed

On May 14, 2009, at 2:02 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:

Ed,

I assume you mean the coordinate clause introduced by "for" comes

before the clause that it's coordinate with. I don't have a copy of

Oates and Atwan. You might send these examples to Arnold. He would

find them interesting.

Herb

-----Original Message-----

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar

[mailto:[log in to unmask]

] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster

Sent: 2009-05-14 12:42

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions

Herb,

I read the Zwicky article, and thanks for it, but I am puzzled by

his

stance that "for" cannot be used sentence initially. (I hope I

haven't misunderstood what he is saying.) Joyce Carol Oates uses

"for" initially six times in her 1995 essay, "They All Just Went

Away." Susan Sontag uses the same word initially five times in her

"Notes on 'Camp'."

And this is not a new phenomenon. In "The Handicapped" (1911)

"for"

is used by Randolph Bourne in sentence initial position 16 times, I

believe. It's also used, though much more rarely, by several other

writers.

(All these essays may be found in "The Best American Essays of the

Century" by Oates and Atwan.)

Ed S

On May 14, 2009, at 11:58 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:

English has a lot of equivalent expressions that attract the

attention of writing teachers and grammarians. Consider because/

for, however/but, which/that, much/a lot, and others you can

probably come up with yourself. Here's a link

(http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/forbecause/

) to an extraordinarily lucid and insightful posting on the topic by

that extraordinarily lucid and insightful grammarian Arnold Zwicky.

Follow the internal links, and you'll see a subtle, perceptive, and

witty mind at work.

Enjoy!

Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.

Emeritus Professor of English

Ball State University

Muncie, IN 47306

[log in to unmask]

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/

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/ --001636c5b526215866046a0e5025-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 20:26:11 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Confidential, "for", and dropping "-ly"; was ATEG Digest - 13 May 2009 to 14 May 2009 (#2009-111) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0424_01C9D664.8DE15BC0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0424_01C9D664.8DE15BC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would consider the citing of a commenter's remarks on another list and identifying the commenter or the list to be quite rude. It is too easy to take things out of context. As for "for," one favorite sentence that I often used for diagramming assignments was, "For I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I committed to him against that day." I would be more impressed with Ms Oates as one of the best writers if she had not been the primary editor of "The Best Writers of Today" or whatever title of that ilk she used. If you have to toot your own horn, it's most often because no one else is willing to do so. I have not heard adverbs lacking the -ly except for the common flat adverbs in English. I continue to be amused by the antics of those who feel the compulsion to attack the Little Book, especially when they quote Shakespeare and Chaucer as evidence of error. As Shakespeare would have said, "That is the most unkindest cut of all." If I had said that they were silly, they should have been complimented by my remark. Scott Catledge Professor Emeritus *********************************************************** 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/ ------=_NextPart_000_0424_01C9D664.8DE15BC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would consider the citing of a commenter‘s remarks on another list and

identifying the commenter or the list to be quite rude. It is too easy

to take things out of context.

As for “for,” one favorite sentence that I often used for diagramming

assignments was, “For I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that

He is able to keep that which I committed to him against that day.”

I would be more impressed with Ms Oates as one of the best writers if

she had not been the primary editor of “The Best Writers of Today” or

whatever title of that ilk she used. If you have to toot your own horn,

it’s most often because no one else is willing to do so.

I have not heard adverbs lacking the –ly except for the common flat

adverbs in English.

I continue to be amused by the antics of those who feel the compulsion

to attack the Little Book, especially when they quote Shakespeare and

Chaucer as evidence of error. As Shakespeare would have said, “That is

the most unkindest cut of all.” If I had said that they were silly,

they should have been complimented by my remark.

Scott Catledge

Professor Emeritus

***********************************************************

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/ ------=_NextPart_000_0424_01C9D664.8DE15BC0-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 22:20:53 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Susan, I have never been convinced by those arguments. Students don't complain about those rules; they are simply limited by them. I don't say that as an elitist teacher, but as a teacher who has taught many students that other teachers have given up on. You don't help students by giving them a false description of language because you believe they aren't capable of the truth. If we have to mislead first graders to keep them from writing sentence fragments, then let them write sentence fragments. The fact is that you can start a sentence with because. Why would we teach something false? If you need to wait awhile to bring up the notion of a subordinate clause, then let that be the time to talk about subordinate clause fragments. Clear writing is a wonderful goal. I don't believe the rules you cite are a step in that direction.> "Vary sentence starts" would be another example of bad advice. Good writers sustain subjects for longer stretches of text, which is what builds coherence. As Martha says in her teacher's manual for "Rhetorical Grammar", the most common error of inexperienced writers is breaking the known/new contract. Varying subject for "style" is a mistake. Our goal should be to deepen understanding about language, not set arbitrary rules, especially if those rules are presented as somewhat offical when, in fact, they are not. I would extend that out to "rules" about essays, like the number of sentences in a paragraph and so on. They are misleading and harmful. I'm saying that on a professional list for fellow teachers. I'm sure they are well intentioned mistakes, and I wouldn't criticize those teachers quite so directly to my students. But I believe I should be able to raise the objection here. We can and should do better. Craig But, yet, and nor have to signal a shift in meaning because that is > what they mean! These words will always be referencing a previous > idea. Should that previous idea be in the same sentence? For > experienced writers there is no required rule. But it is helpful for > novices to be guided by rules that generally lead to clear writing. > > The rules our students come to us with may have been very helpful for > many beginning writers. Not starting a sentence with "because" is > teaching first graders to avoid sentence fragments. Not starting a > sentence with "I" is probably not a rule, but might actually be a > teacher telling them to vary their sentence starts. I do notice that > good readers are never bothered by writing teachers' rules. Good > readers are taught by good writing. The students who complain are > the very writers (poor readers) who needed those strict rules. They > resent their training wheels perhaps because they now see that others > were writing without them long ago and getting away with it. > > Our job is to not to admonish their previous teachers but to explain > why those teachers gave them that advice at that time in their > education. We can now tell them they are old enough and > sophisticated enough to understand the nuances involved in writing > and can now decide for themselves when to follow or break a rule. > > Because I know that some of my writers do not need "training-wheel" > advice, I tell all my students they can break my rules if they > provide justification in the margin. This is a good technique > because it lets students know that my rules are not "real." My rules > are just what will usually lead them to success. But writing is an > art, and if they think they have mastered it, why then a note in the > margin (even "I think this sounds better, but I'm not sure why") is > meta-understanding. In Craig's first example, I can imagine a > student justifying a separate sentence only because it must negate > three previous separate sentences/clauses and not just the third > sentence/clause. That is smart justification and meta-understanding > of rules and when to break them. > > On May 16, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> Ed, >> I think one of the reasons FANBOY connectives often start >> sentences is >> that conjunctions like "but" and "so" don't always simply connect two >> clauses, but often signal a shift in meaning that can follow several >> sentences and/or begin many more. >> "She was always friendly. She always smiled. No one could fault her >> everyday politeness. But something about her seemed cold." The "but in >> a sequence like that marks a shift in thinking rather than a >> connection >> to the previous clause. >> This is not just a hypothetical example. It happens very, very >> often in >> the best writing. >> Students come to college thinking they know a few things about >> grammar, >> and one of them is that "You shouldn't start a sentence with...." and >> that list includes "and", "but", "because", sometimes suprising things >> like "I." I don't see any reason for the rule. I would go even >> further--it is a foolish rule and foolish advice. >> I don't believe a single finite clause that starts with "for" is a >> fragment in traditional grammar. A single clause that starts with >> "because" would be. The details would differ, but Zwicky's overall >> point, that the two are not the same, is backed up. >> >> Craig >> >> I agree that it's not a problem for Zwicky's description (which, >>> thanks to Herb, I now have a clearer picture of), but sentences--- >>> indeed, paragraphs---beginning with FANBOYS connectives are quite a >>> problem for a great many English teachers, even though as Craig >>> pointed out earlier, college handbooks have never banned the >>> practice. Warriner neither approved nor disapproved, but a recent >>> Warriner clone warns against the practice in "formal writing." >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On May 14, 2009, at 9:18 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think a for-initial fragment where "for" means "because" >>>> would be a problem for Zwicky's description, precisely because it's >>>> a fragment and so would be interpretable as being the second of two >>>> clauses, the first being ellipted. >>>> >>>> Herb >>>> >>>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. >>>> Emeritus Professor of English >>>> Ball State University >>>> Muncie, IN 47306 >>>> [log in to unmask] >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>>> [[log in to unmask] >>>> ] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster [[log in to unmask]] >>>> Sent: May 14, 2009 2:22 PM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions >>>> >>>> Ah, I suppose Arnold and I are talking about two different things. >>>> Let me give an example from Oates of what I am talking about, an >>>> example that has many interesting features---fragments especially--- >>>> besides the initial "for," which starts not only a sentence but >>>> also a >>>> new paragraph. >>>> >>>> The "Weidel house," it would be called for years. The Weidel >>>> property." As if the very land---which the family had not owned in >>>> any case, but only rented, partly with county-welfare support---were >>>> somehow imprinted with that name, a man's identity. Or infamy. >>>> For tales were told of the father who drank, beat and terrorized >>>> his >>>> family . . . . >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> On May 14, 2009, at 2:02 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ed, >>>>> >>>>> I assume you mean the coordinate clause introduced by "for" comes >>>>> before the clause that it's coordinate with. I don't have a >>>>> copy of >>>>> Oates and Atwan. You might send these examples to Arnold. He would >>>>> find them interesting. >>>>> >>>>> Herb >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask] >>>>> ] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster >>>>> Sent: 2009-05-14 12:42 >>>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>>> Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions >>>>> >>>>> Herb, >>>>> I read the Zwicky article, and thanks for it, but I am puzzled by >>>>> his >>>>> stance that "for" cannot be used sentence initially. (I hope I >>>>> haven't misunderstood what he is saying.) Joyce Carol Oates uses >>>>> "for" initially six times in her 1995 essay, "They All Just Went >>>>> Away." Susan Sontag uses the same word initially five times in her >>>>> "Notes on 'Camp'." >>>>> And this is not a new phenomenon. In "The Handicapped" (1911) >>>>> "for" >>>>> is used by Randolph Bourne in sentence initial position 16 times, I >>>>> believe. It's also used, though much more rarely, by several other >>>>> writers. >>>>> (All these essays may be found in "The Best American Essays of >>>>> the >>>>> Century" by Oates and Atwan.) >>>>> >>>>> Ed S >>>>> >>>>> On May 14, 2009, at 11:58 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> English has a lot of equivalent expressions that attract the >>>>>> attention of writing teachers and grammarians. Consider because/ >>>>>> for, however/but, which/that, much/a lot, and others you can >>>>>> probably come up with yourself. Here's a link >>>>>> (http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/forbecause/ >>>>>> ) to an extraordinarily lucid and insightful posting on the >>>>>> topic by >>>>>> that extraordinarily lucid and insightful grammarian Arnold >>>>>> Zwicky. >>>>>> Follow the internal links, and you'll see a subtle, perceptive, >>>>>> and >>>>>> witty mind at work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Enjoy! >>>>>> >>>>>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. >>>>>> Emeritus Professor of English >>>>>> Ball State University >>>>>> Muncie, IN 47306 >>>>>> [log in to unmask] >>>>>> 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/ > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 06:47:29 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Clear writing is a wonderful goal MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-3087084-1242568049=:67732" --0-3087084-1242568049=:67732 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 5/16/09, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: "Clear writing is a wonderful goal." ~~~~~ Look what I found in this morning's newspaper, written by a college freshman about her senior year in high school. It is so good, one has to wonder how much of it was her unpolished own, prior to help from parents and English teachers. See what you think. And just for fun, see what your spell-checker finds. (There are only two 'had's and they are both used correctly :). ~~~~~ Closing My Eyes Putting the drive to get ahead in neutral By Susan Clark, Sunday, May 17, 2009. . It is a drizzly after-school Thursday, and as a particularly garish Post-it on my steering wheel dictates, I must navigate to Staples before I pick up my little sister from her school. I need envelopes for my college applications. Apparently, it falls to me to house my application materials in crisp uniforms of unrecycled envelopes -- preferably of the self-stick variety, as my guidance counselor has cautioned us against the perils of getting paper cuts on our tongues. Never has my get-it-done gusto been in fuller swing or in better company. It's the fall of my senior year of high school. For 12th-grade overachievers, autumn marks the final sprint to being a certified college kid. Every late-night study session, every sports practice, every meeting of an after-school club: They are like soda tabs dropped into a recycling bin -- individually meaningless, but just you wait. It is all going to pay off. Isn't it? I make it in and out of Staples in nine minutes flat and emerge the proud owner of a mammoth box of 9-by-12 self-adhesive white envelopes. This $40 monstrosity is the only size they sell, and I will use maybe eight of them. College is already bleeding me dry, and I haven't even set foot on a campus. Fabulous. Okay, overpriced postal products: achieved. Now onward down the list of things I scribbled during fourth period: Pick up sister. Spanish Lit. Food. Calc. Gov. When life is a sequence of little tasks, it's easy to hop from one to the next, frantically and unquestioningly. But if you stop for just one second, look around and ask, "What's the point?" ... Well, let's just say that's not one of the "Seven Habits of Highly Successful People." I pull out of the parking lot, on to the next mission. It is not so much drizzling anymore as drooling. Yech. I flick my windshield wipers to life and marvel as they methodically guillotine the rain out of my line of sight. Oh, to have their uncomplaining efficiency! I ramp onto the Beltway. My little sister had field hockey practice today, which means she will be craving Taco Bell. I weigh her satisfaction against the time I would waste in the drive-through. Even as I jockey my Civic into the fast lane, I am mentally prioritizing my evening tasks. My life is a Jenga game of to-do's. If I only knew that I was going to get into a good college, that I was going to find a way to pay for it. If I only had some guarantee of my future, perhaps the present wouldn't seem so precarious. I play a stupid game with myself. On the highway, on long stretches where there is no one else, I see how long I can close my eyes. The sky is fading, and the rain matures into little crystals of sleet. I get off the Beltway onto the street that will take me to my sister's high school. I would be on By the time I make it, she will be waiting irately under one of the school entrance's overhangs, shivering and hungry. She will ask why I didn't bring her one of those awful tacos with the fake cheese that she likes. Since it's Thursday, she will complain that she has sooo much work for tomorrow, and I will roll my eyes and think of my stickynotes and say, "You have nooo idea." This is how it is, on the track toward somebody else's definition of success. We actually manage to make how stressed we are into a competition. This is the last year I will be my little sister's ride home from school, and we've spent much of it bickering about our workloads. Is this how the world works? The message is to always do well in high school, so you can get into the right college, so you can get into the right grad school, so you can get the right job. Do we define ourselves by where we are going, at the expense of where we are? I turn into the high school parking lot and stop where my sister can see me. I flash my lights and wait for her to gather her backpack and sports bag and shuffle across the sidewalk. As she does, the sleet ages into snow. The flecks accumulate, quietly, on my windshield between beats of the wipers, and I think about switching them off, letting the snowflakes gather and cocoon my windows, my windshield, until I am nestled in a bed of white. It would be like closing my eyes. 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/ --0-3087084-1242568049=:67732 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 5/16/09, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

"Clear writing is a wonderful goal."

~~~~~

Look what I found in this morning's newspaper, written by a college freshman about her senior year in high school. It is so good, one has to wonder how much of it was her unpolished own, prior to help from parents and English teachers. See what you think. And just for fun, see what your spell-checker finds. (There are only two 'had's and they are both used correctly :).

~~~~~

Closing My Eyes

Putting the drive to get ahead in neutral

By Susan Clark, Sunday, May 17, 2009.

.

It is a drizzly after-school Thursday, and as a particularly garish Post-it on my steering wheel dictates, I must navigate to Staples before I pick up my little sister from her school. I need envelopes for my college applications. Apparently, it falls to me to house my application materials in crisp uniforms of unrecycled envelopes -- preferably of the self-stick variety, as my guidance counselor has cautioned us against the perils of getting paper cuts on our tongues.

Never has my get-it-done gusto been in fuller swing or in better company. It's the fall of my senior year of high school. For 12th-grade overachievers, autumn marks the final sprint to being a certified college kid. Every late-night study session, every sports practice, every meeting of an after-school club: They are like soda tabs dropped into a recycling bin -- individually meaningless, but just you wait. It is all going to pay off. Isn't it?

I make it in and out of Staples in nine minutes flat and emerge the proud owner of a mammoth box of 9-by-12 self-adhesive white envelopes. This $40 monstrosity is the only size they sell, and I will use maybe eight of them. College is already bleeding me dry, and I haven't even set foot on a campus. Fabulous.

Okay, overpriced postal products: achieved. Now onward down the list of things I scribbled during fourth period: Pick up sister. Spanish Lit. Food. Calc. Gov. When life is a sequence of little tasks, it's easy to hop from one to the next, frantically and unquestioningly. But if you stop for just one second, look around and ask, "What's the point?" ... Well, let's just say that's not one of the "Seven Habits of Highly Successful People."

I pull out of the parking lot, on to the next mission. It is not so much drizzling anymore as drooling. Yech. I flick my windshield wipers to life and marvel as they methodically guillotine the rain out of my line of sight. Oh, to have their uncomplaining efficiency!

I ramp onto the Beltway. My little sister had field hockey practice today, which means she will be craving Taco Bell. I weigh her satisfaction against the time I would waste in the drive-through. Even as I jockey my Civic into the fast lane, I am mentally prioritizing my evening tasks. My life is a Jenga game of to-do's. If I only knew that I was going to get into a good college, that I was going to find a way to pay for it. If I only had some guarantee of my future, perhaps the present wouldn't seem so precarious.

I play a stupid game with myself. On the highway, on long stretches where there is no one else, I see how long I can close my eyes.

The sky is fading, and the rain matures into little crystals of sleet. I get off the Beltway onto the street that will take me to my sister's high school. I would be on By the time I make it, she will be waiting irately under one of the school entrance's overhangs, shivering and hungry. She will ask why I didn't bring her one of those awful tacos with the fake cheese that she likes. Since it's Thursday, she will complain that she has sooo much work for tomorrow, and I will roll my eyes and think of my stickynotes and say, "You have nooo idea."

This is how it is, on the track toward somebody else's definition of success. We actually manage to make how stressed we are into a competition. This is the last year I will be my little sister's ride home from school, and we've spent much of it bickering about our workloads. Is this how the world works? The message is to always do well in high school, so you can get into the right college, so you can get into the right grad school, so you can get the right job. Do we define ourselves by where we are going, at the expense of where we are?

I turn into the high school parking lot and stop where my sister can see me. I flash my lights and wait for her to gather her backpack and sports bag and shuffle across the sidewalk. As she does, the sleet ages into snow. The flecks accumulate, quietly, on my windshield between beats of the wipers, and I think about switching them off, letting the snowflakes gather and cocoon my windows, my windshield, until I am nestled in a bed of white. It would be like closing my eyes.

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/ --0-3087084-1242568049=:67732-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 10:20:12 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-89-122324405 --Apple-Mail-89-122324405 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On 16-May-09, at 10:20 PM, Craig wrote: > I have never been convinced by those arguments. Students don't > complain > about those rules; they are simply limited by them. I don't say > that as > an elitist teacher, but as a teacher who has taught many students that > other teachers have given up on. You don't help students by giving > them > a false description of language because you believe they aren't > capable > of the truth. Hear, hear! A few weeks ago, I posted the following to my blog: I think today is the first day that my son asked me about a prescriptive grammar rule. He's in grade two, and he asked me if it was true that you can't start a sentence with and. I asked him why he was curious, and he said that he'd seen it in books but his teacher had said that it was against the rules. I asked him why his teacher might do that, but he couldn't imagine a reason, so we talked about how kids often tell stories with and between every "sentence" and I asked him how it sounds if you use the same word(s) too many times. In the end, we agreed that you can start a sentence with and but that doing it too much sounds funny. Which seemed to satisfy him, until he added, "but you can't have two ands in the same sentence, right?" So we got to look at the difference between coordinating clauses and phrases, and he had no trouble seeing the difference once it was brought to his attention. If a seven-year-old can notice a discrepancy between what he's being told and what he sees, and if he can understand the facts of grammar with a little Socratic questioning, why do we teach all these fake oversimplifications? Best, Brett ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language Centre Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask] 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/ --Apple-Mail-89-122324405 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 16-May-09, at 10:20 PM, Craig wrote:

I have never been convinced by those arguments. Students don't complain
about those rules; they are simply limited by them. I don't say that as
an elitist teacher, but as a teacher who has taught many students that
other teachers have given up on. You don't help students by giving them
a false description of language because you believe they aren't capable
of the truth.

Hear, hear!

A few weeks ago, I posted the following to my blog:

I think today is the first day that my son asked me about a prescriptive grammar rule. He's in grade two, and he asked me if it was true that you can't start a sentence with and. I asked him why he was curious, and he said that he'd seen it in books but his teacher had said that it was against the rules.

I asked him why his teacher might do that, but he couldn't imagine a reason, so we talked about how kids often tell stories with and between every "sentence" and I asked him how it sounds if you use the same word(s) too many times. In the end, we agreed that you can start a sentence with and but that doing it too much sounds funny.

Which seemed to satisfy him, until he added, "but you can't have two ands in the same sentence, right?" So we got to look at the difference between coordinating clauses and phrases, and he had no trouble seeing the difference once it was brought to his attention.

If a seven-year-old can notice a discrepancy between what he's being told and what he sees, and if he can understand the facts of grammar with a little Socratic questioning, why do we teach all these fake oversimplifications?

Best,
Brett

<http://english-jack.blogspot.com>

-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]

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/ --Apple-Mail-89-122324405-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 09:58:17 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What was your class size and did you have a student with a low I.Q.? Teachers have fake oversimplifications (the formulaic 5 paragraph essay) and dumb rules in school to reach the students we have. I think your son has a level of intellectual curiosity that many adults will never have. By the way, if that teacher hadn't introduced that rule, you and your son wouldn't have had that great discussion. On May 17, 2009, at 9:20 AM, Brett Reynolds wrote: > If a seven-year-old can notice a discrepancy between what he's > being told and what he sees, and if he can understand the facts of > grammar with a little Socratic questioning, why do we teach all > these fake oversimplifications? > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 10:44:16 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 12:19:52 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "O'Sullivan, Brian P" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: If "known-new" is the most important principle... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ...how would you (or how do you) teach towards the "known-new contract" in lower grades? Craig's last post in the "sentences beginning with conjunctions" thread made me think about this topic. Craig cited Martha as saying that violating the known-new contract is the most pervasive problem in student writing, and he suggested that a rule like "vary sentence openings" might aggravate this problem. I generally agree with these points (though I think that varying sentence openings is not a bad idea--it's just that students should learn to do it not by introducing multiple subjects but though noun-substitution strategies and other means.) But the "known-new contract" seems like a pretty high-order, strategic approach to language; I'm not a psychologist, but I know that various psychological theories characterize young children as egocentric and abolutist in their thinking, whereas "known-new" seems pretty other-centric (i.e., reader-based) and context-sensitiv. I'm not saying that it's developmentally inappropriate to think about "known-new" in the lower grades; I'm just wondering what kinds of scaffolds you would put in place to support student's gradual development of the concept and skill of organizing thoughts from know to new. I can think of two general categories of scaffolds that could be used: rules and play. For example, would you make a "rule" that new information is not allowed to appear at the beginning of a sentence or a paragraph? If so, how would you help them determine what is "new information"? Would you have them pick out some key terms--concepts and proper names, maybe--and introduce them at the ends of paragraphs? Of course, even if you could teach students to follow this kind of rule, they'd have to learn later on they should make it a rule of thumb rather than a tabboo--but that's true of all the rules that teachers make for young writers. I think the key point is that these rules should lead students in the (e.g., the rules should lead students towards understanding that coherent topic-strings are more important to readability than variation for variation's sake.) Still, I wonder if students would "get it" more readily if coherent writing were presented more as a game or creative activity than as a set of rules. I'm thinking of some kind of "round-robin" exercise, where everyone has to passes around a piece of paper and has to respond to the previous person's sentence and add a new one. Or write dialogue, maybe first in pairs or groups and later alone, where each line is supposed to respond to the previous line and add something new? I just think that kids learn begin to pick up the idea of "known-new" in conversation long before they pick it up in writing, and having young writers emulate speech might help them emulate this principle in writing a little sooner. Another nice thing about dialogue is that young students could be allowed to write sentence fragments, as Craig suggests, without being implicitly taught that fragments are generally acceptable in written English. I don't know--I'm just a college English professor and Writing Center guy, and I think teachers in the lower grades have a tougher job in many ways. I'm just wondering how they address this porblem of coherence, or how they could address it. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Craig Hancock Sent: Sat 5/16/2009 10:20 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Susan, I have never been convinced by those arguments. Students don't complain about those rules; they are simply limited by them. I don't say that as an elitist teacher, but as a teacher who has taught many students that other teachers have given up on. You don't help students by giving them a false description of language because you believe they aren't capable of the truth. If we have to mislead first graders to keep them from writing sentence fragments, then let them write sentence fragments. The fact is that you can start a sentence with because. Why would we teach something false? If you need to wait awhile to bring up the notion of a subordinate clause, then let that be the time to talk about subordinate clause fragments. Clear writing is a wonderful goal. I don't believe the rules you cite are a step in that direction.> "Vary sentence starts" would be another example of bad advice. Good writers sustain subjects for longer stretches of text, which is what builds coherence. As Martha says in her teacher's manual for "Rhetorical Grammar", the most common error of inexperienced writers is breaking the known/new contract. Varying subject for "style" is a mistake. Our goal should be to deepen understanding about language, not set arbitrary rules, especially if those rules are presented as somewhat offical when, in fact, they are not. I would extend that out to "rules" about essays, like the number of sentences in a paragraph and so on. They are misleading and harmful. I'm saying that on a professional list for fellow teachers. I'm sure they are well intentioned mistakes, and I wouldn't criticize those teachers quite so directly to my students. But I believe I should be able to raise the objection here. We can and should do better. Craig But, yet, and nor have to signal a shift in meaning because that is > what they mean! These words will always be referencing a previous > idea. Should that previous idea be in the same sentence? For > experienced writers there is no required rule. But it is helpful for > novices to be guided by rules that generally lead to clear writing. > > The rules our students come to us with may have been very helpful for > many beginning writers. Not starting a sentence with "because" is > teaching first graders to avoid sentence fragments. Not starting a > sentence with "I" is probably not a rule, but might actually be a > teacher telling them to vary their sentence starts. I do notice that > good readers are never bothered by writing teachers' rules. Good > readers are taught by good writing. The students who complain are > the very writers (poor readers) who needed those strict rules. They > resent their training wheels perhaps because they now see that others > were writing without them long ago and getting away with it. > > Our job is to not to admonish their previous teachers but to explain > why those teachers gave them that advice at that time in their > education. We can now tell them they are old enough and > sophisticated enough to understand the nuances involved in writing > and can now decide for themselves when to follow or break a rule. > > Because I know that some of my writers do not need "training-wheel" > advice, I tell all my students they can break my rules if they > provide justification in the margin. This is a good technique > because it lets students know that my rules are not "real." My rules > are just what will usually lead them to success. But writing is an > art, and if they think they have mastered it, why then a note in the > margin (even "I think this sounds better, but I'm not sure why") is > meta-understanding. In Craig's first example, I can imagine a > student justifying a separate sentence only because it must negate > three previous separate sentences/clauses and not just the third > sentence/clause. That is smart justification and meta-understanding > of rules and when to break them. > > On May 16, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> Ed, >> I think one of the reasons FANBOY connectives often start >> sentences is >> that conjunctions like "but" and "so" don't always simply connect two >> clauses, but often signal a shift in meaning that can follow several >> sentences and/or begin many more. >> "She was always friendly. She always smiled. No one could fault her >> everyday politeness. But something about her seemed cold." The "but in >> a sequence like that marks a shift in thinking rather than a >> connection >> to the previous clause. >> This is not just a hypothetical example. It happens very, very >> often in >> the best writing. >> Students come to college thinking they know a few things about >> grammar, >> and one of them is that "You shouldn't start a sentence with...." and >> that list includes "and", "but", "because", sometimes suprising things >> like "I." I don't see any reason for the rule. I would go even >> further--it is a foolish rule and foolish advice. >> I don't believe a single finite clause that starts with "for" is a >> fragment in traditional grammar. A single clause that starts with >> "because" would be. The details would differ, but Zwicky's overall >> point, that the two are not the same, is backed up. >> >> Craig >> >> I agree that it's not a problem for Zwicky's description (which, >>> thanks to Herb, I now have a clearer picture of), but sentences--- >>> indeed, paragraphs---beginning with FANBOYS connectives are quite a >>> problem for a great many English teachers, even though as Craig >>> pointed out earlier, college handbooks have never banned the >>> practice. Warriner neither approved nor disapproved, but a recent >>> Warriner clone warns against the practice in "formal writing." >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On May 14, 2009, at 9:18 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think a for-initial fragment where "for" means "because" >>>> would be a problem for Zwicky's description, precisely because it's >>>> a fragment and so would be interpretable as being the second of two >>>> clauses, the first being ellipted. >>>> >>>> Herb >>>> >>>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. >>>> Emeritus Professor of English >>>> Ball State University >>>> Muncie, IN 47306 >>>> [log in to unmask] >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>>> [[log in to unmask] >>>> ] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster [[log in to unmask]] >>>> Sent: May 14, 2009 2:22 PM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions >>>> >>>> Ah, I suppose Arnold and I are talking about two different things. >>>> Let me give an example from Oates of what I am talking about, an >>>> example that has many interesting features---fragments especially--- >>>> besides the initial "for," which starts not only a sentence but >>>> also a >>>> new paragraph. >>>> >>>> The "Weidel house," it would be called for years. The Weidel >>>> property." As if the very land---which the family had not owned in >>>> any case, but only rented, partly with county-welfare support---were >>>> somehow imprinted with that name, a man's identity. Or infamy. >>>> For tales were told of the father who drank, beat and terrorized >>>> his >>>> family . . . . >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> On May 14, 2009, at 2:02 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ed, >>>>> >>>>> I assume you mean the coordinate clause introduced by "for" comes >>>>> before the clause that it's coordinate with. I don't have a >>>>> copy of >>>>> Oates and Atwan. You might send these examples to Arnold. He would >>>>> find them interesting. >>>>> >>>>> Herb >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask] >>>>> ] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster >>>>> Sent: 2009-05-14 12:42 >>>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>>> Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions >>>>> >>>>> Herb, >>>>> I read the Zwicky article, and thanks for it, but I am puzzled by >>>>> his >>>>> stance that "for" cannot be used sentence initially. (I hope I >>>>> haven't misunderstood what he is saying.) Joyce Carol Oates uses >>>>> "for" initially six times in her 1995 essay, "They All Just Went >>>>> Away." Susan Sontag uses the same word initially five times in her >>>>> "Notes on 'Camp'." >>>>> And this is not a new phenomenon. In "The Handicapped" (1911) >>>>> "for" >>>>> is used by Randolph Bourne in sentence initial position 16 times, I >>>>> believe. It's also used, though much more rarely, by several other >>>>> writers. >>>>> (All these essays may be found in "The Best American Essays of >>>>> the >>>>> Century" by Oates and Atwan.) >>>>> >>>>> Ed S >>>>> >>>>> On May 14, 2009, at 11:58 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> English has a lot of equivalent expressions that attract the >>>>>> attention of writing teachers and grammarians. Consider because/ >>>>>> for, however/but, which/that, much/a lot, and others you can >>>>>> probably come up with yourself. Here's a link >>>>>> (http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/forbecause/ >>>>>> ) to an extraordinarily lucid and insightful posting on the >>>>>> topic by >>>>>> that extraordinarily lucid and insightful grammarian Arnold >>>>>> Zwicky. >>>>>> Follow the internal links, and you'll see a subtle, perceptive, >>>>>> and >>>>>> witty mind at work. >>>>>> >>>>>> Enjoy! >>>>>> >>>>>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. >>>>>> Emeritus Professor of English >>>>>> Ball State University >>>>>> Muncie, IN 47306 >>>>>> [log in to unmask] >>>>>> 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/ > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 16:00:06 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Susan, In your own post, "teacher" and "student" get repeated very effectively. The subject of your third sentence is "that", which refers back to the content of thwe previous sentences. You use "But" to start your second paragraph. Every sentence in your final paragraph starts with "I", and I don't mean that as a criticism. Much of our advice about writing doesn't match what good writers do. 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 16:06:08 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Peter Adams <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Craig, I think Susan was toying with you . . . Peter On May 17, 2009, at 4:00 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > Susan, > In your own post, "teacher" and "student" get repeated very > effectively. The subject of your third sentence is "that", which > refers > back to the content of thwe previous sentences. You use "But" to start > your second paragraph. Every sentence in your final paragraph starts > with "I", and I don't mean that as a criticism. Much of our advice > about writing doesn't match what good writers do. > > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 17:28:34 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "O'Sullivan, Brian P" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I thought so too. It the last paragraph was clever, but I'm not sure it makes its point. Susan succeeds in making that paragraph sound a little awkward and contrived, but I think it sounds that way not because of the repetitive "sentence starts" alone, but because those come in a string of short, simple sentences, and because not all of the sentences with "I" as the subject really have the writer as their topic. On that last point, compare that paragraph to this famous one, in which the repeated subject seems rhetorically well chosen: "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live." OK, maybe it's not a fair comparison. :) But I do think the Gettysburg Address passage suggests that it's not always necessary to "vary sentence starts." Brian 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. Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of English Director of the Writing Center St. Mary’s College of Maryland Montgomery Hall 50 18952 E. Fisher Rd. St. Mary’s City, Maryland 20686 240-895-4242 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Peter Adams Sent: Sun 5/17/2009 4:06 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Craig, I think Susan was toying with you . . . Peter On May 17, 2009, at 4:00 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > Susan, > In your own post, "teacher" and "student" get repeated very > effectively. The subject of your third sentence is "that", which > refers > back to the content of thwe previous sentences. You use "But" to start > your second paragraph. Every sentence in your final paragraph starts > with "I", and I don't mean that as a criticism. Much of our advice > about writing doesn't match what good writers do. > > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 20:11:37 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) After reading in a high school textbook that student writers should avoid beginning sentences with conjunctions in "formal" writing, I reached for the two most formal books on my shelf: Sir Randolph Quirk's "Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" and Albert Baugh's "Literary History of England." In the former, a sentence beginning with "yet" occurs in the second paragraph of the Preface and a sentence beginning with "but" occurs in the first paragraph of Chapter One. In Baugh, "nor" introduces a sentence in the first paragraph of the Preface and "but" introduces a sentence in the first paragraph of Chapter One. I couldn't help noticing the subjects of the sentences in Quirk's Preface: The opening sentence has a long prep phrase and his second sentence opens with "In 1972," followed by "there," but after that, his subjects are "this," "these two," this," and "it." I've done quite a bit of research on sentence openings; it demonstrates that professional writers vary their sentence openings very little. About two-thirds of the time, they open with the subjects of their sentences; about ten percent of the time, they open with prepositional phrases. Ed S On May 16, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > Ed, > I think one of the reasons FANBOY connectives often start > sentences is > that conjunctions like "but" and "so" don't always simply connect two > clauses, but often signal a shift in meaning that can follow several > sentences and/or begin many more. > "She was always friendly. She always smiled. No one could fault her > everyday politeness. But something about her seemed cold." The "but in > a sequence like that marks a shift in thinking rather than a > connection > to the previous clause. > This is not just a hypothetical example. It happens very, very > often in > the best writing. > Students come to college thinking they know a few things about > grammar, > and one of them is that "You shouldn't start a sentence with...." and > that list includes "and", "but", "because", sometimes suprising things > like "I." I don't see any reason for the rule. I would go even > further--it is a foolish rule and foolish advice. > I don't believe a single finite clause that starts with "for" is a > fragment in traditional grammar. A single clause that starts with > "because" would be. The details would differ, but Zwicky's overall > point, that the two are not the same, is backed up. > > Craig > > I agree that it's not a problem for Zwicky's description (which, >> thanks to Herb, I now have a clearer picture of), but sentences--- >> indeed, paragraphs---beginning with FANBOYS connectives are quite a >> problem for a great many English teachers, even though as Craig >> pointed out earlier, college handbooks have never banned the >> practice. Warriner neither approved nor disapproved, but a recent >> Warriner clone warns against the practice in "formal writing." >> >> Ed >> >> On May 14, 2009, at 9:18 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >> >>> I don't think a for-initial fragment where "for" means "because" >>> would be a problem for Zwicky's description, precisely because it's >>> a fragment and so would be interpretable as being the second of two >>> clauses, the first being ellipted. >>> >>> Herb >>> >>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. >>> Emeritus Professor of English >>> Ball State University >>> Muncie, IN 47306 >>> [log in to unmask] >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>> [[log in to unmask] >>> ] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster [[log in to unmask]] >>> Sent: May 14, 2009 2:22 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions >>> >>> Ah, I suppose Arnold and I are talking about two different things. >>> Let me give an example from Oates of what I am talking about, an >>> example that has many interesting features---fragments especially--- >>> besides the initial "for," which starts not only a sentence but >>> also a >>> new paragraph. >>> >>> The "Weidel house," it would be called for years. The Weidel >>> property." As if the very land---which the family had not owned in >>> any case, but only rented, partly with county-welfare support---were >>> somehow imprinted with that name, a man's identity. Or infamy. >>> For tales were told of the father who drank, beat and terrorized >>> his >>> family . . . . >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On May 14, 2009, at 2:02 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >>> >>>> Ed, >>>> >>>> I assume you mean the coordinate clause introduced by "for" comes >>>> before the clause that it's coordinate with. I don't have a copy >>>> of >>>> Oates and Atwan. You might send these examples to Arnold. He would >>>> find them interesting. >>>> >>>> Herb >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar >>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask] >>>> ] On Behalf Of Edgar Schuster >>>> Sent: 2009-05-14 12:42 >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Re: Equivalent expressions >>>> >>>> Herb, >>>> I read the Zwicky article, and thanks for it, but I am puzzled by >>>> his >>>> stance that "for" cannot be used sentence initially. (I hope I >>>> haven't misunderstood what he is saying.) Joyce Carol Oates uses >>>> "for" initially six times in her 1995 essay, "They All Just Went >>>> Away." Susan Sontag uses the same word initially five times in her >>>> "Notes on 'Camp'." >>>> And this is not a new phenomenon. In "The Handicapped" (1911) >>>> "for" >>>> is used by Randolph Bourne in sentence initial position 16 times, I >>>> believe. It's also used, though much more rarely, by several other >>>> writers. >>>> (All these essays may be found in "The Best American Essays of the >>>> Century" by Oates and Atwan.) >>>> >>>> Ed S >>>> >>>> On May 14, 2009, at 11:58 AM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: >>>> >>>>> English has a lot of equivalent expressions that attract the >>>>> attention of writing teachers and grammarians. Consider because/ >>>>> for, however/but, which/that, much/a lot, and others you can >>>>> probably come up with yourself. Here's a link >>>>> (http://arnoldzwicky.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/forbecause/ >>>>> ) to an extraordinarily lucid and insightful posting on the >>>>> topic by >>>>> that extraordinarily lucid and insightful grammarian Arnold >>>>> Zwicky. >>>>> Follow the internal links, and you'll see a subtle, perceptive, >>>>> and >>>>> witty mind at work. >>>>> >>>>> Enjoy! >>>>> >>>>> Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. >>>>> Emeritus Professor of English >>>>> Ball State University >>>>> Muncie, IN 47306 >>>>> [log in to unmask] >>>>> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 20:13:57 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 21:32:05 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Craig, That's a very interesting piece of analysis. I think it represents precisely the kind of grammar we should be teaching our writing students. It demonstrates very nicely how certain grammatical choices help to structure information into easily absorbed presentation. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock [[log in to unmask]] Sent: May 17, 2009 8:13 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 20:48:09 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/ ========================================================================Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 09:30:44 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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/ ========================================================================Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:37:38 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Natalie Gerber <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: a reader for grammatical analysis of a Robert Frost sonnet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, I wonder if anyone would be willing to give me feedback on a work-in-progress, a grammatical analysis of a Robert Frost poem. I will have it completed later this week. The poem is "Never Again Would Birds' Song Be the Same," a late Frost sonnet that is celebrated as a tour-de-force. In the interests of full disclosure, I'm giving a brief talk on this poem at a seminar on Frost in June: I'm interested in how the poem might or might not exemplify Frost's theories of sentence sounds, by which he means, speaking roughly, how the counterpoint of the "irregular" intonational contours against the regular metrical beat gives life to a poem. I'll feel more secure staking claims about the intonational contours with confirmation from a better grammarian than I that I am working from a correct--or correctable--basic grammatical analysis. If you are so kindly willing, please let me know how I might forward this document to you off-list. On a related note, I am very grateful to the list for all the answers I received to questions posed this spring. I've smiled at the discussions of how confidential is ATEG: it is difficult to publicly admit to uncertainty and thus to a lack of expertise, but I've felt tremendous support from this group and have been grateful for its friendly reception of queries. I wish there were resource-oriented groups connected to all the areas I teach! All best, Natalie Natalie Gerber Department of English SUNY Fredonia [log in to unmask] 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/ ========================================================================Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:42:09 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "O'Sullivan, Brian P" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, You say the "I" subjects don't pose a problem, but I wonder: Don't the multiple repetitions, in this context, give the word "I" a conspicuous and distracting emphasis? To me, this repetition is so noticeable and insistent that it looks like an example of the rhetorical device of anaphora. Defined as "the repetition of a word or phrase at the beginning of successive phrases, clauses or lines," anaphora is exemplified in this passage from Churchill: "We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight....We shall never surrender." (The definition and example are from http://facstaff.bloomu.edu/jtomlins/rhetorical_devices.htm, though I have abbreviated the example.) To me, Churchill's repetition works because the word "we" bears repetition, as it is more or less the point of the whole passage; Churchill is invoking the unity and solidarity that can be summed up in the first person plural. By contrast, the repetition of "I" in Susan's joking paragraph seems to be, as she intended, a good example of bad repetitiveness, in that it might make a reader feel that the word "I" defines the paragraph's topic and that the writer is focusing only on herself, when that does not seem to be the desired effect. On the contrary, as I read it, the ostensible point of the paragraph was that there was something in common between your writing and hers, and that you should acknowledge in theory a "rule" that you both share in practice. Had she not been kidding, I think it might have made more sense to move from "you" to "I" to "we" as subjects, in a kind of thesis-antithesis-synthesis structure. Ultimately, though, I think this just proves your point--that repetition of sentence openers isn't bad in itself, but the writer should ask what effect or meaning such repetition (or any other grammatical/writerly choice makes) is likely to convey. Right? Of course, the bigger question is how (and when) to lead young students being able to ask just strategic questions about their writing instead of just looking for rules to follow. Brian British Prime Minister Winston Churchill Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of English Director of the Writing Center St. Mary’s College of Maryland Montgomery Hall 50 18952 E. Fisher Rd. St. Mary’s City, Maryland 20686 240-895-4242 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Craig Hancock Sent: Mon 5/18/2009 9:30 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions 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/ ========================================================================Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:26:44 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: hyphens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9D807.B747F5DA" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9D807.B747F5DA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello In the following phrase, "water quality related research," would you hyphenate any of these words? I'm tempted to do this: "water-quality-related research." What do you think? Janet 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/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9D807.B747F5DA Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello

In the following phrase, “water quality related research,” would you hyphenate any of these words? I’m tempted to do this: “water-quality-related research.”

What do you think?

Janet

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/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9D807.B747F5DA-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 17:48:53 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/ ========================================================================Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 18:38:48 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: hyphens In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D1374A6385143DMBX01ldschurc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D1374A6385143DMBX01ldschurc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Janet, I would be tempted to avoid the piling up of adjective modification and write more simply: "research related to water quality." The formation of a compound like "water quality" ought to be enough, but then to make it adjectival (was complement to the verb "relate") seems to leave nowhere to go. One compound hyphenated compounding suffix that seems to be accepted in formal writing is "-like." When it is attached to a hyphenated compound the hyphen is known to turn into an en-dash, "water-quality–like research." That neat device is not available here, but maybe it is pressure from such a compound that pushes us to go for it. Bruce ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:26 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: hyphens Hello In the following phrase, “water quality related research,” would you hyphenate any of these words? I’m tempted to do this: “water-quality-related research.” What do you think? Janet 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/ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 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/ --_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D1374A6385143DMBX01ldschurc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Janet,

I would be tempted to avoid the piling up of adjective modification and write more simply: "research related to water quality." The formation of a compound like "water quality" ought to be enough, but then to make it adjectival (was complement to the verb "relate") seems to leave nowhere to go. One compound hyphenated compounding suffix that seems to be accepted in formal writing is "-like." When it is attached to a hyphenated compound the hyphen is known to turn into an en-dash, "water-quality–like research." That neat device is not available here, but maybe it is pressure from such a compound that pushes us to go for it.

Bruce

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: hyphens

Hello

In the following phrase, “water quality related research,” would you hyphenate any of these words? I’m tempted to do this: “water-quality-related research.”

What do you think?

Janet

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/

NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

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/ --_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D1374A6385143DMBX01ldschurc_-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 19:53:28 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: hyphens In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0015175113e2cf8ffa046a3956c7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bruce summed up my feelings on this well. My instinct is that such a construction is hazardous to our language processors! "Water-related research" may work, but trying to put a compound adjectival before the hyphen seems highly cumbersome. I suppose one could appeal to a style guide in the end. Hyphen usage in English's written form is subject to a lot of flux because these hyphens are often a visual representation of meanings drawing closer and closer together, eventually forming "tighter" units. John On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Janet, > > I would be tempted to avoid the piling up of adjective modification and > write more simply: *"research related to water quality."* The formation > of a compound like "water quality" ought to be enough, but then to make it > adjectival (was complement to the verb "relate") seems to leave nowhere to > go. One compound hyphenated compounding suffix that seems to be accepted in > formal writing is "-like." When it is attached to a hyphenated compound the > hyphen is known to turn into an en-dash, *"water-quality–like research."* > That neat device is not available here, but maybe it is pressure from such a > compound that pushes us to go for it. > > Bruce > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [ > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet [ > [log in to unmask]] > *Sent:* Monday, May 18, 2009 4:26 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* hyphens > > Hello > > > > In the following phrase, “water quality related research,” would you > hyphenate any of these words? I’m tempted to do this: > “water-quality-related research.” > > > > What do you think? > > > > Janet > 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/ > > > > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) > and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the > intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all > copies of the original message. > 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/ --0015175113e2cf8ffa046a3956c7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bruce summed up my feelings on this well. My instinct is that such a construction is hazardous to our language processors! "Water-related research" may work, but trying to put a compound adjectival before the hyphen seems highly cumbersome.

I suppose one could appeal to a style guide in the end. Hyphen usage in English's written form is subject to a lot of flux because these hyphens are often a visual representation of meanings drawing closer and closer together, eventually forming "tighter" units.

John

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Janet,

I would be tempted to avoid the piling up of adjective modification and write more simply: "research related to water quality." The formation of a compound like "water quality" ought to be enough, but then to make it adjectival (was complement to the verb "relate") seems to leave nowhere to go. One compound hyphenated compounding suffix that seems to be accepted in formal writing is "-like." When it is attached to a hyphenated compound the hyphen is known to turn into an en-dash, "water-quality–like research." That neat device is not available here, but maybe it is pressure from such a compound that pushes us to go for it.

Bruce

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: hyphens

Hello

In the following phrase, “water quality related research,” would you hyphenate any of these words? I’m tempted to do this: “water-quality-related research.”

What do you think?

Janet

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/

NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

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/ --0015175113e2cf8ffa046a3956c7-- ========================================================================Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 21:43:17 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Don Stewart <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016364d2439ea8a32046a3a08fd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Craig invoked the memory of Francis Christensen, who preached the mantra of "similar things in similar ways." By beginning a series of sentences with similar vocabulary and/or similar grammar, the writer signals organization, connections, sequence, and parallelism. Here are two paragraphs from Bruce Catton's "Grant and Lee: A Study in Contrasts" that show this technique in action: And that, perhaps, is where the contrast between Grant and Lee becomes most striking. The Virginia aristocrat, inevitably, saw himself in relation to his own region. He lived in a static society which could endure almost anything except change. Instinctively, his first loyalty would go to the locality in which that society existed. He would fight to the limit of endurance to defend it, because in defending it he was defending everything that gave his own life its deepest meaning. The Westerner, on the other hand, would fight with an equal tenacity for the broader concept of society. He fought so because everything he lived by was tied to growth, expansion, and a constantly widening horizon. What he lived by would survive or fall with the nation itself. He could not possibly stand by unmoved in the face of an attempt to destroy the Union. He would combat it with everything he had, because he could only see it as an effort to cut the ground out from under his feet. Just try messing around with those "He" sentence openers and watch how the whole thing dissolves into mush. Don Stewart On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > 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/ > -- Don Stewart Write for College ______________________ Keeper of the memory and method of Dr. Francis Christensen 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/ --0016364d2439ea8a32046a3a08fd Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig invoked the memory of Francis Christensen, who preached the mantra of "similar things in similar ways." By beginning a series of sentences with similar vocabulary and/or similar grammar, the writer signals organization, connections, sequence, and parallelism. Here are two paragraphs from Bruce Catton's "Grant and Lee: A Study in Contrasts" that show this technique in action:

And that, perhaps, is where the contrast between Grant and Lee becomes most striking. The Virginia aristocrat, inevitably, saw himself in relation to his own region. He lived in a static society which could endure almost anything except change. Instinctively, his first loyalty would go to the locality in which that society existed. He would fight to the limit of endurance to defend it, because in defending it he was defending everything that gave his own life its deepest meaning.

The Westerner, on the other hand, would fight with an equal tenacity for the broader concept of society. He fought so because everything he lived by was tied to growth, expansion, and a constantly widening horizon. What he lived by would survive or fall with the nation itself. He could not possibly stand by unmoved in the face of an attempt to destroy the Union. He would combat it with everything he had, because he could only see it as an effort to cut the ground out from under his feet.

Just try messing around with those "He" sentence openers and watch how the whole thing dissolves into mush.

Don Stewart

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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/

--
Don Stewart
Write for College
______________________
Keeper of the memory and method
of Dr. Francis Christensen

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/ --0016364d2439ea8a32046a3a08fd-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 01:58:03 +0000 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Jan Kammert <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 22:30:09 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 08:55:05 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Susan, I work with Educational Opportunity Program students in their first years of college. Many test below high school level on our standardized tests. (Many test well above it.) I have worked with struggling writers my whole professional life. Most of your sentences below start with "I" or "you". The only variation is for "others on the list" in sentence three and "teaching struggling writers to vary their sentence starts" in sentence four and "we" (you and your students) in the final clause. If student essays are robotic, it is probably a matter of content more than "style." If the content is strong, then get the form to fit the content. If the content is weak, varying sentence starts won't save it. Craig 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 08:58:48 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 07:49:00 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Developing a High School Linguistics Course In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Here is a query from the Linguist List that some of you might like to respond to. Her e-mail address is sloosen (at) uwm.edu Hello, I am a high school English teacher working on my M.A. in Linguistics. I am currently designing an elective Introduction to Linguistics course to be taught at the 11th and 12th grade level. I am looking to find out if there are any other courses being taught in American high schools that focus primarily on Linguistics. I am also looking for additional resources to help make Linguistics relevant to high school students. I have chosen David Crystal's ''Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language'' as the text for the course and am currently writing lesson plans for a semester-long course. I teach at Milwaukee School of Languages, a 6th-12th grade language immersion school, and I am hoping to make this course a reality within the next two years. Any comments on programs that are already in place or advice on how to proceed would be appreciated. Thank you, Suzi Loosen University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:52:21 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Crow <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016364c7bcd520bde046a4438db Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/ --0016364c7bcd520bde046a4438db Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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--
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.

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/ --0016364c7bcd520bde046a4438db-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:17:19 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Developing a High School Linguistics Course Comments: cc: [log in to unmask] In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-12-294950726 --Apple-Mail-12-294950726 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed > I'd recommend aiming for participation in the North American Computational Linguistics Olympiad and the International Olympiad in Linguistics. More information, including past problems, here: Best, Brett ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language Centre Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask] 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/ --Apple-Mail-12-294950726 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1

I'd recommend aiming for participation in the North American Computational Linguistics Olympiad and the International Olympiad in Linguistics. More information, including past problems, here:
<http://www.naclo.cs.cmu.edu/>
<http://iol6.linguistics-bg.com/index.php>

Best,
Brett

<http://english-jack.blogspot.com>

-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]

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/ --Apple-Mail-12-294950726-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:38:19 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Ingerman, Prudence (INGERMAN)" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_55CCD5E7EED84C49857CBDA727D710612609D27887EXCHDBjuniata_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_55CCD5E7EED84C49857CBDA727D710612609D27887EXCHDBjuniata_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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-- 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/ --_000_55CCD5E7EED84C49857CBDA727D710612609D27887EXCHDBjuniata_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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--

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/ --_000_55CCD5E7EED84C49857CBDA727D710612609D27887EXCHDBjuniata_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 08:30:20 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: hyphens In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9D896.B5B8BB3B" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9D896.B5B8BB3B Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yeah, I think it sounds horrible, but the dean of my college wrote it for a grant application. I'm looking it over for major grammatical problems, but I'm not sure how much he is really going to let me change. Janet ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 5:39 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: hyphens Janet, I would be tempted to avoid the piling up of adjective modification and write more simply: "research related to water quality." The formation of a compound like "water quality" ought to be enough, but then to make it adjectival (was complement to the verb "relate") seems to leave nowhere to go. One compound hyphenated compounding suffix that seems to be accepted in formal writing is "-like." When it is attached to a hyphenated compound the hyphen is known to turn into an en-dash, "water-quality-like research." That neat device is not available here, but maybe it is pressure from such a compound that pushes us to go for it. Bruce ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:26 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: hyphens Hello In the following phrase, "water quality related research," would you hyphenate any of these words? I'm tempted to do this: "water-quality-related research." What do you think? Janet 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/ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 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/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9D896.B5B8BB3B Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yeah, I think it sounds horrible, but the dean of my college wrote it for a grant application. I’m looking it over for major grammatical problems, but I’m not sure how much he is really going to let me change.

Janet

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 5:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: hyphens

Janet,

I would be tempted to avoid the piling up of adjective modification and write more simply: "research related to water quality." The formation of a compound like "water quality" ought to be enough, but then to make it adjectival (was complement to the verb "relate") seems to leave nowhere to go. One compound hyphenated compounding suffix that seems to be accepted in formal writing is "-like." When it is attached to a hyphenated compound the hyphen is known to turn into an en-dash, "water-quality–like research." That neat device is not available here, but maybe it is pressure from such a compound that pushes us to go for it.

Bruce

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: hyphens

Hello

In the following phrase, “water quality related research,” would you hyphenate any of these words? I’m tempted to do this: “water-quality-related research.”

What do you think?

Janet

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/

NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

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/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9D896.B5B8BB3B-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:01:53 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 18:43:09 +0200 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Marie-Pierre Jouannaud <[log in to unmask]> Subject: transitive/intransitive verbs In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear ATEGers, When I order books from amazon.com or amazon.co.uk, I sometimes receive messages saying: your order has shipped/has dispatched Is this a normal, common use of these verbs (I would expect them to be in the passive voice instead)? Is it a new development? Thanks, Marie France 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:11:25 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: transitive/intransitive verbs In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 In my opinion the expression is jargon. The so called medio-passive, I suspect, is probably an earmark of business language. Sometimes it is a handy way to avoid the "forbidden" passive voice. It reminds me of the intransitive verb "grow" being used as a transitive. I think Janet's dean has fallen into the noose of such a jargon as is found in business reports and grant requests. Other such expression of this ilk are found in most official and academic papers. These jargons all have their own set of characteristics, but have much in common (obfuscation). I think the international businesses, such as Amazon need to take better care to be clear to a diverse audience: "your order has been sent." Do they teach a course in college called "Business English"? -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marie-Pierre Jouannaud Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 10:43 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: transitive/intransitive verbs Dear ATEGers, When I order books from amazon.com or amazon.co.uk, I sometimes receive messages saying: your order has shipped/has dispatched Is this a normal, common use of these verbs (I would expect them to be in the passive voice instead)? Is it a new development? Thanks, Marie France 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/ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:19:56 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit John, These are thoughtful statements, so I'll try to respond to each. 1) I agree, of course, that students don't pay attention to structure. 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. 2) Robotic was susan's word for the sentences her students produce. I was just trying to respond by saying there are probably problems with content. 3) I couldn't agree more that we should pay attention to "stylistic devices", though I wouldn't use that term. We should pay attention to how good writers build meaning, keep meaning clear, and so on. The choices are highly functional. Varying sentences openers for the sake of "variety" is a different kind of goal. It implies that form and meaning are separate, that meaning needs to be dressed up. 4) Sentence variety is not a goal I would advocate. The form of the sentences should mirror purpose. 5) Opening sentences with adverbials is highly thematic. These, too, can be repeated to great effect. In Obama's speech on race (I wish I had the text here), a number of consecutive sentences being with "this time" as he builds a contrast to ways things have been done in the past. In class, we might say "On Monday, we will cover chapter two. On Wednesday, be sure to have your drafts. On Friday, we'll have a short quiz." There are REASONS for these choices, and variety seems to me a distraction. I highly recommend looking at the subject functions as described in Systemic Functional Grammar. 6) I thnk Susan writes very well, and if she were polishing her writing, might even repeat sentence openers MORE rather than less. The point I was trying to make is that we give advice like that (vary sentence openers) without paying attention to our own practices OR the practices of effective writers. I am probably more focused on meaning and function than the typical teacher. I always go top down with revision. I would never counsel sentence revision when the essay itself isn't working. I find most inexperienced writers don't seem to have a strong sense of purpose when they write, and one clear symptom of that is the way subjects shift so quickly and so often. There is not enough overlap of meaning, no consistent thread. I try to help them discover a sense of purpose and help them build a text that carries that purpose out. For the most part, that means adding repetition, not removing it. Craig 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:33:33 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 14:14:05 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: transitive/intransitive verbs In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-14-309156984 --Apple-Mail-14-309156984 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On 19-May-09, at 12:43 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote: > When I order books from amazon.com or amazon.co.uk, I sometimes > receive > messages saying: > > your order has shipped/has dispatched Amazon.ca uses only shipped, not dispatched. The OED has ship in a similar, but somewhat different sense from 1867: "It ships well, and is a very good peach." In the first 100 hits for HAVE + SHIP in the Corpus of Current American English, the only relevant examples I see are: -Popular Mechanics (2006) "there's a chance that your PC may have shipped with the hardware necessary to connect" -The Houson Chronicle (2005) "since her debut album in 1990, more than 150 million Carey albums have shipped." So, it does appear to be something of an innovation, and not particularly common. Best, Brett ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language Centre Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask] 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/ --Apple-Mail-14-309156984 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 19-May-09, at 12:43 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar wrote:

When I order books from amazon.com or amazon.co.uk, I sometimes receive
messages saying:

your order has shipped/has dispatched

Amazon.ca uses only shipped, not dispatched.

The OED has ship in a similar, but somewhat different sense from 1867: "It ships well, and is a very good peach."

In the first 100 hits for HAVE + SHIP in the Corpus of Current American English, the only relevant examples I see are:
-Popular Mechanics (2006) "there's a chance that your PC may have shipped with the hardware necessary to connect"
-The Houson Chronicle (2005) "since her debut album in 1990, more than 150 million Carey albums have shipped."

So, it does appear to be something of an innovation, and not particularly common.

Best,
Brett

-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]

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/ --Apple-Mail-14-309156984-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:12:40 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: David Kehe <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: hyphens MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Janet, Here's how I have consistently seen the NY Times handle this type of situation: water quality-related reseach Dave ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Castilleja, Janet Sent: Tue 5/19/2009 8:30 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: hyphens Yeah, I think it sounds horrible, but the dean of my college wrote it for a grant application. I'm looking it over for major grammatical problems, but I'm not sure how much he is really going to let me change. Janet ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 5:39 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: hyphens Janet, I would be tempted to avoid the piling up of adjective modification and write more simply: "research related to water quality." The formation of a compound like "water quality" ought to be enough, but then to make it adjectival (was complement to the verb "relate") seems to leave nowhere to go. One compound hyphenated compounding suffix that seems to be accepted in formal writing is "-like." When it is attached to a hyphenated compound the hyphen is known to turn into an en-dash, "water-quality-like research." That neat device is not available here, but maybe it is pressure from such a compound that pushes us to go for it. Bruce ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:26 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: hyphens Hello In the following phrase, "water quality related research," would you hyphenate any of these words? I'm tempted to do this: "water-quality-related research." What do you think? Janet 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/ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 15:08:28 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: hyphens In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Janet, Dave et al., I would agree that rephrasing the construction ("research on water quality") or omitting 'research' in the prenominal version ("water-quality research") look better as alternatives (that's obviously just an opinion statement, though). The NYT attempt to split the difference strikes me as awkward, in part because it implies an intonation contour that's not appropriate (roughly, "water QUALITYrelated research"). This would be a lot easier if we just adopted the older German rules for compound nouns, especially since that would help me meet word limits on abstracts. It'll never happen, but still.... Sincerely, Bill Spruiell -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Kehe Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 2:13 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: hyphens Janet, Here's how I have consistently seen the NY Times handle this type of situation: water quality-related reseach Dave ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Castilleja, Janet Sent: Tue 5/19/2009 8:30 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: hyphens Yeah, I think it sounds horrible, but the dean of my college wrote it for a grant application. I'm looking it over for major grammatical problems, but I'm not sure how much he is really going to let me change. Janet ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce Despain Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 5:39 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: hyphens Janet, I would be tempted to avoid the piling up of adjective modification and write more simply: "research related to water quality." The formation of a compound like "water quality" ought to be enough, but then to make it adjectival (was complement to the verb "relate") seems to leave nowhere to go. One compound hyphenated compounding suffix that seems to be accepted in formal writing is "-like." When it is attached to a hyphenated compound the hyphen is known to turn into an en-dash, "water-quality-like research." That neat device is not available here, but maybe it is pressure from such a compound that pushes us to go for it. Bruce ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 4:26 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: hyphens Hello In the following phrase, "water quality related research," would you hyphenate any of these words? I'm tempted to do this: "water-quality-related research." What do you think? Janet 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/ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 14:21:36 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: transitive/intransitive verbs In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --001e680f1010cc1010046a48d141 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would add to Bruce's description that there is implicit discourse value in using the perfect aspect. Amazon says "Your order has shipped" instead of "Your order shipped" because the perfect aspect version conveys a sense of completion and finality: we've done our part, and now it's over. I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers by bringing up the perfect aspect again. I promise! I do believe that it could be an important aspect of the reasoning behind such marketing language. John Alexander On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > In my opinion the expression is jargon. The so called medio-passive, I > suspect, is probably an earmark of business language. Sometimes it is a > handy way to avoid the "forbidden" passive voice. It reminds me of the > intransitive verb "grow" being used as a transitive. I think Janet's dean > has fallen into the noose of such a jargon as is found in business reports > and grant requests. Other such expression of this ilk are found in most > official and academic papers. These jargons all have their own set of > characteristics, but have much in common (obfuscation). I think the > international businesses, such as Amazon need to take better care to be > clear to a diverse audience: "your order has been sent." Do they teach a > course in college called "Business English"? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marie-Pierre Jouannaud > Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 10:43 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: transitive/intransitive verbs > > Dear ATEGers, > > When I order books from amazon.com or amazon.co.uk, I sometimes receive > messages saying: > > your order has shipped/has dispatched > > Is this a normal, common use of these verbs (I would expect them to be > in the passive voice instead)? > Is it a new development? > > Thanks, > Marie > France > > 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/ > > > NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any > unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and > destroy all copies of the original message. > > 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/ --001e680f1010cc1010046a48d141 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would add to Bruce's description that there is implicit discourse value in using the perfect aspect. Amazon says "Your order has shipped" instead of "Your order shipped" because the perfect aspect version conveys a sense of completion and finality: we've done our part, and now it's over.

I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers by bringing up the perfect aspect again. I promise! I do believe that it could be an important aspect of the reasoning behind such marketing language.

John Alexander

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
In my opinion the expression is jargon. The so called medio-passive, I suspect, is probably an earmark of business language. Sometimes it is a handy way to avoid the "forbidden" passive voice. It reminds me of the intransitive verb "grow" being used as a transitive. I think Janet's dean has fallen into the noose of such a jargon as is found in business reports and grant requests. Other such expression of this ilk are found in most official and academic papers. These jargons all have their own set of characteristics, but have much in common (obfuscation). I think the international businesses, such as Amazon need to take better care to be clear to a diverse audience: "your order has been sent." Do they teach a course in college called "Business English"?

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marie-Pierre Jouannaud
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 10:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: transitive/intransitive verbs

Dear ATEGers,

When I order books from amazon.com or amazon.co.uk, I sometimes receive
messages saying:

your order has shipped/has dispatched

Is this a normal, common use of these verbs (I would expect them to be
in the passive voice instead)?
Is it a new development?

Thanks,
Marie
France

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/

NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

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/ --001e680f1010cc1010046a48d141-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 21:27:44 +0200 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Marie-Pierre Jouannaud <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: transitive/intransitive verbs In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you for these great examples! "has dispatched", by the way, is from amazon.co.uk. Marie > > On 19-May-09, at 12:43 PM, Assembly for the Teaching of English > Grammar wrote: > >> When I order books from amazon.com or amazon.co.uk, I sometimes >> receive >> messages saying: >> >> your order has shipped/has dispatched > > Amazon.ca uses only shipped, not dispatched. > > The OED has ship in a similar, but somewhat different sense from > 1867: "It ships well, and is a very good peach." > > In the first 100 hits for HAVE + SHIP in the Corpus of Current > American English, the only relevant examples I see are: > -Popular Mechanics (2006) "there's a chance that your PC may have > shipped with the hardware necessary to connect" > -The Houson Chronicle (2005) "since her debut album in 1990, more > than 150 million Carey albums have shipped." > > So, it does appear to be something of an innovation, and not > particularly common. > > Best, > Brett > > ----------------------- > Brett Reynolds > English Language Centre > Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning > Toronto, Ontario, Canada > [log in to unmask] > > > > > > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 16:41:31 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 17:49:33 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Peter Adams <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Thanks for the wonderful example, Janet. My students write like this all the time, and I think Craig's right: they don't talk like this. Peter On May 19, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Castilleja, Janet wrote: > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 18:25:12 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dick Veit <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: hyphens In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016364592c05c3e00046a4b62d6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Janet, Assuming you can't rephrase, I agree with your original suggestion to hyphenate it as "water-quality-related research." Definitely not "water quality-related research," which I would read as "a kind of quality-related research involving water. Dick 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/ --0016364592c05c3e00046a4b62d6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Janet,

Assuming you can't rephrase, I agree with your original suggestion to hyphenate it as "water-quality-related research." Definitely not "water quality-related research," which I would read as "a kind of quality-related research involving water.

Dick
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/ --0016364592c05c3e00046a4b62d6-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 17:39:34 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5-325086311 --Apple-Mail-5-325086311 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed 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/ --Apple-Mail-5-325086311 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
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/ --Apple-Mail-5-325086311-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 19:15:42 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --001e680f17009445f9046a4ced21 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/ --001e680f17009445f9046a4ced21 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/ --001e680f17009445f9046a4ced21-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 08:05:07 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-373418938 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) --Apple-Mail-2-373418938 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/ --Apple-Mail-2-373418938 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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/ --Apple-Mail-2-373418938-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:59:31 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed,
   Not at all better. I know it's a hypothetical paragraph, but the student may believe he/she has a subject, is supposed to write "complete thoughts" and not repeat. This is a prescription for terrible writing.
   How about "Our heroic vision of George Washington is a mix of fact and fiction. It's a fact that he lead our country through a great war. It's a fiction that he chopped down a cherry tree and never told lies."
   If the student has nothing to say, then, as John says, the writing will be empty and robotic. If there is a sense of purpose in the writing, then there will be overlap from sentence to sentence. In the above hypothetical essay, terms like "heroic vision", "fact", and "fiction" could carry us a long way. Repeating them could help build coherence around a sense of purpose--perhaps a juxtaposition of factual with the fictive. But the student, as John points out, needs to believe that this is worth doing.
Craig

Edgar Schuster wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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/

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/ ========================================================================Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 11:11:11 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Crow <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --00163649914511af6b046a59700f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Craig, I would think the vast majority of readers would state that Ed's rewrite is better than John's original. Is it good? No, not yet. Nobody is claiming that all you have to do to make a piece of writing good is vary sentence beginnings. Nor is anybody claiming that *every sentence* must open differently. Nor is anybody claiming that variety of sentence openers is the only issue that student writers face. But I think most folks would agree that Ed's version was written by someone with a much firmer grasp of basic writing skills than John's. This hypothetical person still has lots of ground to cover, but, at a minimum, it's safe to say that it wasn't written by a 2nd graded; John's clearly was. Janet's excellent example shows a student who has some false hypotheses about how to structure a piece of writing. This student is not yet ready for sentence variety exposure. S/he has underlying problems that need to be addressed first. So Janet's example speaks neither for nor against the value of sentence variety instruction. John On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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/ > 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/ --00163649914511af6b046a59700f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, I would think the vast majority of readers would state that Ed's rewrite is better than John's original. Is it good? No, not yet. Nobody is claiming that all you have to do to make a piece of writing good is vary sentence beginnings. Nor is anybody claiming that every sentence must open differently. Nor is anybody claiming that variety of sentence openers is the only issue that student writers face. But I think most folks would agree that Ed's version was written by someone with a much firmer grasp of basic writing skills than John's. This hypothetical person still has lots of ground to cover, but, at a minimum, it's safe to say that it wasn't written by a 2nd graded; John's clearly was.

Janet's excellent example shows a student who has some false hypotheses about how to structure a piece of writing. This student is not yet ready for sentence variety exposure. S/he has underlying problems that need to be addressed first. So Janet's example speaks neither for nor against the value of sentence variety instruction.

John

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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/

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/ --00163649914511af6b046a59700f-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:37:19 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D1374A63E71A3DMBX01ldschurc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D1374A63E71A3DMBX01ldschurc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I must second John's reply. My reply took a slightly different tack because Craig had inserted so much content into the 2nd grader's essay. I thought of inserting different content to get a less biased essay, but it kept turning out more complex. Craig's point is about coherence, but to attain it he needs more information. He wants the child to make judgments about facts and fiction and the place of a hero in history and legend. How much of this belongs in grammatical instruction? Bruce From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Crow Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:11 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Craig, I would think the vast majority of readers would state that Ed's rewrite is better than John's original. Is it good? No, not yet. Nobody is claiming that all you have to do to make a piece of writing good is vary sentence beginnings. Nor is anybody claiming that every sentence must open differently. Nor is anybody claiming that variety of sentence openers is the only issue that student writers face. But I think most folks would agree that Ed's version was written by someone with a much firmer grasp of basic writing skills than John's. This hypothetical person still has lots of ground to cover, but, at a minimum, it's safe to say that it wasn't written by a 2nd graded; John's clearly was. Janet's excellent example shows a student who has some false hypotheses about how to structure a piece of writing. This student is not yet ready for sentence variety exposure. S/he has underlying problems that need to be addressed first. So Janet's example speaks neither for nor against the value of sentence variety instruction. John On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 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/ 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/ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 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/ --_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D1374A63E71A3DMBX01ldschurc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I must second John’s reply. My reply took a slightly different tack because Craig had inserted so much content into the 2^nd grader’s essay. I thought of inserting different content to get a less biased essay, but it kept turning out more complex. Craig’s point is about coherence, but to attain it he needs more information. He wants the child to make judgments about facts and fiction and the place of a hero in history and legend. How much of this belongs in grammatical instruction?

Bruce

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Crow
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Craig, I would think the vast majority of readers would state that Ed's rewrite is better than John's original. Is it good? No, not yet. Nobody is claiming that all you have to do to make a piece of writing good is vary sentence beginnings. Nor is anybody claiming that every sentence must open differently. Nor is anybody claiming that variety of sentence openers is the only issue that student writers face. But I think most folks would agree that Ed's version was written by someone with a much firmer grasp of basic writing skills than John's. This hypothetical person still has lots of ground to cover, but, at a minimum, it's safe to say that it wasn't written by a 2nd graded; John's clearly was.

Janet's excellent example shows a student who has some false hypotheses about how to structure a piece of writing. This student is not yet ready for sentence variety exposure. S/he has underlying problems that need to be addressed first. So Janet's example speaks neither for nor against the value of sentence variety instruction.

John

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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/

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/

NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

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/ --_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D1374A63E71A3DMBX01ldschurc_-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:09:58 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce, John,
   You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a better essay, and I don't think Ed believes that it did either. You can't solve coherence problems just by varying sentence openers, and to reward that kind of rewriting is dangerous.
   A good essay does not simply string together "complete thoughts" about a subject, whether in similar or varied form. I simply assumed that John's hypothetical student was a much older writer in need of instruction. If it's a second grader, then I'm not sure how to respond. And my first response to that older writer would be "so what"? There is absolutely no sense of purpose evident in the writing. I wouldn't tell the writer what to write, but I would sure as heck ask the writer to produce something that a reader might care about.
   This has everything in the world to do with grammar if grammar is understood as a meaning-making system. One of the functions of grammar (Halliday would call it a "metafunction") is the construction of text. Theme/rheme and given/new are separate, but interact in very interesting ways. Generally speaking, given comes first and new comes last. The default position for emphasis is the end of the clause. If the grammar is working well, the reader is paying attention to meaning, not admiring the variation of form. Repetition is absolutely key to coherence. Without a carry-over of meaning from one sentence to another, coherence isn't possible. The natural place for that to happen is in the sentence opening slot.
   You can make the case that the rich variety of structures that can open a sentence, even as subject, is the language's response to the need for this kind of coherence. Maybe that's where we can find common ground.
   Any part of a sentence--including the whole sentence--can be made the subject of a following sentence. I play that game with my classes quite often.
   "My dog is sick." The next sentence could be completely different ("Bruce Springsteen will be in concert in Albany this Friday") or, much more likely, will start with "I" (carryover of "my"), "The dog" (or he/she/it as the case may be), "the sickness" (or some variant), or the whole process, as in "My dog's sickness" (or "this") worries me." The next sentence could then be about the "worry" or the effect of the worry. "Worrying about my dog's sickness is affecting my grades." Or even "I want to go to the concert, but I don't want to leave my dog alone." The reader is looking for ties and connections. "The effect on my grades due to worrying about my dog's illness could harm my chances for grad school." Pronouns often make it possible to delete (imply) some of the carryover of meaning, but the carryover of meaning is absolutely essential. "My dog is sick. I worry about her, and this is affecting my grades. If it hurts my grades enough, I might not make it into grad school."
   We need to pay attention to how meaning carries over across larger stretches of text and how good writers exploit repetition, including the repetition of the same or similar subject, as a means toward that end.

Craig



Bruce Despain wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

I must second John’s reply. My reply took a slightly different tack because Craig had inserted so much content into the 2^nd grader’s essay. I thought of inserting different content to get a less biased essay, but it kept turning out more complex. Craig’s point is about coherence, but to attain it he needs more information. He wants the child to make judgments about facts and fiction and the place of a hero in history and legend. How much of this belongs in grammatical instruction?

Bruce

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Crow
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 9:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Craig, I would think the vast majority of readers would state that Ed's rewrite is better than John's original. Is it good? No, not yet. Nobody is claiming that all you have to do to make a piece of writing good is vary sentence beginnings. Nor is anybody claiming that every sentence must open differently. Nor is anybody claiming that variety of sentence openers is the only issue that student writers face. But I think most folks would agree that Ed's version was written by someone with a much firmer grasp of basic writing skills than John's. This hypothetical person still has lots of ground to cover, but, at a minimum, it's safe to say that it wasn't written by a 2nd graded; John's clearly was.

Janet's excellent example shows a student who has some false hypotheses about how to structure a piece of writing. This student is not yet ready for sentence variety exposure. S/he has underlying problems that need to be addressed first. So Janet's example speaks neither for nor against the value of sentence variety instruction.

John

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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/

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/

NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

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/ ========================================================================Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:57:43 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-6-419774567 --Apple-Mail-6-419774567 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more > flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a > better essay, Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying sentence starts is not a panacea. 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/ --Apple-Mail-6-419774567 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a better essay,

Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying sentence starts is not a panacea.

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/ --Apple-Mail-6-419774567-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 20:17:47 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-7-420979405 --Apple-Mail-7-420979405 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my students as a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I have seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such strong evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have not thought this through. Susan On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: > On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more >> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a >> better essay, > > Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is > worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, > yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. > > The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the > choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying > sentence starts is not a panacea. > > 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/ --Apple-Mail-7-420979405 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my students as a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I have seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such strong evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have not thought this through.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:

On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:
You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a better essay,

Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying sentence starts is not a panacea.

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/ --Apple-Mail-7-420979405-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 22:55:29 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Susan, I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't mean to be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence openings is not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence openings is not based on close observation of how language works in effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a distraction from more relevant choices. Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already have it in an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow woman". It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence openings are quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base the discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal preferences. Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun rising up through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds came to the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him beside me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned the sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the sun was above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, sleeping on the white river sand. I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had come the night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—maybe it was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look beyond the pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river that moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed the sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to follow, and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the river. I slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in footprints over footprints. “Wake up.” He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his eyes still closed. I knelt down to touch him. “I’m leaving.” He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, remember?” He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. “Where?” “To my place.” “And will I come back?” He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him behind me and smelling the willows. “Yellow woman,” he said. I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face in the river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had come.” I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to remember the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember his warmth around me. Craig Craig I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you > really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my students as > a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I have > seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such strong > evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have not > thought this through. > > Susan > > > On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: > >> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more >>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a >>> better essay, >> >> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is >> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, >> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >> >> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the >> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying >> sentence starts is not a panacea. >> >> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 06:07:06 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Crow <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016367fa1666e7cd3046a694e3d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill, I think you hit the hit the nail on the head with your "two different kinds of judgment systems." Your food analogy is an excellent encapsulation of the underlying issue. I also agree with you that most of today's students have limited reading experience compared to students of past generations. I probably should have said that today's students "have been exposed to" many thousands of sentences instead of "have read." However, most of these students (developmental or not) are able to comprehend sentences that contain a variety of sentence openers (as well as other structures) and, if asked, they can write similarly structured sentences on topics of their choosing. In fact, Constance Weaver gives examples of how *first graders* can do a pretty amazing job of making up their own sentences following the structure of an example, as demonstrated by her *I Am* poem exercises. John On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > 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 > > > 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/ --0016367fa1666e7cd3046a694e3d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill,

I think you hit the hit the nail on the head with your "two different kinds of judgment systems." Your food analogy is an excellent encapsulation of the underlying issue.

I also agree with you that most of today's students have limited reading experience compared to students of past generations. I probably should have said that today's students "have been exposed to" many thousands of sentences instead of "have read." However, most of these students (developmental or not) are able to comprehend sentences that contain a variety of sentence openers (as well as other structures) and, if asked, they can write similarly structured sentences on topics of their choosing. In fact, Constance Weaver gives examples of how first graders can do a pretty amazing job of making up their own sentences following the structure of an example, as demonstrated by her I Am poem exercises.

John

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
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

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/ --0016367fa1666e7cd3046a694e3d-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 07:55:22 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit John, Bill, I suspect there may very well be different systems of judgement at work, but I'm not going to be quick to say that repetition in the subject slot contributes toward boredom. I suspect that if we look closely at texts that we find lively and interesting, we will find a considerable amount of repetition. Here's a passage from Obama's speech on race (highly acclaimed) to help make that point. He uses repeated openings ("we can", "this time" are the most obvious) in highly cohesive ways, reminding us of what all this rich detail adds up to. There's a fine harmony between substance and form. For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies. We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time. This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together. This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit. This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned. Craig Bill, > > I think you hit the hit the nail on the head with your "two different > kinds > of judgment systems." Your food analogy is an excellent encapsulation of > the underlying issue. > > I also agree with you that most of today's students have limited reading > experience compared to students of past generations. I probably should > have > said that today's students "have been exposed to" many thousands of > sentences instead of "have read." However, most of these students > (developmental or not) are able to comprehend sentences that contain a > variety of sentence openers (as well as other structures) and, if asked, > they can write similarly structured sentences on topics of their choosing. > In fact, Constance Weaver gives examples of how *first graders* can do a > pretty amazing job of making up their own sentences following the > structure > of an example, as demonstrated by her *I Am* poem exercises. > > John > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Spruiell, William C > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >> > > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:17:46 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Crow <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e64c27404a1485046a6bf828 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Craig, I have the same reaction to your carefully chosen excerpts as I did to Don's: Of course you can find beautifully crafted passages that do not employ sentence openers. They are not a required element. If I had a room full of students who could write like Obama's speech writers or Bruce Canton, my job would be finished. I don't. Rather than look at isolated passages, why not look at a broad spectrum of writing like Christensen and Ed Schuster did. Their findings are clear: 25%-33% of the sentences do not begin with the subject noun phrase. What's wrong with helping our students emulate professional authors--somewhat mechanically at first, perhaps, but expanding the range of options for them to consider as they work on their writing skills? I don't want to belabor this issue (perhaps belatedly!), so I guess we should, once again, just agree to disagree. John On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > John, Bill, > I suspect there may very well be different systems of judgement at > work, but I'm not going to be quick to say that repetition in the > subject slot contributes toward boredom. I suspect that if we look > closely at texts that we find lively and interesting, we will find a > considerable amount of repetition. Here's a passage from Obama's speech > on race (highly acclaimed) to help make that point. He uses repeated > openings ("we can", "this time" are the most obvious) in highly > cohesive ways, reminding us of what all this rich detail adds up to. > There's a fine harmony between substance and form. > > For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds > division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle > - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the > aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play > Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them > from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign > whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or > sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a > Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can > speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the > general election regardless of his policies. > > > We can do that. > > > But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking > about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. > And nothing will change. > > > That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come > together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the > crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white > children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American > children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that > these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are > somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they > are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century > economy. Not this time. > > > This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are > filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; > who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in > Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together. > > > This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a > decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that > once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk > of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is > not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that > the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a > profit. > > > This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed > who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same > proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that > never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we > want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and > their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned. > > Craig > > > Bill, > > > > I think you hit the hit the nail on the head with your "two different > > kinds > > of judgment systems." Your food analogy is an excellent encapsulation of > > the underlying issue. > > > > I also agree with you that most of today's students have limited reading > > experience compared to students of past generations. I probably should > > have > > said that today's students "have been exposed to" many thousands of > > sentences instead of "have read." However, most of these students > > (developmental or not) are able to comprehend sentences that contain a > > variety of sentence openers (as well as other structures) and, if asked, > > they can write similarly structured sentences on topics of their > choosing. > > In fact, Constance Weaver gives examples of how *first graders* can do a > > pretty amazing job of making up their own sentences following the > > structure > > of an example, as demonstrated by her *I Am* poem exercises. > > > > John > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Spruiell, William C > > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > > > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > > > > 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/ --0016e64c27404a1485046a6bf828 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig,

I have the same reaction to your carefully chosen excerpts as I did to Don's: Of course you can find beautifully crafted passages that do not employ sentence openers. They are not a required element. If I had a room full of students who could write like Obama's speech writers or Bruce Canton, my job would be finished. I don't.

Rather than look at isolated passages, why not look at a broad spectrum of writing like Christensen and Ed Schuster did. Their findings are clear: 25%-33% of the sentences do not begin with the subject noun phrase. What's wrong with helping our students emulate professional authors--somewhat mechanically at first, perhaps, but expanding the range of options for them to consider as they work on their writing skills?

I don't want to belabor this issue (perhaps belatedly!), so I guess we should, once again, just agree to disagree.

John

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

John, Bill,
I suspect there may very well be different systems of judgement at
work, but I'm not going to be quick to say that repetition in the
subject slot contributes toward boredom. I suspect that if we look
closely at texts that we find lively and interesting, we will find a
considerable amount of repetition. Here's a passage from Obama's speech
on race (highly acclaimed) to help make that point. He uses repeated
openings ("we can", "this time" are the most obvious) in highly
cohesive ways, reminding us of what all this rich detail adds up to.
There's a fine harmony between substance and form.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds
division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle
- as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the
aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play
Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them
from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign
whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or
sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a
Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can
speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the
general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking
about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one.
And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come
together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the
crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white
children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American
children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that
these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are
somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they
are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century
economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are
filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care;
who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in
Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a
decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that
once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk
of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is
not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that
the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a
profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed
who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same
proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that
never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we
want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and
their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

Craig

Bill,
>
> I think you hit the hit the nail on the head with your "two different
> kinds
> of judgment systems." Your food analogy is an excellent encapsulation of
> the underlying issue.
>
> I also agree with you that most of today's students have limited reading
> experience compared to students of past generations. I probably should
> have
> said that today's students "have been exposed to" many thousands of
> sentences instead of "have read." However, most of these students
> (developmental or not) are able to comprehend sentences that contain a
> variety of sentence openers (as well as other structures) and, if asked,
> they can write similarly structured sentences on topics of their choosing.
> In fact, Constance Weaver gives examples of how *first graders* can do a
> pretty amazing job of making up their own sentences following the
> structure
> of an example, as demonstrated by her *I Am* poem exercises.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Spruiell, William C
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>

> 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/ --0016e64c27404a1485046a6bf828-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:22:14 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Don Stewart <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0015174bf1dcd5860d046a6cde8c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Friends, Here is a link to a web site where you can read and download Francis Christensen's essay "Sentence Openers." http://sites.google.com/site/donstewarts/Home Don On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:17 AM, John Crow <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Craig, > > I have the same reaction to your carefully chosen excerpts as I did to > Don's: Of course you can find beautifully crafted passages that do not > employ sentence openers. They are not a required element. If I had a room > full of students who could write like Obama's speech writers or Bruce > Canton, my job would be finished. I don't. > > Rather than look at isolated passages, why not look at a broad spectrum of > writing like Christensen and Ed Schuster did. Their findings are clear: > 25%-33% of the sentences do not begin with the subject noun phrase. What's > wrong with helping our students emulate professional authors--somewhat > mechanically at first, perhaps, but expanding the range of options for them > to consider as they work on their writing skills? > > I don't want to belabor this issue (perhaps belatedly!), so I guess we > should, once again, just agree to disagree. > > John > > > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> John, Bill, >> I suspect there may very well be different systems of judgement at >> work, but I'm not going to be quick to say that repetition in the >> subject slot contributes toward boredom. I suspect that if we look >> closely at texts that we find lively and interesting, we will find a >> considerable amount of repetition. Here's a passage from Obama's speech >> on race (highly acclaimed) to help make that point. He uses repeated >> openings ("we can", "this time" are the most obvious) in highly >> cohesive ways, reminding us of what all this rich detail adds up to. >> There's a fine harmony between substance and form. >> >> For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds >> division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle >> - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the >> aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play >> Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them >> from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign >> whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or >> sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a >> Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can >> speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the >> general election regardless of his policies. >> >> >> We can do that. >> >> >> But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking >> about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. >> And nothing will change. >> >> >> That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come >> together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the >> crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white >> children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American >> children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that >> these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are >> somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they >> are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century >> economy. Not this time. >> >> >> This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are >> filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; >> who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in >> Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together. >> >> >> This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a >> decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that >> once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk >> of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is >> not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that >> the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a >> profit. >> >> >> This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed >> who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same >> proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that >> never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we >> want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and >> their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned. >> >> Craig >> >> >> Bill, >> > >> > I think you hit the hit the nail on the head with your "two different >> > kinds >> > of judgment systems." Your food analogy is an excellent encapsulation >> of >> > the underlying issue. >> > >> > I also agree with you that most of today's students have limited reading >> > experience compared to students of past generations. I probably should >> > have >> > said that today's students "have been exposed to" many thousands of >> > sentences instead of "have read." However, most of these students >> > (developmental or not) are able to comprehend sentences that contain a >> > variety of sentence openers (as well as other structures) and, if asked, >> > they can write similarly structured sentences on topics of their >> choosing. >> > In fact, Constance Weaver gives examples of how *first graders* can do a >> > pretty amazing job of making up their own sentences following the >> > structure >> > of an example, as demonstrated by her *I Am* poem exercises. >> > >> > John >> > >> > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Spruiell, William C >> > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: >> > >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > 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/ > -- Don Stewart Write for College ______________________ Keeper of the memory and method of Dr. Francis Christensen 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/ --0015174bf1dcd5860d046a6cde8c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Friends,

Here is a link to a web site where you can read and download Francis Christensen's essay "Sentence Openers."

http://sites.google.com/site/donstewarts/Home

Don

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:17 AM, John Crow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Craig,

I have the same reaction to your carefully chosen excerpts as I did to Don's: Of course you can find beautifully crafted passages that do not employ sentence openers. They are not a required element. If I had a room full of students who could write like Obama's speech writers or Bruce Canton, my job would be finished. I don't.

Rather than look at isolated passages, why not look at a broad spectrum of writing like Christensen and Ed Schuster did. Their findings are clear: 25%-33% of the sentences do not begin with the subject noun phrase. What's wrong with helping our students emulate professional authors--somewhat mechanically at first, perhaps, but expanding the range of options for them to consider as they work on their writing skills?

I don't want to belabor this issue (perhaps belatedly!), so I guess we should, once again, just agree to disagree.

John

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

John, Bill,
I suspect there may very well be different systems of judgement at
work, but I'm not going to be quick to say that repetition in the
subject slot contributes toward boredom. I suspect that if we look
closely at texts that we find lively and interesting, we will find a
considerable amount of repetition. Here's a passage from Obama's speech
on race (highly acclaimed) to help make that point. He uses repeated
openings ("we can", "this time" are the most obvious) in highly
cohesive ways, reminding us of what all this rich detail adds up to.
There's a fine harmony between substance and form.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds
division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle
- as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the
aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play
Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them
from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign
whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or
sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a
Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can
speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the
general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking
about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one.
And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come
together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the
crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white
children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American
children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that
these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are
somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they
are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century
economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are
filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care;
who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in
Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a
decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that
once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk
of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is
not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that
the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a
profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed
who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same
proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that
never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we
want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and
their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

Craig

Bill,
>
> I think you hit the hit the nail on the head with your "two different
> kinds
> of judgment systems." Your food analogy is an excellent encapsulation of
> the underlying issue.
>
> I also agree with you that most of today's students have limited reading
> experience compared to students of past generations. I probably should
> have
> said that today's students "have been exposed to" many thousands of
> sentences instead of "have read." However, most of these students
> (developmental or not) are able to comprehend sentences that contain a
> variety of sentence openers (as well as other structures) and, if asked,
> they can write similarly structured sentences on topics of their choosing.
> In fact, Constance Weaver gives examples of how *first graders* can do a
> pretty amazing job of making up their own sentences following the
> structure
> of an example, as demonstrated by her *I Am* poem exercises.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Spruiell, William C
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>

> 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/

--
Don Stewart
Write for College
______________________
Keeper of the memory and method
of Dr. Francis Christensen

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/ --0015174bf1dcd5860d046a6cde8c-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:32:23 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Natalie Gerber <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, Clearly, there are different tendencies for sentence-opener patterns based on individual genre, writer, style, etc. But having just emerged from a depressing semester of teaching grammar in which all but two students embraced a prescriptivist approach to grammar for their final philosophy on grammar pedagogy, I think simply introducing the idea that sentences vary, sentence openers vary, and that these choices can be connected to audience and purpose is extremely crucial. I realize the point below is only somewhat related to the issue of sentence openers, but I do think there is an important connection: instilling a sense of approaching sentences as textural entities vs. semantic/syntactic/grammatical slots. When confronted with the first three paragraphs from Obama's Inaugural speech, few of my college-level students could parse the syntactic and grammatical structures; whether or not they could parse this material, only a slightly greater number of students saw the worth in utilizing variations in grammatical structures (we were focusing on verbs, especially aspect and voice) for rhetorical purposes; the majority of those students were public relations majors and creative writing minors, incidentally. I am fully convinced that stylistic issues are related to critical reasoning and serve to provoke--or suppress--critical thinking in the intended audience, and that we should strive to make these ideas and skills accessible to our students, but making such an argument is difficult to do and more than I will attempt in this email. All best, Natalie ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of John Crow Sent: Thu 5/21/2009 9:17 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Craig, I have the same reaction to your carefully chosen excerpts as I did to Don's: Of course you can find beautifully crafted passages that do not employ sentence openers. They are not a required element. If I had a room full of students who could write like Obama's speech writers or Bruce Canton, my job would be finished. I don't. Rather than look at isolated passages, why not look at a broad spectrum of writing like Christensen and Ed Schuster did. Their findings are clear: 25%-33% of the sentences do not begin with the subject noun phrase. What's wrong with helping our students emulate professional authors--somewhat mechanically at first, perhaps, but expanding the range of options for them to consider as they work on their writing skills? I don't want to belabor this issue (perhaps belatedly!), so I guess we should, once again, just agree to disagree. John On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: John, Bill, I suspect there may very well be different systems of judgement at work, but I'm not going to be quick to say that repetition in the subject slot contributes toward boredom. I suspect that if we look closely at texts that we find lively and interesting, we will find a considerable amount of repetition. Here's a passage from Obama's speech on race (highly acclaimed) to help make that point. He uses repeated openings ("we can", "this time" are the most obvious) in highly cohesive ways, reminding us of what all this rich detail adds up to. There's a fine harmony between substance and form. For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies. We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time. This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together. This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit. This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned. Craig Bill, > > I think you hit the hit the nail on the head with your "two different > kinds > of judgment systems." Your food analogy is an excellent encapsulation of > the underlying issue. > > I also agree with you that most of today's students have limited reading > experience compared to students of past generations. I probably should > have > said that today's students "have been exposed to" many thousands of > sentences instead of "have read." However, most of these students > (developmental or not) are able to comprehend sentences that contain a > variety of sentence openers (as well as other structures) and, if asked, > they can write similarly structured sentences on topics of their choosing. > In fact, Constance Weaver gives examples of how *first graders* can do a > pretty amazing job of making up their own sentences following the > structure > of an example, as demonstrated by her *I Am* poem exercises. > > John > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Spruiell, William C > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >> > > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:27:07 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Castilleja, Janet" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9DA30.FCA4665D" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9DA30.FCA4665D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This discussion is starting to remind me of Dan LaFontaine movie trailers: In a world filled with bad writing, ATEGers leap in to the fray! On a grammar list on which grammarians cannot agree about sentence openers, one brave soul counsels reason! In a world in which students cannot figure out how to write interesting sentences, English teachers come to the rescue! LoFontaine explained that he opened trailers that way in order to allow listeners into the back story as quickly as possible. Maybe this should be our focus with students. How do we help them make their writing accessible to their audience? Knowing that many good writers use sentence openers and many do not isn't that helpful. It's more about how sentence openers or the lack thereof assist the skilled writer in conveying meaning in a coherent way. Janet ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Stewart Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:22 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Friends, Here is a link to a web site where you can read and download Francis Christensen's essay "Sentence Openers." http://sites.google.com/site/donstewarts/Home Don On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:17 AM, John Crow <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, I have the same reaction to your carefully chosen excerpts as I did to Don's: Of course you can find beautifully crafted passages that do not employ sentence openers. They are not a required element. If I had a room full of students who could write like Obama's speech writers or Bruce Canton, my job would be finished. I don't. Rather than look at isolated passages, why not look at a broad spectrum of writing like Christensen and Ed Schuster did. Their findings are clear: 25%-33% of the sentences do not begin with the subject noun phrase. What's wrong with helping our students emulate professional authors--somewhat mechanically at first, perhaps, but expanding the range of options for them to consider as they work on their writing skills? I don't want to belabor this issue (perhaps belatedly!), so I guess we should, once again, just agree to disagree. John On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: John, Bill, I suspect there may very well be different systems of judgement at work, but I'm not going to be quick to say that repetition in the subject slot contributes toward boredom. I suspect that if we look closely at texts that we find lively and interesting, we will find a considerable amount of repetition. Here's a passage from Obama's speech on race (highly acclaimed) to help make that point. He uses repeated openings ("we can", "this time" are the most obvious) in highly cohesive ways, reminding us of what all this rich detail adds up to. There's a fine harmony between substance and form. For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies. We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time. This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together. This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit. This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned. Craig Bill, > > I think you hit the hit the nail on the head with your "two different > kinds > of judgment systems." Your food analogy is an excellent encapsulation of > the underlying issue. > > I also agree with you that most of today's students have limited reading > experience compared to students of past generations. I probably should > have > said that today's students "have been exposed to" many thousands of > sentences instead of "have read." However, most of these students > (developmental or not) are able to comprehend sentences that contain a > variety of sentence openers (as well as other structures) and, if asked, > they can write similarly structured sentences on topics of their choosing. > In fact, Constance Weaver gives examples of how *first graders* can do a > pretty amazing job of making up their own sentences following the > structure > of an example, as demonstrated by her *I Am* poem exercises. > > John > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Spruiell, William C > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >> > > 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/ -- Don Stewart Write for College ______________________ Keeper of the memory and method of Dr. Francis Christensen 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/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9DA30.FCA4665D Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This discussion is starting to remind me of Dan LaFontaine movie trailers:

In a world filled with bad writing, ATEGers leap in to the fray!

On a grammar list on which grammarians cannot agree about sentence openers, one brave soul counsels reason!

In a world in which students cannot figure out how to write interesting sentences, English teachers come to the rescue!

LoFontaine explained that he opened trailers that way in order to allow listeners into the back story as quickly as possible. Maybe this should be our focus with students. How do we help them make their writing accessible to their audience? Knowing that many good writers use sentence openers and many do not isn’t that helpful. It’s more about how sentence openers or the lack thereof assist the skilled writer in conveying meaning in a coherent way.

Janet

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Stewart
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Friends,

Here is a link to a web site where you can read and download Francis Christensen's essay "Sentence Openers."

http://sites.google.com/site/donstewarts/Home

Don

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:17 AM, John Crow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Craig,

I have the same reaction to your carefully chosen excerpts as I did to Don's: Of course you can find beautifully crafted passages that do not employ sentence openers. They are not a required element. If I had a room full of students who could write like Obama's speech writers or Bruce Canton, my job would be finished. I don't.

Rather than look at isolated passages, why not look at a broad spectrum of writing like Christensen and Ed Schuster did. Their findings are clear: 25%-33% of the sentences do not begin with the subject noun phrase. What's wrong with helping our students emulate professional authors--somewhat mechanically at first, perhaps, but expanding the range of options for them to consider as they work on their writing skills?

I don't want to belabor this issue (perhaps belatedly!), so I guess we should, once again, just agree to disagree.

John

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

John, Bill,
I suspect there may very well be different systems of judgement at
work, but I'm not going to be quick to say that repetition in the
subject slot contributes toward boredom. I suspect that if we look
closely at texts that we find lively and interesting, we will find a
considerable amount of repetition. Here's a passage from Obama's speech
on race (highly acclaimed) to help make that point. He uses repeated
openings ("we can", "this time" are the most obvious) in highly
cohesive ways, reminding us of what all this rich detail adds up to.
There's a fine harmony between substance and form.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds
division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle
- as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the
aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play
Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them
from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign
whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or
sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a
Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can
speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the
general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking
about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one.
And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come
together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the
crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white
children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American
children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that
these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are
somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they
are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century
economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are
filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care;
who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in
Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a
decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that
once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk
of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is
not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that
the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a
profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed
who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same
proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that
never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we
want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and
their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

Craig

Bill,
>
> I think you hit the hit the nail on the head with your "two different
> kinds
> of judgment systems." Your food analogy is an excellent encapsulation of
> the underlying issue.
>
> I also agree with you that most of today's students have limited reading
> experience compared to students of past generations. I probably should
> have
> said that today's students "have been exposed to" many thousands of
> sentences instead of "have read." However, most of these students
> (developmental or not) are able to comprehend sentences that contain a
> variety of sentence openers (as well as other structures) and, if asked,
> they can write similarly structured sentences on topics of their choosing.
> In fact, Constance Weaver gives examples of how *first graders* can do a
> pretty amazing job of making up their own sentences following the
> structure
> of an example, as demonstrated by her *I Am* poem exercises.
>
> John
>
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Spruiell, William C
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>

> 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/

--
Don Stewart
Write for College
______________________
Keeper of the memory and method
of Dr. Francis Christensen

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/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9DA30.FCA4665D-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 13:04:21 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "O'Sullivan, Brian P" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I like that analogy. Maybe we should ask students to write trailers for movies, for readings, or for their own papers. In particular, maybe a good answer to the passage at issue would be to have the student rewrite it as a trailer: "From a mouthful of wooden teeth, no lies came! In a world of tyranny, one man fought for freedom! GEORGE WASHINGTON--coming soon to a stack of papers on your desk!" Brian -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Castilleja, Janet Sent: Thu 5/21/2009 12:27 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions This discussion is starting to remind me of Dan LaFontaine movie trailers: In a world filled with bad writing, ATEGers leap in to the fray! On a grammar list on which grammarians cannot agree about sentence openers, one brave soul counsels reason! In a world in which students cannot figure out how to write interesting sentences, English teachers come to the rescue! LoFontaine explained that he opened trailers that way in order to allow listeners into the back story as quickly as possible. Maybe this should be our focus with students. How do we help them make their writing accessible to their audience? Knowing that many good writers use sentence openers and many do not isn't that helpful. It's more about how sentence openers or the lack thereof assist the skilled writer in conveying meaning in a coherent way. Janet ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Stewart Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:22 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Friends, Here is a link to a web site where you can read and download Francis Christensen's essay "Sentence Openers." http://sites.google.com/site/donstewarts/Home Don On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:17 AM, John Crow <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, I have the same reaction to your carefully chosen excerpts as I did to Don's: Of course you can find beautifully crafted passages that do not employ sentence openers. They are not a required element. If I had a room full of students who could write like Obama's speech writers or Bruce Canton, my job would be finished. I don't. Rather than look at isolated passages, why not look at a broad spectrum of writing like Christensen and Ed Schuster did. Their findings are clear: 25%-33% of the sentences do not begin with the subject noun phrase. What's wrong with helping our students emulate professional authors--somewhat mechanically at first, perhaps, but expanding the range of options for them to consider as they work on their writing skills? I don't want to belabor this issue (perhaps belatedly!), so I guess we should, once again, just agree to disagree. John On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote: John, Bill, I suspect there may very well be different systems of judgement at work, but I'm not going to be quick to say that repetition in the subject slot contributes toward boredom. I suspect that if we look closely at texts that we find lively and interesting, we will find a considerable amount of repetition. Here's a passage from Obama's speech on race (highly acclaimed) to help make that point. He uses repeated openings ("we can", "this time" are the most obvious) in highly cohesive ways, reminding us of what all this rich detail adds up to. There's a fine harmony between substance and form. For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies. We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time. This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together. This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit. This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned. Craig Bill, > > I think you hit the hit the nail on the head with your "two different > kinds > of judgment systems." Your food analogy is an excellent encapsulation of > the underlying issue. > > I also agree with you that most of today's students have limited reading > experience compared to students of past generations. I probably should > have > said that today's students "have been exposed to" many thousands of > sentences instead of "have read." However, most of these students > (developmental or not) are able to comprehend sentences that contain a > variety of sentence openers (as well as other structures) and, if asked, > they can write similarly structured sentences on topics of their choosing. > In fact, Constance Weaver gives examples of how *first graders* can do a > pretty amazing job of making up their own sentences following the > structure > of an example, as demonstrated by her *I Am* poem exercises. > > John > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Spruiell, William C > <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >> > > 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/ -- Don Stewart Write for College ______________________ Keeper of the memory and method of Dr. Francis Christensen 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/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 13:24:49 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Well-crafted English classes work; ATEG Digest - 19 May 2009 to 20 May 2009 (#2009-117) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I had read most of the classics (in English)--fiction and non-fiction-- before high school. I attended the then top-rated public high school in FL. In most classes, papers were expected to be well-phrased as well as content appropriate. I turned down scholarship offers from Tulane and Duke to accept an out-of-state tuition waiver from Mississippi Southern College (MSC) because it was the least expensive public college I could find. MSC was required to accept any graduate of a public high school in MS (This was during segregation, so no African-American applications were welcome). Mississippians could graduate with pitifully few academic credits: a very intelligent friend claimed that she had taken all 10 academic classes that were offered by her school. MSC was prepared for such students. First quarter, we studied grammar and wrote weekly themes on class that were marked for errors and returned for rewriting; then, after a quick review by the professor, were kept in a folder by each student. Second quarter, we studied paragraph and sentence structure, particularly clauses and wrote themes as above. The difference was that writers had to continue to pay attention to correct grammar and vocabulary as well as clause and paragraph structure; e.g., wording of topic sentences introducing paragraphs, logical flow within the paragraph, logical arrangement of paragraphs. The third quarter, we wrote descriptive, argumentative, and expository themes that were grammatically correct and rhetorically appropriate (writing in all simple sentences would fail you). It was legal for us to show our marked and corrected themes to each other to ensure that we had corrected all the errors before we turned them back to the professor. I saw students who had never written a theme turn in well-crafted papers by the end of third quarter. Admittedly, MSC had a very high drop-out rate for Freshman, but with an open admission policy, such a rate was expected. To ensure that MSC graduated only those who could express themselves in correct English, a "Junior English" examination was required for all would-be graduates. Fortunately, it could be taken once a quarter, beginning Fall Quarter of the student's Junior year; unfortunately, too many students put it off until Winter or even Spring Quarter of their Senior year. Especially for transfer students (even from Emory, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Tulane--I had friends from those), the results could be disastrous. A friend transferred his junior year from Alabama and waited until his Senior to start taking the test. He failed three times and did not graduate, but because he lacked fewer than eight quarter hours to graduate, he was allowed to begin graduate work. He took the test three more quarters then dropped out of school with a year of graduate credit and no degree. The point of my lengthy exposition is to point out that a well-crafted program in Freshman writing can teach writing to the most poorly-prepared students--some, whom I knew, passed not only Freshman English but the "Junior English Examination" Fall Quarter of their Junior year. Then again, I met a colleague at SAMLA who had been enthusiastic about his up-coming assignment to establish a Freshman English curriculum at his new school. He was now looking for another job. He had been told that his new English classes were efforts to impose a outdated meddle-class White written language that insulted the multi-cultured body by both indicating that their modes of expression were not just as valuable as his and by his insistence on making them write and grading their written work products. N. Scott Catledge, *********************************************************** 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/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 15:59:07 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9DA4E.9CBB403D" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9DA4E.9CBB403D Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable John, Craig, et al. Aha - I think I misconstrued your point, and apologies for that. I'd agree that even my most problematic students are perfectly well able to vary sentence beginnings in speech, create vastly complex structures, etc. Somehow, they're not bringing that to bear in the same way when they write, or rather, they're so mistrustful of *all* their instincts that they ignore the good ones along with the bad (and the memory strain doesn't help). Some of the emails I got this semester from students explaining why they needed paper extensions were very well designed (spelling and shorthand aside), I think because the authors weren't thinking about the email as a writing task. A side note: With the second, "aesthetic" judgment system, perceived intentionality is a major factor - most of us are happy with a sentence fragment if we think it's intentional and has a good effect, but we don't like fragments if we have valid reason to suspect the writer isn't in control of them. Repetition may work the same way. If an obviously articulate speaker uses a giant parallel construction with identical openings to each unit, we perceive it as adept usage of classical rhetoric; if a student who otherwise doesn't seem particularly articulate adopts a similar strategy, we attribute it to lack of skill. Bizarrely impenetrable writing from a student is a bad thing, but it may come across as impressive if it's in PMLA. Susan's methodology strikes me as a good example of a strategy to encourage students to gain conscious control of structures. Saying that good writing doesn't require sentence-initial variation doesn't entail that such variation can't be used to create good writing, or that knowing how to use it won't be extremely useful in many situations. Most students are in a stage where they have to prove they can do something before they can be let off the hook for not doing it. There is a danger they'll get stuck in "auto-vary" mode, or use variation without purpose (like my students who were told at some point to use sentence connectors and were given a list - they sometimes pick them randomly). That can be dealt with, though, especially if later exercises look at paragraph-level or even section-level "opening frames." Sincerely, Bill Spruiell From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Crow Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:07 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Bill, I think you hit the hit the nail on the head with your "two different kinds of judgment systems." Your food analogy is an excellent encapsulation of the underlying issue. I also agree with you that most of today's students have limited reading experience compared to students of past generations. I probably should have said that today's students "have been exposed to" many thousands of sentences instead of "have read." However, most of these students (developmental or not) are able to comprehend sentences that contain a variety of sentence openers (as well as other structures) and, if asked, they can write similarly structured sentences on topics of their choosing. In fact, Constance Weaver gives examples of how first graders can do a pretty amazing job of making up their own sentences following the structure of an example, as demonstrated by her I Am poem exercises. John On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 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 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/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9DA4E.9CBB403D Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

John, Craig, et al.

Aha – I think I misconstrued your point, and apologies for that. I’d agree that even my most problematic students are perfectly well able to vary sentence beginnings in speech, create vastly complex structures, etc. Somehow, they’re not bringing that to bear in the same way when they write, or rather, they’re so mistrustful of *all* their instincts that they ignore the good ones along with the bad (and the memory strain doesn’t help). Some of the emails I got this semester from students explaining why they needed paper extensions were very well designed (spelling and shorthand aside), I think because the authors weren’t thinking about the email as a writing task.

A side note: With the second, “aesthetic” judgment system, perceived intentionality is a major factor – most of us are happy with a sentence fragment if we think it’s intentional and has a good effect, but we don’t like fragments if we have valid reason to suspect the writer isn’t in control of them. Repetition may work the same way. If an obviously articulate speaker uses a giant parallel construction with identical openings to each unit, we perceive it as adept usage of classical rhetoric; if a student who otherwise doesn’t seem particularly articulate adopts a similar strategy, we attribute it to lack of skill. Bizarrely impenetrable writing from a student is a bad thing, but it may come across as impressive if it’s in PMLA.

Susan’s methodology strikes me as a good example of a strategy to encourage students to gain conscious control of structures. Saying that good writing doesn’t require sentence-initial variation doesn’t entail that such variation can’t be used to create good writing, or that knowing how to use it won’t be extremely useful in many situations. Most students are in a stage where they have to prove they can do something before they can be let off the hook for not doing it. There is a danger they’ll get stuck in “auto-vary” mode, or use variation without purpose (like my students who were told at some point to use sentence connectors and were given a list – they sometimes pick them randomly). That can be dealt with, though, especially if later exercises look at paragraph-level or even section-level “opening frames.”

Sincerely,

Bill Spruiell

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Crow
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 6:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Bill,

I think you hit the hit the nail on the head with your "two different kinds of judgment systems." Your food analogy is an excellent encapsulation of the underlying issue.

I also agree with you that most of today's students have limited reading experience compared to students of past generations. I probably should have said that today's students "have been exposed to" many thousands of sentences instead of "have read." However, most of these students (developmental or not) are able to comprehend sentences that contain a variety of sentence openers (as well as other structures) and, if asked, they can write similarly structured sentences on topics of their choosing. In fact, Constance Weaver gives examples of how first graders can do a pretty amazing job of making up their own sentences following the structure of an example, as demonstrated by her I Am poem exercises.

John

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Spruiell, William C <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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

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/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9DA4E.9CBB403D-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:21:03 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first had boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly believe the varying sentence starts made it better. That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't force students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have other concerns as well. Susan On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > Susan, > I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't > mean to > be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence openings is > not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and > thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence > openings is not based on close observation of how language works in > effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are > irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the > effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a > distraction from more relevant choices. > Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already have > it in > an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow woman". > It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of > narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence openings > are > quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base the > discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal > preferences. > > Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) > > My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun > rising up > through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds came to > the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the > alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear > the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled > and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him beside > me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned the > sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the sun was > above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, sleeping on > the white river sand. > I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had come > the > night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by > lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and > the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—maybe it > was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the > horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look beyond the > pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could > not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river that > moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. > The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed the > sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to follow, > and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the river. I > slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked > north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in > footprints over footprints. > “Wake up.” > He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his eyes > still > closed. I knelt down to touch him. > “I’m leaving.” > He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, > remember?” > He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. > “Where?” > “To my place.” > “And will I come back?” > He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him > behind me > and smelling the willows. > “Yellow woman,” he said. > I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. > He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face > in the > river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had come.” > I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to > remember > the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember > his warmth around me. > > Craig > > Craig > I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you >> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my students as >> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I have >> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such strong >> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have not >> thought this through. >> >> Susan >> >> >> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >> >>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more >>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a >>>> better essay, >>> >>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is >>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, >>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>> >>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the >>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying >>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>> >>> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 21:07:58 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Susan, I actually had a private email from Ed that said he presented the revisions as an attempt to show that varying sentence openings wouldn't save the sentences. That was my response as well. The intitial point for your exercise as I understood it was not that students should have varying structures to choose from, but should not use the same subject in consecutive sentences. (Should vary subjects from sentence to sentence.) My response was to say that students tend to change subjects TOO QUICKLY and need to learn to keep a topic in focus for longer stretches of text. I tried to say that given and new are necessary (an overlap of meaning) in ALL good writing, and the normal position for given information is the opening slot. I wrote about the language games I play with students to show how part of any sentence (or even the whole sentence) can be pulled down to become the given in the next sentence. A great deal of flexibility is required to accomplish that. I am not against flexibility. I do not believe that varying subjects from sentence to sentence is normally a good thing. Being ABLE to do it doesn't seem much of an accomplishment. Janet gave us a passage which varied subjects and was largely incoherent, somewhat as a result. I'm surprised that people aren't noticing or pointing out that Obama uses a repeated adverbial opening ("This time") throughout a paragraph. I am not advocating that nothing but a noun group should start a sentence, but that coherence is created by repetition of focus over larger stretches of text. The beauty of Obama's passage is not just that he stylistically repeats "we can", but that he gives us an extended list of all the dysfunctional things we are currently doing (Set up by "We have a choice) and then follows that with a whole series of more productive recommendations for "This time." These repetitions become highly cohesive devices. They alert the reader to an extended connection. The speech is nicely organized and nicely developed, and the sentence slot repetitions help so much in the organization. My grammar students, by the way, did reasonably well with it. Nancy Sommers' research in particular seems to show that less experienced writers revise by improving sentences, more experienced writers by improving the meanings (the whole text.) For that reason, as a teacher, I try to shy away from revising sentences apart from their contribution to the text. The same would be true for vocabulary--a wide vocabulary is wonderful, but what is needed is the precise word, not the fanciest one. So for me, it wouldn't seem right to advocate varying sentence openers for the sole purpose of variety. I suspect I am a somewhat idiosyncratic teacher. I suppose it might come across as self-promoting to say that I am very successful at what I do. I should add that I have done it for a long time and certainly changed approaches over the years as my understanding deepened. But a large part of what I do is to focus on how good writers create coherence (critical reading) and how students can make decisions at the sentence level based on the larger purposes of the text. And as part of the "science" of that, I have noticed (I am not the first or the only one by any means) that good writers tend to repeat subjects MORE than inexperienced writers. A sentence is not a complete thought, but a move in a series of related moves. Sentences need to work in harmony with each other and in harmony with the unfolding purposes of the text. This is not a shallow position, and I suspect my passion about it may make it seem as if I'm dismissive of other views. If that's the case, I apologize. Again, I think we should base our teaching on observations about how language works. If we can find effective texts that vary subjects radically from sentence to sentence, I'll stand corrected. Craig Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to > evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first had > boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted > the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't > make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly > believe the varying sentence starts made it better. > > That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. > > Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their > sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? > It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't force > students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't > lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have > other concerns as well. > > Susan > > On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> Susan, >> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't >> mean to >> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence openings is >> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and >> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence >> openings is not based on close observation of how language works in >> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are >> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the >> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a >> distraction from more relevant choices. >> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already have >> it in >> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow woman". >> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of >> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence openings >> are >> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base the >> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal >> preferences. >> >> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >> >> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun >> rising up >> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds came to >> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the >> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear >> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled >> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him beside >> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned the >> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the sun was >> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, sleeping on >> the white river sand. >> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had come >> the >> night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by >> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and >> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—maybe it >> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the >> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look beyond the >> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could >> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river that >> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed the >> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to follow, >> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the river. I >> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked >> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >> footprints over footprints. >> “Wake up.” >> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his eyes >> still >> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >> “I’m leaving.” >> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, >> remember?” >> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >> “Where?” >> “To my place.” >> “And will I come back?” >> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him >> behind me >> and smelling the willows. >> “Yellow woman,” he said. >> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face >> in the >> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had come.” >> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to >> remember >> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember >> his warmth around me. >> >> Craig >> >> Craig >> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you >>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my students as >>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I have >>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such strong >>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have not >>> thought this through. >>> >>> Susan >>> >>> >>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>> >>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more >>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a >>>>> better essay, >>>> >>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is >>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, >>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>> >>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the >>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying >>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>> >>>> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 22:02:47 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-8-513679416 --Apple-Mail-8-513679416 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed > The intitial point for your exercise as I understood it was not that > students should have varying structures to choose from, but should not > use the same subject in consecutive sentences. No, you have misunderstood. My argument is that students should not have the same subject for five sentences in a row. I was very clear about that. I even wrote you a little example which you said you wouldn't criticize (which was a beautiful example of litotes on your part). > I am not against flexibility. I know. Who would be? That's why I am critical of you (and I guess now of Ed) when you claim The exact same content + varying sentence starts = flexibility. Why would you and Ed then insist that this is not better than the original? If nothing else, you admit it has flexibility. > I do not believe that varying subjects from sentence to sentence is > normally a > good thing. Being ABLE to do it doesn't seem much of an > accomplishment. You are changing my argument. I have never advocated "sentence to sentence." Let's go back to my original 5 sentences in a row argument. Surely, you agree that a student who is ABLE to break a 5 in a row stretch of uniform sentence openers--a student who has no Obama-esque parallel structure--has, indeed, accomplished something. > Janet gave us a passage which varied subjects and was largely > incoherent, somewhat as a result. "As a result"?? Janet, did you force that poor student to vary each and every sentence opener? What were you thinking! No wonder! Not even I would make that a requirement. All joking aside, I don't make sentence openers a requirement in any essay. Does anyone? I I teach it the same way I teach parallel structure: I give examples, I give exercises, I show professional essays, but when I assign an essay I do not say, Your essay must have one effective section of parallel structure, varying sentence openers for all other sentences, and you must work in the 20 vocabulary words for this week. The reason I teach sentence openers is the same reason I reach any rhetorical device. It does not mean the student MUST use it in their very next essay. It simply means that when a student ignores the lesson and writes 5 robotic sentence starts in a row, I can say, "Hey, remember that lesson on sentence starts? Take a look at that handout. Do you think you could try changing up this paragraph a bit?" > I have noticed (I am not the first or the only one by any means) > that good writers tend to repeat subjects MORE than > inexperienced writers. I have not noticed that at all. I see "There is" a lot in students' analytical essays. I see "He," "We," and "Then we" sentence openers in their narratives. I sometimes have them try pulling out an action verb and play around with turning it into a gerund sentence start. But I never force them to apply any specific device in their final essay. Susan > Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to >> evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first had >> boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted >> the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't >> make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly >> believe the varying sentence starts made it better. >> >> That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. >> >> Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their >> sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? >> It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't force >> students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't >> lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have >> other concerns as well. >> >> Susan >> >> On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >>> Susan, >>> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't >>> mean to >>> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence openings is >>> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and >>> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence >>> openings is not based on close observation of how language works in >>> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are >>> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the >>> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a >>> distraction from more relevant choices. >>> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already have >>> it in >>> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow woman". >>> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of >>> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence openings >>> are >>> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base the >>> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal >>> preferences. >>> >>> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >>> >>> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun >>> rising up >>> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds >>> came to >>> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the >>> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear >>> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled >>> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him beside >>> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned the >>> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the sun >>> was >>> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, >>> sleeping on >>> the white river sand. >>> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had come >>> the >>> night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by >>> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and >>> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—maybe it >>> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the >>> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look beyond >>> the >>> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could >>> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river >>> that >>> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >>> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and >>> pawed the >>> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to follow, >>> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the >>> river. I >>> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked >>> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >>> footprints over footprints. >>> “Wake up.” >>> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his eyes >>> still >>> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >>> “I’m leaving.” >>> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, >>> remember?” >>> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >>> “Where?” >>> “To my place.” >>> “And will I come back?” >>> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him >>> behind me >>> and smelling the willows. >>> “Yellow woman,” he said. >>> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >>> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face >>> in the >>> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had >>> come.” >>> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to >>> remember >>> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember >>> his warmth around me. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> Craig >>> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you >>>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my >>>> students as >>>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I >>>> have >>>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such >>>> strong >>>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have >>>> not >>>> thought this through. >>>> >>>> Susan >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>>> >>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more >>>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a >>>>>> better essay, >>>>> >>>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is >>>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, >>>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>>> >>>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the >>>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying >>>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>>> >>>>> 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/ --Apple-Mail-8-513679416 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252
The intitial point for your exercise as I understood it was not that
students should have varying structures to choose from, but should not
use the same subject in consecutive sentences.

No, you have misunderstood. My argument is that students should not have the same subject for five sentences in a row. I was very clear about that. I even wrote you a little example which you said you wouldn't criticize (which was a beautiful example of litotes on your part).

I am not against flexibility.

I know. Who would be? That's why I am critical of you (and I guess now of Ed) when you claim The exact same content + varying sentence starts = flexibility. Why would you and Ed then insist that this is not better than the original? If nothing else, you admit it has flexibility.

I do not believe that varying subjects from sentence to sentence is normally a
good thing. Being ABLE to do it doesn't seem much of an accomplishment.

You are changing my argument. I have never advocated "sentence to sentence." Let's go back to my original 5 sentences in a row argument. Surely, you agree that a student who is ABLE to break a 5 in a row stretch of uniform sentence openers--a student who has no Obama-esque parallel structure--has, indeed, accomplished something.

Janet gave us a passage which varied subjects and was largely
incoherent, somewhat as a result.

"As a result"?? Janet, did you force that poor student to vary each and every sentence opener? What were you thinking! No wonder! Not even I would make that a requirement. All joking aside, I don't make sentence openers a requirement in any essay. Does anyone? I I teach it the same way I teach parallel structure: I give examples, I give exercises, I show professional essays, but when I assign an essay I do not say, Your essay must have one effective section of parallel structure, varying sentence openers for all other sentences, and you must work in the 20 vocabulary words for this week.

The reason I teach sentence openers is the same reason I reach any rhetorical device. It does not mean the student MUST use it in their very next essay. It simply means that when a student ignores the lesson and writes 5 robotic sentence starts in a row, I can say, "Hey, remember that lesson on sentence starts? Take a look at that handout. Do you think you could try changing up this paragraph a bit?"

I have noticed (I am not the first or the only one by any means) that good writers tend to repeat subjects MORE than
inexperienced writers.

I have not noticed that at all. I see "There is" a lot in students' analytical essays. I see "He," "We," and "Then we" sentence openers in their narratives. I sometimes have them try pulling out an action verb and play around with turning it into a gerund sentence start. But I never force them to apply any specific device in their final essay.

Susan

Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to

evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first had
boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted
the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't
make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly
believe the varying sentence starts made it better.

That struck me as arrogantly dismissive.

Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their
sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence?
It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't force
students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't
lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have
other concerns as well.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't
mean to
be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence openings is
not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and
thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence
openings is not based on close observation of how language works in
effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are
irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the
effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a
distraction from more relevant choices.
   Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already have
it in
an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow woman".
It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of
narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence openings
are
quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base the
discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal
preferences.

Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko)

My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun
rising up
through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds came to
the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the
alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear
the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled
and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him beside
me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned the
sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the sun was
above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, sleeping on
the white river sand.
   I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had come
the
night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by
lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and
the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—maybe it
was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the
horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look beyond the
pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could
not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river that
moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night.
The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed the
sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to follow,
and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the river. I
slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked
north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in
footprints over footprints.
“Wake up.”
He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his eyes
still
closed. I knelt down to touch him.
“I’m leaving.”
He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me,
remember?”
He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun.
“Where?”
“To my place.”
“And will I come back?”
   He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him
behind me
and smelling the willows.
“Yellow woman,” he said.
I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked.
He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face
in the
river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had come.”
   I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to
remember
the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember
his warmth around me.

Craig

Craig
I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you

really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my students as
a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I have
seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such strong
evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have not
thought this through.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:

On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more
flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a
better essay,

Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is
worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but,
yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the
choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying
sentence starts is not a panacea.

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/ --Apple-Mail-8-513679416-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 23:09:37 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Ed just got this and is tired tonight, but will speak on the matter tomorrow. On May 21, 2009, at 7:21 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: > Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to > evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first > had boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You > admitted the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that > it doesn't make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he > couldn't possibly believe the varying sentence starts made it better. > > That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. > > Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their > sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? > It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't > force students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts > doesn't lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do > you have other concerns as well. > > Susan > > On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> Susan, >> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't mean >> to >> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence openings is >> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and >> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence >> openings is not based on close observation of how language works in >> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are >> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the >> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a >> distraction from more relevant choices. >> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already have >> it in >> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow woman". >> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of >> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence openings >> are >> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base the >> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal >> preferences. >> >> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >> >> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun >> rising up >> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds came >> to >> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the >> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear >> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled >> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him beside >> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned the >> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the sun was >> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, sleeping >> on >> the white river sand. >> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had come >> the >> night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by >> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and >> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—maybe it >> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the >> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look beyond the >> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could >> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river that >> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed the >> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to follow, >> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the >> river. I >> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked >> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >> footprints over footprints. >> “Wake up.” >> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his eyes >> still >> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >> “I’m leaving.” >> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, >> remember?” >> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >> “Where?” >> “To my place.” >> “And will I come back?” >> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him >> behind me >> and smelling the willows. >> “Yellow woman,” he said. >> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face in >> the >> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had come.” >> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to >> remember >> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember >> his warmth around me. >> >> Craig >> >> Craig >> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you >>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my students as >>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I have >>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such >>> strong >>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have not >>> thought this through. >>> >>> Susan >>> >>> >>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>> >>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more >>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a >>>>> better essay, >>>> >>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is >>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, >>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>> >>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the >>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying >>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>> >>>> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 09:52:44 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-552676038 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) --Apple-Mail-2-552676038 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My rewrite of John's essay using sentence openers was intended to show that adding them would NOT materially improve the work. As John said, it has no style, and as Craig said it has neither content nor flow. It seems to me that the addition of openers changes none of these facts. I will say, however, that the openers I used are the kind of openers--- adverbials for the most part---that mature writers use, and in that respect the rewrite might be thought to represent an improvement of a sort, especially if the author is very young. Huge thanks to Don Stewart for the download of Christensen; it's an article that everyone interested in this topic should read. And by the way, it proves that there are teachers---at least one---who reward students for opening sentences with a wide range of structures, even though that results in what Christensen calls "pretzel prose," a type of prose that no competent writer would ever use. The fact that this teacher had an article advocating this nonsense published in College English is unsettling, to say the least. Christensen's work and my own modest research demonstrate that professional writers use adverbials of various sorts and conjunctions at the start of sentences, but VERY LITTLE ELSE. And they employ even these only about 25% of the time. On May 20, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Edgar Schuster wrote: > 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/ > 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/ --Apple-Mail-2-552676038 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My rewrite of John's essay using sentence openers was intended to show that adding them would NOT materially improve the work. As John said, it has no style, and as Craig said it has neither content nor flow. It seems to me that the addition of openers changes none of these facts.
I will say, however, that the openers I used are the kind of openers---adverbials for the most part---that mature writers use, and in that respect the rewrite might be thought to represent an improvement of a sort, especially if the author is very young.
Huge thanks to Don Stewart for the download of Christensen; it's an article that everyone interested in this topic should read. And by the way, it proves that there are teachers---at least one---who reward students for opening sentences with a wide range of structures, even though that results in what Christensen calls "pretzel prose," a type of prose that no competent writer would ever use. The fact that this teacher had an article advocating this nonsense published in College English is unsettling, to say the least.
Christensen's work and my own modest research demonstrate that professional writers use adverbials of various sorts and conjunctions at the start of sentences, but VERY LITTLE ELSE. And they employ even these only about 25% of the time.

On May 20, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Edgar Schuster wrote:

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/

= 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/ --Apple-Mail-2-552676038-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 09:55:01 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Well-crafted English works Comments: To: [log in to unmask] In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01C9DAC3.601B2780" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C9DAC3.601B2780 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My reading of classics was a completed action before my past tense attendance at high school. Her taking of classes was a completed action before her past tense claim. Our correction of papers a completed action before our past return of the papers to the professors( -or our geese would have been cooked). My seeing was in the past; the inaction of the students was a completed past (in)action before my past seeing took place. At the time in the past when the last meeting occurred, my colleague most certainly "was NOT enthusiastic" or he would not have been seeking another position. He had been thoroughly disillusioned by the bigotry and stupidity of the dean at a time on the past. Not even the grossest of nescience can justify the ignorance/illiteracy shown in the suggested change to the sentence. If you know that little about English, you are wasting my time and everyone else's on this list. I have more to do than waste my time with a patently illiterate commenter. Do not bother replying; I shall not waste my valuable time reading such asininities. I disagree very strongly with some of the posters but I respect their opinions. Your usage of tenses would rate an F in my eighth-grade English class if I were teaching one again. In my seventh grade class, I would only fail you after I had taught sequence of tenses. I should remark that none of my seventh-grade students failed a test requiring them to write using correct sequence of tenses. Then again, they were primarily the children of homes where the parents read no newspapers or magazines. N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD Professor Emeritus history & languages _____ From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:04 AM To: Scott Catledge Subject: Well-crafted English works I (had read) read most of the classics (in English) -- fiction and non-fiction -- before high school. Mississippians could graduate with pitifully few academic credits: a very intelligent friend claimed that she (had taken) took all 10 academic classes that were offered by her school. It was legal for us to show our marked and corrected themes to each other to ensure that we (had corrected) corrected all the errors before we turned them back to the professor. I saw students who (had never written) never wrote a theme turn in well-crafted papers by the end of third quarter. Then again, I met a colleague at SAMLA who (had been) was enthusiastic about his up-coming assignment to establish a Freshman English curriculum at his new school. He (had been told) was told that his new English classes were efforts to impose a outdated middle-class White written language that insulted the multi-cultured body by both indicating that their modes of expression were not just as valuable as his and by his insistence on making them write and grading their written work products. 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/ ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C9DAC3.601B2780 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

My reading of classics was a completed action before my past tense attendance at high school.

Her taking of classes was a completed action before her past tense claim.

Our correction of papers a completed action before our past return of the papers to the professors( —or our geese would have been cooked).

My seeing was in the past; the inaction of the students was a completed past (in)action before my past seeing took place.

At the time in the past when the last meeting occurred, my colleague most certainly “was NOT enthusiastic” or he would not have been seeking

another position. He had been thoroughly disillusioned by the bigotry and stupidity of the dean at a time on the past. Not even the grossest of

nescience can justify the ignorance/illiteracy shown in the suggested change to the sentence. If you know that little about English, you are

wasting my time and everyone else’s on this list.

I have more to do than waste my time with a patently illiterate commenter.

Do not bother replying; I shall not waste my valuable time reading such asininities.

I disagree very strongly with some of the posters but I respect their opinions. Your usage of tenses would rate an F in my eighth-grade English

class if I were teaching one again. In my seventh grade class, I would only fail you after I had taught sequence of tenses. I should remark that

none of my seventh-grade students failed a test requiring them to write using correct sequence of tenses. Then again, they were primarily the

children of homes where the parents read no newspapers or magazines.

N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD

Professor Emeritus

history & languages

From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:04 AM
To: Scott Catledge
Subject: Well-crafted English works

I (had read) read most of the classics (in English) -- fiction and non-fiction -- before high school.

Mississippians could graduate with pitifully few academic credits: a very intelligent friend claimed that she (had taken) took all 10 academic classes that were offered by her school.

It was legal for us to show our marked and corrected themes to each other to ensure that we (had corrected) corrected all the errors before we turned them back to the professor.

I saw students who (had never written) never wrote a theme turn in well-crafted papers by the end of third quarter.

Then again, I met a colleague at SAMLA who (had been) was enthusiastic about his
up-coming assignment to establish a Freshman English curriculum at his new school.

He (had been told) was told that his new English classes were efforts to impose a outdated middle-class White written language that insulted the multi-cultured body by both indicating that their modes of expression were not just as valuable as his and by his
insistence on making them write and grading their written work products.

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/ ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01C9DAC3.601B2780-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 08:00:13 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: How well-crafted English works MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-139019976-1243004413=:35953" --0-139019976-1243004413=:35953 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable "All artists quiver under the lash of adverse criticism", Catherine Drinker Bowen. Â Scott. Â Note that I wrote to you privately and YOU took it public. I have agreed to not pursue the past perfect on the list but I will reply the same way your messageÂ came to me, as I wasÂ taught is polite. Â You wrote and I corrected, "I (had read)Â read most of the classics (in English) -- fiction and non-fiction -- before high school", and you object. Â So you would prefer to say that World War One had been fought before World War Two, andÂ that I had thought twice before I responded to your message? Â He (had been) wasÂ thoroughly disillusioned by the bigotry and stupidity of the dean at a time on the past. Â All past events were preceded by other past events. The past tense of 'to be' is 'was' (singular) and 'were' (plural), NOT 'had been'.Â Â Her taking of classes was a completed action before her past tense claim. Â So she had taken Cicero her junior year andÂ Virgil her senior year, rather than "She took Cicero her junior year .."?Â One has to complete one's junior year before one can be a senior. Â If you think that's how the past perfect works, I wonder how you define it. Go ahead and try it. I've invited many ATEGians to do so and not a single one can do it. That's how far behind we (the English-speaking world) are in teaching a useful tense, the past perfect (by whatever name). Â One man tried it by saying,Â "The past perfect is 'had' plus the past participle", which is more than a tad shy of the mark, rather like saying a train is a thing with wheels (as are rickshaws and lawn mowers). Â .cheers.brad.22may09. Â --- On Fri, 5/22/09, Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> Subject: RE: Well-crafted English works To: [log in to unmask], "'Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar'" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 9:55 AM My reading of classics was a completed action before my past tense attendance at high school.Â Â Her taking of classes was a completed action before her past tense claim. Â Our correction of papers a completed action before our past return of the papers to the professors( â€”or our geese would have been cooked). Â My seeing was in the past; the inaction of the students was a completed past (in)action before my past seeing took place. Â At the time in the past when the last meeting occurred, my colleague most certainly â€œwas NOT enthusiasticâ€ or he would not have been seeking another position.Â He had been thoroughly dis ill usioned by the bigotry and stupidity of the dean at a time on the past.Â Not even the grossest of nescience can justify the ignorance/ ill iteracy shown in the suggested change to the sentence.Â If you know that little about English, you are wasting my time and everyone elseâ€™s on this list. Â I have more to do than waste my time with a patently ill iterate commenter. Â Do not bother replying; I shall not waste my valuable time reading such asininities.Â Â I disagree very strongly with some of the posters but I respect their opinions.Â Your usage of tenses would rate an F in my eighth-grade English class if I were teaching one again.Â In my seventh grade class, I would only fail you after I had taught sequence of tenses.Â I should remark that none of my seventh-grade students failed a test requiring them to write using correct sequence of tenses.Â Then again, they were primarily the children of homes where the parents read no newspapers or magazines. Â N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD Professor Emeritus history & languages Â From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:04 AM To: Scott Catledge Subject: Well-crafted English works Â I (had read)Â read most of the classics (in English) -- fiction and non-fiction -- before high school. Mississippians could graduate with pitifully few academic credits: a very intelligent friend claimed that she (had taken) took all 10 academic classes that were offered by her school. It was legal for us to show our marked and corrected themes to each other to ensure that we (had corrected)Â corrected all the errors before we turned them back to the professor. Â I saw students who (had never written) never wrote a theme turn in well-crafted papers by the end of third quarter. Then again, I met a colleague at SAMLA who (had been) was enthusiastic about his up-coming assignment to establish a Freshman English curriculum at his new school. Â He (had been told) was told that his new English classes were efforts to impose a outdated middle-class White written language that insulted the multi-cultured body by both indicating that their modes of expression were not just as valuable as his and by his insistence on making them write and grading their written work products.Â Â Â 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/ --0-139019976-1243004413=:35953 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"All artists quiver under the lash of adverse criticism", Catherine Drinker Bowen.

Scott.

Note that I wrote to you privately and YOU took it public. I have agreed to not pursue the past perfect on the list but I will reply the same way your message came to me, as I was taught is polite.

You wrote and I corrected, "I (had read) read most of the classics (in English) -- fiction and non-fiction -- before high school", and you object.

So you would prefer to say that World War One had been fought before World War Two, and that I had thought twice before I responded to your message?

He (had been) was thoroughly disillusioned by the bigotry and stupidity of the dean at a time on the past.

All past events were preceded by other past events. The past tense of 'to be' is 'was' (singular) and 'were' (plural), NOT 'had been'.

Her taking of classes was a completed action before her past tense claim.

So she had taken Cicero her junior year and Virgil her senior year, rather than "She took Cicero her junior year .."? One has to complete one's junior year before one can be a senior.

If you think that's how the past perfect works, I wonder how you define it. Go ahead and try it. I've invited many ATEGians to do so and not a single one can do it. That's how far behind we (the English-speaking world) are in teaching a useful tense, the past perfect (by whatever name).

One man tried it by saying, "The past perfect is 'had' plus the past participle", which is more than a tad shy of the mark, rather like saying a train is a thing with wheels (as are rickshaws and lawn mowers).

.cheers.brad.22may09.

--- On Fri, 5/22/09, Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: Well-crafted English works
To: [log in to unmask], "'Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar'" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 9:55 AM

My reading of classics was a completed action before my past tense attendance at high school.

Her taking of classes was a completed action before her past tense claim.

Our correction of papers a completed action before our past return of the papers to the professors( â€”or our geese would have been cooked).

My seeing was in the past; the inaction of the students was a completed past (in)action before my past seeing took place.

At the time in the past when the last meeting occurred, my colleague most certainly â€œwas NOT enthusiasticâ€ or he would not have been seeking
another position. He had been thoroughly dis ill usioned by the bigotry and stupidity of the dean at a time on the past. Not even the grossest of
nescience can justify the ignorance/ ill iteracy shown in the suggested change to the sentence. If you know that little about English, you are
wasting my time and everyone elseâ€™s on this list.

I have more to do than waste my time with a patently ill iterate commenter.

Do not bother replying; I shall not waste my valuable time reading such asininities.

I disagree very strongly with some of the posters but I respect their opinions. Your usage of tenses would rate an F in my eighth-grade English
class if I were teaching one again. In my seventh grade class, I would only fail you after I had taught sequence of tenses. I should remark that
none of my seventh-grade students failed a test requiring them to write using correct sequence of tenses. Then again, they were primarily the
children of homes where the parents read no newspapers or magazines.

N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD

Professor Emeritus
history & languages

From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:04 AM
To: Scott Catledge
Subject: Well-crafted English works

I (had read) read most of the classics (in English) -- fiction and non-fiction -- before high school.

Mississippians could graduate with pitifully few academic credits: a very intelligent friend claimed that she (had taken) took all 10 academic classes that were offered by her school.

It was legal for us to show our marked and corrected themes to each other to ensure that we (had corrected) corrected all the errors before we turned them back to the professor.

I saw students who (had never written) never wrote a theme turn in well-crafted papers by the end of third quarter.

Then again, I met a colleague at SAMLA who (had been) was enthusiastic about his
up-coming assignment to establish a Freshman English curriculum at his new school.

He (had been told) was told that his new English classes were efforts to impose a outdated middle-class White written language that insulted the multi-cultured body by both indicating that their modes of expression were not just as valuable as his and by his
insistence on making them write and grading their written work products.

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/ --0-139019976-1243004413=:35953-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 09:17:07 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: How well-crafted English works In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D1374A63F79CADMBX01ldschurc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D1374A63F79CADMBX01ldschurc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SSBhbSBjdXJpb3VzIGFib3V0IEJyYWTigJlzIOKAnHRydWXigJ0gZGVmaW5pdGlvbiBvZiBwYXN0 IHBlcmZlY3QuICBJIGNhbm5vdCBhZ3JlZSB0aGF0IGl0IGlzIOKAnHRlbnNl4oCdIGFuZCBoZSBj YW5ub3QgYWRtaXQgdGhhdCBhbnlvbmUga25vd3MgaXRzIGRlZmluaXRpb24uICBJIHRoaW5rIEJy YWQgd2FudHMgdGhlIHNlbWFudGljcyBvZiBhIHNlbnRlbmNlIChpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbikgdG8g Y29ycmVzcG9uZCBvbmUtdG8tb25lIHdpdGggaXRzIHN5bnRheCAocGF0dGVybiBhbmQgc3RydWN0 dXJlIG9mIGl0cyB3b3JkcyBhbmQgbGFyZ2VyIHVuaXRzIG9mIHRleHQpLiAgWWV0IG5vIGxpbmd1 aXN0IGhhcyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWwgaW4gZGVtb25zdHJhdGluZyB0aGF0IHN1Y2ggYSBjb3Jy ZXNwb25kZW5jZSBleGlzdHMgYW5kIG5vIGxpbmd1aXN0IGhhcyBwcm9wb3NlZCBhIHRoZW9yeSB0 aGF0IHRoZSBtYWpvcml0eSBjYW4gYWdyZWUgd2l0aC4gIEkgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGF0IGxhY2sgb2Yg Y29ycmVzcG9uZGVuY2UgaXMgb25lIHJlYXNvbiB3aHkgdGhlcmUgYXJlIHNvIG1hbnkgdGhlb3Jp ZXMgb2YgbGFuZ3VhZ2Ugc3RydWN0dXJlIG91dCB0aGVyZS4NCg0KQnJ1Y2UNCg0KRnJvbTogQXNz ZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgW21haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJ U1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBCcmFkIEpvaG5zdG9uDQpTZW50OiBGcmlk YXksIE1heSAyMiwgMjAwOSA5OjAwIEFNDQpUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQpT dWJqZWN0OiBIb3cgd2VsbC1jcmFmdGVkIEVuZ2xpc2ggd29ya3MNCg0KIkFsbCBhcnRpc3RzIHF1 aXZlciB1bmRlciB0aGUgbGFzaCBvZiBhZHZlcnNlIGNyaXRpY2lzbSIsIENhdGhlcmluZSBEcmlu a2VyIEJvd2VuLg0KDQpTY290dC4NCg0KTm90ZSB0aGF0IEkgd3JvdGUgdG8geW91IHByaXZhdGVs eSBhbmQgWU9VIHRvb2sgaXQgcHVibGljLiBJIGhhdmUgYWdyZWVkIHRvIG5vdCBwdXJzdWUgdGhl IHBhc3QgcGVyZmVjdCBvbiB0aGUgbGlzdCBidXQgSSB3aWxsIHJlcGx5IHRoZSBzYW1lIHdheSB5 b3VyIG1lc3NhZ2UgY2FtZSB0byBtZSwgYXMgSSB3YXMgdGF1Z2h0IGlzIHBvbGl0ZS4NCg0KWW91 IHdyb3RlIGFuZCBJIGNvcnJlY3RlZCwgIkkgKGhhZCByZWFkKSByZWFkIG1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlIGNs YXNzaWNzIChpbiBFbmdsaXNoKSAtLSBmaWN0aW9uIGFuZCBub24tZmljdGlvbiAtLSBiZWZvcmUg aGlnaCBzY2hvb2wiLCBhbmQgeW91IG9iamVjdC4NCg0KU28geW91IHdvdWxkIHByZWZlciB0byBz YXkgdGhhdCBXb3JsZCBXYXIgT25lIGhhZCBiZWVuIGZvdWdodCBiZWZvcmUgV29ybGQgV2FyIFR3 bywgYW5kIHRoYXQgSSBoYWQgdGhvdWdodCB0d2ljZSBiZWZvcmUgSSByZXNwb25kZWQgdG8geW91 ciBtZXNzYWdlPw0KDQpIZSAoaGFkIGJlZW4pIHdhcyB0aG9yb3VnaGx5IGRpc2lsbHVzaW9uZWQg YnkgdGhlIGJpZ290cnkgYW5kIHN0dXBpZGl0eSBvZiB0aGUgZGVhbiBhdCBhIHRpbWUgb24gdGhl IHBhc3QuDQoNCkFsbCBwYXN0IGV2ZW50cyB3ZXJlIHByZWNlZGVkIGJ5IG90aGVyIHBhc3QgZXZl bnRzLiBUaGUgcGFzdCB0ZW5zZSBvZiAndG8gYmUnIGlzICd3YXMnIChzaW5ndWxhcikgYW5kICd3 ZXJlJyAocGx1cmFsKSwgTk9UICdoYWQgYmVlbicuDQoNCkhlciB0YWtpbmcgb2YgY2xhc3NlcyB3 YXMgYSBjb21wbGV0ZWQgYWN0aW9uIGJlZm9yZSBoZXIgcGFzdCB0ZW5zZSBjbGFpbS4NCg0KU28g c2hlIGhhZCB0YWtlbiBDaWNlcm8gaGVyIGp1bmlvciB5ZWFyIGFuZCBWaXJnaWwgaGVyIHNlbmlv ciB5ZWFyLCByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiAiU2hlIHRvb2sgQ2ljZXJvIGhlciBqdW5pb3IgeWVhciAuLiI/ IE9uZSBoYXMgdG8gY29tcGxldGUgb25lJ3MganVuaW9yIHllYXIgYmVmb3JlIG9uZSBjYW4gYmUg YSBzZW5pb3IuDQoNCklmIHlvdSB0aGluayB0aGF0J3MgaG93IHRoZSBwYXN0IHBlcmZlY3Qgd29y a3MsIEkgd29uZGVyIGhvdyB5b3UgZGVmaW5lIGl0LiBHbyBhaGVhZCBhbmQgdHJ5IGl0LiBJJ3Zl IGludml0ZWQgbWFueSBBVEVHaWFucyB0byBkbyBzbyBhbmQgbm90IGEgc2luZ2xlIG9uZSBjYW4g ZG8gaXQuIFRoYXQncyBob3cgZmFyIGJlaGluZCB3ZSAodGhlIEVuZ2xpc2gtc3BlYWtpbmcgd29y bGQpIGFyZSBpbiB0ZWFjaGluZyBhIHVzZWZ1bCB0ZW5zZSwgdGhlIHBhc3QgcGVyZmVjdCAoYnkg d2hhdGV2ZXIgbmFtZSkuDQoNCk9uZSBtYW4gdHJpZWQgaXQgYnkgc2F5aW5nLCAiVGhlIHBhc3Qg cGVyZmVjdCBpcyAnaGFkJyBwbHVzIHRoZSBwYXN0IHBhcnRpY2lwbGUiLCB3aGljaCBpcyBtb3Jl IHRoYW4gYSB0YWQgc2h5IG9mIHRoZSBtYXJrLCByYXRoZXIgbGlrZSBzYXlpbmcgYSB0cmFpbiBp cyBhIHRoaW5nIHdpdGggd2hlZWxzIChhcyBhcmUgcmlja3NoYXdzIGFuZCBsYXduIG1vd2Vycyku DQoNCi5jaGVlcnMuYnJhZC4yMm1heTA5Lg0KDQoNCi0tLSBPbiBGcmksIDUvMjIvMDksIFNjb3R0 IDxzY2F0QGNmbC5yci5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQpGcm9tOiBTY290dCA8c2NhdEBjZmwucnIuY29t Pg0KU3ViamVjdDogUkU6IFdlbGwtY3JhZnRlZCBFbmdsaXNoIHdvcmtzDQpUbzogYnJhZHZpbmVz MkB5YWhvby5jb20sICInQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1t YXInIiA8QVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVPg0KRGF0ZTogRnJpZGF5LCBNYXkgMjIsIDIw MDksIDk6NTUgQU0NCk15IHJlYWRpbmcgb2YgY2xhc3NpY3Mgd2FzIGEgY29tcGxldGVkIGFjdGlv biBiZWZvcmUgbXkgcGFzdCB0ZW5zZSBhdHRlbmRhbmNlIGF0IGhpZ2ggc2Nob29sLg0KDQpIZXIg dGFraW5nIG9mIGNsYXNzZXMgd2FzIGEgY29tcGxldGVkIGFjdGlvbiBiZWZvcmUgaGVyIHBhc3Qg dGVuc2UgY2xhaW0uDQoNCk91ciBjb3JyZWN0aW9uIG9mIHBhcGVycyBhIGNvbXBsZXRlZCBhY3Rp b24gYmVmb3JlIG91ciBwYXN0IHJldHVybiBvZiB0aGUgcGFwZXJzIHRvIHRoZSBwcm9mZXNzb3Jz KCDigJRvciBvdXIgZ2Vlc2Ugd291bGQgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGNvb2tlZCkuDQoNCk15IHNlZWluZyB3 YXMgaW4gdGhlIHBhc3Q7IHRoZSBpbmFjdGlvbiBvZiB0aGUgc3R1ZGVudHMgd2FzIGEgY29tcGxl dGVkIHBhc3QgKGluKWFjdGlvbiBiZWZvcmUgbXkgcGFzdCBzZWVpbmcgdG9vayBwbGFjZS4NCg0K QXQgdGhlIHRpbWUgaW4gdGhlIHBhc3Qgd2hlbiB0aGUgbGFzdCBtZWV0aW5nIG9jY3VycmVkLCBt eSBjb2xsZWFndWUgbW9zdCBjZXJ0YWlubHkg4oCcd2FzIE5PVCBlbnRodXNpYXN0aWPigJ0gb3Ig aGUgd291bGQgbm90IGhhdmUgYmVlbiBzZWVraW5nDQphbm90aGVyIHBvc2l0aW9uLiAgSGUgaGFk IGJlZW4gdGhvcm91Z2hseSBkaXMgaWxsIHVzaW9uZWQgYnkgdGhlIGJpZ290cnkgYW5kIHN0dXBp ZGl0eSBvZiB0aGUgZGVhbiBhdCBhIHRpbWUgb24gdGhlIHBhc3QuICBOb3QgZXZlbiB0aGUgZ3Jv c3Nlc3Qgb2YNCm5lc2NpZW5jZSBjYW4ganVzdGlmeSB0aGUgaWdub3JhbmNlLyBpbGwgaXRlcmFj eSBzaG93biBpbiB0aGUgc3VnZ2VzdGVkIGNoYW5nZSB0byB0aGUgc2VudGVuY2UuICBJZiB5b3Ug a25vdyB0aGF0IGxpdHRsZSBhYm91dCBFbmdsaXNoLCB5b3UgYXJlDQp3YXN0aW5nIG15IHRpbWUg YW5kIGV2ZXJ5b25lIGVsc2XigJlzIG9uIHRoaXMgbGlzdC4NCg0KSSBoYXZlIG1vcmUgdG8gZG8g dGhhbiB3YXN0ZSBteSB0aW1lIHdpdGggYSBwYXRlbnRseSBpbGwgaXRlcmF0ZSBjb21tZW50ZXIu DQoNCkRvIG5vdCBib3RoZXIgcmVwbHlpbmc7IEkgc2hhbGwgbm90IHdhc3RlIG15IHZhbHVhYmxl IHRpbWUgcmVhZGluZyBzdWNoIGFzaW5pbml0aWVzLg0KDQpJIGRpc2FncmVlIHZlcnkgc3Ryb25n bHkgd2l0aCBzb21lIG9mIHRoZSBwb3N0ZXJzIGJ1dCBJIHJlc3BlY3QgdGhlaXIgb3BpbmlvbnMu ICBZb3VyIHVzYWdlIG9mIHRlbnNlcyB3b3VsZCByYXRlIGFuIEYgaW4gbXkgZWlnaHRoLWdyYWRl IEVuZ2xpc2gNCmNsYXNzIGlmIEkgd2VyZSB0ZWFjaGluZyBvbmUgYWdhaW4uICBJbiBteSBzZXZl bnRoIGdyYWRlIGNsYXNzLCBJIHdvdWxkIG9ubHkgZmFpbCB5b3UgYWZ0ZXIgSSBoYWQgdGF1Z2h0 IHNlcXVlbmNlIG9mIHRlbnNlcy4gIEkgc2hvdWxkIHJlbWFyayB0aGF0DQpub25lIG9mIG15IHNl dmVudGgtZ3JhZGUgc3R1ZGVudHMgZmFpbGVkIGEgdGVzdCByZXF1aXJpbmcgdGhlbSB0byB3cml0 ZSB1c2luZyBjb3JyZWN0IHNlcXVlbmNlIG9mIHRlbnNlcy4gIFRoZW4gYWdhaW4sIHRoZXkgd2Vy ZSBwcmltYXJpbHkgdGhlDQpjaGlsZHJlbiBvZiBob21lcyB3aGVyZSB0aGUgcGFyZW50cyByZWFk IG5vIG5ld3NwYXBlcnMgb3IgbWFnYXppbmVzLg0KDQpOLiBTY290dCBDYXRsZWRnZSwgUGhEL1NU RA0KUHJvZmVzc29yIEVtZXJpdHVzDQpoaXN0b3J5ICYgbGFuZ3VhZ2VzDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpGcm9tOiBicmFkdmluZXMyQHlhaG9vLmNvbSBbbWFpbHRv OmJyYWR2aW5lczJAeWFob28uY29tXQ0KU2VudDogRnJpZGF5LCBNYXkgMjIsIDIwMDkgODowNCBB TQ0KVG86IFNjb3R0IENhdGxlZGdlDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBXZWxsLWNyYWZ0ZWQgRW5nbGlzaCB3b3Jr cw0KDQpJIChoYWQgcmVhZCkgcmVhZCBtb3N0IG9mIHRoZSBjbGFzc2ljcyAoaW4gRW5nbGlzaCkg LS0gZmljdGlvbiBhbmQgbm9uLWZpY3Rpb24gLS0gYmVmb3JlIGhpZ2ggc2Nob29sLg0KDQpNaXNz aXNzaXBwaWFucyBjb3VsZCBncmFkdWF0ZSB3aXRoIHBpdGlmdWxseSBmZXcgYWNhZGVtaWMgY3Jl ZGl0czogYSB2ZXJ5IGludGVsbGlnZW50IGZyaWVuZCBjbGFpbWVkIHRoYXQgc2hlIChoYWQgdGFr ZW4pIHRvb2sgYWxsIDEwIGFjYWRlbWljIGNsYXNzZXMgdGhhdCB3ZXJlIG9mZmVyZWQgYnkgaGVy IHNjaG9vbC4NCg0KSXQgd2FzIGxlZ2FsIGZvciB1cyB0byBzaG93IG91ciBtYXJrZWQgYW5kIGNv cnJlY3RlZCB0aGVtZXMgdG8gZWFjaCBvdGhlciB0byBlbnN1cmUgdGhhdCB3ZSAoaGFkIGNvcnJl Y3RlZCkgY29ycmVjdGVkIGFsbCB0aGUgZXJyb3JzIGJlZm9yZSB3ZSB0dXJuZWQgdGhlbSBiYWNr IHRvIHRoZSBwcm9mZXNzb3IuDQoNCkkgc2F3IHN0dWRlbnRzIHdobyAoaGFkIG5ldmVyIHdyaXR0 ZW4pIG5ldmVyIHdyb3RlIGEgdGhlbWUgdHVybiBpbiB3ZWxsLWNyYWZ0ZWQgcGFwZXJzIGJ5IHRo ZSBlbmQgb2YgdGhpcmQgcXVhcnRlci4NCg0KVGhlbiBhZ2FpbiwgSSBtZXQgYSBjb2xsZWFndWUg YXQgU0FNTEEgd2hvIChoYWQgYmVlbikgd2FzIGVudGh1c2lhc3RpYyBhYm91dCBoaXMNCnVwLWNv bWluZyBhc3NpZ25tZW50IHRvIGVzdGFibGlzaCBhIEZyZXNobWFuIEVuZ2xpc2ggY3VycmljdWx1 bSBhdCBoaXMgbmV3IHNjaG9vbC4NCg0KSGUgKGhhZCBiZWVuIHRvbGQpIHdhcyB0b2xkIHRoYXQg aGlzIG5ldyBFbmdsaXNoIGNsYXNzZXMgd2VyZSBlZmZvcnRzIHRvIGltcG9zZSBhIG91dGRhdGVk IG1pZGRsZS1jbGFzcyBXaGl0ZSB3cml0dGVuIGxhbmd1YWdlIHRoYXQgaW5zdWx0ZWQgdGhlIG11 bHRpLWN1bHR1cmVkIGJvZHkgYnkgYm90aCBpbmRpY2F0aW5nIHRoYXQgdGhlaXIgbW9kZXMgb2Yg ZXhwcmVzc2lvbiB3ZXJlIG5vdCBqdXN0IGFzIHZhbHVhYmxlIGFzIGhpcyBhbmQgYnkgaGlzDQpp bnNpc3RlbmNlIG9uIG1ha2luZyB0aGVtIHdyaXRlIGFuZCBncmFkaW5nIHRoZWlyIHdyaXR0ZW4g d29yayBwcm9kdWN0cy4NCg0KDQoNCg0KVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxp c3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0 c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICJKb2luIG9yIGxl YXZlIHRoZSBsaXN0Ig0KDQpWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3Jn Lw0KCgogTk9USUNFOiBUaGlzIGVtYWlsIG1lc3NhZ2UgaXMgZm9yIHRoZSBzb2xlIHVzZSBvZiB0 aGUgaW50ZW5kZWQgcmVjaXBpZW50KHMpIGFuZCBtYXkgY29udGFpbiBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgYW5k IHByaXZpbGVnZWQgaW5mb3JtYXRpb24uIEFueSB1bmF1dGhvcml6ZWQgcmV2aWV3LCB1c2UsIGRp c2Nsb3N1cmUgb3IgZGlzdHJpYnV0aW9uIGlzIHByb2hpYml0ZWQuIElmIHlvdSBhcmUgbm90IHRo ZSBpbnRlbmRlZCByZWNpcGllbnQsIHBsZWFzZSBjb250YWN0IHRoZSBzZW5kZXIgYnkgcmVwbHkg ZW1haWwgYW5kIGRlc3Ryb3kgYWxsIGNvcGllcyBvZiB0aGUgb3JpZ2luYWwgbWVzc2FnZS4KCgo --_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D1374A63F79CADMBX01ldschurc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQoNCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9R2VuZXJhdG9y IGNvbnRlbnQ9Ik1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIDEyIChmaWx0ZXJlZCBtZWRpdW0pIj4NCjwhLS1baWYg IW1zb10+DQo8c3R5bGU+DQp2XDoqIHtiZWhhdmlvcjp1cmwoI2RlZmF1bHQjVk1MKTt9DQpvXDoq IHtiZWhhdmlvcjp1cmwoI2RlZmF1bHQjVk1MKTt9DQp3XDoqIHtiZWhhdmlvcjp1cmwoI2RlZmF1 bHQjVk1MKTt9DQouc2hhcGUge2JlaGF2aW9yOnVybCgjZGVmYXVsdCNWTUwpO30NCjwvc3R5bGU+ DQo8IVtlbmRpZl0tLT4NCjxzdHlsZT4NCjwhLS0NCiAvKiBGb250IERlZmluaXRpb25zICovDQog QGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpDYWxpYnJpOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTUgNSAyIDIg MiA0IDMgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6VGFob21hOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0x OjIgMTEgNiA0IDMgNSA0IDQgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2VsdGlj Ow0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDA7fQ0KIC8qIFN0eWxlIERlZmluaXRpb25z ICovDQogcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJnaW46 MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0KcA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3Jp dHk6OTk7DQoJbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87DQoJbWFyZ2luLXJpZ2h0OjBpbjsNCglt c28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tbGVmdDowaW47DQoJZm9udC1zaXpl OjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIiwic2VyaWYiO30NCnNwYW4u ZW1haWxzdHlsZTE4DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1uYW1lOmVtYWlsc3R5bGUxODt9DQpzcGFuLmVtYWls c3R5bGUxODENCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLW5hbWU6ZW1haWxzdHlsZTE4MTsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToi QXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCgljb2xvcjpuYXZ5O30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTIxDQoJ e21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFsLXJlcGx5Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwi c2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RDt9DQouTXNvQ2hwRGVmYXVsdA0KCXttc28tc3R5 bGUtdHlwZTpleHBvcnQtb25seTt9DQpAcGFnZSBTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtzaXplOjguNWluIDExLjBp bjsNCgltYXJnaW46MS4waW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW47fQ0KZGl2LlNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3Bh Z2U6U2VjdGlvbjE7fQ0KLS0+DQo8L3N0eWxlPg0KPCEtLVtpZiBndGUgbXNvIDldPjx4bWw+DQog PG86c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgc3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwveG1sPjwh W2VuZGlmXS0tPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KIDxvOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0IHY6ZXh0 PSJlZGl0Ij4NCiAgPG86aWRtYXAgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQogPC9vOnNoYXBl bGF5b3V0PjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KDQo8Ym9keSBsYW5nPUVOLVVTIGxp bms9IiMwMDAwMDAiIHZsaW5rPSIjMDAwMDAwIj4NCg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz1TZWN0aW9uMT4NCg0K PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz5JIGFtIGN1cmlvdXMg YWJvdXQgQnJhZOKAmXMg4oCcdHJ1ZeKAnSBkZWZpbml0aW9uIG9mIHBhc3QgcGVyZmVjdC7CoCBJ DQpjYW5ub3QgYWdyZWUgdGhhdCBpdCBpcyDigJx0ZW5zZeKAnSBhbmQgaGUgY2Fubm90IGFkbWl0 IHRoYXQgYW55b25lIGtub3dzIGl0cw0KZGVmaW5pdGlvbi7CoCBJIHRoaW5rIEJyYWQgd2FudHMg dGhlIHNlbWFudGljcyBvZiBhIHNlbnRlbmNlIChpbnRlcnByZXRhdGlvbikgdG8NCmNvcnJlc3Bv bmQgb25lLXRvLW9uZSB3aXRoIGl0cyBzeW50YXggKHBhdHRlcm4gYW5kIHN0cnVjdHVyZSBvZiBp dHMgd29yZHMgYW5kDQpsYXJnZXIgdW5pdHMgb2YgdGV4dCkuwqAgWWV0IG5vIGxpbmd1aXN0IGhh cyBiZWVuIHN1Y2Nlc3NmdWwgaW4gZGVtb25zdHJhdGluZyB0aGF0DQpzdWNoIGEgY29ycmVzcG9u ZGVuY2UgZXhpc3RzIGFuZCBubyBsaW5ndWlzdCBoYXMgcHJvcG9zZWQgYSB0aGVvcnkgdGhhdCB0 aGUNCm1ham9yaXR5IGNhbiBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoLsKgIEkgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGF0IGxhY2sgb2YgY29y cmVzcG9uZGVuY2UgaXMgb25lIHJlYXNvbg0Kd2h5IHRoZXJlIGFyZSBzbyBtYW55IHRoZW9yaWVz IG9mIGxhbmd1YWdlIHN0cnVjdHVyZSBvdXQgdGhlcmUuwqAgPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w Pg0KDQo8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCmNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPjxvOnA+Jm5i c3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdm b250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xv cjojMUY0OTdEJz5CcnVjZTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9y bWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwi c2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+ DQoNCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9J2JvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci10b3A6c29saWQgI0I1QzRERiAxLjBw dDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBpbiAwaW4gMGluJz4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxiPjxz cGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNl cmlmIic+RnJvbTo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxzcGFuDQpzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250 LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlDQpUZWFjaGlu ZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgW21haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdIDxi Pk9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiA8L2I+QnJhZA0KSm9obnN0b248YnI+DQo8Yj5TZW50OjwvYj4gRnJpZGF5 LCBNYXkgMjIsIDIwMDkgOTowMCBBTTxicj4NCjxiPlRvOjwvYj4gQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9I SU8uRURVPGJyPg0KPGI+U3ViamVjdDo8L2I+IEhvdyB3ZWxsLWNyYWZ0ZWQgRW5nbGlzaCB3b3Jr czxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCg0KPC9kaXY+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48 bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCg0KPHRhYmxlIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbFRhYmxlIGJvcmRl cj0wIGNlbGxzcGFjaW5nPTAgY2VsbHBhZGRpbmc9MD4NCiA8dHI+DQogIDx0ZCB2YWxpZ249dG9w IHN0eWxlPSdwYWRkaW5nOjBpbiAwaW4gMGluIDBpbic+DQogIDxkaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1z b05vcm1hbD4mcXVvdDtBbGwgYXJ0aXN0cyBxdWl2ZXIgdW5kZXIgdGhlIGxhc2ggb2YgYWR2ZXJz ZQ0KICBjcml0aWNpc20mcXVvdDssIENhdGhlcmluZSBEcmlua2VyIEJvd2VuLiA8bzpwPjwvbzpw PjwvcD4NCiAgPC9kaXY+DQogIDxkaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD4mbmJzcDs8bzpw PjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPC9kaXY+DQogIDxkaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD5TY290 dC48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPC9kaXY+DQogIDxkaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1h bD4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPC9kaXY+DQogIDxkaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1z b05vcm1hbD5Ob3RlIHRoYXQgSSB3cm90ZSB0byB5b3UgPHU+cHJpdmF0ZWx5PC91PiBhbmQgWU9V IHRvb2sgaXQNCiAgcHVibGljLiBJIGhhdmUgYWdyZWVkIHRvIG5vdCBwdXJzdWUgdGhlIHBhc3Qg cGVyZmVjdCBvbiB0aGUgbGlzdCBidXQgSSB3aWxsDQogIHJlcGx5IHRoZSBzYW1lIHdheSB5b3Vy IG1lc3NhZ2UmbmJzcDtjYW1lIHRvIG1lLCBhcyBJIHdhcyZuYnNwO3RhdWdodCBpcw0KICBwb2xp dGUuPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3Jt YWw+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWw+WW91IHdyb3RlIGFuZCBJIGNvcnJlY3RlZCwgJnF1b3Q7PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2Zv bnQtc2l6ZToNCiAgMTAuMHB0Jz5JICg8c3Ryb25nPmhhZCByZWFkPC9zdHJvbmc+KSZuYnNwOzxz dHJvbmc+PHU+cmVhZDwvdT48L3N0cm9uZz4gbW9zdA0KICBvZiB0aGUgY2xhc3NpY3MgKGluIEVu Z2xpc2gpIC0tIGZpY3Rpb24gYW5kIG5vbi1maWN0aW9uIC0tIGJlZm9yZSBoaWdoDQogIHNjaG9v bCZxdW90OywgYW5kIHlvdSBvYmplY3QuPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8L2Rpdj4N CiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8 L2Rpdj4NCiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPlNvIHlvdSB3b3VsZCBwcmVmZXIg dG8gc2F5IHRoYXQgV29ybGQgV2FyIE9uZSA8dT5oYWQ8L3U+IDx1PmJlZW48L3U+DQogIDx1PmZv dWdodDwvdT4gYmVmb3JlIFdvcmxkIFdhciBUd28sIGFuZCZuYnNwO3RoYXQgSSA8dT5oYWQ8L3U+ IDx1PnRob3VnaHQ8L3U+DQogIHR3aWNlIGJlZm9yZSBJIHJlc3BvbmRlZCB0byB5b3VyIG1lc3Nh Z2U/PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3Jt YWw+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOm5hdnknPkhlIChoYWQgYmVlbikgPHU+d2FzPC91 PiZuYnNwO3Rob3JvdWdobHkNCiAgZGlzaWxsdXNpb25lZCBieSB0aGUgYmlnb3RyeSBhbmQgc3R1 cGlkaXR5IG9mIHRoZSBkZWFuIGF0IGEgdGltZSBvbiB0aGUgcGFzdC48L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286 cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+Jm5ic3A7PG86 cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHU+ PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz5BbGw8L3NwYW4+PC91PjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdj b2xvcjpibGFjayc+IHBhc3QgZXZlbnRzIHdlcmUgcHJlY2VkZWQgYnkgb3RoZXIgcGFzdCBldmVu dHMuIFRoZSBwYXN0DQogIHRlbnNlIG9mICd0byBiZScgaXMgJ3dhcycgKHNpbmd1bGFyKSBhbmQg J3dlcmUnIChwbHVyYWwpLCBOT1QgJ2hhZA0KICBiZWVuJy4mbmJzcDs8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286 cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+Jm5ic3A7PG86 cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJp ZiI7DQogIGNvbG9yOm5hdnknPkhlciB0YWtpbmcgb2YgY2xhc3NlcyB3YXMgYSBjb21wbGV0ZWQg YWN0aW9uIGJlZm9yZSBoZXIgcGFzdA0KICB0ZW5zZSBjbGFpbS48L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48 L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48 L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4g c3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7 DQogIGNvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz5TbyBzaGUgPHU+aGFkPC91PiA8dT50YWtlbjwvdT4gQ2ljZXJvIGhl ciBqdW5pb3IgeWVhcg0KICBhbmQmbmJzcDtWaXJnaWwgaGVyIHNlbmlvciB5ZWFyLCByYXRoZXIg dGhhbiAmcXVvdDtTaGUgPHU+dG9vazwvdT4gQ2ljZXJvIGhlcg0KICBqdW5pb3IgeWVhciAuLiZx dW90Oz88L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9yOmJsYWNrJz4mbmJzcDtPbmUgaGFzIHRvDQog IGNvbXBsZXRlIG9uZSdzIGp1bmlvciB5ZWFyIGJlZm9yZSBvbmUgY2FuIGJlIGEgc2VuaW9yLjwv c3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPC9kaXY+DQogIDxkaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05v cm1hbD4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPC9kaXY+DQogIDxkaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNz PU1zb05vcm1hbD5JZiB5b3UgdGhpbmsgdGhhdCdzIGhvdyB0aGUgcGFzdCBwZXJmZWN0IHdvcmtz LCBJIHdvbmRlcg0KICBob3cgeW91IGRlZmluZSBpdC4gR28gYWhlYWQgYW5kIHRyeSBpdC4gSSd2 ZSBpbnZpdGVkIG1hbnkgQVRFR2lhbnMgdG8gZG8gc28NCiAgYW5kIDx1Pm5vdCBhIHNpbmdsZSBv bmUgY2FuIGRvIGl0PC91Pi4gVGhhdCdzIGhvdyBmYXIgYmVoaW5kIHdlICh0aGUNCiAgRW5nbGlz aC1zcGVha2luZyB3b3JsZCkgYXJlIGluIHRlYWNoaW5nIGEgdXNlZnVsIHRlbnNlLCB0aGUgcGFz dCBwZXJmZWN0IChieQ0KICB3aGF0ZXZlciBuYW1lKS48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPC9kaXY+ DQogIDxkaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAg PC9kaXY+DQogIDxkaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD5PbmUgbWFuIHRyaWVkIGl0IGJ5 IHNheWluZywmbmJzcDsmcXVvdDtUaGUgcGFzdCBwZXJmZWN0IGlzDQogICdoYWQnIHBsdXMgdGhl IHBhc3QgcGFydGljaXBsZSZxdW90Oywgd2hpY2ggaXMgbW9yZSB0aGFuIGEgdGFkIHNoeSBvZiB0 aGUNCiAgbWFyaywgcmF0aGVyIGxpa2Ugc2F5aW5nIGEgdHJhaW4gaXMgYSB0aGluZyB3aXRoIHdo ZWVscyAoYXMgYXJlIHJpY2tzaGF3cyBhbmQNCiAgbGF3biBtb3dlcnMpLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9w Pg0KICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9wPg0KICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPi5jaGVlcnMu YnJhZC4yMm1heTA5LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xh c3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPiZuYnNwOzxicj4NCiAgPGJyPg0KICAtLS0gT24gPGI+RnJpLCA1LzIyLzA5 LCBTY290dCA8aT4mbHQ7c2NhdEBjZmwucnIuY29tJmd0OzwvaT48L2I+IHdyb3RlOjxvOnA+PC9v OnA+PC9wPg0KICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgPGJsb2NrcXVvdGUgc3R5bGU9J2JvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRl ci1sZWZ0OnNvbGlkICMxMDEwRkYgMS41cHQ7cGFkZGluZzowaW4gMGluIDBpbiA0LjBwdDsNCiAg bWFyZ2luLWxlZnQ6My43NXB0O21hcmdpbi10b3A6NS4wcHQ7bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTo1LjBwdCc+ DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbToxMi4wcHQnPjxicj4N CiAgRnJvbTogU2NvdHQgJmx0O3NjYXRAY2ZsLnJyLmNvbSZndDs8YnI+DQogIFN1YmplY3Q6IFJF OiBXZWxsLWNyYWZ0ZWQgRW5nbGlzaCB3b3Jrczxicj4NCiAgVG86IGJyYWR2aW5lczJAeWFob28u Y29tLCAmcXVvdDsnQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoDQogIEdyYW1t YXInJnF1b3Q7ICZsdDtBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFUmZ3Q7PGJyPg0KICBEYXRlOiBG cmlkYXksIE1heSAyMiwgMjAwOSwgOTo1NSBBTTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8ZGl2IGlkPXlp djc4Mzg5OTkyMD4NCiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFy Z2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byc+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5 bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29s b3I6bmF2eSc+TXkNCiAgcmVhZGluZyBvZiBjbGFzc2ljcyB3YXMgYSBjb21wbGV0ZWQgYWN0aW9u IGJlZm9yZSBteSBwYXN0IHRlbnNlIGF0dGVuZGFuY2UgYXQNCiAgaGlnaCBzY2hvb2wuJm5ic3A7 IDwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPC9kaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBz dHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8n PjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNh bnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOm5hdnknPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPC9k aXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87 bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAu MHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOm5hdnknPkhlcg0KICB0 YWtpbmcgb2YgY2xhc3NlcyB3YXMgYSBjb21wbGV0ZWQgYWN0aW9uIGJlZm9yZSBoZXIgcGFzdCB0 ZW5zZSBjbGFpbS48L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT4NCiAgPHAg Y2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2lu LWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byc+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1m YW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6bmF2eSc+Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFs dDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvJz48c3Bhbg0KICBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1z aXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjpuYXZ5Jz5P dXINCiAgY29ycmVjdGlvbiBvZiBwYXBlcnMgYSBjb21wbGV0ZWQgYWN0aW9uIGJlZm9yZSBvdXIg cGFzdCByZXR1cm4gb2YgdGhlIHBhcGVycw0KICB0byB0aGUgcHJvZmVzc29ycygg4oCUb3Igb3Vy IGdlZXNlIHdvdWxkIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBjb29rZWQpLjwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAg PHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFy Z2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byc+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6bmF2eSc+Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFuPjxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9w LWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvJz48c3Bhbg0KICBzdHlsZT0nZm9u dC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjpuYXZ5 Jz5NeQ0KICBzZWVpbmcgd2FzIGluIHRoZSBwYXN0OyB0aGUgaW5hY3Rpb24gb2YgdGhlIHN0dWRl bnRzIHdhcyBhIGNvbXBsZXRlZCBwYXN0DQogIChpbilhY3Rpb24gYmVmb3JlIG15IHBhc3Qgc2Vl aW5nIHRvb2sgcGxhY2UuPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3Jt YWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDph dXRvJz48c3Bhbg0KICBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwi LCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjpuYXZ5Jz4mbmJzcDs8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQog IDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1h cmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2Zv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOm5hdnknPkF0IHRoZQ0KICB0aW1l IGluIHRoZSBwYXN0IHdoZW4gdGhlIGxhc3QgbWVldGluZyBvY2N1cnJlZCwgbXkgY29sbGVhZ3Vl IG1vc3QgY2VydGFpbmx5DQogIOKAnHdhcyA8Yj5OT1QgPC9iPmVudGh1c2lhc3RpY+KAnSBvciBo ZSB3b3VsZCBub3QgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIHNlZWtpbmc8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDxw IGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdp bi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOm5hdnknPmFub3RoZXINCiAgcG9zaXRp b24uJm5ic3A7IEhlIGhhZCBiZWVuIHRob3JvdWdobHkgZGlzIGlsbCB1c2lvbmVkIGJ5IHRoZSBi aWdvdHJ5IGFuZA0KICBzdHVwaWRpdHkgb2YgdGhlIGRlYW4gYXQgYSB0aW1lIG9uIHRoZSBwYXN0 LiZuYnNwOyBOb3QgZXZlbiB0aGUgZ3Jvc3Nlc3Qgb2Y8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQog IDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1h cmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2Zv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOm5hdnknPm5lc2NpZW5jZQ0KICBj YW4ganVzdGlmeSB0aGUgaWdub3JhbmNlLyBpbGwgaXRlcmFjeSBzaG93biBpbiB0aGUgc3VnZ2Vz dGVkIGNoYW5nZSB0byB0aGUNCiAgc2VudGVuY2UuJm5ic3A7IElmIHlvdSBrbm93IHRoYXQgbGl0 dGxlIGFib3V0IEVuZ2xpc2gsIHlvdSBhcmU8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDxwIGNs YXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1i b3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOm5hdnknPndhc3RpbmcNCiAgbXkgdGltZSBh bmQgZXZlcnlvbmUgZWxzZeKAmXMgb24gdGhpcyBsaXN0Ljwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4N CiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28t bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byc+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7 Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6bmF2eSc+Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFu PjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJnaW4t dG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvJz48c3Bhbg0KICBzdHlsZT0n Zm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjpu YXZ5Jz5JIGhhdmUNCiAgbW9yZSB0byBkbyB0aGFuIHdhc3RlIG15IHRpbWUgd2l0aCBhIHBhdGVu dGx5IGlsbCBpdGVyYXRlIGNvbW1lbnRlci48L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDxwIGNs YXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1i b3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOm5hdnknPiZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6 YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byc+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6 ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6bmF2eSc+RG8g bm90DQogIGJvdGhlciByZXBseWluZzsgSSBzaGFsbCBub3Qgd2FzdGUgbXkgdmFsdWFibGUgdGlt ZSByZWFkaW5nIHN1Y2gNCiAgYXNpbmluaXRpZXMuJm5ic3A7IDwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv cD4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bztt c28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byc+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4w cHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6bmF2eSc+Jm5ic3A7PC9z cGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJn aW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvJz48c3Bhbg0KICBzdHls ZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xv cjpuYXZ5Jz5JDQogIGRpc2FncmVlIHZlcnkgc3Ryb25nbHkgd2l0aCBzb21lIG9mIHRoZSBwb3N0 ZXJzIGJ1dCBJIHJlc3BlY3QgdGhlaXINCiAgb3BpbmlvbnMuJm5ic3A7IFlvdXIgdXNhZ2Ugb2Yg dGVuc2VzIHdvdWxkIHJhdGUgYW4gRiBpbiBteSBlaWdodGgtZ3JhZGUNCiAgRW5nbGlzaDwvc3Bh bj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2lu LXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byc+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5bGU9 J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6 bmF2eSc+Y2xhc3MgaWYNCiAgSSB3ZXJlIHRlYWNoaW5nIG9uZSBhZ2Fpbi4mbmJzcDsgSW4gbXkg c2V2ZW50aCBncmFkZSBjbGFzcywgSSB3b3VsZCBvbmx5IGZhaWwNCiAgeW91IGFmdGVyIEkgaGFk IHRhdWdodCBzZXF1ZW5jZSBvZiB0ZW5zZXMuJm5ic3A7IEkgc2hvdWxkIHJlbWFyayB0aGF0PC9z cGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJn aW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvJz48c3Bhbg0KICBzdHls ZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJpYWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xv cjpuYXZ5Jz5ub25lIG9mDQogIG15IHNldmVudGgtZ3JhZGUgc3R1ZGVudHMgZmFpbGVkIGEgdGVz dCByZXF1aXJpbmcgdGhlbSB0byB3cml0ZSB1c2luZyBjb3JyZWN0DQogIHNlcXVlbmNlIG9mIHRl bnNlcy4mbmJzcDsgVGhlbiBhZ2FpbiwgdGhleSB3ZXJlIHByaW1hcmlseSB0aGU8L3NwYW4+PG86 cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3At YWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250 LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJBcmlhbCIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOm5hdnkn PmNoaWxkcmVuDQogIG9mIGhvbWVzIHdoZXJlIHRoZSBwYXJlbnRzIHJlYWQgbm8gbmV3c3BhcGVy cyBvciBtYWdhemluZXMuIDwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9y bWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6 YXV0byc+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkFyaWFs Iiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6bmF2eSc+Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0K ICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDph dXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvJz48c3Bhbg0KICBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1p bHk6IkNlbHRpYyIsInNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjpuYXZ5Jz5OLjwvc3Bhbj48c3Bhbg0KICBzdHlsZT0n Y29sb3I6bmF2eSc+IDwvc3Bhbj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNlbHRpYyIsInNl cmlmIjsNCiAgY29sb3I6bmF2eSc+U2NvdHQgQ2F0bGVkZ2UsIFBoRC9TVEQ8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48 L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJn aW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvJz48c3Bhbg0KICBzdHls ZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNlbHRpYyIsInNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjpuYXZ5Jz5Qcm9mZXNzb3IgRW1l cml0dXM8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0n bXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFu DQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2VsdGljIiwic2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOm5hdnknPmhpc3Rv cnkgJmFtcDsgbGFuZ3VhZ2VzPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29O b3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFs dDphdXRvJz48c3Bhbg0KICBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQXJp YWwiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjpuYXZ5Jz4mbmJzcDs8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+ DQogIDxkaXY+DQogIDxkaXYgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIGFsaWduPWNlbnRlciBzdHlsZT0ndGV4 dC1hbGlnbjpjZW50ZXInPg0KICA8aHIgc2l6ZT0yIHdpZHRoPSIxMDAlIiBhbGlnbj1jZW50ZXI+ DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFs dDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvJz48Yj48c3Bhbg0KICBzdHlsZT0nZm9u dC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPkZyb206PC9z cGFuPjwvYj48c3Bhbg0KICBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFo b21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPg0KICBicmFkdmluZXMyQHlhaG9vLmNvbSBbbWFpbHRvOmJyYWR2 aW5lczJAeWFob28uY29tXSA8YnI+DQogIDxiPlNlbnQ6PC9iPiBGcmlkYXksIE1heSAyMiwgMjAw OSA4OjA0IEFNPGJyPg0KICA8Yj5Ubzo8L2I+IFNjb3R0IENhdGxlZGdlPGJyPg0KICA8Yj5TdWJq ZWN0OjwvYj4gV2VsbC1jcmFmdGVkIEVuZ2xpc2ggd29ya3M8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+ DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFs dDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvJz4mbmJzcDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4N CiAgPHRhYmxlIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbFRhYmxlIGJvcmRlcj0wIGNlbGxzcGFjaW5nPTAgY2Vs bHBhZGRpbmc9MD4NCiAgIDx0cj4NCiAgICA8dGQgdmFsaWduPXRvcCBzdHlsZT0ncGFkZGluZzow aW4gMGluIDBpbiAwaW4nPg0KICAgIDxkaXYgaWQ9eWl2Mjk1Nzg5NjY0Pg0KICAgIDxkaXYgaWQ9 eWl2NTExNzg0NzI3Pg0KICAgIDxkaXY+DQogICAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdt c28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6DQogICAgYXV0byc+ SSAoPHN0cm9uZz5oYWQgcmVhZDwvc3Ryb25nPikmbmJzcDs8c3Ryb25nPjx1PnJlYWQ8L3U+PC9z dHJvbmc+IG1vc3QNCiAgICBvZiB0aGUgY2xhc3NpY3MgKGluIEVuZ2xpc2gpIC0tIGZpY3Rpb24g YW5kIG5vbi1maWN0aW9uIC0tIGJlZm9yZSBoaWdoDQogICAgc2Nob29sLjxicj4NCiAgICA8YnI+ DQogICAgTWlzc2lzc2lwcGlhbnMgY291bGQgZ3JhZHVhdGUgd2l0aCBwaXRpZnVsbHkgZmV3IGFj YWRlbWljIGNyZWRpdHM6IGEgdmVyeQ0KICAgIGludGVsbGlnZW50IGZyaWVuZCBjbGFpbWVkIHRo YXQgc2hlICg8c3Ryb25nPmhhZCB0YWtlbjwvc3Ryb25nPikgPHN0cm9uZz48dT50b29rPC91Pjwv c3Ryb25nPg0KICAgIGFsbCAxMCBhY2FkZW1pYyBjbGFzc2VzIHRoYXQgd2VyZSBvZmZlcmVkIGJ5 IGhlciBzY2hvb2wuPGJyPg0KICAgIDxicj4NCiAgICBJdCB3YXMgbGVnYWwgZm9yIHVzIHRvIHNo b3cgb3VyIG1hcmtlZCBhbmQgY29ycmVjdGVkIHRoZW1lcyB0byBlYWNoIG90aGVyDQogICAgdG8g ZW5zdXJlIHRoYXQgd2UgKDxzdHJvbmc+aGFkIGNvcnJlY3RlZDwvc3Ryb25nPikmbmJzcDs8c3Ry b25nPjx1PmNvcnJlY3RlZDwvdT48L3N0cm9uZz4NCiAgICBhbGwgdGhlIGVycm9ycyBiZWZvcmUg d2UgdHVybmVkIHRoZW0gYmFjayB0byB0aGUgcHJvZmVzc29yLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICAg IDwvZGl2Pg0KICAgIDwvZGl2Pg0KICAgIDxkaXY+DQogICAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0 eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6DQogICAg YXV0byc+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogICAgPC9kaXY+DQogICAgPC9kaXY+DQogICAg PGRpdj4NCiAgICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDph dXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDoNCiAgICBhdXRvJz5JIHNhdyBzdHVkZW50cyB3aG8g KDxzdHJvbmc+aGFkIG5ldmVyIHdyaXR0ZW48L3N0cm9uZz4pIDxzdHJvbmc+PHU+bmV2ZXI8L3U+ DQogICAgPHU+d3JvdGU8L3U+PC9zdHJvbmc+IGEgdGhlbWUgdHVybiBpbiB3ZWxsLWNyYWZ0ZWQg cGFwZXJzIGJ5IHRoZSBlbmQgb2YNCiAgICB0aGlyZCBxdWFydGVyLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0K ICAgIDwvZGl2Pg0KICAgIDxkaXY+DQogICAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28t bWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6DQogICAgYXV0byc+PGJy Pg0KICAgIFRoZW4gYWdhaW4sIEkgbWV0IGEgY29sbGVhZ3VlIGF0IFNBTUxBIHdobyAoPHN0cm9u Zz5oYWQgYmVlbjwvc3Ryb25nPikgPHN0cm9uZz48dT53YXM8L3U+PC9zdHJvbmc+DQogICAgZW50 aHVzaWFzdGljIGFib3V0IGhpczxicj4NCiAgICB1cC1jb21pbmcgYXNzaWdubWVudCB0byBlc3Rh Ymxpc2ggYSBGcmVzaG1hbiBFbmdsaXNoIGN1cnJpY3VsdW0gYXQgaGlzIG5ldw0KICAgIHNjaG9v bC48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgICA8ZGl2Pg0KICAgIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1z b05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20t YWx0Og0KICAgIGF1dG8nPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICAgIDwvZGl2Pg0KICAgIDxk aXY+DQogICAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0 bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6DQogICAgYXV0byc+SGUgKDxzdHJvbmc+aGFkIGJlZW4g dG9sZDwvc3Ryb25nPikgPHN0cm9uZz48dT53YXM8L3U+PC9zdHJvbmc+IDxzdHJvbmc+PHU+dG9s ZDwvdT48L3N0cm9uZz4NCiAgICB0aGF0IGhpcyBuZXcgRW5nbGlzaCBjbGFzc2VzIHdlcmUgZWZm b3J0cyB0byBpbXBvc2UgYSBvdXRkYXRlZCBtaWRkbGUtY2xhc3MNCiAgICBXaGl0ZSB3cml0dGVu IGxhbmd1YWdlIHRoYXQgaW5zdWx0ZWQgdGhlIG11bHRpLWN1bHR1cmVkIGJvZHkgYnkgYm90aA0K ICAgIGluZGljYXRpbmcgdGhhdCB0aGVpciBtb2RlcyBvZiBleHByZXNzaW9uIHdlcmUgbm90IGp1 c3QgYXMgdmFsdWFibGUgYXMgaGlzDQogICAgYW5kIGJ5IGhpczxicj4NCiAgICBpbnNpc3RlbmNl IG9uIG1ha2luZyB0aGVtIHdyaXRlIGFuZCBncmFkaW5nIHRoZWlyIHdyaXR0ZW4gd29yaw0KICAg IHByb2R1Y3RzLiZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICAgIDwvZGl2Pg0KICAgIDwv dGQ+DQogICA8L3RyPg0KICA8L3RhYmxlPg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21z by1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvJz4mbmJzcDs8 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPC90ZD4NCiA8L3RyPg0KPC90YWJsZT4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNv Tm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJp Iiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPjxicj4NClRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0 LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0Og0KaHR0cDovL2xpc3Rz ZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgJnF1b3Q7Sm9pbiBv ciBsZWF2ZQ0KdGhlIGxpc3QmcXVvdDsgPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KDQo8cD5WaXNp dCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KDQo8 L2Rpdj4NCg0KCjxESVY+CjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXpl OjcuMHB0Jztmb250LWZhbWlseTonIkhlbHZldGljYSIsIlRhaG9tYSIsIkFyaWFsIiwic2Fucy1z ZXJpZiInPjxmb250IGNvbG9yPSIjNjY2NjY2Ij48YnI+PGJyPiBOT1RJQ0U6IFRoaXMgZW1haWwg bWVzc2FnZSBpcyBmb3IgdGhlIHNvbGUgdXNlIG9mIHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZCByZWNpcGllbnQocykg YW5kIG1heSBjb250YWluIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbCBhbmQgcHJpdmlsZWdlZCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbi4g QW55IHVuYXV0aG9yaXplZCByZXZpZXcsIHVzZSwgZGlzY2xvc3VyZSBvciBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24g aXMgcHJvaGliaXRlZC4gSWYgeW91IGFyZSBub3QgdGhlIGludGVuZGVkIHJlY2lwaWVudCwgcGxl YXNlIGNvbnRhY3QgdGhlIHNlbmRlciBieSByZXBseSBlbWFpbCBhbmQgZGVzdHJveSBhbGwgY29w aWVzIG9mIHRoZSBvcmlnaW5hbCBtZXNzYWdlLjwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+ CjwvRElWPjwvYm9keT4NCg0KPC9odG1sPg0K --_000_C62F596A20AB834B86375CE75059D1374A63F79CADMBX01ldschurc_-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:20:56 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Jessica Horstmann <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: How well-crafted English works In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e644cefa9aa4cf046a81cedf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Scott and Brad, I admit that I am young and know very little - but I'd like to chime in for the fun of it. I agree with you, Brad, that going public was perhaps a bit much, but I'm not sure if I agree with your position on the past perfect. It seems to me that the past perfect is something that depends largely on context at a discourse level and is difficult to break down into isolated sentences. For example *I had read most of the classics (in English)--fiction and non-fiction-- before high school. I attended the then top-rated public high school in FL. In most classes, papers were expected to be well-phrased as well as content appropriate.* Here, the past perfect seems appropriate given the context of more events (high school, college) in the past following this accomplishment. If he said the first sentence alone, I'd prefer the simple past. When I read Scott's email, all of his uses of the past perfect seemed appropriate to me. Thoughts? Jessica Horstmann On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > "All artists quiver under the lash of adverse criticism", Catherine Drinker > Bowen. > > Scott. > > Note that I wrote to you *privately* and YOU took it public. I have agreed > to not pursue the past perfect on the list but I will reply the same way > your message came to me, as I was taught is polite. > > You wrote and I corrected, "I (*had read*) *read* most of the classics (in > English) -- fiction and non-fiction -- before high school", and you object. > > So you would prefer to say that World War One *had* *been* *fought* before > World War Two, and that I *had* *thought* twice before I responded to your > message? > > He (had been) *was* thoroughly disillusioned by the bigotry and stupidity > of the dean at a time on the past. > > *All* past events were preceded by other past events. The past tense of > 'to be' is 'was' (singular) and 'were' (plural), NOT 'had been'. > > Her taking of classes was a completed action before her past tense claim. > > So she *had* *taken* Cicero her junior year and Virgil her senior year, > rather than "She *took* Cicero her junior year .."? One has to complete > one's junior year before one can be a senior. > > If you think that's how the past perfect works, I wonder how you define it. > Go ahead and try it. I've invited many ATEGians to do so and *not a single > one can do it*. That's how far behind we (the English-speaking world) are > in teaching a useful tense, the past perfect (by whatever name). > > One man tried it by saying, "The past perfect is 'had' plus the past > participle", which is more than a tad shy of the mark, rather like saying a > train is a thing with wheels (as are rickshaws and lawn mowers). > > .cheers.brad.22may09. > > > --- On *Fri, 5/22/09, Scott <[log in to unmask]>* wrote: > > > From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: RE: Well-crafted English works > To: [log in to unmask], "'Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar'" > <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 9:55 AM > > My reading of classics was a completed action before my past tense > attendance at high school. > > > > Her taking of classes was a completed action before her past tense claim. > > > > Our correction of papers a completed action before our past return of the > papers to the professors( —or our geese would have been cooked). > > > > My seeing was in the past; the inaction of the students was a completed > past (in)action before my past seeing took place. > > > > At the time in the past when the last meeting occurred, my colleague most > certainly “was *NOT *enthusiastic” or he would not have been seeking > > another position. He had been thoroughly dis ill usioned by the bigotry > and stupidity of the dean at a time on the past. Not even the grossest of > > nescience can justify the ignorance/ ill iteracy shown in the suggested > change to the sentence. If you know that little about English, you are > > wasting my time and everyone else’s on this list. > > > > I have more to do than waste my time with a patently ill iterate commenter. > > > > Do not bother replying; I shall not waste my valuable time reading such > asininities. > > > > I disagree very strongly with some of the posters but I respect their > opinions. Your usage of tenses would rate an F in my eighth-grade English > > class if I were teaching one again. In my seventh grade class, I would > only fail you after I had taught sequence of tenses. I should remark that > > none of my seventh-grade students failed a test requiring them to write > using correct sequence of tenses. Then again, they were primarily the > > children of homes where the parents read no newspapers or magazines. > > > > N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD > > Professor Emeritus > > history & languages > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > *Sent:* Friday, May 22, 2009 8:04 AM > *To:* Scott Catledge > *Subject:* Well-crafted English works > > > > I (*had read*) *read* most of the classics (in English) -- fiction and > non-fiction -- before high school. > > Mississippians could graduate with pitifully few academic credits: a very > intelligent friend claimed that she (*had taken*) *took* all 10 academic > classes that were offered by her school. > > It was legal for us to show our marked and corrected themes to each other > to ensure that we (*had corrected*) *corrected* all the errors before we > turned them back to the professor. > > > > I saw students who (*had never written*) *never wrote* a theme turn in > well-crafted papers by the end of third quarter. > > > Then again, I met a colleague at SAMLA who (*had been*) *was* enthusiastic > about his > up-coming assignment to establish a Freshman English curriculum at his new > school. > > > > He (*had been told*) *was* *told* that his new English classes were > efforts to impose a outdated middle-class White written language that > insulted the multi-cultured body by both indicating that their modes of > expression were not just as valuable as his and by his > insistence on making them write and grading their written work products. > > > > > 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/ --0016e644cefa9aa4cf046a81cedf Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Scott and Brad,

I admit that I am young and know very little - but I'd like to chime in for the fun of it. I agree with you, Brad, that going public was perhaps a bit much, but I'm not sure if I agree with your position on the past perfect. It seems to me that the past perfect is something that depends largely on context at a discourse level and is difficult to break down into isolated sentences. For example

I had read most of the classics (in English)--fiction and non-fiction--
before high school. I attended the then top-rated public high school in
FL. In most classes, papers were expected to be well-phrased as well as
content appropriate.

Here, the past perfect seems appropriate given the context of more events (high school, college) in the past following this accomplishment. If he said the first sentence alone, I'd prefer the simple past.

When I read Scott's email, all of his uses of the past perfect seemed appropriate to me.

Thoughts?

Jessica Horstmann

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

"All artists quiver under the lash of adverse criticism", Catherine Drinker Bowen.

Scott.

Note that I wrote to you privately and YOU took it public. I have agreed to not pursue the past perfect on the list but I will reply the same way your message came to me, as I was taught is polite.

You wrote and I corrected, "I (had read) read most of the classics (in English) -- fiction and non-fiction -- before high school", and you object.

So you would prefer to say that World War One had been fought before World War Two, and that I had thought twice before I responded to your message?

He (had been) was thoroughly disillusioned by the bigotry and stupidity of the dean at a time on the past.

All past events were preceded by other past events. The past tense of 'to be' is 'was' (singular) and 'were' (plural), NOT 'had been'.

Her taking of classes was a completed action before her past tense claim.

So she had taken Cicero her junior year and Virgil her senior year, rather than "She took Cicero her junior year .."? One has to complete one's junior year before one can be a senior.

If you think that's how the past perfect works, I wonder how you define it. Go ahead and try it. I've invited many ATEGians to do so and not a single one can do it. That's how far behind we (the English-speaking world) are in teaching a useful tense, the past perfect (by whatever name).

One man tried it by saying, "The past perfect is 'had' plus the past participle", which is more than a tad shy of the mark, rather like saying a train is a thing with wheels (as are rickshaws and lawn mowers).

.cheers.brad.22may09.

--- On Fri, 5/22/09, Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: Well-crafted English works
To: [log in to unmask], "'Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar'" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 9:55 AM

My reading of classics was a completed action before my past tense attendance at high school.

Her taking of classes was a completed action before her past tense claim.

Our correction of papers a completed action before our past return of the papers to the professors( —or our geese would have been cooked).

My seeing was in the past; the inaction of the students was a completed past (in)action before my past seeing took place.

At the time in the past when the last meeting occurred, my colleague most certainly “was NOT enthusiastic” or he would not have been seeking
another position. He had been thoroughly dis ill usioned by the bigotry and stupidity of the dean at a time on the past. Not even the grossest of
nescience can justify the ignorance/ ill iteracy shown in the suggested change to the sentence. If you know that little about English, you are
wasting my time and everyone else’s on this list.

I have more to do than waste my time with a patently ill iterate commenter.

Do not bother replying; I shall not waste my valuable time reading such asininities.

I disagree very strongly with some of the posters but I respect their opinions. Your usage of tenses would rate an F in my eighth-grade English
class if I were teaching one again. In my seventh grade class, I would only fail you after I had taught sequence of tenses. I should remark that
none of my seventh-grade students failed a test requiring them to write using correct sequence of tenses. Then again, they were primarily the
children of homes where the parents read no newspapers or magazines.

N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD

Professor Emeritus
history & languages

From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:04 AM
To: Scott Catledge
Subject: Well-crafted English works

I (had read) read most of the classics (in English) -- fiction and non-fiction -- before high school.

Mississippians could graduate with pitifully few academic credits: a very intelligent friend claimed that she (had taken) took all 10 academic classes that were offered by her school.

It was legal for us to show our marked and corrected themes to each other to ensure that we (had corrected) corrected all the errors before we turned them back to the professor.

I saw students who (had never written) never wrote a theme turn in well-crafted papers by the end of third quarter.

Then again, I met a colleague at SAMLA who (had been) was enthusiastic about his
up-coming assignment to establish a Freshman English curriculum at his new school.

He (had been told) was told that his new English classes were efforts to impose a outdated middle-class White written language that insulted the multi-cultured body by both indicating that their modes of expression were not just as valuable as his and by his
insistence on making them write and grading their written work products.

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/ --0016e644cefa9aa4cf046a81cedf-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:23:02 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Jessica Horstmann <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: How well-crafted English works In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --0016e645ba421c2603046a81d649 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Or, *if he had said the first sentence alone, I would prefer/have preferred the simple past? . . . *:) On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Jessica Horstmann < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Scott and Brad, > > I admit that I am young and know very little - but I'd like to chime in for > the fun of it. I agree with you, Brad, that going public was perhaps a bit > much, but I'm not sure if I agree with your position on the past perfect. It > seems to me that the past perfect is something that depends largely on > context at a discourse level and is difficult to break down into isolated > sentences. For example > > *I had read most of the classics (in English)--fiction and non-fiction-- > before high school. I attended the then top-rated public high school in > FL. In most classes, papers were expected to be well-phrased as well as > content appropriate.* > > Here, the past perfect seems appropriate given the context of more events > (high school, college) in the past following this accomplishment. If he said > the first sentence alone, I'd prefer the simple past. > > When I read Scott's email, all of his uses of the past perfect seemed > appropriate to me. > > Thoughts? > > Jessica Horstmann > > > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> "All artists quiver under the lash of adverse criticism", Catherine >> Drinker Bowen. >> >> Scott. >> >> Note that I wrote to you *privately* and YOU took it public. I have >> agreed to not pursue the past perfect on the list but I will reply the same >> way your message came to me, as I was taught is polite. >> >> You wrote and I corrected, "I (*had read*) *read* most of the classics >> (in English) -- fiction and non-fiction -- before high school", and you >> object. >> >> So you would prefer to say that World War One *had* *been* *fought*before World War Two, and that I >> *had* *thought* twice before I responded to your message? >> >> He (had been) *was* thoroughly disillusioned by the bigotry and stupidity >> of the dean at a time on the past. >> >> *All* past events were preceded by other past events. The past tense of >> 'to be' is 'was' (singular) and 'were' (plural), NOT 'had been'. >> >> Her taking of classes was a completed action before her past tense claim. >> >> So she *had* *taken* Cicero her junior year and Virgil her senior year, >> rather than "She *took* Cicero her junior year .."? One has to complete >> one's junior year before one can be a senior. >> >> If you think that's how the past perfect works, I wonder how you define >> it. Go ahead and try it. I've invited many ATEGians to do so and *not a >> single one can do it*. That's how far behind we (the English-speaking >> world) are in teaching a useful tense, the past perfect (by whatever name). >> >> One man tried it by saying, "The past perfect is 'had' plus the past >> participle", which is more than a tad shy of the mark, rather like saying a >> train is a thing with wheels (as are rickshaws and lawn mowers). >> >> .cheers.brad.22may09. >> >> >> --- On *Fri, 5/22/09, Scott <[log in to unmask]>* wrote: >> >> >> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> >> Subject: RE: Well-crafted English works >> To: [log in to unmask], "'Assembly for the Teaching of English >> Grammar'" <[log in to unmask]> >> Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 9:55 AM >> >> My reading of classics was a completed action before my past tense >> attendance at high school. >> >> >> >> Her taking of classes was a completed action before her past tense claim. >> >> >> >> Our correction of papers a completed action before our past return of the >> papers to the professors( —or our geese would have been cooked). >> >> >> >> My seeing was in the past; the inaction of the students was a completed >> past (in)action before my past seeing took place. >> >> >> >> At the time in the past when the last meeting occurred, my colleague most >> certainly “was *NOT *enthusiastic” or he would not have been seeking >> >> another position. He had been thoroughly dis ill usioned by the bigotry >> and stupidity of the dean at a time on the past. Not even the grossest of >> >> nescience can justify the ignorance/ ill iteracy shown in the suggested >> change to the sentence. If you know that little about English, you are >> >> wasting my time and everyone else’s on this list. >> >> >> >> I have more to do than waste my time with a patently ill iterate >> commenter. >> >> >> >> Do not bother replying; I shall not waste my valuable time reading such >> asininities. >> >> >> >> I disagree very strongly with some of the posters but I respect their >> opinions. Your usage of tenses would rate an F in my eighth-grade English >> >> class if I were teaching one again. In my seventh grade class, I would >> only fail you after I had taught sequence of tenses. I should remark that >> >> none of my seventh-grade students failed a test requiring them to write >> using correct sequence of tenses. Then again, they were primarily the >> >> children of homes where the parents read no newspapers or magazines. >> >> >> >> N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD >> >> Professor Emeritus >> >> history & languages >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >> *Sent:* Friday, May 22, 2009 8:04 AM >> *To:* Scott Catledge >> *Subject:* Well-crafted English works >> >> >> >> I (*had read*) *read* most of the classics (in English) -- fiction and >> non-fiction -- before high school. >> >> Mississippians could graduate with pitifully few academic credits: a very >> intelligent friend claimed that she (*had taken*) *took* all 10 academic >> classes that were offered by her school. >> >> It was legal for us to show our marked and corrected themes to each other >> to ensure that we (*had corrected*) *corrected* all the errors before we >> turned them back to the professor. >> >> >> >> I saw students who (*had never written*) *never wrote* a theme turn in >> well-crafted papers by the end of third quarter. >> >> >> Then again, I met a colleague at SAMLA who (*had been*) *was*enthusiastic about his >> up-coming assignment to establish a Freshman English curriculum at his new >> school. >> >> >> >> He (*had been told*) *was* *told* that his new English classes were >> efforts to impose a outdated middle-class White written language that >> insulted the multi-cultured body by both indicating that their modes of >> expression were not just as valuable as his and by his >> insistence on making them write and grading their written work products. >> >> >> >> >> 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/ --0016e645ba421c2603046a81d649 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Or, if he had said the first sentence alone, I would prefer/have preferred the simple past? . . . :)

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Jessica Horstmann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Scott and Brad,

I admit that I am young and know very little - but I'd like to chime in for the fun of it. I agree with you, Brad, that going public was perhaps a bit much, but I'm not sure if I agree with your position on the past perfect. It seems to me that the past perfect is something that depends largely on context at a discourse level and is difficult to break down into isolated sentences. For example

I had read most of the classics (in English)--fiction and non-fiction--
before high school. I attended the then top-rated public high school in
FL. In most classes, papers were expected to be well-phrased as well as
content appropriate.

Here, the past perfect seems appropriate given the context of more events (high school, college) in the past following this accomplishment. If he said the first sentence alone, I'd prefer the simple past.

When I read Scott's email, all of his uses of the past perfect seemed appropriate to me.

Thoughts?

Jessica Horstmann

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

"All artists quiver under the lash of adverse criticism", Catherine Drinker Bowen.

Scott.

Note that I wrote to you privately and YOU took it public. I have agreed to not pursue the past perfect on the list but I will reply the same way your message came to me, as I was taught is polite.

You wrote and I corrected, "I (had read) read most of the classics (in English) -- fiction and non-fiction -- before high school", and you object.

So you would prefer to say that World War One had been fought before World War Two, and that I had thought twice before I responded to your message?

He (had been) was thoroughly disillusioned by the bigotry and stupidity of the dean at a time on the past.

All past events were preceded by other past events. The past tense of 'to be' is 'was' (singular) and 'were' (plural), NOT 'had been'.

Her taking of classes was a completed action before her past tense claim.

So she had taken Cicero her junior year and Virgil her senior year, rather than "She took Cicero her junior year .."? One has to complete one's junior year before one can be a senior.

If you think that's how the past perfect works, I wonder how you define it. Go ahead and try it. I've invited many ATEGians to do so and not a single one can do it. That's how far behind we (the English-speaking world) are in teaching a useful tense, the past perfect (by whatever name).

One man tried it by saying, "The past perfect is 'had' plus the past participle", which is more than a tad shy of the mark, rather like saying a train is a thing with wheels (as are rickshaws and lawn mowers).

.cheers.brad.22may09.

--- On Fri, 5/22/09, Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: Well-crafted English works
To: [log in to unmask], "'Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar'" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 9:55 AM

My reading of classics was a completed action before my past tense attendance at high school.

Her taking of classes was a completed action before her past tense claim.

Our correction of papers a completed action before our past return of the papers to the professors( —or our geese would have been cooked).

My seeing was in the past; the inaction of the students was a completed past (in)action before my past seeing took place.

At the time in the past when the last meeting occurred, my colleague most certainly “was NOT enthusiastic” or he would not have been seeking
another position. He had been thoroughly dis ill usioned by the bigotry and stupidity of the dean at a time on the past. Not even the grossest of
nescience can justify the ignorance/ ill iteracy shown in the suggested change to the sentence. If you know that little about English, you are
wasting my time and everyone else’s on this list.

I have more to do than waste my time with a patently ill iterate commenter.

Do not bother replying; I shall not waste my valuable time reading such asininities.

I disagree very strongly with some of the posters but I respect their opinions. Your usage of tenses would rate an F in my eighth-grade English
class if I were teaching one again. In my seventh grade class, I would only fail you after I had taught sequence of tenses. I should remark that
none of my seventh-grade students failed a test requiring them to write using correct sequence of tenses. Then again, they were primarily the
children of homes where the parents read no newspapers or magazines.

N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD

Professor Emeritus
history & languages

From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:04 AM
To: Scott Catledge
Subject: Well-crafted English works

I (had read) read most of the classics (in English) -- fiction and non-fiction -- before high school.

Mississippians could graduate with pitifully few academic credits: a very intelligent friend claimed that she (had taken) took all 10 academic classes that were offered by her school.

It was legal for us to show our marked and corrected themes to each other to ensure that we (had corrected) corrected all the errors before we turned them back to the professor.

I saw students who (had never written) never wrote a theme turn in well-crafted papers by the end of third quarter.

Then again, I met a colleague at SAMLA who (had been) was enthusiastic about his
up-coming assignment to establish a Freshman English curriculum at his new school.

He (had been told) was told that his new English classes were efforts to impose a outdated middle-class White written language that insulted the multi-cultured body by both indicating that their modes of expression were not just as valuable as his and by his
insistence on making them write and grading their written work products.

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/ --0016e645ba421c2603046a81d649-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 12:05:32 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Jean Waldman <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Susan, This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? Jean Waldman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first had boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly believe the varying sentence starts made it better. That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't force students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have other concerns as well. Susan On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > Susan, > I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't mean to > be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence openings is > not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and > thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence > openings is not based on close observation of how language works in > effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are > irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the > effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a > distraction from more relevant choices. > Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already have it in > an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow woman". > It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of > narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence openings are > quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base the > discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal > preferences. > > Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) > > My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun rising up > through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds came to > the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the > alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear > the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled > and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him beside > me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned the > sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the sun was > above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, sleeping on > the white river sand. > I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had come the > night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by > lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and > the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—maybe it > was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the > horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look beyond the > pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could > not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river that > moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. > The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed the > sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to follow, > and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the river. I > slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked > north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in > footprints over footprints. > “Wake up.” > He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his eyes still > closed. I knelt down to touch him. > “I’m leaving.” > He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, remember?” > He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. > “Where?” > “To my place.” > “And will I come back?” > He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him behind > me > and smelling the willows. > “Yellow woman,” he said. > I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. > He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face in the > river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had come.” > I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to remember > the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember > his warmth around me. > > Craig > > Craig > I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you >> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my students as >> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I have >> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such strong >> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have not >> thought this through. >> >> Susan >> >> >> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >> >>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more >>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a >>>> better essay, >>> >>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is >>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, >>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>> >>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the >>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying >>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>> >>> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 18:47:11 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <047CF09B1FD443FBA1AFF8B1DF437734@JWaldman> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-20-588343279 --Apple-Mail-20-588343279 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more outrage, tar, and feathers! Sentence Beginnings Vary the beginnings of your sentences. Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your sentences. WORDS Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to fight back. An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came from the heights around us. A connecting word: For students who have just survived the brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school, find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as important as a healthy mind. A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals— these affect the health of plants. PHRASES A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one thing, it can be ruthless. A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this existence. An infinitive: To be really successful, you will have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program is essential. A participle: Looking out of the window high over the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded by fields. An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the attack. CLAUSES An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I think it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death that if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to show up again. An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group of animal lovers. A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to ask a geologist. On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: > Susan, > This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students > HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you > just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. > > What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? > > Jean Waldman > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" > <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM > Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions > > > Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to > evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first had > boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted > the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't > make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly > believe the varying sentence starts made it better. > > That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. > > Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their > sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? > It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't force > students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't > lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have > other concerns as well. > > Susan > > On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> Susan, >> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't >> mean to >> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence openings is >> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and >> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence >> openings is not based on close observation of how language works in >> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are >> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the >> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a >> distraction from more relevant choices. >> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already >> have it in >> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow woman". >> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of >> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence >> openings are >> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base the >> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal >> preferences. >> >> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >> >> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun >> rising up >> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds >> came to >> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the >> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear >> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled >> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him beside >> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned the >> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the sun was >> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, >> sleeping on >> the white river sand. >> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had >> come the >> night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by >> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and >> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—maybe it >> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the >> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look beyond the >> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could >> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river that >> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed >> the >> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to follow, >> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the >> river. I >> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked >> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >> footprints over footprints. >> “Wake up.” >> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his >> eyes still >> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >> “I’m leaving.” >> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, >> remember?” >> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >> “Where?” >> “To my place.” >> “And will I come back?” >> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him >> behind me >> and smelling the willows. >> “Yellow woman,” he said. >> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face >> in the >> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had come.” >> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to >> remember >> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember >> his warmth around me. >> >> Craig >> >> Craig >> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you >>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my students as >>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I have >>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such >>> strong >>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have not >>> thought this through. >>> >>> Susan >>> >>> >>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>> >>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more >>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a >>>>> better essay, >>>> >>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is >>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, >>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>> >>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the >>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying >>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>> >>>> 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/ --Apple-Mail-20-588343279 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more outrage, tar, and feathers!

Sentence Beginnings
Vary the beginnings of your sentences.

Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your sentences.



WORDS

Two adjectives:               Angry and proud, Alice resolved to fight back.

An adverb:                     Suddenly a hissing and clattering came from the heights around us.

A connecting word:          For students who have just survived the brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school, find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers.

An interrupting adverb:     A healthy body, however, is just as important as a healthy mind.

A series of words:            Light, water, temperature, minerals—these affect the health of plants.

PHRASES

A connecting phrase:        If the Soviet care and feeding of athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one thing, it can be ruthless.

A prepositional phrase:     Out of necessity they stitched all of their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this existence.

An infinitive:                 To be really successful, you will have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer.

A gerund:                       Maintaining a daily exercise program is essential.

A participle:                   Looking out of the window high over the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded by fields.

An appositive:               A place of refuge, the Mission provides food and shelter for Springfield's homeless.

An absolute:                   His fur bristling, the cat went on the attack.

CLAUSES

An adverbial clause:         When you first start writing—and I think it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death that if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to show up again.

An adjective clause:         The freshman, who was not a joiner of organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group of animal lovers.

A noun clause:               Why earthquakes occur is a questions to ask a geologist.

On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote:

Susan,
This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it.

What method do you use to teach the different possible variations?

Jean Waldman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to
evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first had
boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted
the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't
make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly
believe the varying sentence starts made it better.

That struck me as arrogantly dismissive.

Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their
sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence?
It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't force
students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't
lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have
other concerns as well.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't mean to
be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence openings is
not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and
thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence
openings is not based on close observation of how language works in
effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are
irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the
effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a
distraction from more relevant choices.
   Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already have it in
an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow woman".
It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of
narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence openings are
quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base the
discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal
preferences.

Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko)

My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun rising up
through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds came to
the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the
alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear
the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled
and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him beside
me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned the
sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the sun was
above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, sleeping on
the white river sand.
   I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had come the
night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by
lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and
the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—maybe it
was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the
horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look beyond the
pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could
not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river that
moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night.
The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed the
sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to follow,
and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the river. I
slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked
north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in
footprints over footprints.
“Wake up.”
He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his eyes still
closed. I knelt down to touch him.
“I’m leaving.”
He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, remember?”
He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun.
“Where?”
“To my place.”
“And will I come back?”
   He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him behind me
and smelling the willows.
“Yellow woman,” he said.
I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked.
He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face in the
river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had come.”
   I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to remember
the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember
his warmth around me.

Craig

Craig
I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you

really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my students as
a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I have
seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such strong
evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have not
thought this through.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:

On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more
flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a
better essay,

Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is
worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but,
yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the
choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying
sentence starts is not a panacea.

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/ --Apple-Mail-20-588343279-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 10:56:53 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Susan, I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind. I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never intended to be personal. That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says, first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the highest about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, then students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring. I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical Grammar" as a more linguistically sound source of advice. But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a teacher. As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded, effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures on my part to do that. Craig Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. > I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing > Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word > in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more > outrage, tar, and feathers! > > Sentence Beginnings > Vary the beginnings of your sentences. > > > Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far > more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But > overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous > writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your > sentences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WORDS > > > > > > Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to > fight back. > > > An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came > from the heights around us. > > > > A connecting word: For students who have just survived the > brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all > too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school, > find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. > > > > An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as > important as a healthy mind. > > > > A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals— > these affect the health of plants. > > PHRASES > > > > > > > A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of > athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one > thing, it can be ruthless. > > > > A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of > their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this > existence. > > > > An infinitive: To be really successful, you will > have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. > > > A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program > is essential. > > > A participle: Looking out of the window high over > the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse > surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded > by fields. > > > An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides > food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. > > > An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the > attack. > > CLAUSES > > > > > > > An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I think > it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death that > if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to > show up again. > > > An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of > organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group > of animal lovers. > > > > A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to > ask a geologist. > > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: > >> Susan, >> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you >> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. >> >> What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? >> >> Jean Waldman >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >> <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM >> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >> >> >> Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to >> evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first had >> boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted >> the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't >> make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly >> believe the varying sentence starts made it better. >> >> That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. >> >> Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their >> sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? >> It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't force >> students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't >> lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have >> other concerns as well. >> >> Susan >> >> On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >>> Susan, >>> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't >>> mean to >>> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence openings is >>> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and >>> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence >>> openings is not based on close observation of how language works in >>> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are >>> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the >>> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a >>> distraction from more relevant choices. >>> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already >>> have it in >>> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow woman". >>> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of >>> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence >>> openings are >>> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base the >>> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal >>> preferences. >>> >>> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >>> >>> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun >>> rising up >>> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds >>> came to >>> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the >>> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear >>> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled >>> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him beside >>> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned the >>> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the sun was >>> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, >>> sleeping on >>> the white river sand. >>> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had >>> come the >>> night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by >>> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and >>> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—maybe it >>> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the >>> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look beyond the >>> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could >>> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river that >>> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >>> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed >>> the >>> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to follow, >>> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the >>> river. I >>> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked >>> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >>> footprints over footprints. >>> “Wake up.” >>> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his >>> eyes still >>> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >>> “I’m leaving.” >>> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, >>> remember?” >>> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >>> “Where?” >>> “To my place.” >>> “And will I come back?” >>> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him >>> behind me >>> and smelling the willows. >>> “Yellow woman,” he said. >>> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >>> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face >>> in the >>> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had come.” >>> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to >>> remember >>> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember >>> his warmth around me. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> Craig >>> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you >>>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my students as >>>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I have >>>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such >>>> strong >>>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have not >>>> thought this through. >>>> >>>> Susan >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>>> >>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more >>>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a >>>>>> better essay, >>>>> >>>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is >>>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, >>>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>>> >>>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the >>>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying >>>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>>> >>>>> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 01:17:57 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: ATEG Digest - 22 May 2009 to 24 May 2009 (#2009-120) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit One of the Ten Commandants of Formal English: "And thou should not start sentences with a conjunction." N. Scott Catledge -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 12:00 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: ATEG Digest - 22 May 2009 to 24 May 2009 (#2009-120) There is 1 message totalling 367 lines in this issue. Topics of the day: 1. Sentences beginning with conjunctions *********************************************************** 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/ ========================================================================Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 08:40:34 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am not enjoying myself. Susan On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > Susan, > I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature > literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be > constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from > perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession > as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we > are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to > the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep > from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of > conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do > with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We > simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind. > I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never > intended to be personal. > That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the > "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says, > first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the > time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The > studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional > writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of > about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the > highest > about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, > then > students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I > would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring. > I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical > Grammar" as a > more linguistically sound source of advice. > But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if > anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a > teacher. > As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded, > effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each > other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures > on my > part to do that. > > Craig > > > Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. >> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing >> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word >> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >> outrage, tar, and feathers! >> >> Sentence Beginnings >> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >> >> >> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far >> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >> sentences. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> WORDS >> >> >> >> >> >> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to >> fight back. >> >> >> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came >> from the heights around us. >> >> >> >> A connecting word: For students who have just survived the >> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all >> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school, >> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >> >> >> >> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >> important as a healthy mind. >> >> >> >> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals— >> these affect the health of plants. >> >> PHRASES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one >> thing, it can be ruthless. >> >> >> >> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of >> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >> existence. >> >> >> >> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will >> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. >> >> >> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program >> is essential. >> >> >> A participle: Looking out of the window high over >> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded >> by fields. >> >> >> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides >> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >> >> >> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the >> attack. >> >> CLAUSES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I think >> it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death that >> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to >> show up again. >> >> >> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of >> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group >> of animal lovers. >> >> >> >> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to >> ask a geologist. >> >> >> >> >> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >> >>> Susan, >>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you >>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. >>> >>> What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? >>> >>> Jean Waldman >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >>> <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM >>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>> >>> >>> Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to >>> evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first >>> had >>> boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted >>> the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't >>> make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly >>> believe the varying sentence starts made it better. >>> >>> That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. >>> >>> Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their >>> sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? >>> It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't >>> force >>> students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't >>> lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have >>> other concerns as well. >>> >>> Susan >>> >>> On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>> >>>> Susan, >>>> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't >>>> mean to >>>> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence >>>> openings is >>>> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and >>>> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence >>>> openings is not based on close observation of how language works in >>>> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are >>>> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the >>>> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a >>>> distraction from more relevant choices. >>>> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already >>>> have it in >>>> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow >>>> woman". >>>> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of >>>> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence >>>> openings are >>>> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base >>>> the >>>> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal >>>> preferences. >>>> >>>> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >>>> >>>> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun >>>> rising up >>>> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds >>>> came to >>>> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the >>>> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear >>>> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled >>>> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him >>>> beside >>>> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned >>>> the >>>> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the >>>> sun was >>>> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, >>>> sleeping on >>>> the white river sand. >>>> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had >>>> come the >>>> night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by >>>> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and >>>> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up— >>>> maybe it >>>> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the >>>> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look >>>> beyond the >>>> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could >>>> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river >>>> that >>>> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >>>> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed >>>> the >>>> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to >>>> follow, >>>> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the >>>> river. I >>>> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked >>>> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >>>> footprints over footprints. >>>> “Wake up.” >>>> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his >>>> eyes still >>>> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >>>> “I’m leaving.” >>>> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, >>>> remember?” >>>> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >>>> “Where?” >>>> “To my place.” >>>> “And will I come back?” >>>> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him >>>> behind me >>>> and smelling the willows. >>>> “Yellow woman,” he said. >>>> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >>>> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face >>>> in the >>>> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had >>>> come.” >>>> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to >>>> remember >>>> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember >>>> his warmth around me. >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you >>>>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my >>>>> students as >>>>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I >>>>> have >>>>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such >>>>> strong >>>>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you >>>>> have not >>>>> thought this through. >>>>> >>>>> Susan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more >>>>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a >>>>>>> better essay, >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is >>>>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, >>>>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>>>> >>>>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to >>>>>> the >>>>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying >>>>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 08:47:13 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Susan, I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too quickly. The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for continuity, though, not for variation. I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is another. Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple adverbials. As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to build coherence into texts. I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching practices, not a personal criticism. Craig Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe > it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to > start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up > sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I > was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) > > I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you > were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am > not enjoying myself. > > Susan > > > On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> Susan, >> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature >> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be >> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from >> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession >> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we >> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to >> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep >> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do >> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We >> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind. >> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never >> intended to be personal. >> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the >> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says, >> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the >> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The >> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional >> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of >> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >> highest >> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, >> then >> students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I >> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring. >> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >> Grammar" as a >> more linguistically sound source of advice. >> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if >> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >> teacher. >> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded, >> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each >> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures >> on my >> part to do that. >> >> Craig >> >> >> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. >>> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing >>> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word >>> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >>> outrage, tar, and feathers! >>> >>> Sentence Beginnings >>> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >>> >>> >>> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far >>> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >>> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >>> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >>> sentences. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> WORDS >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to >>> fight back. >>> >>> >>> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came >>> from the heights around us. >>> >>> >>> >>> A connecting word: For students who have just survived the >>> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all >>> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school, >>> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >>> >>> >>> >>> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >>> important as a healthy mind. >>> >>> >>> >>> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals— >>> these affect the health of plants. >>> >>> PHRASES >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >>> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one >>> thing, it can be ruthless. >>> >>> >>> >>> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of >>> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >>> existence. >>> >>> >>> >>> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will >>> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. >>> >>> >>> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program >>> is essential. >>> >>> >>> A participle: Looking out of the window high over >>> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >>> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded >>> by fields. >>> >>> >>> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides >>> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >>> >>> >>> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the >>> attack. >>> >>> CLAUSES >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I think >>> it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death that >>> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to >>> show up again. >>> >>> >>> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of >>> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group >>> of animal lovers. >>> >>> >>> >>> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to >>> ask a geologist. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >>> >>>> Susan, >>>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >>>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you >>>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. >>>> >>>> What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? >>>> >>>> Jean Waldman >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM >>>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>>> >>>> >>>> Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to >>>> evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first >>>> had >>>> boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted >>>> the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't >>>> make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly >>>> believe the varying sentence starts made it better. >>>> >>>> That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. >>>> >>>> Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their >>>> sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? >>>> It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't >>>> force >>>> students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't >>>> lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have >>>> other concerns as well. >>>> >>>> Susan >>>> >>>> On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>> >>>>> Susan, >>>>> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't >>>>> mean to >>>>> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence >>>>> openings is >>>>> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and >>>>> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence >>>>> openings is not based on close observation of how language works in >>>>> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are >>>>> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the >>>>> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a >>>>> distraction from more relevant choices. >>>>> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already >>>>> have it in >>>>> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow >>>>> woman". >>>>> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of >>>>> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence >>>>> openings are >>>>> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base >>>>> the >>>>> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal >>>>> preferences. >>>>> >>>>> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >>>>> >>>>> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun >>>>> rising up >>>>> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds >>>>> came to >>>>> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the >>>>> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear >>>>> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled >>>>> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him >>>>> beside >>>>> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned >>>>> the >>>>> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the >>>>> sun was >>>>> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, >>>>> sleeping on >>>>> the white river sand. >>>>> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had >>>>> come the >>>>> night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by >>>>> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and >>>>> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up— >>>>> maybe it >>>>> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the >>>>> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look >>>>> beyond the >>>>> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could >>>>> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river >>>>> that >>>>> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >>>>> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed >>>>> the >>>>> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to >>>>> follow, >>>>> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the >>>>> river. I >>>>> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked >>>>> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >>>>> footprints over footprints. >>>>> “Wake up.” >>>>> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his >>>>> eyes still >>>>> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >>>>> “I’m leaving.” >>>>> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, >>>>> remember?” >>>>> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >>>>> “Where?” >>>>> “To my place.” >>>>> “And will I come back?” >>>>> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him >>>>> behind me >>>>> and smelling the willows. >>>>> “Yellow woman,” he said. >>>>> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >>>>> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face >>>>> in the >>>>> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had >>>>> come.” >>>>> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to >>>>> remember >>>>> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember >>>>> his warmth around me. >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you >>>>>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my >>>>>> students as >>>>>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I >>>>>> have >>>>>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such >>>>>> strong >>>>>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you >>>>>> have not >>>>>> thought this through. >>>>>> >>>>>> Susan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more >>>>>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a >>>>>>>> better essay, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is >>>>>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, >>>>>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying >>>>>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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/ > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 17:19:36 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-29-928688284 --Apple-Mail-29-928688284 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts? Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer. On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > Susan, > I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid > understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying > sentence openings (using something other than the subject as > opening)is > a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those > variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. > As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students > sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a > row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite > often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts > every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's > much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of > the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied > a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he > effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long > stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with > mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating > sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. > There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow > in a > text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost > always > last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the > subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The > opening > establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to > accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition > for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too > quickly. > The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different > structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should > have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for > continuity, though, not for variation. > I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what > kind of > variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A > variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is > another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is > another. > Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting > that most > sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation > form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple > adverbials. > As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is > harmful to > imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence > openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see > how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of > subjects, to > build coherence into texts. > I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good > teaching > practices, not a personal criticism. > > Craig > > Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe >> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to >> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I >> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >> >> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you >> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am >> not enjoying myself. >> >> Susan >> >> >> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >>> Susan, >>> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a >>> mature >>> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be >>> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far >>> from >>> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >>> profession >>> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >>> what we >>> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >>> posted to >>> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to >>> keep >>> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >>> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all >>> to do >>> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We >>> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open >>> mind. >>> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never >>> intended to be personal. >>> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether >>> the >>> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It >>> says, >>> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the >>> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The >>> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional >>> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of >>> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >>> highest >>> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, >>> then >>> students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I >>> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring. >>> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >>> Grammar" as a >>> more linguistically sound source of advice. >>> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >>> apologize if >>> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >>> teacher. >>> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded, >>> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of >>> each >>> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures >>> on my >>> part to do that. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. >>>> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing >>>> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting >>>> word >>>> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >>>> outrage, tar, and feathers! >>>> >>>> Sentence Beginnings >>>> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >>>> >>>> >>>> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far >>>> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >>>> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >>>> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >>>> sentences. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> WORDS >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to >>>> fight back. >>>> >>>> >>>> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering >>>> came >>>> from the heights around us. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A connecting word: For students who have just survived the >>>> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is >>>> all >>>> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >>>> school, >>>> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >>>> important as a healthy mind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals— >>>> these affect the health of plants. >>>> >>>> PHRASES >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >>>> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one >>>> thing, it can be ruthless. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of >>>> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >>>> existence. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will >>>> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. >>>> >>>> >>>> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >>>> program >>>> is essential. >>>> >>>> >>>> A participle: Looking out of the window high over >>>> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >>>> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >>>> surrounded >>>> by fields. >>>> >>>> >>>> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >>>> provides >>>> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >>>> >>>> >>>> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went >>>> on the >>>> attack. >>>> >>>> CLAUSES >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I >>>> think >>>> it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death >>>> that >>>> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >>>> going to >>>> show up again. >>>> >>>> >>>> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of >>>> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a >>>> group >>>> of animal lovers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >>>> questions to >>>> ask a geologist. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >>>> >>>>> Susan, >>>>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >>>>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you >>>>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. >>>>> >>>>> What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? >>>>> >>>>> Jean Waldman >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >>>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to >>>>> evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first >>>>> had >>>>> boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted >>>>> the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it >>>>> doesn't >>>>> make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't >>>>> possibly >>>>> believe the varying sentence starts made it better. >>>>> >>>>> That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. >>>>> >>>>> Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their >>>>> sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? >>>>> It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't >>>>> force >>>>> students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't >>>>> lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have >>>>> other concerns as well. >>>>> >>>>> Susan >>>>> >>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Susan, >>>>>> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't >>>>>> mean to >>>>>> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence >>>>>> openings is >>>>>> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and >>>>>> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence >>>>>> openings is not based on close observation of how language >>>>>> works in >>>>>> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are >>>>>> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have >>>>>> the >>>>>> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a >>>>>> distraction from more relevant choices. >>>>>> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already >>>>>> have it in >>>>>> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow >>>>>> woman". >>>>>> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of >>>>>> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence >>>>>> openings are >>>>>> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base >>>>>> the >>>>>> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal >>>>>> preferences. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >>>>>> >>>>>> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun >>>>>> rising up >>>>>> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds >>>>>> came to >>>>>> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches >>>>>> in the >>>>>> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could >>>>>> hear >>>>>> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel >>>>>> bubbled >>>>>> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him >>>>>> beside >>>>>> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned >>>>>> the >>>>>> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the >>>>>> sun was >>>>>> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, >>>>>> sleeping on >>>>>> the white river sand. >>>>>> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had >>>>>> come the >>>>>> night before, following our footprints that were already >>>>>> blurred by >>>>>> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying >>>>>> down, and >>>>>> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up— >>>>>> maybe it >>>>>> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches >>>>>> and the >>>>>> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look >>>>>> beyond the >>>>>> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I >>>>>> could >>>>>> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river >>>>>> that >>>>>> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >>>>>> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and >>>>>> pawed >>>>>> the >>>>>> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to >>>>>> follow, >>>>>> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the >>>>>> river. I >>>>>> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked >>>>>> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >>>>>> footprints over footprints. >>>>>> “Wake up.” >>>>>> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his >>>>>> eyes still >>>>>> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >>>>>> “I’m leaving.” >>>>>> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, >>>>>> remember?” >>>>>> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >>>>>> “Where?” >>>>>> “To my place.” >>>>>> “And will I come back?” >>>>>> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him >>>>>> behind me >>>>>> and smelling the willows. >>>>>> “Yellow woman,” he said. >>>>>> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >>>>>> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face >>>>>> in the >>>>>> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had >>>>>> come.” >>>>>> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to >>>>>> remember >>>>>> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and >>>>>> remember >>>>>> his warmth around me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig >>>>>> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you >>>>>>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my >>>>>>> students as >>>>>>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such >>>>>>> strong >>>>>>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you >>>>>>> have not >>>>>>> thought this through. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows >>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make >>>>>>>>> it a >>>>>>>>> better essay, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why >>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, >>>>>>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that >>>>>>>> varying >>>>>>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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/ >> > > 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/ --Apple-Mail-29-928688284 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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."

I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts?

Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling.  He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight.   He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer.

On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid
understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying
sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is
a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those
variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't.
As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students
sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a
row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite
often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts
every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's
much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of
the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied
a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he
effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long
stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with
mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating
sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style.
   There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a
text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always
last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the
subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening
establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to
accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition
for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too
quickly.
   The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different
structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should
have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for
continuity, though, not for variation.
   I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of
variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A
variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is
another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is
another.
Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most
sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation
form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple
adverbials.
   As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to
imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence
openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see
how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to
build coherence into texts.
   I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching
practices, not a personal criticism.

Craig

Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe

it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to
start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up
sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I
was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.)

I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you
were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am
not enjoying myself.

Susan

On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature
literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be
constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from
perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession
as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we
are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to
the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep
from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of
conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do
with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We
simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind.
I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never
intended to be personal.
   That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the
"style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says,
first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the
time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The
studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional
writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of
about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the
highest
about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case,
then
students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I
would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring.
   I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical
Grammar" as a
more linguistically sound source of advice.
   But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if
anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a
teacher.
As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded,
effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each
other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures
on my
part to do that.

Craig

Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides.

I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing
Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word
in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more
outrage, tar, and feathers!

Sentence Beginnings
Vary the beginnings of your sentences.

Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far
more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But
overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous
writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your
sentences.

WORDS

Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to
fight back.

An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came
from the heights around us.

A connecting word: For students who have just survived the
brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all
too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school,
find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers.

An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as
important as a healthy mind.

A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals—
these affect the health of plants.

PHRASES

A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of
athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one
thing, it can be ruthless.

A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of
their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this
existence.

An infinitive: To be really successful, you will
have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer.

A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program
is essential.

A participle: Looking out of the window high over
the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse
surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded
by fields.

An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides
food and shelter for Springfield's homeless.

An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the
attack.

CLAUSES

An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I think
it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death that
if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to
show up again.

An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of
organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group
of animal lovers.

A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to
ask a geologist.

On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote:

Susan,
This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students
HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you
just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it.

What method do you use to teach the different possible variations?

Jean Waldman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten"
<[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to
evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first
had
boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted
the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't
make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly
believe the varying sentence starts made it better.

That struck me as arrogantly dismissive.

Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their
sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence?
It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't
force
students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't
lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have
other concerns as well.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't
mean to
be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence
openings is
not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and
thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence
openings is not based on close observation of how language works in
effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are
irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the
effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a
distraction from more relevant choices.
   Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already
have it in
an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow
woman".
It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of
narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence
openings are
quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base
the
discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal
preferences.

Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko)

My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun
rising up
through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds
came to
the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the
alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear
the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled
and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him
beside
me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned
the
sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the
sun was
above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time,
sleeping on
the white river sand.
   I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had
come the
night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by
lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and
the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—
maybe it
was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the
horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look
beyond the
pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could
not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river
that
moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night.
The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed
the
sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to
follow,
and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the
river. I
slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked
north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in
footprints over footprints.
“Wake up.”
He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his
eyes still
closed. I knelt down to touch him.
“I’m leaving.”
He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me,
remember?”
He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun.
“Where?”
“To my place.”
“And will I come back?”
   He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him
behind me
and smelling the willows.
“Yellow woman,” he said.
I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked.
He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face
in the
river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had
come.”
   I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to
remember
the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember
his warmth around me.

Craig

Craig
I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you

really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my
students as
a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I
have
seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such
strong
evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you
have not
thought this through.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:

On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more
flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a
better essay,

Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is
worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but,
yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to
the
choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying
sentence starts is not a panacea.

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/

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/ --Apple-Mail-29-928688284-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 16:27:43 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: David Kehe <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Craig points out that good writers sometimes use the same start in five sentences in a row. When our lower-level students do this, is it because they feel that this style is most effective for expressing their ideas, or is it because they are unaware of alternative possibilities? Craig also points out that "given is almost always first and new is almost always last." Can't this be done using a variety of styles? Using Craig's sample about the sick dog and grades, a student could write, "My dog is sick. His sickness is worrying me. This is affecting my grades." We could encourage the student to use variety, in which case she might write, "My dog is sick. Because of its condition, I am worried. As a result, my grades are getting worse." Unless we make students aware that there are a variety of styles to choose from and how they can be effectively used, they will never get to the point of realizing that there are situations in which starting five sentences in a row with a subject may be their optimal choice. I agree with Susan in that students need exposure to and practice with a wide variety of sentence beginnings. We may even tell them that for practice (in, for example, an isolated paragraph-level task), the majority of their sentences should not start with the subject. After they have learned these, they'll be able to decide which structures are most effective for explaining their ideas. Dave Kehe Bellingham, WA ________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Craig Hancock Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 5:47 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Susan, I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too quickly. The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for continuity, though, not for variation. I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is another. Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple adverbials. As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to build coherence into texts. I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching practices, not a personal criticism. Craig 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/ ========================================================================Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 18:48:26 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --000e0cd4d288ece616046ad95c45 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the structure). I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want. John Alexander Austin, Texas On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, > Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a > mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you > should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted > your point. I said, "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." > I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school > today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer > below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts? > Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in > autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling. He has really > started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of > weight. He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. > He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her > leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. > He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer. > > On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > Susan, > I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid > understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying > sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is > a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those > variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. > As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students > sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a > row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite > often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts > every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's > much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of > the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied > a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he > effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long > stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with > mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating > sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. > There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a > text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always > last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the > subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening > establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to > accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition > for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too > quickly. > The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different > structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should > have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for > continuity, though, not for variation. > I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of > variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A > variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is > another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is > another. > Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most > sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation > form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple > adverbials. > As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to > imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence > openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see > how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to > build coherence into texts. > I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching > practices, not a personal criticism. > > Craig > > Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe > > it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to > start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up > sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I > was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) > > I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you > were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am > not enjoying myself. > > Susan > > > On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > Susan, > I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature > literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be > constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from > perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession > as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we > are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to > the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep > from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of > conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do > with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We > simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind. > I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never > intended to be personal. > That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the > "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says, > first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the > time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The > studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional > writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of > about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the > highest > about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, > then > students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I > would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring. > I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical > Grammar" as a > more linguistically sound source of advice. > But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if > anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a > teacher. > As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded, > effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each > other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures > on my > part to do that. > > Craig > > > Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. > > I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing > Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word > in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more > outrage, tar, and feathers! > > Sentence Beginnings > Vary the beginnings of your sentences. > > > Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far > more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But > overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous > writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your > sentences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WORDS > > > > > > Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to > fight back. > > > An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came > from the heights around us. > > > > A connecting word: For students who have just survived the > brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all > too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school, > find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. > > > > An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as > important as a healthy mind. > > > > A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals— > these affect the health of plants. > > PHRASES > > > > > > > A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of > athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one > thing, it can be ruthless. > > > > A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of > their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this > existence. > > > > An infinitive: To be really successful, you will > have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. > > > A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program > is essential. > > > A participle: Looking out of the window high over > the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse > surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded > by fields. > > > An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides > food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. > > > An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the > attack. > > CLAUSES > > > > > > > An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I think > it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death that > if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to > show up again. > > > An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of > organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group > of animal lovers. > > > > A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to > ask a geologist. > > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: > > Susan, > This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students > HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you > just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. > > What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? > > Jean Waldman > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" > <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM > Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions > > > Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to > evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first > had > boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted > the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't > make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly > believe the varying sentence starts made it better. > > That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. > > Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their > sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? > It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't > force > students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't > lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have > other concerns as well. > > Susan > > On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > Susan, > I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't > mean to > be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence > openings is > not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and > thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence > openings is not based on close observation of how language works in > effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are > irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the > effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a > distraction from more relevant choices. > Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already > have it in > an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow > woman". > It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of > narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence > openings are > quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base > the > discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal > preferences. > > Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) > > My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun > rising up > through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds > came to > the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the > alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear > the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled > and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him > beside > me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned > the > sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the > sun was > above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, > sleeping on > the white river sand. > I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had > come the > night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by > lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and > the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up— > maybe it > was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the > horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look > beyond the > pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could > not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river > that > moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. > The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed > the > sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to > follow, > and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the > river. I > slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked > north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in > footprints over footprints. > “Wake up.” > He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his > eyes still > closed. I knelt down to touch him. > “I’m leaving.” > He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, > remember?” > He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. > “Where?” > “To my place.” > “And will I come back?” > He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him > behind me > and smelling the willows. > “Yellow woman,” he said. > I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. > He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face > in the > river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had > come.” > I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to > remember > the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember > his warmth around me. > > Craig > > Craig > I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you > > really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my > students as > a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I > have > seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such > strong > evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you > have not > thought this through. > > Susan > > > On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: > > On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more > flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a > better essay, > > > Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is > worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, > yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. > > The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to > the > choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying > sentence starts is not a panacea. > > 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/ > > > 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/ --000e0cd4d288ece616046ad95c45 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the structure).

I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice.

Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want.

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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."

I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts?

Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling.  He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight.   He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer.

On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid

understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying
sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is
a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those
variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't.
As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students

sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a
row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite
often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts

every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's
much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of

the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied
a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he
effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long
stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with
mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating

sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style.
   There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a
text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always
last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the
subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening

establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to
accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition
for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too
quickly.
   The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different

structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should
have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for
continuity, though, not for variation.
   I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of
variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A

variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is
another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is
another.
Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most
sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation

form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple
adverbials.
   As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to

imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence
openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see
how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to
build coherence into texts.
   I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching

practices, not a personal criticism.

Craig

Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe

it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to

start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up
sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I

was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.)

I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you

were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am
not enjoying myself.

Susan

On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature
literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be

constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from
perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession
as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we
are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to
the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep

from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of
conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do
with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We

simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind.
I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never
intended to be personal.
   That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the
"style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says,

first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the
time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The
studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional
writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of
about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the

highest
about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case,
then
students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I

would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring.
   I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical
Grammar" as a
more linguistically sound source of advice.
   But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if
anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a
teacher.
As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded,
effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each
other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures
on my
part to do that.

Craig

Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides.

I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing

Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word
in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more
outrage, tar, and feathers!

Sentence Beginnings
Vary the beginnings of your sentences.

Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far
more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But

overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous
writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your
sentences.

WORDS

Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to
fight back.

An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came
from the heights around us.

A connecting word: For students who have just survived the

brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all
too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school,
find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers.

An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as
important as a healthy mind.

A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals—
these affect the health of plants.

PHRASES

A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of
athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one
thing, it can be ruthless.

A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of

their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this
existence.

An infinitive: To be really successful, you will
have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer.

A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program

is essential.

A participle: Looking out of the window high over

the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse
surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded
by fields.

An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides

food and shelter for Springfield's homeless.

An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the

attack.

CLAUSES

An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I think
it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death that
if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to
show up again.

An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of
organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group

of animal lovers.

A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to
ask a geologist.

On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote:

Susan,
This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students
HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you

just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it.

What method do you use to teach the different possible variations?

Jean Waldman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten"
<[log in to unmask]>

To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to

evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first
had
boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted

the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't
make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly
believe the varying sentence starts made it better.

That struck me as arrogantly dismissive.

Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their
sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence?
It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't
force
students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't

lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have
other concerns as well.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't
mean to
be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence

openings is
not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and
thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence

openings is not based on close observation of how language works in
effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are
irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the
effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a
distraction from more relevant choices.

   Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already
have it in
an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow

woman".
It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of
narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence

openings are
quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base
the
discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal

preferences.

Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko)

My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun
rising up
through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds

came to
the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the
alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear

the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled
and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him
beside

me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned
the
sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the

sun was
above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time,
sleeping on
the white river sand.

   I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had
come the
night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by

lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and
the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—
maybe it

was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the
horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look
beyond the

pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could
not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river
that

moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night.
The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed
the
sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to
follow,
and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the

river. I
slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked
north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in

footprints over footprints.
“Wake up.”
He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his

eyes still
closed. I knelt down to touch him.
“I’m leaving.”
He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me,

remember?”
He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun.
“Where?”
“To my place.”

“And will I come back?”
   He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him
behind me

and smelling the willows.
“Yellow woman,” he said.
I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked.

He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face
in the
river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had

come.”
   I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to
remember
the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember

his warmth around me.

Craig

Craig
I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you

really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my

students as
a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I
have
seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such

strong
evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you
have not
thought this through.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:

On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more
flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a
better essay,

Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is
worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but,
yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to
the
choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying

sentence starts is not a panacea.

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/

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/ --000e0cd4d288ece616046ad95c45-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 19:56:43 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-33-938115218 --Apple-Mail-33-938115218 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed John, you have actually made my point. You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice." If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up their sentence starts. Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix the core problem. I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts with what I have experienced. On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: > I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as > there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly > has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given > information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate > topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the > structure). > > I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and > complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more > carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. > > Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite > a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of > the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and > would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex > structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want. > > John Alexander > Austin, Texas > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up > Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is > the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your > argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th > when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." > > I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to > school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree > that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her > sentence starts? > > Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had > fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves > falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so > sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her > because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing > just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken > over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He > realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer. > > On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> Susan, >> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying >> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >> opening)is >> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those >> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >> students >> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a >> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts >> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's >> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of >> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >> copied >> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long >> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with >> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating >> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. >> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >> flow in a >> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost >> always >> last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the >> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >> opening >> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >> repetition >> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too >> quickly. >> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different >> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should >> have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for >> continuity, though, not for variation. >> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >> kind of >> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >> sentences is >> another. >> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >> that most >> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation >> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >> adverbials. >> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >> harmful to >> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to >> see >> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >> subjects, to >> build coherence into texts. >> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >> teaching >> practices, not a personal criticism. >> >> Craig >> >> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe >>> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to >>> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >>> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I >>> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >>> >>> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you >>> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am >>> not enjoying myself. >>> >>> Susan >>> >>> >>> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>> >>>> Susan, >>>> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a >>>> mature >>>> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be >>>> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far >>>> from >>>> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >>>> profession >>>> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >>>> what we >>>> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >>>> posted to >>>> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings >>>> to keep >>>> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >>>> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all >>>> to do >>>> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We >>>> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open >>>> mind. >>>> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never >>>> intended to be personal. >>>> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >>>> whether the >>>> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It >>>> says, >>>> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of >>>> the >>>> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The >>>> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >>>> professional >>>> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of >>>> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >>>> highest >>>> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, >>>> then >>>> students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I >>>> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >>>> boring. >>>> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >>>> Grammar" as a >>>> more linguistically sound source of advice. >>>> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >>>> apologize if >>>> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >>>> teacher. >>>> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >>>> grounded, >>>> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful >>>> of each >>>> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures >>>> on my >>>> part to do that. >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> >>>> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >>>> guides. >>>>> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing >>>>> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting >>>>> word >>>>> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >>>>> outrage, tar, and feathers! >>>>> >>>>> Sentence Beginnings >>>>> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far >>>>> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >>>>> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >>>>> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >>>>> sentences. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> WORDS >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to >>>>> fight back. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and >>>>> clattering came >>>>> from the heights around us. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A connecting word: For students who have just survived >>>>> the >>>>> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >>>>> is all >>>>> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >>>>> school, >>>>> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >>>>> important as a healthy mind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals— >>>>> these affect the health of plants. >>>>> >>>>> PHRASES >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >>>>> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one >>>>> thing, it can be ruthless. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of >>>>> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >>>>> existence. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will >>>>> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >>>>> program >>>>> is essential. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A participle: Looking out of the window high >>>>> over >>>>> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >>>>> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >>>>> surrounded >>>>> by fields. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >>>>> provides >>>>> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went >>>>> on the >>>>> attack. >>>>> >>>>> CLAUSES >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I >>>>> think >>>>> it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death >>>>> that >>>>> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >>>>> going to >>>>> show up again. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of >>>>> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a >>>>> group >>>>> of animal lovers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >>>>> questions to >>>>> ask a geologist. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Susan, >>>>>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >>>>>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you >>>>>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. >>>>>> >>>>>> What method do you use to teach the different possible >>>>>> variations? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jean Waldman >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM >>>>>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to >>>>>> evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first >>>>>> had >>>>>> boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You >>>>>> admitted >>>>>> the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it >>>>>> doesn't >>>>>> make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't >>>>>> possibly >>>>>> believe the varying sentence starts made it better. >>>>>> >>>>>> That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their >>>>>> sentence starts compromises their ability to write with >>>>>> coherence? >>>>>> It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't >>>>>> force >>>>>> students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't >>>>>> lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you >>>>>> have >>>>>> other concerns as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Susan >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't >>>>>>> mean to >>>>>>> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence >>>>>>> openings is >>>>>>> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and >>>>>>> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary >>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>> openings is not based on close observation of how language >>>>>>> works in >>>>>>> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are >>>>>>> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may >>>>>>> have the >>>>>>> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a >>>>>>> distraction from more relevant choices. >>>>>>> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already >>>>>>> have it in >>>>>>> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow >>>>>>> woman". >>>>>>> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of >>>>>>> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence >>>>>>> openings are >>>>>>> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal >>>>>>> preferences. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun >>>>>>> rising up >>>>>>> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds >>>>>>> came to >>>>>>> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches >>>>>>> in the >>>>>>> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I >>>>>>> could hear >>>>>>> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel >>>>>>> bubbled >>>>>>> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him >>>>>>> beside >>>>>>> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the >>>>>>> sun was >>>>>>> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, >>>>>>> sleeping on >>>>>>> the white river sand. >>>>>>> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had >>>>>>> come the >>>>>>> night before, following our footprints that were already >>>>>>> blurred by >>>>>>> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying >>>>>>> down, and >>>>>>> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up— >>>>>>> maybe it >>>>>>> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches >>>>>>> and the >>>>>>> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look >>>>>>> beyond the >>>>>>> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I >>>>>>> could >>>>>>> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >>>>>>> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and >>>>>>> pawed >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to >>>>>>> follow, >>>>>>> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the >>>>>>> river. I >>>>>>> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I >>>>>>> waked >>>>>>> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >>>>>>> footprints over footprints. >>>>>>> “Wake up.” >>>>>>> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his >>>>>>> eyes still >>>>>>> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >>>>>>> “I’m leaving.” >>>>>>> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, >>>>>>> remember?” >>>>>>> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >>>>>>> “Where?” >>>>>>> “To my place.” >>>>>>> “And will I come back?” >>>>>>> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him >>>>>>> behind me >>>>>>> and smelling the willows. >>>>>>> “Yellow woman,” he said. >>>>>>> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >>>>>>> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his >>>>>>> face >>>>>>> in the >>>>>>> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had >>>>>>> come.” >>>>>>> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to >>>>>>> remember >>>>>>> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and >>>>>>> remember >>>>>>> his warmth around me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you >>>>>>>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my >>>>>>>> students as >>>>>>>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such >>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you >>>>>>>> have not >>>>>>>> thought this through. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version >>>>>>>>>> shows more >>>>>>>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make >>>>>>>>>> it a >>>>>>>>>> better essay, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why >>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, >>>>>>>>> but, >>>>>>>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that >>>>>>>>> varying >>>>>>>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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/ >>> >> >> 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/ --Apple-Mail-33-938115218 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252
John, you have actually made my point.

You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice."

If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up their sentence starts.

Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix the core problem.

I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts with what I have experienced.

On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the structure).

I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice.

Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want.

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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."

I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts?

Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling.  He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight.   He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer.

On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid

understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying
sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is
a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those
variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't.
As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students

sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a
row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite
often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts

every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's
much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of

the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied
a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he
effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long
stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with
mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating

sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style.
   There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a
text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always
last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the
subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening

establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to
accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition
for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too
quickly.
   The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different

structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should
have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for
continuity, though, not for variation.
   I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of
variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A

variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is
another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is
another.
Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most
sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation

form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple
adverbials.
   As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to

imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence
openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see
how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to
build coherence into texts.
   I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching

practices, not a personal criticism.

Craig

Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe

it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to

start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up
sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I

was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.)

I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you

were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am
not enjoying myself.

Susan

On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature
literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be

constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from
perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession
as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we
are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to
the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep

from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of
conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do
with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We

simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind.
I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never
intended to be personal.
   That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the
"style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says,

first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the
time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The
studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional
writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of
about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the

highest
about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case,
then
students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I

would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring.
   I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical
Grammar" as a
more linguistically sound source of advice.
   But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if
anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a
teacher.
As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded,
effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each
other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures
on my
part to do that.

Craig

Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides.

I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing

Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word
in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more
outrage, tar, and feathers!

Sentence Beginnings
Vary the beginnings of your sentences.

Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far
more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But

overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous
writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your
sentences.

WORDS

Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to
fight back.

An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came
from the heights around us.

A connecting word: For students who have just survived the

brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all
too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school,
find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers.

An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as
important as a healthy mind.

A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals—
these affect the health of plants.

PHRASES

A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of
athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one
thing, it can be ruthless.

A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of

their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this
existence.

An infinitive: To be really successful, you will
have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer.

A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program

is essential.

A participle: Looking out of the window high over

the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse
surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded
by fields.

An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides

food and shelter for Springfield's homeless.

An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the

attack.

CLAUSES

An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I think
it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death that
if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to
show up again.

An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of
organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group

of animal lovers.

A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to
ask a geologist.

On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote:

Susan,
This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students
HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you

just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it.

What method do you use to teach the different possible variations?

Jean Waldman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten"
<[log in to unmask]>

To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to

evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first
had
boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted

the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't
make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly
believe the varying sentence starts made it better.

That struck me as arrogantly dismissive.

Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their
sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence?
It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't
force
students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't

lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have
other concerns as well.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't
mean to
be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence

openings is
not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and
thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence

openings is not based on close observation of how language works in
effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are
irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the
effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a
distraction from more relevant choices.

   Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already
have it in
an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow

woman".
It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of
narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence

openings are
quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base
the
discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal

preferences.

Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko)

My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun
rising up
through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds

came to
the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the
alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear

the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled
and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him
beside

me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned
the
sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the

sun was
above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time,
sleeping on
the white river sand.

   I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had
come the
night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by

lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and
the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—
maybe it

was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the
horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look
beyond the

pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could
not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river
that

moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night.
The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed
the
sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to
follow,
and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the

river. I
slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked
north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in

footprints over footprints.
“Wake up.”
He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his

eyes still
closed. I knelt down to touch him.
“I’m leaving.”
He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me,

remember?”
He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun.
“Where?”
“To my place.”

“And will I come back?”
   He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him
behind me

and smelling the willows.
“Yellow woman,” he said.
I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked.

He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face
in the
river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had

come.”
   I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to
remember
the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember

his warmth around me.

Craig

Craig
I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you

really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my

students as
a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I
have
seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such

strong
evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you
have not
thought this through.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:

On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more
flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a
better essay,

Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is
worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but,
yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to
the
choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying

sentence starts is not a panacea.

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/

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/ --Apple-Mail-33-938115218-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 20:20:29 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --001e680f0c782aaffd046adaa6b0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le sigh, is it just me or do discussions on ATEG's listserv devolve into personal battles more quickly than elsewhere? What is it about grammar and pedagogy that seems so, I don't know, personal? I don't approach discussion here ever trying to justify hypotheticals. I'm less interested in how things *should* work and more interested in how they actually do work. I'm sorry if I sounded pie in the skyish. I, too, have expertise in the area of secondary education, language arts pedagogy, applied linguistics, and curriculum design. I teach high school students, and I love it. I teach college students from time to time (I used to teach undergraduates extensively). When I voice my opinion, it's just that. It's my opinion and a statement on what actions I would take. I, of course, wouldn't use the same language with my students that I use with you or anyone else on this list. While I do teach metalanguage in my classroom, I don't rely on it when teaching concepts. "Plain-speak" is what I use as well; however, my plain speak for subordination, coordination, and other embedding features of language would not be "change up sentence starts." I prefer in my classroom to focus on the verb string and move out from there, viewing the verb as the nucleus of any clause (and by extension, sentence) and the element that has the greatest impact on meaning. I believe that focusing on structural variation in sentence-initial position is one of the very last things that will help struggling writers to improve their writing. I believe that it *can* produce unnecessarily complex sentences. That's just my opinion though. Considering that you don't know me, my students, or my results, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. That's the nature of informal, online, listserv discussions, and I'm fine with that. We disagree on this point. No big deal. Please don't take that to mean that I think you're a bad teacher; in fact, you care way too much about this to be anything but a good teacher. John Alexander Austin, Texas On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > John, you have actually made my point. > > You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and > complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the > semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice." > If I *said* what you just said to my students, they would look at me like > I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say that. Instead > I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up their sentence starts. > > Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily > complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want"? No. > I am there in the high school classroom. They do not create twisted > syntax. Instead they fix the core problem. > > I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to reflect > what works with my struggling student writers. You can keep trying to > justify what you think *should* work, but it conflicts with what I > have experienced. > > > > On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: > > I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no > problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in > mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph > (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is > the problem, not the structure). > > I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and > complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the > semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. > > Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a > distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the > writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely > produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a > belief that that is what teachers want. > > John Alexander > Austin, Texas > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > >> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, >> Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a >> mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you >> should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted >> your point. I said, "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." >> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school >> today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer >> below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts? >> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in >> autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling. He has >> really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a >> lot of weight. He had to support her because she could barely hold >> herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees >> how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short >> period of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer. >> >> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> Susan, >> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying >> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is >> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those >> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students >> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a >> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts >> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's >> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of >> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied >> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long >> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with >> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating >> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. >> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a >> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always >> last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the >> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening >> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition >> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too >> quickly. >> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different >> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should >> have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for >> continuity, though, not for variation. >> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of >> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is >> another. >> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most >> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation >> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >> adverbials. >> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to >> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see >> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to >> build coherence into texts. >> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching >> practices, not a personal criticism. >> >> Craig >> >> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe >> >> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to >> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I >> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >> >> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you >> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am >> not enjoying myself. >> >> Susan >> >> >> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> Susan, >> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature >> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be >> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from >> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession >> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we >> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to >> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep >> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do >> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We >> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind. >> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never >> intended to be personal. >> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the >> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says, >> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the >> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The >> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional >> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of >> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >> highest >> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, >> then >> students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I >> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring. >> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >> Grammar" as a >> more linguistically sound source of advice. >> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if >> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >> teacher. >> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded, >> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each >> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures >> on my >> part to do that. >> >> Craig >> >> >> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. >> >> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing >> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word >> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >> outrage, tar, and feathers! >> >> Sentence Beginnings >> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >> >> >> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far >> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >> sentences. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> WORDS >> >> >> >> >> >> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to >> fight back. >> >> >> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came >> from the heights around us. >> >> >> >> A connecting word: For students who have just survived the >> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all >> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school, >> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >> >> >> >> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >> important as a healthy mind. >> >> >> >> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals— >> these affect the health of plants. >> >> PHRASES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one >> thing, it can be ruthless. >> >> >> >> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of >> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >> existence. >> >> >> >> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will >> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. >> >> >> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program >> is essential. >> >> >> A participle: Looking out of the window high over >> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded >> by fields. >> >> >> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides >> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >> >> >> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the >> attack. >> >> CLAUSES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I think >> it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death that >> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to >> show up again. >> >> >> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of >> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group >> of animal lovers. >> >> >> >> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to >> ask a geologist. >> >> >> >> >> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >> >> Susan, >> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you >> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. >> >> What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? >> >> Jean Waldman >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >> <[log in to unmask]> >> To: <[log in to unmask]> >> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM >> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >> >> >> Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to >> evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first >> had >> boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted >> the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't >> make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly >> believe the varying sentence starts made it better. >> >> That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. >> >> Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their >> sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? >> It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't >> force >> students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't >> lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have >> other concerns as well. >> >> Susan >> >> On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> Susan, >> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't >> mean to >> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence >> openings is >> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and >> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence >> openings is not based on close observation of how language works in >> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are >> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the >> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a >> distraction from more relevant choices. >> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already >> have it in >> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow >> woman". >> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of >> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence >> openings are >> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base >> the >> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal >> preferences. >> >> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >> >> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun >> rising up >> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds >> came to >> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the >> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear >> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled >> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him >> beside >> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned >> the >> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the >> sun was >> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, >> sleeping on >> the white river sand. >> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had >> come the >> night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by >> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and >> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up— >> maybe it >> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the >> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look >> beyond the >> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could >> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river >> that >> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed >> the >> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to >> follow, >> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the >> river. I >> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked >> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >> footprints over footprints. >> “Wake up.” >> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his >> eyes still >> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >> “I’m leaving.” >> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, >> remember?” >> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >> “Where?” >> “To my place.” >> “And will I come back?” >> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him >> behind me >> and smelling the willows. >> “Yellow woman,” he said. >> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face >> in the >> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had >> come.” >> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to >> remember >> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember >> his warmth around me. >> >> Craig >> >> Craig >> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you >> >> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my >> students as >> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I >> have >> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such >> strong >> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you >> have not >> thought this through. >> >> Susan >> >> >> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >> >> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more >> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a >> better essay, >> >> >> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is >> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, >> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >> >> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to >> the >> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying >> sentence starts is not a panacea. >> >> 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/ >> >> >> 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/ --001e680f0c782aaffd046adaa6b0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le sigh, is it just me or do discussions on ATEG's listserv devolve into personal battles more quickly than elsewhere? What is it about grammar and pedagogy that seems so, I don't know, personal?

I don't approach discussion here ever trying to justify hypotheticals. I'm less interested in how things should work and more interested in how they actually do work. I'm sorry if I sounded pie in the skyish.

I, too, have expertise in the area of secondary education, language arts pedagogy, applied linguistics, and curriculum design. I teach high school students, and I love it. I teach college students from time to time (I used to teach undergraduates extensively). When I voice my opinion, it's just that. It's my opinion and a statement on what actions I would take.

I, of course, wouldn't use the same language with my students that I use with you or anyone else on this list. While I do teach metalanguage in my classroom, I don't rely on it when teaching concepts. "Plain-speak" is what I use as well; however, my plain speak for subordination, coordination, and other embedding features of language would not be "change up sentence starts." I prefer in my classroom to focus on the verb string and move out from there, viewing the verb as the nucleus of any clause (and by extension, sentence) and the element that has the greatest impact on meaning.

I believe that focusing on structural variation in sentence-initial position is one of the very last things that will help struggling writers to improve their writing. I believe that it can produce unnecessarily complex sentences. That's just my opinion though. Considering that you don't know me, my students, or my results, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. That's the nature of informal, online, listserv discussions, and I'm fine with that.

We disagree on this point. No big deal. Please don't take that to mean that I think you're a bad teacher; in fact, you care way too much about this to be anything but a good teacher.

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

John, you have actually made my point.

You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice."

If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up their sentence starts.

Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix the core problem.

I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts with what I have experienced.

On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the structure).

I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice.

Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want.

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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."

I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts?

Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling.  He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight.   He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer.

On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid

understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying
sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is
a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those
variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't.
As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students

sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a
row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite
often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts

every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's
much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of

the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied
a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he
effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long
stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with

mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating

sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style.
   There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a
text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always
last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the
subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening

establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to

accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition
for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too
quickly.
   The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different

structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should

have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for
continuity, though, not for variation.
   I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of

variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A

variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is
another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is

another.
Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most
sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation

form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple
adverbials.
   As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to

imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence
openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see
how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to
build coherence into texts.
   I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching

practices, not a personal criticism.

Craig

Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe

it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to

start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up
sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I

was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.)

I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you

were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am
not enjoying myself.

Susan

On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature
literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be

constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from
perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession
as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we
are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to
the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep

from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of
conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do
with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We

simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind.
I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never

intended to be personal.
   That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the
"style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says,

first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the
time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The
studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional
writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of
about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the

highest
about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case,
then
students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I

would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring.
   I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical
Grammar" as a
more linguistically sound source of advice.
   But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if
anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a
teacher.
As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded,
effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each
other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures
on my
part to do that.

Craig

Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides.

I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing

Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word
in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more
outrage, tar, and feathers!

Sentence Beginnings
Vary the beginnings of your sentences.

Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far
more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But

overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous
writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your
sentences.

WORDS

Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to

fight back.

An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came

from the heights around us.

A connecting word: For students who have just survived the

brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all
too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school,
find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers.

An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as

important as a healthy mind.

A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals—
these affect the health of plants.

PHRASES

A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of

athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one
thing, it can be ruthless.

A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of

their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this
existence.

An infinitive: To be really successful, you will
have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer.

A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program

is essential.

A participle: Looking out of the window high over

the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse
surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded
by fields.

An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides

food and shelter for Springfield's homeless.

An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the

attack.

CLAUSES

An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I think
it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death that

if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to
show up again.

An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of
organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group

of animal lovers.

A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to
ask a geologist.

On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote:

Susan,
This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students
HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you

just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it.

What method do you use to teach the different possible variations?

Jean Waldman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten"
<[log in to unmask]>

To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to

evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first
had
boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted

the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't
make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly
believe the varying sentence starts made it better.

That struck me as arrogantly dismissive.

Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their
sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence?
It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't
force
students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't

lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have
other concerns as well.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't
mean to

be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence

openings is
not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and

thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence

openings is not based on close observation of how language works in
effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are
irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the
effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a

distraction from more relevant choices.

   Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already
have it in

an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow

woman".
It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of

narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence

openings are
quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base

the
discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal

preferences.

Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko)

My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun

rising up
through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds

came to
the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the

alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear

the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled
and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him
beside

me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned
the
sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the

sun was
above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time,

sleeping on
the white river sand.

   I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had
come the
night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by

lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and

the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—
maybe it

was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the

horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look
beyond the

pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could

not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river
that

moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night.

The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed
the
sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to

follow,
and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the

river. I
slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked

north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in

footprints over footprints.
“Wake up.”
He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his

eyes still
closed. I knelt down to touch him.
“I’m leaving.”
He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me,

remember?”
He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun.

“Where?”
“To my place.”

“And will I come back?”
   He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him

behind me

and smelling the willows.
“Yellow woman,” he said.
I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked.

He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face
in the
river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had

come.”
   I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to
remember
the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember

his warmth around me.

Craig

Craig
I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you

really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my

students as
a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I
have
seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such

strong
evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you
have not
thought this through.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:

On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more
flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a
better essay,

Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is
worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but,
yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to
the
choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying

sentence starts is not a panacea.

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/

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/ --001e680f0c782aaffd046adaa6b0-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 21:29:32 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF2EMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF2EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A thought from one who mostly taught college-level linguistics and grammar and has taught freshman writing only rarely and badly. I never felt confident that I was getting the notion "subordination" across to my UG grammar classes until I put up the frame of a sentence with slots for Subject, Object, and Adverb and then illustrated what could go in those slots. Sounds like a very simple-minded version of tagmemics, but it really worked. Suddenly I saw lights going on all over the classroom as students saw clauses in the same roles that other constructions could fill. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander Sent: 2009-05-26 21:20 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Le sigh, is it just me or do discussions on ATEG's listserv devolve into personal battles more quickly than elsewhere? What is it about grammar and pedagogy that seems so, I don't know, personal? I don't approach discussion here ever trying to justify hypotheticals. I'm less interested in how things should work and more interested in how they actually do work. I'm sorry if I sounded pie in the skyish. I, too, have expertise in the area of secondary education, language arts pedagogy, applied linguistics, and curriculum design. I teach high school students, and I love it. I teach college students from time to time (I used to teach undergraduates extensively). When I voice my opinion, it's just that. It's my opinion and a statement on what actions I would take. I, of course, wouldn't use the same language with my students that I use with you or anyone else on this list. While I do teach metalanguage in my classroom, I don't rely on it when teaching concepts. "Plain-speak" is what I use as well; however, my plain speak for subordination, coordination, and other embedding features of language would not be "change up sentence starts." I prefer in my classroom to focus on the verb string and move out from there, viewing the verb as the nucleus of any clause (and by extension, sentence) and the element that has the greatest impact on meaning. I believe that focusing on structural variation in sentence-initial position is one of the very last things that will help struggling writers to improve their writing. I believe that it can produce unnecessarily complex sentences. That's just my opinion though. Considering that you don't know me, my students, or my results, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. That's the nature of informal, online, listserv discussions, and I'm fine with that. We disagree on this point. No big deal. Please don't take that to mean that I think you're a bad teacher; in fact, you care way too much about this to be anything but a good teacher. John Alexander Austin, Texas On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote: John, you have actually made my point. You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice." If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up their sentence starts. Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix the core problem. I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts with what I have experienced. On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the structure). I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want. John Alexander Austin, Texas On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts? Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too quickly. The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for continuity, though, not for variation. I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is another. Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple adverbials. As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to build coherence into texts. I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching practices, not a personal criticism. Craig Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am not enjoying myself. Susan On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind. I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never intended to be personal. That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says, first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the highest about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, then students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring. I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical Grammar" as a more linguistically sound source of advice. But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a teacher. As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded, effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures on my part to do that. Craig Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more outrage, tar, and feathers! Sentence Beginnings Vary the beginnings of your sentences. Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject-far more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your sentences. WORDS Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to fight back. An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came from the heights around us. A connecting word: For students who have just survived the brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school, find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as important as a healthy mind. A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals- these affect the health of plants. PHRASES A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one thing, it can be ruthless. A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this existence. An infinitive: To be really successful, you will have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program is essential. A participle: Looking out of the window high over the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded by fields. An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the attack. CLAUSES An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and I think it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to death that if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to show up again. An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group of animal lovers. A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to ask a geologist. On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: Susan, This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? Jean Waldman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first had boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly believe the varying sentence starts made it better. That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't force students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have other concerns as well. Susan On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't mean to be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence openings is not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence openings is not based on close observation of how language works in effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a distraction from more relevant choices. Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already have it in an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow woman". It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence openings are quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base the discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal preferences. Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun rising up through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds came to the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him beside me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned the sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the sun was above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, sleeping on the white river sand. I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had come the night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up- maybe it was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look beyond the pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river that moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed the sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to follow, and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the river. I slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in footprints over footprints. "Wake up." He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his eyes still closed. I knelt down to touch him. "I'm leaving." He smiled now, eyes still closed. "You are coming with me, remember?" He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. "Where?" "To my place." "And will I come back?" He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him behind me and smelling the willows. "Yellow woman," he said. I turned to face him. "Who are you?" I asked. He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face in the river. "Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had come." I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to remember the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember his warmth around me. Craig Craig I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my students as a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I have seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such strong evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have not thought this through. Susan On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a better essay, Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying sentence starts is not a panacea. 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/ 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/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF2EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A thought from one who mostly taught college-level linguistics and grammar and has taught freshman writing only rarely and badly. I never felt confident that I was getting the notion “subordination” across to my UG grammar classes until I put up the frame of a sentence with slots for Subject, Object, and Adverb and then illustrated what could go in those slots. Sounds like a very simple-minded version of tagmemics, but it really worked. Suddenly I saw lights going on all over the classroom as students saw clauses in the same roles that other constructions could fill.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: 2009-05-26 21:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Le sigh, is it just me or do discussions on ATEG's listserv devolve into personal battles more quickly than elsewhere? What is it about grammar and pedagogy that seems so, I don't know, personal?

I don't approach discussion here ever trying to justify hypotheticals. I'm less interested in how things should work and more interested in how they actually do work. I'm sorry if I sounded pie in the skyish.

I, too, have expertise in the area of secondary education, language arts pedagogy, applied linguistics, and curriculum design. I teach high school students, and I love it. I teach college students from time to time (I used to teach undergraduates extensively). When I voice my opinion, it's just that. It's my opinion and a statement on what actions I would take.

I, of course, wouldn't use the same language with my students that I use with you or anyone else on this list. While I do teach metalanguage in my classroom, I don't rely on it when teaching concepts. "Plain-speak" is what I use as well; however, my plain speak for subordination, coordination, and other embedding features of language would not be "change up sentence starts." I prefer in my classroom to focus on the verb string and move out from there, viewing the verb as the nucleus of any clause (and by extension, sentence) and the element that has the greatest impact on meaning.

I believe that focusing on structural variation in sentence-initial position is one of the very last things that will help struggling writers to improve their writing. I believe that it can produce unnecessarily complex sentences. That's just my opinion though. Considering that you don't know me, my students, or my results, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. That's the nature of informal, online, listserv discussions, and I'm fine with that.

We disagree on this point. No big deal. Please don't take that to mean that I think you're a bad teacher; in fact, you care way too much about this to be anything but a good teacher.

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

John, you have actually made my point.

You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice."

If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up their sentence starts.

Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix the core problem.

I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts with what I have experienced.

On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the structure).

I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice.

Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want.

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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."

I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts?

Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling.  He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight.   He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer.

On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,

   I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid

understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying

sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is

a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those

variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't.

As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students

sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a

row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite

often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts

every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's

much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of

the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied

a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he

effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long

stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with

mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating

sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style.

   There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a

text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always

last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the

subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening

establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to

accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition

for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too

quickly.

   The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different

structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should

have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for

continuity, though, not for variation.

   I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of

variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A

variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is

another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is

another.

Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most

sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation

form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple

adverbials.

   As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to

imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence

openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see

how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to

build coherence into texts.

   I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching

practices, not a personal criticism.

Craig

Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe

it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to

start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up

sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I

was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.)

I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you

were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am

not enjoying myself.

Susan

On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,

   I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature

literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be

constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from

perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession

as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we

are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to

the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep

from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of

conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do

with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We

simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind.

I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never

intended to be personal.

   That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the

"style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says,

first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the

time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The

studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional

writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of

about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the

highest

about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case,

then

students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I

would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring.

   I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical

Grammar" as a

more linguistically sound source of advice.

   But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if

anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a

teacher.

As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded,

effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each

other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures

on my

part to do that.

Craig

Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides.

I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing

Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word

in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more

outrage, tar, and feathers!

Sentence Beginnings

Vary the beginnings of your sentences.

Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far

more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But

overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous

writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your

sentences.

WORDS

Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to

fight back.

An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came

from the heights around us.

A connecting word: For students who have just survived the

brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all

too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school,

find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers.

An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as

important as a healthy mind.

A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals—

these affect the health of plants.

PHRASES

A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of

athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one

thing, it can be ruthless.

A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of

their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this

existence.

An infinitive: To be really successful, you will

have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer.

A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program

is essential.

A participle: Looking out of the window high over

the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse

surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded

by fields.

An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides

food and shelter for Springfield's homeless.

An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the

attack.

CLAUSES

An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I think

it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death that

if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to

show up again.

An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of

organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group

of animal lovers.

A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to

ask a geologist.

On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote:

Susan,

This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students

HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you

just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it.

What method do you use to teach the different possible variations?

Jean Waldman

----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten"

<[log in to unmask]>

To: <[log in to unmask]>

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM

Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to

evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first

had

boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted

the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't

make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly

believe the varying sentence starts made it better.

That struck me as arrogantly dismissive.

Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their

sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence?

It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't

force

students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't

lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have

other concerns as well.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,

   I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't

mean to

be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence

openings is

not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and

thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence

openings is not based on close observation of how language works in

effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are

irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the

effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a

distraction from more relevant choices.

   Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already

have it in

an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow

woman".

It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of

narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence

openings are

quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base

the

discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal

preferences.

Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko)

My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun

rising up

through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds

came to

the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the

alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear

the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled

and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him

beside

me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned

the

sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the

sun was

above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time,

sleeping on

the white river sand.

   I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had

come the

night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by

lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and

the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—

maybe it

was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the

horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look

beyond the

pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could

not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river

that

moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night.

The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed

the

sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to

follow,

and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the

river. I

slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked

north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in

footprints over footprints.

“Wake up.”

He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his

eyes still

closed. I knelt down to touch him.

“I’m leaving.”

He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me,

remember?”

He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun.

“Where?”

“To my place.”

“And will I come back?”

   He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him

behind me

and smelling the willows.

“Yellow woman,” he said.

I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked.

He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face

in the

river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had

come.”

   I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to

remember

the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember

his warmth around me.

Craig

Craig

I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you

really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my

students as

a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I

have

seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such

strong

evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you

have not

thought this through.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:

On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more

flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a

better essay,

Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is

worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but,

yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to

the

choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying

sentence starts is not a panacea.

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/

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/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF2EMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 20:54:53 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-35-941604654 --Apple-Mail-35-941604654 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed On May 26, 2009, at 8:20 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: > I'm less interested in how things should work and more interested > in how they actually do work. I'm sorry if I sounded pie in the > skyish. I agree and gave this group an actual student example. What plain language would you say to a junior in high school to help her write more effectively? What plain words would you say about this writer's "verb string." Remember you have 2 minutes at the most unless you can convince her to come after school and stay while you explain your "string" theory. Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer. > I believe that [focusing on structural variation in sentence- > initial position] can produce unnecessarily complex sentences. > That's just my opinion though. Considering that you don't know me, > my students, or my results, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. > That's the nature of informal, online, listserv discussions, and > I'm fine with that. Yes, well, there we have it. You just have an opinion based on experience. So do I. > We disagree on this point. No big deal. Please don't take that to > mean that I think you're a bad teacher. John, are you concerned that I think you are a bad teacher? Why bring this up? It's irrelevant if you are concerned about what actually works. > > > John Alexander > Austin, Texas > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Susan van Druten > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > John, you have actually made my point. > > You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, > coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to > consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging > of verb choice." > > If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me > like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say > that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up > their sentence starts. > > Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences > (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is > what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school > classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix > the core problem. > > I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to > reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can > keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts > with what I have experienced. > > > > On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: > >> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as >> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly >> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given >> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an >> appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the >> problem, not the structure). >> >> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and >> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more >> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. >> >> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) >> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the >> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core >> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences >> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >> what teachers want. >> >> John Alexander >> Austin, Texas >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up >> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is >> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your >> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th >> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." >> >> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to >> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree >> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her >> sentence starts? >> >> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves >> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become >> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only >> realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her >> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period >> of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer. >> >> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >>> Susan, >>> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >>> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that >>> varying >>> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >>> opening)is >>> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those >>> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >>> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >>> students >>> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a >>> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >>> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts >>> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie >>> Silko's >>> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of >>> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >>> copied >>> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >>> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for >>> long >>> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with >>> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and >>> repeating >>> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. >>> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >>> flow in a >>> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost >>> always >>> last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the >>> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >>> opening >>> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >>> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >>> repetition >>> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too >>> quickly. >>> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different >>> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should >>> have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for >>> continuity, though, not for variation. >>> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >>> kind of >>> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >>> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >>> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >>> sentences is >>> another. >>> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >>> that most >>> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have >>> variation >>> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >>> adverbials. >>> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >>> harmful to >>> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >>> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them >>> to see >>> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >>> subjects, to >>> build coherence into texts. >>> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >>> teaching >>> practices, not a personal criticism. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still >>> believe >>>> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to >>>> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >>>> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea >>>> that I >>>> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >>>> >>>> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you >>>> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am >>>> not enjoying myself. >>>> >>>> Susan >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>> >>>>> Susan, >>>>> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a >>>>> mature >>>>> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should >>>>> all be >>>>> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, >>>>> far from >>>>> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >>>>> profession >>>>> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >>>>> what we >>>>> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >>>>> posted to >>>>> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings >>>>> to keep >>>>> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >>>>> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at >>>>> all to do >>>>> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We >>>>> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an >>>>> open mind. >>>>> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was >>>>> never >>>>> intended to be personal. >>>>> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >>>>> whether the >>>>> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. >>>>> It says, >>>>> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% >>>>> of the >>>>> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. >>>>> The >>>>> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >>>>> professional >>>>> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an >>>>> average of >>>>> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >>>>> highest >>>>> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, >>>>> then >>>>> students already vary sentence openings more than mature >>>>> writers. I >>>>> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >>>>> boring. >>>>> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >>>>> Grammar" as a >>>>> more linguistically sound source of advice. >>>>> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >>>>> apologize if >>>>> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >>>>> teacher. >>>>> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >>>>> grounded, >>>>> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful >>>>> of each >>>>> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures >>>>> on my >>>>> part to do that. >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >>>>> guides. >>>>>> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing >>>>>> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same >>>>>> starting word >>>>>> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >>>>>> outrage, tar, and feathers! >>>>>> >>>>>> Sentence Beginnings >>>>>> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject— >>>>>> far >>>>>> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >>>>>> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >>>>>> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >>>>>> sentences. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> WORDS >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to >>>>>> fight back. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and >>>>>> clattering came >>>>>> from the heights around us. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A connecting word: For students who have just >>>>>> survived the >>>>>> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >>>>>> is all >>>>>> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >>>>>> school, >>>>>> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >>>>>> important as a healthy mind. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, >>>>>> minerals— >>>>>> these affect the health of plants. >>>>>> >>>>>> PHRASES >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >>>>>> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For >>>>>> one >>>>>> thing, it can be ruthless. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of >>>>>> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >>>>>> existence. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will >>>>>> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >>>>>> program >>>>>> is essential. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A participle: Looking out of the window high >>>>>> over >>>>>> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >>>>>> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >>>>>> surrounded >>>>>> by fields. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >>>>>> provides >>>>>> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went >>>>>> on the >>>>>> attack. >>>>>> >>>>>> CLAUSES >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and >>>>>> I think >>>>>> it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to >>>>>> death that >>>>>> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >>>>>> going to >>>>>> show up again. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a >>>>>> joiner of >>>>>> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of >>>>>> a group >>>>>> of animal lovers. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >>>>>> questions to >>>>>> ask a geologist. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >>>>>>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do >>>>>>> it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What method do you use to teach the different possible >>>>>>> variations? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jean Waldman >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to >>>>>>> evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The >>>>>>> first >>>>>>> had >>>>>>> boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You >>>>>>> admitted >>>>>>> the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it >>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>> make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't >>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>> believe the varying sentence starts made it better. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their >>>>>>> sentence starts compromises their ability to write with >>>>>>> coherence? >>>>>>> It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't >>>>>>> force >>>>>>> students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts >>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>> lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you >>>>>>> have >>>>>>> other concerns as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>>> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't >>>>>>>> mean to >>>>>>>> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence >>>>>>>> openings is >>>>>>>> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary >>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>> openings is not based on close observation of how language >>>>>>>> works in >>>>>>>> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points >>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may >>>>>>>> have the >>>>>>>> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a >>>>>>>> distraction from more relevant choices. >>>>>>>> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already >>>>>>>> have it in >>>>>>>> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow >>>>>>>> woman". >>>>>>>> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more >>>>>>>> typical of >>>>>>>> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence >>>>>>>> openings are >>>>>>>> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can >>>>>>>> base >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on >>>>>>>> personal >>>>>>>> preferences. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun >>>>>>>> rising up >>>>>>>> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds >>>>>>>> came to >>>>>>>> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I >>>>>>>> could hear >>>>>>>> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel >>>>>>>> bubbled >>>>>>>> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him >>>>>>>> beside >>>>>>>> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I >>>>>>>> cleaned >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the >>>>>>>> sun was >>>>>>>> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, >>>>>>>> sleeping on >>>>>>>> the white river sand. >>>>>>>> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had >>>>>>>> come the >>>>>>>> night before, following our footprints that were already >>>>>>>> blurred by >>>>>>>> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying >>>>>>>> down, and >>>>>>>> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up— >>>>>>>> maybe it >>>>>>>> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches >>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look >>>>>>>> beyond the >>>>>>>> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I >>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same >>>>>>>> river >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >>>>>>>> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and >>>>>>>> pawed >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to >>>>>>>> follow, >>>>>>>> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the >>>>>>>> river. I >>>>>>>> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I >>>>>>>> waked >>>>>>>> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >>>>>>>> footprints over footprints. >>>>>>>> “Wake up.” >>>>>>>> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his >>>>>>>> eyes still >>>>>>>> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >>>>>>>> “I’m leaving.” >>>>>>>> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, >>>>>>>> remember?” >>>>>>>> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >>>>>>>> “Where?” >>>>>>>> “To my place.” >>>>>>>> “And will I come back?” >>>>>>>> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling >>>>>>>> him >>>>>>>> behind me >>>>>>>> and smelling the willows. >>>>>>>> “Yellow woman,” he said. >>>>>>>> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >>>>>>>> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his >>>>>>>> face >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had >>>>>>>> come.” >>>>>>>> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to >>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and >>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>> his warmth around me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my >>>>>>>>> students as >>>>>>>>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their >>>>>>>>> essays. I >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such >>>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you >>>>>>>>> have not >>>>>>>>> thought this through. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version >>>>>>>>>>> shows more >>>>>>>>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> make it a >>>>>>>>>>> better essay, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why >>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, >>>>>>>>>> but, >>>>>>>>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are >>>>>>>>>> preaching to >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that >>>>>>>>>> varying >>>>>>>>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>> >>> >>> 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/ --Apple-Mail-35-941604654 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252
On May 26, 2009, at 8:20 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:
I'm less interested in how things should work and more interested in how they actually do work. I'm sorry if I sounded pie in the skyish.

I agree and gave this group an actual student example. What plain language would you say to a junior in high school to help her write more effectively? What plain words would you say about this writer's "verb string." Remember you have 2 minutes at the most unless you can convince her to come after school and stay while you explain your "string" theory.

Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling.  He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight.   He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up.  He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time.  He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer.

I believe that [focusing on structural variation in sentence-initial position] can produce unnecessarily complex sentences. That's just my opinion though. Considering that you don't know me, my students, or my results, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. That's the nature of informal, online, listserv discussions, and I'm fine with that.

Yes, well, there we have it. You just have an opinion based on experience. So do I.

We disagree on this point. No big deal. Please don't take that to mean that I think you're a bad teacher.

John, are you concerned that I think you are a bad teacher? Why bring this up? It's irrelevant if you are concerned about what actually works.

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

John, you have actually made my point.

You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice."

If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up their sentence starts.

Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix the core problem.

I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts with what I have experienced.

On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the structure).

I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice.

Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want.

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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."

I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts?

Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling.  He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight.   He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer.

On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid

understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying
sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is
a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those
variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't.
As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students

sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a
row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite
often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts

every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's
much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of

the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied
a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he
effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long
stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with

mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating

sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style.
   There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a
text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always
last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the
subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening

establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to

accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition
for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too
quickly.
   The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different

structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should

have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for
continuity, though, not for variation.
   I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of

variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A

variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is
another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is

another.
Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most
sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation

form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple
adverbials.
   As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to

imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence
openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see
how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to
build coherence into texts.
   I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching

practices, not a personal criticism.

Craig

Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe

it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to

start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up
sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I

was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.)

I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you

were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am
not enjoying myself.

Susan

On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature
literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be

constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from
perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession
as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we
are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to
the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep

from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of
conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do
with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We

simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind.
I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never

intended to be personal.
   That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the
"style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says,

first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the
time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The
studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional
writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of
about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the

highest
about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case,
then
students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I

would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring.
   I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical
Grammar" as a
more linguistically sound source of advice.
   But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if
anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a
teacher.
As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded,
effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each
other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures
on my
part to do that.

Craig

Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides.

I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing

Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word
in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more
outrage, tar, and feathers!

Sentence Beginnings
Vary the beginnings of your sentences.

Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far
more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But

overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous
writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your
sentences.

WORDS

Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to

fight back.

An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came

from the heights around us.

A connecting word: For students who have just survived the

brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all
too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school,
find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers.

An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as

important as a healthy mind.

A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals—
these affect the health of plants.

PHRASES

A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of

athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one
thing, it can be ruthless.

A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of

their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this
existence.

An infinitive: To be really successful, you will
have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer.

A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program

is essential.

A participle: Looking out of the window high over

the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse
surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded
by fields.

An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides

food and shelter for Springfield's homeless.

An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the

attack.

CLAUSES

An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I think
it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death that

if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to
show up again.

An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of
organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group

of animal lovers.

A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to
ask a geologist.

On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote:

Susan,
This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students
HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you

just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it.

What method do you use to teach the different possible variations?

Jean Waldman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten"
<[log in to unmask]>

To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to

evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first
had
boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted

the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't
make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly
believe the varying sentence starts made it better.

That struck me as arrogantly dismissive.

Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their
sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence?
It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't
force
students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't

lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have
other concerns as well.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't
mean to

be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence

openings is
not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and

thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence

openings is not based on close observation of how language works in
effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are
irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the
effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a

distraction from more relevant choices.

   Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already
have it in

an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow

woman".
It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of

narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence

openings are
quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base

the
discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal

preferences.

Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko)

My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun

rising up
through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds

came to
the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the

alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear

the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled
and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him
beside

me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned
the
sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the

sun was
above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time,

sleeping on
the white river sand.

   I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had
come the
night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by

lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and

the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—
maybe it

was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the

horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look
beyond the

pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could

not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river
that

moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night.

The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed
the
sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to

follow,
and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the

river. I
slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked

north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in

footprints over footprints.
“Wake up.”
He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his

eyes still
closed. I knelt down to touch him.
“I’m leaving.”
He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me,

remember?”
He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun.

“Where?”
“To my place.”

“And will I come back?”
   He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him

behind me

and smelling the willows.
“Yellow woman,” he said.
I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked.

He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face
in the
river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had

come.”
   I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to
remember
the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember

his warmth around me.

Craig

Craig
I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you

really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my

students as
a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I
have
seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such

strong
evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you
have not
thought this through.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:

On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more
flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a
better essay,

Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is
worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but,
yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to
the
choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying

sentence starts is not a panacea.

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/

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/ --Apple-Mail-35-941604654-- ========================================================================Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 23:35:27 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Susan, I don't see this as a paragraph written by a weak writer. It's not immediately clear what the first few sentences are headed for, but the last few seem to work together very well. The prime focus seems to be on what Landon is beginning to "notice", "see", and "realize" (2 instances.) If that's the case, then the opening sentences could get us there more rapidly. The writer chooses what Landon says and does, though, related to those insights, so there is a thoughtful mind at work. At any rate, though, revision should be based on what the writer is trying to say in relation to the whole paper, not something that's easy to comment on from a few sentences or without a discussion with the writer. If, in fact, the focus of the paragraph is on Landon's increasing awareness (sensitivity?) toward Jamie's increasing frailty and impendng mortality, a very powerful subject, by the way, then the choice of subjects is very appropriate. I see nothing wrong with starting with Landon and following that up with "he." If it were my paragraph, I would use "realize" as the opening sentence verb. There are some mild problems with cohesion, but changing up the sentence openings wouldn't fix that. I find it strange that you think the passages from Obama and Silko are irrelevant. You can't dismiss them simply as parallel structure. These are effective passages that repeat simple subjects. Craig > On May 26, 2009, at 8:20 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >> I'm less interested in how things should work and more interested >> in how they actually do work. I'm sorry if I sounded pie in the >> skyish. > > I agree and gave this group an actual student example. What plain > language would you say to a junior in high school to help her write > more effectively? What plain words would you say about this writer's > "verb string." Remember you have 2 minutes at the most unless you > can convince her to come after school and stay while you explain your > "string" theory. > > Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had > fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves > falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so > sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her > because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing > just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken > over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes > that she doesn’t have that much longer. > >> I believe that [focusing on structural variation in sentence- >> initial position] can produce unnecessarily complex sentences. >> That's just my opinion though. Considering that you don't know me, >> my students, or my results, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. >> That's the nature of informal, online, listserv discussions, and >> I'm fine with that. > > Yes, well, there we have it. You just have an opinion based on > experience. So do I. > >> We disagree on this point. No big deal. Please don't take that to >> mean that I think you're a bad teacher. > > John, are you concerned that I think you are a bad teacher? Why > bring this up? It's irrelevant if you are concerned about what > actually works. > > > >> >> >> John Alexander >> Austin, Texas >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Susan van Druten >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> John, you have actually made my point. >> >> You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, >> coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to >> consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging >> of verb choice." >> >> If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me >> like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say >> that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up >> their sentence starts. >> >> Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences >> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >> what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school >> classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix >> the core problem. >> >> I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to >> reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can >> keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts >> with what I have experienced. >> >> >> >> On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >> >>> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as >>> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly >>> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given >>> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an >>> appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the >>> problem, not the structure). >>> >>> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and >>> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more >>> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. >>> >>> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) >>> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the >>> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core >>> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences >>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>> what teachers want. >>> >>> John Alexander >>> Austin, Texas >>> >>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten >>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up >>> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is >>> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your >>> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th >>> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." >>> >>> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to >>> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree >>> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her >>> sentence starts? >>> >>> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >>> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves >>> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become >>> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >>> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only >>> realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her >>> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period >>> of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer. >>> >>> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>> >>>> Susan, >>>> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >>>> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that >>>> varying >>>> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >>>> opening)is >>>> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those >>>> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >>>> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >>>> students >>>> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a >>>> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >>>> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts >>>> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie >>>> Silko's >>>> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of >>>> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >>>> copied >>>> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >>>> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for >>>> long >>>> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with >>>> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and >>>> repeating >>>> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. >>>> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >>>> flow in a >>>> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost >>>> always >>>> last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the >>>> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >>>> opening >>>> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >>>> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >>>> repetition >>>> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too >>>> quickly. >>>> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different >>>> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should >>>> have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for >>>> continuity, though, not for variation. >>>> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >>>> kind of >>>> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >>>> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >>>> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >>>> sentences is >>>> another. >>>> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >>>> that most >>>> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have >>>> variation >>>> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >>>> adverbials. >>>> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >>>> harmful to >>>> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >>>> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them >>>> to see >>>> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >>>> subjects, to >>>> build coherence into texts. >>>> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >>>> teaching >>>> practices, not a personal criticism. >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still >>>> believe >>>>> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to >>>>> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >>>>> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea >>>>> that I >>>>> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >>>>> >>>>> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you >>>>> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am >>>>> not enjoying myself. >>>>> >>>>> Susan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Susan, >>>>>> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a >>>>>> mature >>>>>> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should >>>>>> all be >>>>>> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, >>>>>> far from >>>>>> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >>>>>> profession >>>>>> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >>>>>> what we >>>>>> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >>>>>> posted to >>>>>> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings >>>>>> to keep >>>>>> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >>>>>> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at >>>>>> all to do >>>>>> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We >>>>>> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an >>>>>> open mind. >>>>>> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was >>>>>> never >>>>>> intended to be personal. >>>>>> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >>>>>> whether the >>>>>> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. >>>>>> It says, >>>>>> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% >>>>>> of the >>>>>> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. >>>>>> The >>>>>> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >>>>>> professional >>>>>> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an >>>>>> average of >>>>>> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >>>>>> highest >>>>>> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, >>>>>> then >>>>>> students already vary sentence openings more than mature >>>>>> writers. I >>>>>> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >>>>>> boring. >>>>>> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >>>>>> Grammar" as a >>>>>> more linguistically sound source of advice. >>>>>> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >>>>>> apologize if >>>>>> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >>>>>> teacher. >>>>>> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >>>>>> grounded, >>>>>> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful >>>>>> of each >>>>>> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures >>>>>> on my >>>>>> part to do that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >>>>>> guides. >>>>>>> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing >>>>>>> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same >>>>>>> starting word >>>>>>> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >>>>>>> outrage, tar, and feathers! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sentence Beginnings >>>>>>> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject— >>>>>>> far >>>>>>> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >>>>>>> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >>>>>>> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >>>>>>> sentences. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WORDS >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to >>>>>>> fight back. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and >>>>>>> clattering came >>>>>>> from the heights around us. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A connecting word: For students who have just >>>>>>> survived the >>>>>>> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >>>>>>> is all >>>>>>> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >>>>>>> school, >>>>>>> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >>>>>>> important as a healthy mind. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, >>>>>>> minerals— >>>>>>> these affect the health of plants. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PHRASES >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >>>>>>> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For >>>>>>> one >>>>>>> thing, it can be ruthless. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of >>>>>>> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >>>>>>> existence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will >>>>>>> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >>>>>>> program >>>>>>> is essential. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A participle: Looking out of the window high >>>>>>> over >>>>>>> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >>>>>>> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >>>>>>> surrounded >>>>>>> by fields. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >>>>>>> provides >>>>>>> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went >>>>>>> on the >>>>>>> attack. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CLAUSES >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and >>>>>>> I think >>>>>>> it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to >>>>>>> death that >>>>>>> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >>>>>>> going to >>>>>>> show up again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a >>>>>>> joiner of >>>>>>> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of >>>>>>> a group >>>>>>> of animal lovers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >>>>>>> questions to >>>>>>> ask a geologist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >>>>>>>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do >>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What method do you use to teach the different possible >>>>>>>> variations? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jean Waldman >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to >>>>>>>> evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The >>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>> boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You >>>>>>>> admitted >>>>>>>> the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it >>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>> make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't >>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>> believe the varying sentence starts made it better. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their >>>>>>>> sentence starts compromises their ability to write with >>>>>>>> coherence? >>>>>>>> It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't >>>>>>>> force >>>>>>>> students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts >>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>> lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you >>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>> other concerns as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>>>> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't >>>>>>>>> mean to >>>>>>>>> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence >>>>>>>>> openings is >>>>>>>>> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary >>>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>>> openings is not based on close observation of how language >>>>>>>>> works in >>>>>>>>> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points >>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may >>>>>>>>> have the >>>>>>>>> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a >>>>>>>>> distraction from more relevant choices. >>>>>>>>> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already >>>>>>>>> have it in >>>>>>>>> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow >>>>>>>>> woman". >>>>>>>>> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more >>>>>>>>> typical of >>>>>>>>> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence >>>>>>>>> openings are >>>>>>>>> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can >>>>>>>>> base >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on >>>>>>>>> personal >>>>>>>>> preferences. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun >>>>>>>>> rising up >>>>>>>>> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds >>>>>>>>> came to >>>>>>>>> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches >>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I >>>>>>>>> could hear >>>>>>>>> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel >>>>>>>>> bubbled >>>>>>>>> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him >>>>>>>>> beside >>>>>>>>> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I >>>>>>>>> cleaned >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the >>>>>>>>> sun was >>>>>>>>> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, >>>>>>>>> sleeping on >>>>>>>>> the white river sand. >>>>>>>>> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had >>>>>>>>> come the >>>>>>>>> night before, following our footprints that were already >>>>>>>>> blurred by >>>>>>>>> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying >>>>>>>>> down, and >>>>>>>>> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up— >>>>>>>>> maybe it >>>>>>>>> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches >>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look >>>>>>>>> beyond the >>>>>>>>> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I >>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same >>>>>>>>> river >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >>>>>>>>> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and >>>>>>>>> pawed >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to >>>>>>>>> follow, >>>>>>>>> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the >>>>>>>>> river. I >>>>>>>>> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I >>>>>>>>> waked >>>>>>>>> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >>>>>>>>> footprints over footprints. >>>>>>>>> “Wake up.” >>>>>>>>> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his >>>>>>>>> eyes still >>>>>>>>> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >>>>>>>>> “I’m leaving.” >>>>>>>>> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, >>>>>>>>> remember?” >>>>>>>>> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >>>>>>>>> “Where?” >>>>>>>>> “To my place.” >>>>>>>>> “And will I come back?” >>>>>>>>> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling >>>>>>>>> him >>>>>>>>> behind me >>>>>>>>> and smelling the willows. >>>>>>>>> “Yellow woman,” he said. >>>>>>>>> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >>>>>>>>> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his >>>>>>>>> face >>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had >>>>>>>>> come.” >>>>>>>>> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to >>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and >>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>> his warmth around me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>>> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my >>>>>>>>>> students as >>>>>>>>>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their >>>>>>>>>> essays. I >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such >>>>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>>>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you >>>>>>>>>> have not >>>>>>>>>> thought this through. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version >>>>>>>>>>>> shows more >>>>>>>>>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> make it a >>>>>>>>>>>> better essay, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why >>>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, >>>>>>>>>>> but, >>>>>>>>>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are >>>>>>>>>>> preaching to >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that >>>>>>>>>>> varying >>>>>>>>>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:21:04 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "O'Sullivan, Brian P" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long-term improvement should take priority. I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately attaining a mature style). Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students--often but not always English Language Learners--who can write simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually improve at, coordination and subordination. "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness and control. At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, that will make this easier." The results would be less predictible then if I just told the student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over the long one. But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of advice? Brian Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of English Director of the Writing Center St. Mary’s College of Maryland Montgomery Hall 50 18952 E. Fisher Rd. St. Mary’s City, Maryland 20686 240-895-4242 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions John, you have actually made my point. You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice." If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up their sentence starts. Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix the core problem. I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts with what I have experienced. On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the structure). I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want. John Alexander Austin, Texas On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts? Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too quickly. The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for continuity, though, not for variation. I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is another. Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple adverbials. As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to build coherence into texts. I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching practices, not a personal criticism. Craig Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am not enjoying myself. Susan On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind. I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never intended to be personal. That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says, first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the highest about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, then students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring. I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical Grammar" as a more linguistically sound source of advice. But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a teacher. As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded, effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures on my part to do that. Craig Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more outrage, tar, and feathers! Sentence Beginnings Vary the beginnings of your sentences. Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject-far more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your sentences. WORDS Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to fight back. An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came from the heights around us. A connecting word: For students who have just survived the brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school, find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as important as a healthy mind. A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals- these affect the health of plants. PHRASES A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one thing, it can be ruthless. A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this existence. An infinitive: To be really successful, you will have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program is essential. A participle: Looking out of the window high over the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded by fields. An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the attack. CLAUSES An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and I think it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to death that if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to show up again. An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group of animal lovers. A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to ask a geologist. On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: Susan, This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? Jean Waldman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first had boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly believe the varying sentence starts made it better. That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't force students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have other concerns as well. Susan On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't mean to be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence openings is not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence openings is not based on close observation of how language works in effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a distraction from more relevant choices. Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already have it in an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow woman". It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence openings are quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base the discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal preferences. Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun rising up through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds came to the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him beside me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned the sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the sun was above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, sleeping on the white river sand. I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had come the night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up- maybe it was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look beyond the pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river that moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed the sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to follow, and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the river. I slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in footprints over footprints. "Wake up." He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his eyes still closed. I knelt down to touch him. "I'm leaving." He smiled now, eyes still closed. "You are coming with me, remember?" He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. "Where?" "To my place." "And will I come back?" He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him behind me and smelling the willows. "Yellow woman," he said. I turned to face him. "Who are you?" I asked. He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face in the river. "Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had come." I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to remember the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember his warmth around me. Craig Craig I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my students as a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I have seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such strong evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have not thought this through. Susan On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a better essay, Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying sentence starts is not a panacea. 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/ 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/ ========================================================================Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:07:17 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Spruiell, William C" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9DEE5.37C7D738" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9DEE5.37C7D738 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Susan, John, et al.: I have about the same reaction to this particular student's writing as John does - the repetition of "he" is annoying from an aesthetic perspective, but there's nothing wrong with it in terms of basic information flow - and the repetitiveness may simply be a reflex of a lack of clause-combination strategies. That isn't quite the same as variation in sentence-openers. The following is an example rewrite that doesn't change sentence openers much: He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling, since he's really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight and that he had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight, but also how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. Now, I realize that the rest of you might not agree that that version sounds better - all I can do is go with my own judgments on this one. But if does sound better (not great, mind you, just better) to you, note that I didn't add to the variety of sentence openers; I merely reduced the number of sentences. I did add a variety of connectors, but there's a crucial difference in presenting this as "connection" rather than "sentence-starting." Manipulating the connections changes the extent to which each clause is presented as foregrounded or backgrounded, and perhaps part of the sense of repetitiveness in the original comes from the combination of multiple instances of "he" all presented as equally topical. This does not, of course, detract from Susan's basic point that some students benefit from varying sentence openers (quibbling with one example does not address the general point). It does suggest that there are cases in which lack of sentence-opener variety is merely symptomatic of something else. Sincerely, Bill Spruiell Dept. of English Central Michigan University From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 7:48 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the structure). I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want. John Alexander Austin, Texas On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts? Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too quickly. The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for continuity, though, not for variation. I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is another. Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple adverbials. As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to build coherence into texts. I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching practices, not a personal criticism. Craig Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am not enjoying myself. Susan On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind. I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never intended to be personal. That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says, first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the highest about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, then students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring. I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical Grammar" as a more linguistically sound source of advice. But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a teacher. As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded, effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures on my part to do that. Craig Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more outrage, tar, and feathers! Sentence Beginnings Vary the beginnings of your sentences. Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject-far more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your sentences. WORDS Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to fight back. An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came from the heights around us. A connecting word: For students who have just survived the brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school, find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as important as a healthy mind. A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals- these affect the health of plants. PHRASES A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one thing, it can be ruthless. A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this existence. An infinitive: To be really successful, you will have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program is essential. A participle: Looking out of the window high over the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded by fields. An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the attack. CLAUSES An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and I think it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to death that if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to show up again. An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group of animal lovers. A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to ask a geologist. On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: Susan, This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? Jean Waldman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first had boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly believe the varying sentence starts made it better. That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence? It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't force students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have other concerns as well. Susan On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't mean to be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence openings is not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence openings is not based on close observation of how language works in effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a distraction from more relevant choices. Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already have it in an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow woman". It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence openings are quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base the discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal preferences. Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun rising up through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds came to the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him beside me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned the sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the sun was above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, sleeping on the white river sand. I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had come the night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up- maybe it was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look beyond the pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river that moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed the sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to follow, and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the river. I slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in footprints over footprints. "Wake up." He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his eyes still closed. I knelt down to touch him. "I'm leaving." He smiled now, eyes still closed. "You are coming with me, remember?" He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. "Where?" "To my place." "And will I come back?" He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him behind me and smelling the willows. "Yellow woman," he said. I turned to face him. "Who are you?" I asked. He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face in the river. "Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had come." I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to remember the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember his warmth around me. Craig Craig I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my students as a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I have seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such strong evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you have not thought this through. Susan On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a better essay, Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but, yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to the choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying sentence starts is not a panacea. 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/ 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/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9DEE5.37C7D738 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Susan, John, et al.:

I have about the same reaction to this particular student’s writing as John does – the repetition of “he” is annoying from an aesthetic perspective, but there’s nothing wrong with it in terms of basic information flow – and the repetitiveness may simply be a reflex of a lack of clause-combination strategies. That isn’t quite the same as variation in sentence-openers. The following is an example rewrite that doesn’t change sentence openers much:

He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling, since he’s really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight and that he had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight, but also how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer.

Now, I realize that the rest of you might not agree that that version sounds better – all I can do is go with my own judgments on this one. But if does sound better (not great, mind you, just better) to you, note that I didn’t add to the variety of sentence openers; I merely reduced the number of sentences. I did add a variety of connectors, but there’s a crucial difference in presenting this as “connection” rather than “sentence-starting.” Manipulating the connections changes the extent to which each clause is presented as foregrounded or backgrounded, and perhaps part of the sense of repetitiveness in the original comes from the combination of multiple instances of “he” all presented as equally topical.

This does not, of course, detract from Susan’s basic point that some students benefit from varying sentence openers (quibbling with one example does not address the general point). It does suggest that there are cases in which lack of sentence-opener variety is merely symptomatic of something else.

Sincerely,

Bill Spruiell

Dept. of English

Central Michigan University

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Dews-Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 7:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the structure).

I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice.

Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want.

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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."

I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts?

Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling.  He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight.   He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer.

On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,

   I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid

understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying

sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is

a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those

variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't.

As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students

sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a

row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite

often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts

every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's

much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of

the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied

a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he

effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long

stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with

mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating

sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style.

   There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a

text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always

last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the

subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening

establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to

accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition

for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too

quickly.

   The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different

structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should

have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for

continuity, though, not for variation.

   I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of

variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A

variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is

another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is

another.

Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most

sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation

form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple

adverbials.

   As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to

imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence

openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see

how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to

build coherence into texts.

   I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching

practices, not a personal criticism.

Craig

Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe

it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to

start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up

sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I

was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.)

I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you

were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am

not enjoying myself.

Susan

On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,

   I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature

literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be

constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from

perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession

as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we

are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to

the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep

from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of

conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do

with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We

simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind.

I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never

intended to be personal.

   That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the

"style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says,

first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the

time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The

studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional

writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of

about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the

highest

about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case,

then

students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I

would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring.

   I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical

Grammar" as a

more linguistically sound source of advice.

   But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if

anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a

teacher.

As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded,

effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each

other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures

on my

part to do that.

Craig

Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides.

I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing

Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word

in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more

outrage, tar, and feathers!

Sentence Beginnings

Vary the beginnings of your sentences.

Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—far

more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But

overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous

writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your

sentences.

WORDS

Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to

fight back.

An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came

from the heights around us.

A connecting word: For students who have just survived the

brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all

too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school,

find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers.

An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as

important as a healthy mind.

A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals—

these affect the health of plants.

PHRASES

A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of

athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one

thing, it can be ruthless.

A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of

their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this

existence.

An infinitive: To be really successful, you will

have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer.

A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program

is essential.

A participle: Looking out of the window high over

the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse

surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded

by fields.

An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides

food and shelter for Springfield's homeless.

An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the

attack.

CLAUSES

An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and I think

it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to death that

if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to

show up again.

An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of

organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group

of animal lovers.

A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to

ask a geologist.

On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote:

Susan,

This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students

HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you

just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it.

What method do you use to teach the different possible variations?

Jean Waldman

----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten"

<[log in to unmask]>

To: <[log in to unmask]>

Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM

Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to

evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The first

had

boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You admitted

the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it doesn't

make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't possibly

believe the varying sentence starts made it better.

That struck me as arrogantly dismissive.

Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their

sentence starts compromises their ability to write with coherence?

It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't

force

students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts doesn't

lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you have

other concerns as well.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,

   I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't

mean to

be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence

openings is

not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study and

thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary sentence

openings is not based on close observation of how language works in

effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points are

irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may have the

effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a

distraction from more relevant choices.

   Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already

have it in

an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow

woman".

It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more typical of

narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence

openings are

quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can base

the

discussion on observations of effective writing, not on personal

preferences.

Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko)

My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun

rising up

through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds

came to

the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches in the

alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I could hear

the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel bubbled

and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him

beside

me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I cleaned

the

sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the

sun was

above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time,

sleeping on

the white river sand.

   I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had

come the

night before, following our footprints that were already blurred by

lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying down, and

the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—

maybe it

was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches and the

horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look

beyond the

pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I could

not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same river

that

moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night.

The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and pawed

the

sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to

follow,

and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the

river. I

slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I waked

north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in

footprints over footprints.

“Wake up.”

He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his

eyes still

closed. I knelt down to touch him.

“I’m leaving.”

He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me,

remember?”

He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun.

“Where?”

“To my place.”

“And will I come back?”

   He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling him

behind me

and smelling the willows.

“Yellow woman,” he said.

I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked.

He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his face

in the

river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had

come.”

   I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to

remember

the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and remember

his warmth around me.

Craig

Craig

I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But you

really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my

students as

a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their essays. I

have

seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such

strong

evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you

have not

thought this through.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:

On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version shows more

flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't make it a

better essay,

Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why it is

worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, but,

yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are preaching to

the

choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that varying

sentence starts is not a panacea.

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/

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/ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9DEE5.37C7D738-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:53:39 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: parallel structure In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There's nothing simple about parallel structure. Obama's and Silko's parallel structure are purposeful, beautiful, and effective. My student's mindless repetition of her simple subjects is dull, typical, and uninspired. There is no point in comparing the two types of repetitions. But here's an even more intriguing point: you say when Obama and Silko are doing their repetitions we mustn't "dismiss" them as simply parallel. What does that mean? What more do these passages do that relates to our discussion about my student's use of repetition? On May 26, 2009, at 10:35 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > I find it strange that you think the passages from Obama and Silko are > irrelevant. You can't dismiss them simply as parallel structure. These > are effective passages that repeat simple subjects. > > Craig > > > > > > >> On May 26, 2009, at 8:20 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >>> I'm less interested in how things should work and more interested >>> in how they actually do work. I'm sorry if I sounded pie in the >>> skyish. >> >> I agree and gave this group an actual student example. What plain >> language would you say to a junior in high school to help her write >> more effectively? What plain words would you say about this writer's >> "verb string." Remember you have 2 minutes at the most unless you >> can convince her to come after school and stay while you explain your >> "string" theory. >> >> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves >> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so >> sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing >> just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken >> over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes >> that she doesn’t have that much longer. >> >>> I believe that [focusing on structural variation in sentence- >>> initial position] can produce unnecessarily complex sentences. >>> That's just my opinion though. Considering that you don't know me, >>> my students, or my results, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. >>> That's the nature of informal, online, listserv discussions, and >>> I'm fine with that. >> >> Yes, well, there we have it. You just have an opinion based on >> experience. So do I. >> >>> We disagree on this point. No big deal. Please don't take that to >>> mean that I think you're a bad teacher. >> >> John, are you concerned that I think you are a bad teacher? Why >> bring this up? It's irrelevant if you are concerned about what >> actually works. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> John Alexander >>> Austin, Texas >>> >>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Susan van Druten >>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> John, you have actually made my point. >>> >>> You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, >>> coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to >>> consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging >>> of verb choice." >>> >>> If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me >>> like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say >>> that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up >>> their sentence starts. >>> >>> Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences >>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>> what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school >>> classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix >>> the core problem. >>> >>> I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to >>> reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can >>> keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts >>> with what I have experienced. >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >>> >>>> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as >>>> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly >>>> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given >>>> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an >>>> appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the >>>> problem, not the structure). >>>> >>>> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and >>>> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more >>>> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. >>>> >>>> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) >>>> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the >>>> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core >>>> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences >>>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>>> what teachers want. >>>> >>>> John Alexander >>>> Austin, Texas >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten >>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up >>>> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is >>>> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your >>>> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th >>>> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." >>>> >>>> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to >>>> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree >>>> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her >>>> sentence starts? >>>> >>>> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >>>> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves >>>> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become >>>> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >>>> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only >>>> realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her >>>> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period >>>> of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer. >>>> >>>> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>> >>>>> Susan, >>>>> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >>>>> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that >>>>> varying >>>>> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >>>>> opening)is >>>>> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those >>>>> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >>>>> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >>>>> students >>>>> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a >>>>> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >>>>> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which >>>>> starts >>>>> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie >>>>> Silko's >>>>> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great >>>>> majority of >>>>> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >>>>> copied >>>>> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >>>>> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for >>>>> long >>>>> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with >>>>> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and >>>>> repeating >>>>> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. >>>>> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >>>>> flow in a >>>>> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost >>>>> always >>>>> last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually >>>>> the >>>>> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >>>>> opening >>>>> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >>>>> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >>>>> repetition >>>>> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too >>>>> quickly. >>>>> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different >>>>> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students >>>>> should >>>>> have those available as resources. I believe they should be >>>>> used for >>>>> continuity, though, not for variation. >>>>> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >>>>> kind of >>>>> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >>>>> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >>>>> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >>>>> sentences is >>>>> another. >>>>> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >>>>> that most >>>>> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have >>>>> variation >>>>> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >>>>> adverbials. >>>>> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >>>>> harmful to >>>>> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >>>>> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them >>>>> to see >>>>> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >>>>> subjects, to >>>>> build coherence into texts. >>>>> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >>>>> teaching >>>>> practices, not a personal criticism. >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> >>>>> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still >>>>> believe >>>>>> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to >>>>>> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >>>>>> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea >>>>>> that I >>>>>> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >>>>>> >>>>>> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I >>>>>> thought you >>>>>> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean >>>>>> I am >>>>>> not enjoying myself. >>>>>> >>>>>> Susan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a >>>>>>> mature >>>>>>> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should >>>>>>> all be >>>>>>> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, >>>>>>> far from >>>>>>> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >>>>>>> profession >>>>>>> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >>>>>>> what we >>>>>>> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >>>>>>> posted to >>>>>>> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings >>>>>>> to keep >>>>>>> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >>>>>>> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at >>>>>>> all to do >>>>>>> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad >>>>>>> teacher. We >>>>>>> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an >>>>>>> open mind. >>>>>>> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was >>>>>>> never >>>>>>> intended to be personal. >>>>>>> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >>>>>>> whether the >>>>>>> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. >>>>>>> It says, >>>>>>> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% >>>>>>> of the >>>>>>> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. >>>>>>> The >>>>>>> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >>>>>>> professional >>>>>>> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an >>>>>>> average of >>>>>>> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >>>>>>> highest >>>>>>> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the >>>>>>> case, >>>>>>> then >>>>>>> students already vary sentence openings more than mature >>>>>>> writers. I >>>>>>> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >>>>>>> boring. >>>>>>> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >>>>>>> Grammar" as a >>>>>>> more linguistically sound source of advice. >>>>>>> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >>>>>>> apologize if >>>>>>> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >>>>>>> teacher. >>>>>>> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >>>>>>> grounded, >>>>>>> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful >>>>>>> of each >>>>>>> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any >>>>>>> failures >>>>>>> on my >>>>>>> part to do that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >>>>>>> guides. >>>>>>>> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a >>>>>>>> writing >>>>>>>> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same >>>>>>>> starting word >>>>>>>> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >>>>>>>> outrage, tar, and feathers! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sentence Beginnings >>>>>>>> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject— >>>>>>>> far >>>>>>>> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >>>>>>>> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >>>>>>>> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >>>>>>>> sentences. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WORDS >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice >>>>>>>> resolved to >>>>>>>> fight back. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and >>>>>>>> clattering came >>>>>>>> from the heights around us. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A connecting word: For students who have just >>>>>>>> survived the >>>>>>>> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >>>>>>>> is all >>>>>>>> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >>>>>>>> school, >>>>>>>> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >>>>>>>> important as a healthy mind. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, >>>>>>>> minerals— >>>>>>>> these affect the health of plants. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PHRASES >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >>>>>>>> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>> thing, it can be ruthless. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched >>>>>>>> all of >>>>>>>> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >>>>>>>> existence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An infinitive: To be really successful, you >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and >>>>>>>> computer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>> is essential. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A participle: Looking out of the window high >>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >>>>>>>> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >>>>>>>> surrounded >>>>>>>> by fields. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >>>>>>>> provides >>>>>>>> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went >>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>> attack. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CLAUSES >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and >>>>>>>> I think >>>>>>>> it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to >>>>>>>> death that >>>>>>>> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >>>>>>>> going to >>>>>>>> show up again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a >>>>>>>> joiner of >>>>>>>> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of >>>>>>>> a group >>>>>>>> of animal lovers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >>>>>>>> questions to >>>>>>>> ask a geologist. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>>>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the >>>>>>>>> students >>>>>>>>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that >>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do >>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What method do you use to teach the different possible >>>>>>>>> variations? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jean Waldman >>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to >>>>>>>>> evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The >>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>> boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You >>>>>>>>> admitted >>>>>>>>> the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it >>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>> make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't >>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>> believe the varying sentence starts made it better. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their >>>>>>>>> sentence starts compromises their ability to write with >>>>>>>>> coherence? >>>>>>>>> It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start >>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>> force >>>>>>>>> students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts >>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>> lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> other concerns as well. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I >>>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>>> mean to >>>>>>>>>> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence >>>>>>>>>> openings is >>>>>>>>>> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary >>>>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>>>> openings is not based on close observation of how language >>>>>>>>>> works in >>>>>>>>>> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may >>>>>>>>>> have the >>>>>>>>>> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at >>>>>>>>>> best, a >>>>>>>>>> distraction from more relevant choices. >>>>>>>>>> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already >>>>>>>>>> have it in >>>>>>>>>> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow >>>>>>>>>> woman". >>>>>>>>>> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more >>>>>>>>>> typical of >>>>>>>>>> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence >>>>>>>>>> openings are >>>>>>>>>> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can >>>>>>>>>> base >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on >>>>>>>>>> personal >>>>>>>>>> preferences. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the >>>>>>>>>> sun >>>>>>>>>> rising up >>>>>>>>>> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water >>>>>>>>>> birds >>>>>>>>>> came to >>>>>>>>>> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches >>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I >>>>>>>>>> could hear >>>>>>>>>> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel >>>>>>>>>> bubbled >>>>>>>>>> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him >>>>>>>>>> beside >>>>>>>>>> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I >>>>>>>>>> cleaned >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the >>>>>>>>>> sun was >>>>>>>>>> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, >>>>>>>>>> sleeping on >>>>>>>>>> the white river sand. >>>>>>>>>> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we >>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>> come the >>>>>>>>>> night before, following our footprints that were already >>>>>>>>>> blurred by >>>>>>>>>> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying >>>>>>>>>> down, and >>>>>>>>>> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up— >>>>>>>>>> maybe it >>>>>>>>>> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches >>>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>>> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look >>>>>>>>>> beyond the >>>>>>>>>> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I >>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same >>>>>>>>>> river >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >>>>>>>>>> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and >>>>>>>>>> pawed >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to >>>>>>>>>> follow, >>>>>>>>>> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the >>>>>>>>>> river. I >>>>>>>>>> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I >>>>>>>>>> waked >>>>>>>>>> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >>>>>>>>>> footprints over footprints. >>>>>>>>>> “Wake up.” >>>>>>>>>> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with >>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>> eyes still >>>>>>>>>> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >>>>>>>>>> “I’m leaving.” >>>>>>>>>> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with >>>>>>>>>> me, >>>>>>>>>> remember?” >>>>>>>>>> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >>>>>>>>>> “Where?” >>>>>>>>>> “To my place.” >>>>>>>>>> “And will I come back?” >>>>>>>>>> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling >>>>>>>>>> him >>>>>>>>>> behind me >>>>>>>>>> and smelling the willows. >>>>>>>>>> “Yellow woman,” he said. >>>>>>>>>> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >>>>>>>>>> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his >>>>>>>>>> face >>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I >>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>> come.” >>>>>>>>>> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and >>>>>>>>>> tried to >>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and >>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>> his warmth around me. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>>>> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my >>>>>>>>>>> students as >>>>>>>>>>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their >>>>>>>>>>> essays. I >>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have >>>>>>>>>>> such >>>>>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>>>>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you >>>>>>>>>>> have not >>>>>>>>>>> thought this through. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version >>>>>>>>>>>>> shows more >>>>>>>>>>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> make it a >>>>>>>>>>>>> better essay, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why >>>>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, >>>>>>>>>>>> but, >>>>>>>>>>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are >>>>>>>>>>>> preaching to >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that >>>>>>>>>>>> varying >>>>>>>>>>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 18:40:31 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-40-1019943851 --Apple-Mail-40-1019943851 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear about how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? Really??! Really. Really??! Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems for a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from chaotic coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is causing it. This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is simply not true that we must pit sentence start variation against coherence. Both are important. Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, informative reading. > Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might > the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how > each sentence connects]?" Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's inconclusive (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her revision: Landon is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling. She has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer. I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she has not been considering. Susan On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: > It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a > teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," > as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, > "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing > more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on > a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? > These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* > conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? > I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- > term improvement should take priority. > > I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers > hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change > up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having > been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think > in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I > think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short > term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a > little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been > worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately > attaining a mature style). > > Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class > sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably > read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" > repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face > tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term > improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- > often but not always English Language Learners--who can write > simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start > combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students > like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading > convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually > improve at, coordination and subordination. > > "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad > advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in > my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help > eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness > and control. > > At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're > probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking > about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond > to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: > > "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate > from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, > which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One > of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers > is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few > different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to > five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you > take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, > that will make this easier." > > The results would be less predictible then if I just told the > student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the > student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and > to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And > consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over > the long one. > > But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and > I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of > advice? > > Brian > > > Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor of English > Director of the Writing Center > St. Mary’s College of Maryland > Montgomery Hall 50 > 18952 E. Fisher Rd. > St. Mary’s City, Maryland > 20686 > 240-895-4242 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of > Susan van Druten > Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions > > John, you have actually made my point. > > You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, > coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to > consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging > of verb choice." > > If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me > like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say > that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up > their sentence starts. > > Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences > (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is > what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school > classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix > the core problem. > > I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to > reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can > keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts > with what I have experienced. > > > > On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: > > > I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as > there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly > has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given > information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate > topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the > structure). > > I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and > complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more > carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. > > Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) > quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the > maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core > problems and would likely produce confusing sentences > (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is > what teachers want. > > John Alexander > Austin, Texas > > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up > Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is > the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your > argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th > when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." > > I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to > school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree > that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her > sentence starts? > > Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had > fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves > falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so > sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her > because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing > just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken > over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He > realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. > > On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > Susan, > I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid > understanding of how language works. If we tell students that > varying > sentence openings (using something other than the subject as > opening)is > a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those > variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. > As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that > students > sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a > row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite > often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which > starts > every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie > Silko's > much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of > the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and > copied > a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he > effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for > long > stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with > mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and > repeating > sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. > There are good reasons for this. If you look at information > flow in a > text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost > always > last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the > subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The > opening > establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to > accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit > repetition > for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too > quickly. > The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different > structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should > have those available as resources. I believe they should be used > for > continuity, though, not for variation. > I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what > kind of > variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A > variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is > another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open > sentences is > another. > Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting > that most > sentences will start with the subject and that when we have > variation > form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple > adverbials. > As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is > harmful to > imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence > openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them > to see > how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of > subjects, to > build coherence into texts. > I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good > teaching > practices, not a personal criticism. > > Craig > > Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still > believe > > it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to > start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up > sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea > that I > was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) > > I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought > you > were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am > not enjoying myself. > > Susan > > > On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > Susan, > I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward > a mature > literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should > all be > constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, > far from > perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our > profession > as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if > what we > are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you > posted to > the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings > to keep > from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of > conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at > all to do > with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad > teacher. We > simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an > open mind. > I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was > never > intended to be personal. > That being said, I would ask you to question seriously > whether the > "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. > It says, > first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% > of the > time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly > study. The > studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a > professional > writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an > average of > about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the > highest > about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the > case, > then > students already vary sentence openings more than mature > writers. I > would add that the writers in the study were successful, not > boring. > I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical > Grammar" as a > more linguistically sound source of advice. > But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I > apologize if > anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a > teacher. > As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully > grounded, > effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful > of each > other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures > on my > part to do that. > > Craig > > > Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style > guides. > > I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing > Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same > starting word > in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more > outrage, tar, and feathers! > > Sentence Beginnings > Vary the beginnings of your sentences. > > > Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- > far > more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But > overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous > writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your > sentences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WORDS > > > > > > Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to > fight back. > > > An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and > clattering came > from the heights around us. > > > > A connecting word: For students who have just > survived the > brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere > is all > too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high > school, > find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. > > > > An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as > important as a healthy mind. > > > > A series of words: Light, water, temperature, > minerals- > these affect the health of plants. > > PHRASES > > > > > > > A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of > athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For > one > thing, it can be ruthless. > > > > A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of > their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this > existence. > > > > An infinitive: To be really successful, you will > have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. > > > A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise > program > is essential. > > > A participle: Looking out of the window high > over > the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse > surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead > surrounded > by fields. > > > An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission > provides > food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. > > > An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went > on the > attack. > > CLAUSES > > > > > > > An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and > I think > it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to > death that > if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never > going to > show up again. > > > An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a > joiner of > organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of > a group > of animal lovers. > > > > A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a > questions to > ask a geologist. > > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: > > > Susan, > This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students > HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you > just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. > > What method do you use to teach the different possible > variations? > > Jean Waldman > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" 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/ ========================================================================Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:02:41 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Jordan Earl <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1085084450-1243468961=:45883" --0-1085084450-1243468961=:45883 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Can I throw in a question here?Â The revised version seems to me to create a new problem... we have only one sentence with aÂ varying start now, and in it, the subject is a pronoun referring back to an adjective in the previous sentence.Â I realize that this phenomenon is acceptable in spoken speech and probably happens a lot in writing, but I'm wondering if others out there teaching would point this out to students or let it go... Â It seems to me thatÂ *she* wouldÂ workÂ well if Landon wereÂ female; alternately, oneÂ might beginÂ the second sentence withÂ *Jamie* and solve the problem, as the 2nd *she* would then be clear. Â Curious what others think -- --JordanÂ 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/ --0-1085084450-1243468961=:45883 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Can I throw in a question here? The revised version seems to me to create a new problem... we have only one sentence with a varying start now, and in it, the subject is a pronoun referring back to an adjective in the previous sentence. I realize that this phenomenon is acceptable in spoken speech and probably happens a lot in writing, but I'm wondering if others out there teaching would point this out to students or let it go...

<Landon is comparing Jamieâ€™s weight to leaves falling. She has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started to notice it.>

It seems to me that *she* would work well if Landon were female; alternately, one might begin the second sentence with *Jamie* and solve the problem, as the 2nd *she* would then be clear.

Curious what others think --

--Jordan

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/ --0-1085084450-1243468961=:45883-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:36:26 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]> Subject: comparing Jamie=?utf-8?Q?â€™s?= weight MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-88779706-1243470986=:76393" --0-88779706-1243470986=:76393 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable He is comparing Jamieâ€™s weight to leaves falling, since he has really started to notice (it) that she has become so sick (that) she has lost a lot of weight and (that) he (had) hasÂ to support her because she (could) canÂ barely hold herself up.Â He is not only realizing just her change in weight, but also how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body (and) in such a short period of time.Â He realizes (that) she doesnâ€™t have (that) much longer.Â Â He is comparing Jamieâ€™s weight to leaves falling, since he has really started to noticeÂ that she has become so sickÂ she has lost a lot of weight andÂ heÂ hasÂ to support her because sheÂ canÂ barely hold herself up.Â He is not only realizing just her change in weight, but also how much her leukemia has taken over her whole bodyÂ in such a short period of time.Â He realizesÂ she doesnâ€™t haveÂ much longer. 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/ --0-88779706-1243470986=:76393 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
He is comparing Jamieâ€™s weight to leaves falling, since he has really started to notice (it) that she has become so sick (that) she has lost a lot of weight and (that) he (had) has to support her because she (could) can barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight, but also how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body (and) in such a short period of time. He realizes (that) she doesnâ€™t have (that) much longer.

He is comparing Jamieâ€™s weight to leaves falling, since he has really started to notice that she has become so sick she has lost a lot of weight and he has to support her because she can barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight, but also how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body in such a short period of time. He realizes she doesnâ€™t have much longer.

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/ --0-88779706-1243470986=:76393-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 21:02:44 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Edgar Schuster <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-1024876202 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) --Apple-Mail-4-1024876202 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I just happened to be reading "A Law of Acceleration" by Henry Adams and have come across two paragraphs that have some relation to what we have been discussed on the issue of varying sentence openings and coherence. The first paragraph begins with "Thus" and the sentence concludes "only the mathematician could help." Here are the first words (NPs) of the remaining six sentences: La Place Watt Volta and Benjamin Franklin Dalton Napoleon I No one The other starts with the word "Nothing." The remaining five sentences begin: Thought Power Man Forces So long as the rates of progress held good, . . . . Comments? Ed S On May 27, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Jordan Earl wrote: > Can I throw in a question here? The revised version seems to me to > create a new problem... we have only one sentence with a varying > start now, and in it, the subject is a pronoun referring back to an > adjective in the previous sentence. I realize that this phenomenon > is acceptable in spoken speech and probably happens a lot in > writing, but I'm wondering if others out there teaching would point > this out to students or let it go... > > become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really > started to notice it.> > > It seems to me that *she* would work well if Landon were female; > alternately, one might begin the second sentence with *Jamie* and > solve the problem, as the 2nd *she* would then be clear. > > Curious what others think -- > --Jordan > > 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/ --Apple-Mail-4-1024876202 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I just happened to be reading "A Law of Acceleration" by Henry Adams and have come across two paragraphs that have some relation to what we have been discussed on the issue of varying sentence openings and coherence.
The first paragraph begins with "Thus" and the sentence concludes "only the mathematician could help." Here are the first words (NPs) of the remaining six sentences:
            La Place
            Watt
            Volta and Benjamin Franklin
            Dalton
            Napoleon I
            No one

The other starts with the word "Nothing." The remaining five sentences begin:
            Thought
            Power
            Man
            Forces
            So long as the rates of progress held good, . . . .

Comments?

Ed S

On May 27, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Jordan Earl wrote:

Can I throw in a question here? The revised version seems to me to create a new problem... we have only one sentence with a varying start now, and in it, the subject is a pronoun referring back to an adjective in the previous sentence. I realize that this phenomenon is acceptable in spoken speech and probably happens a lot in writing, but I'm wondering if others out there teaching would point this out to students or let it go...

<Landon is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling. She has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started to notice it.>

It seems to me that *she* would work well if Landon were female; alternately, one might begin the second sentence with *Jamie* and solve the problem, as the 2nd *she* would then be clear.

Curious what others think --

--Jordan

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/ --Apple-Mail-4-1024876202-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 20:07:15 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-41-1025147091 --Apple-Mail-41-1025147091 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Hey Jordan, what do you think? Are you unclear what this writer meant? Is the known/new contract broken for you? Be honest. Are you really going to say that a writer who uses a possessive adjective in the previous sentence as the "new" creates coherence problems when it is presented as a subject as the "known" in a consecutive sentence? Remember this is a high school writer who will not know the difference between a noun and an adjective. Be vewy, vewy caweful how you answer. I am prepared to release Brad on you. He will find examples in professional writing. And once I release him, he will not stop. He will hunt down examples, and he will email them to you, and they will be bolded and underlined in full html. You may run, but you cannot hide! On May 27, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Jordan Earl wrote: > Can I throw in a question here? The revised version seems to me to > create a new problem... we have only one sentence with a varying > start now, and in it, the subject is a pronoun referring back to an > adjective in the previous sentence. I realize that this phenomenon > is acceptable in spoken speech and probably happens a lot in > writing, but I'm wondering if others out there teaching would point > this out to students or let it go... > > become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really > started to notice it.> > > It seems to me that *she* would work well if Landon were female; > alternately, one might begin the second sentence with *Jamie* and > solve the problem, as the 2nd *she* would then be clear. > > Curious what others think -- > --Jordan > > 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/ --Apple-Mail-41-1025147091 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Hey Jordan, what do you think? Are you unclear what this writer meant? Is the known/new contract broken for you? Be honest. Are you really going to say that a writer who uses a possessive adjective in the previous sentence as the "new" creates coherence problems when it is presented as a subject as the "known" in a consecutive sentence? Remember this is a high school writer who will not know the difference between a noun and an adjective.

Be vewy, vewy caweful how you answer. I am prepared to release Brad on you. He will find examples in professional writing. And once I release him, he will not stop. He will hunt down examples, and he will email them to you, and they will be bolded and underlined in full html. You may run, but you cannot hide!

On May 27, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Jordan Earl wrote:

Can I throw in a question here? The revised version seems to me to create a new problem... we have only one sentence with a varying start now, and in it, the subject is a pronoun referring back to an adjective in the previous sentence. I realize that this phenomenon is acceptable in spoken speech and probably happens a lot in writing, but I'm wondering if others out there teaching would point this out to students or let it go...

<Landon is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling. She has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started to notice it.>

It seems to me that *she* would work well if Landon were female; alternately, one might begin the second sentence with *Jamie* and solve the problem, as the 2nd *she* would then be clear.

Curious what others think --

--Jordan

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/ --Apple-Mail-41-1025147091-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 21:30:49 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF3EMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF3EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 VGhpcyBzdXBwb3NlZCBlcnJvciBpcyBhbiBpbnN0YW5jZSBvZiB3aGF0IEFybm9sZCBad2lja3kg aGFzIGNhbGxlZCB0aGUgUG9zc2Vzc2l2ZSBBbnRlY2VkZW50IFByb3NjcmlwdGlvbiAoUEFQKSAo c2VlIGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5saW5ndWlzdGxpc3Qub3JnL2NnaS1iaW4vd2E/QTI9aW5kMDMw NkImTD1BRFMtTCZQPVIzMjgxJkk9LTMgYW5kIG90aGVyIGFydGljbGVzIGluIHRoYXQgdGhyZWFk IGZvciBleHRlbnNpdmUgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvbiB0aGUgQW1lcmljYW4gRGlhbGVjdCBTb2NpZXR5 IExpc3QgKEFEUy1MKSkuICBQQVAgaXMgZm91bmQgaW4gYSBmYWlyIG51bWJlciBvZiBoYW5kYm9v a3Mgbm93LCBhbmQgaXQgd2FzIG1lbnRpb25lZCBpbiBzb21lIDE4dGggYy4gbGFuZ3VhZ2UgYWR2 aWNlIGJvb2tzLiAgSXQgZG9lc27igJl0IGFwcGVhciBpbiBhIG1vZGVybiBoYW5kYm9vayB0aWxs IDE5NDEsIHNvIGl0IGlzIGZvciBhbGwgcHJhY3RpY2FsIHB1cnBvc2VzIGEgZmFpcmx5IHJlY2Vu dCBpbnZlbnRpb24uICBUaGUgcHJvYmxlbSBpcyBub3QgdGhhdCBvbmUgY2Fubm90IGhhdmUgYSBw cm9ub3VuIHJlZmVyIHRvIGEgcHJlY2VkaW5nIHBvc3Nlc3NpdmUgbm91biBidXQgdGhhdCBvbmUg c2hvdWxkIGF2b2lkIGRvaW5nIHNvIGlmIGFtYmlndWl0eSB3b3VsZCByZXN1bHQuICBJbiDigJxN YXJ54oCZcyBmYXRoZXIgc2VudCBoZXIgdG8gUmFkY2xpZmZlLOKAnSB0aGVyZSBpcyBubyBwcm9i bGVtIG9mIHJlZmVyZW5jZSwgYW5kIG1hbnkgY2FyZWZ1bCB3cml0ZXJzIGhhdmUgd3JpdHRlbiBz dWNoIHNlbnRlbmNlcy4gIEluIOKAnE1hcnnigJlzIG1vdGhlciBwYWlkIGhlciB0dWl0aW9uLOKA nSBpdOKAmXMgbm90IGVudGlyZWx5IGNsZWFyIHdob3NlIHR1aXRpb24gd2FzIHBhaWQsIGFuZCB0 aGUgc2VudGVuY2Ugc2hvdWxkIGJlIHJldmlzZWQuICBUaGUgcHJvYmxlbSBpcyBub3QgdGhlIHBv c3Nlc3NpdmUgbm91biBhcyBhbnRlY2VkZW50IGJ1dCB0aGUgYW1iaWd1aXR5IHRoYXQgcmVzdWx0 cyBmcm9tIGhhdmluZyBhIHBvc3Nlc3NpdmUgbm91biBhbmQgYSBoZWFkIG5vdW4gYm90aCBvZiB3 aGljaCBhcmUgZmVtYWxlLiAgVGhlIFBBUCBpcyBhbm90aGVyIGluc3RhbmNlIG9mIGEgZ3JhbW1h dGljYWwgcHJvc2NyaXB0aW9uLCBsaWtlIOKAnERvbuKAmXQgc3RhcnQgc2VudGVuY2VzIHdpdGgg 4oCYQmVjYXVzZeKAmeKAnSBvciDigJxEb27igJl0IGVuZCBzZW50ZW5jZXMgd2l0aCBhIHByZXBv c2l0aW9uLOKAnSB0aGF0IHJlcHJlc2VudHMgdGhlIHNvcnQgb2YgdGVhY2hpbmcgc2hvcnRjdXQg cGFydGljaXBhbnRzIGluIHRoaXMgdGhyZWFkIGhhdmUgZXhwcmVzc2VkIGNvbmNlcm4gYWJvdXQu ICBBIHNtYWxsIHNpZGUgbm90ZTogIOKAnEphbWll4oCZ4oCdIGlzIG5vdCBhbiBhZGplY3RpdmUu ICBQb3NzZXNzaXZlIGNvbnN0cnVjdGlvbnMgYmVoYXZlIGxpa2UgZGV0ZXJtaW5lcnMsIHdoaWNo IHB1dHMgdGhlbSBpbiBhIGNhdGVnb3J5IHdpdGgg4oCcdGhlLuKAnSAgSeKAmW0gYXdhcmUgdGhh dCBzb21lIGRlZmluaXRpb25zIG9mIHBhcnRzIG9mIHNwZWVjaCBmb3IgRW5nbGlzaCBkbyBub3Qg c2VwYXJhdGUgYWRqZWN0aXZlcyBmcm9tIGRldGVybWluZXJzLCBidXQgbW9zdCBncmFtbWFyaWFu cyBoYXZlIHJlamVjdGVkIHN1Y2ggYSBjb25mbGF0aW9uIG9mIGNhdGVnb3JpZXMuDQoNCkhlcmIN Cg0KRnJvbTogQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgW21h aWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBKb3JkYW4gRWFybA0K U2VudDogMjAwOS0wNS0yNyAyMDowMw0KVG86IEFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVQ0KU3Vi amVjdDogUmU6IFNlbnRlbmNlcyBiZWdpbm5pbmcgd2l0aCBjb25qdW5jdGlvbnMNCg0KQ2FuIEkg dGhyb3cgaW4gYSBxdWVzdGlvbiBoZXJlPyAgVGhlIHJldmlzZWQgdmVyc2lvbiBzZWVtcyB0byBt ZSB0byBjcmVhdGUgYSBuZXcgcHJvYmxlbS4uLiB3ZSBoYXZlIG9ubHkgb25lIHNlbnRlbmNlIHdp dGggYSB2YXJ5aW5nIHN0YXJ0IG5vdywgYW5kIGluIGl0LCB0aGUgc3ViamVjdCBpcyBhIHByb25v dW4gcmVmZXJyaW5nIGJhY2sgdG8gYW4gYWRqZWN0aXZlIGluIHRoZSBwcmV2aW91cyBzZW50ZW5j ZS4gIEkgcmVhbGl6ZSB0aGF0IHRoaXMgcGhlbm9tZW5vbiBpcyBhY2NlcHRhYmxlIGluIHNwb2tl biBzcGVlY2ggYW5kIHByb2JhYmx5IGhhcHBlbnMgYSBsb3QgaW4gd3JpdGluZywgYnV0IEknbSB3 b25kZXJpbmcgaWYgb3RoZXJzIG91dCB0aGVyZSB0ZWFjaGluZyB3b3VsZCBwb2ludCB0aGlzIG91 dCB0byBzdHVkZW50cyBvciBsZXQgaXQgZ28uLi4NCg0KPExhbmRvbiBpcyBjb21wYXJpbmcgSmFt aWXigJlzIHdlaWdodCB0byBsZWF2ZXMgZmFsbGluZy4gIFNoZSBoYXMgYmVjb21lIHNvIHNpY2sg dGhhdCBzaGUgaGFzIGxvc3QgYSBsb3Qgb2Ygd2VpZ2h0LCBhbmQgaGUgaGFzIHJlYWxseSBzdGFy dGVkIHRvIG5vdGljZSBpdC4+DQoNCkl0IHNlZW1zIHRvIG1lIHRoYXQgKnNoZSogd291bGQgd29y ayB3ZWxsIGlmIExhbmRvbiB3ZXJlIGZlbWFsZTsgYWx0ZXJuYXRlbHksIG9uZSBtaWdodCBiZWdp biB0aGUgc2Vjb25kIHNlbnRlbmNlIHdpdGggKkphbWllKiBhbmQgc29sdmUgdGhlIHByb2JsZW0s IGFzIHRoZSAybmQgKnNoZSogd291bGQgdGhlbiBiZSBjbGVhci4NCg0KQ3VyaW91cyB3aGF0IG90 aGVycyB0aGluayAtLQ0KLS1Kb3JkYW4NCg0KDQpUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNF UlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDogaHR0cDov L2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4g b3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQoNClZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRl Zy5vcmcvDQo --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF3EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQoNCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9R2VuZXJhdG9y IGNvbnRlbnQ9Ik1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIDEyIChmaWx0ZXJlZCBtZWRpdW0pIj4NCjxzdHlsZT4N CjwhLS0NCiAvKiBGb250IERlZmluaXRpb25zICovDQogQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWls eToiQ2FtYnJpYSBNYXRoIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDQgNSAzIDUgNCA2IDMgMiA0O30NCkBmb250 LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAz IDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDEx IDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQogLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCiBwLk1zb05vcm1h bCwgbGkuTXNvTm9ybWFsLCBkaXYuTXNvTm9ybWFsDQoJe21hcmdpbjowaW47DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJv dHRvbTouMDAwMXB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5l dyBSb21hbiIsInNlcmlmIjt9DQphOmxpbmssIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rDQoJe21zby1zdHls ZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpibHVlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3JhdGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7 fQ0KYTp2aXNpdGVkLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5cGVybGlua0ZvbGxvd2VkDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlv cml0eTo5OTsNCgljb2xvcjpwdXJwbGU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVybGluZTt9DQpw DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzsNCglt YXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGluOw0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1s ZWZ0OjBpbjsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9t YW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTgNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6cGVyc29u YWwtcmVwbHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCgljb2xvcjoj MUY0OTdEO30NCi5Nc29DaHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5O30N CkBwYWdlIFNlY3Rpb24xDQoJe3NpemU6OC41aW4gMTEuMGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbjoxLjBpbiAxLjBp biAxLjBpbiAxLjBpbjt9DQpkaXYuU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7cGFnZTpTZWN0aW9uMTt9DQotLT4NCjwv c3R5bGU+DQo8IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCiA8bzpzaGFwZWRlZmF1bHRzIHY6ZXh0 PSJlZGl0IiBzcGlkbWF4PSIxMDI2IiAvPg0KPC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZdLS0+PCEtLVtpZiBndGUg bXNvIDldPjx4bWw+DQogPG86c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiPg0KICA8bzppZG1hcCB2 OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgZGF0YT0iMSIgLz4NCiA8L286c2hhcGVsYXlvdXQ+PC94bWw+PCFbZW5kaWZd LS0+DQo8L2hlYWQ+DQoNCjxib2R5IGxhbmc9RU4tVVMgbGluaz1ibHVlIHZsaW5rPXB1cnBsZT4N Cg0KPGRpdiBjbGFzcz1TZWN0aW9uMT4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxl PSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpj b2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz5UaGlzIHN1cHBvc2VkIGVycm9yIGlzIGFuIGluc3RhbmNlIG9mIHdoYXQg QXJub2xkIFp3aWNreSBoYXMNCmNhbGxlZCB0aGUgUG9zc2Vzc2l2ZSBBbnRlY2VkZW50IFByb3Nj cmlwdGlvbiAoUEFQKSAoc2VlIGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5saW5ndWlzdGxpc3Qub3JnL2NnaS1i aW4vd2E/QTI9aW5kMDMwNkImYW1wO0w9QURTLUwmYW1wO1A9UjMyODEmYW1wO0k9LTMNCmFuZCBv dGhlciBhcnRpY2xlcyBpbiB0aGF0IHRocmVhZCBmb3IgZXh0ZW5zaXZlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gb24g dGhlIEFtZXJpY2FuDQpEaWFsZWN0IFNvY2lldHkgTGlzdCAoQURTLUwpKS7CoCBQQVAgaXMgZm91 bmQgaW4gYSBmYWlyIG51bWJlciBvZiBoYW5kYm9va3Mgbm93LA0KYW5kIGl0IHdhcyBtZW50aW9u ZWQgaW4gc29tZSAxODxzdXA+dGg8L3N1cD4gYy4gbGFuZ3VhZ2UgYWR2aWNlIGJvb2tzLsKgIEl0 DQpkb2VzbuKAmXQgYXBwZWFyIGluIGEgbW9kZXJuIGhhbmRib29rIHRpbGwgMTk0MSwgc28gaXQg aXMgZm9yIGFsbCBwcmFjdGljYWwNCnB1cnBvc2VzIGEgZmFpcmx5IHJlY2VudCBpbnZlbnRpb24u wqAgVGhlIHByb2JsZW0gaXMgbm90IHRoYXQgb25lIGNhbm5vdCBoYXZlIGENCnByb25vdW4gcmVm ZXIgdG8gYSBwcmVjZWRpbmcgcG9zc2Vzc2l2ZSBub3VuIGJ1dCB0aGF0IG9uZSBzaG91bGQgYXZv aWQgZG9pbmcgc28NCmlmIGFtYmlndWl0eSB3b3VsZCByZXN1bHQuwqAgSW4g4oCcTWFyeeKAmXMg ZmF0aGVyIHNlbnQgaGVyIHRvIFJhZGNsaWZmZSzigJ0gdGhlcmUgaXMNCm5vIHByb2JsZW0gb2Yg cmVmZXJlbmNlLCBhbmQgbWFueSBjYXJlZnVsIHdyaXRlcnMgaGF2ZSB3cml0dGVuIHN1Y2ggc2Vu dGVuY2VzLsKgDQpJbiDigJxNYXJ54oCZcyBtb3RoZXIgcGFpZCBoZXIgdHVpdGlvbizigJ0gaXTi gJlzIG5vdCBlbnRpcmVseSBjbGVhciB3aG9zZSB0dWl0aW9uIHdhcw0KcGFpZCwgYW5kIHRoZSBz ZW50ZW5jZSBzaG91bGQgYmUgcmV2aXNlZC7CoCBUaGUgcHJvYmxlbSBpcyBub3QgdGhlIHBvc3Nl c3NpdmUNCm5vdW4gYXMgYW50ZWNlZGVudCBidXQgdGhlIGFtYmlndWl0eSB0aGF0IHJlc3VsdHMg ZnJvbSBoYXZpbmcgYSBwb3NzZXNzaXZlIG5vdW4NCmFuZCBhIGhlYWQgbm91biBib3RoIG9mIHdo aWNoIGFyZSBmZW1hbGUuwqAgVGhlIFBBUCBpcyBhbm90aGVyIGluc3RhbmNlIG9mIGEgZ3JhbW1h dGljYWwNCnByb3NjcmlwdGlvbiwgbGlrZSDigJxEb27igJl0IHN0YXJ0IHNlbnRlbmNlcyB3aXRo IOKAmEJlY2F1c2XigJnigJ0gb3Ig4oCcRG9u4oCZdCBlbmQNCnNlbnRlbmNlcyB3aXRoIGEgcHJl cG9zaXRpb24s4oCdIHRoYXQgcmVwcmVzZW50cyB0aGUgc29ydCBvZiB0ZWFjaGluZyBzaG9ydGN1 dA0KcGFydGljaXBhbnRzIGluIHRoaXMgdGhyZWFkIGhhdmUgZXhwcmVzc2VkIGNvbmNlcm4gYWJv dXQuwqAgQSBzbWFsbCBzaWRlIG5vdGU6wqAg4oCcSmFtaWXigJnigJ0NCmlzIG5vdCBhbiBhZGpl Y3RpdmUuwqAgUG9zc2Vzc2l2ZSBjb25zdHJ1Y3Rpb25zIGJlaGF2ZSBsaWtlIGRldGVybWluZXJz LCB3aGljaA0KcHV0cyB0aGVtIGluIGEgY2F0ZWdvcnkgd2l0aCDigJx0aGUu4oCdwqAgSeKAmW0g YXdhcmUgdGhhdCBzb21lIGRlZmluaXRpb25zIG9mIHBhcnRzDQpvZiBzcGVlY2ggZm9yIEVuZ2xp c2ggZG8gbm90IHNlcGFyYXRlIGFkamVjdGl2ZXMgZnJvbSBkZXRlcm1pbmVycywgYnV0IG1vc3QN CmdyYW1tYXJpYW5zIGhhdmUgcmVqZWN0ZWQgc3VjaCBhIGNvbmZsYXRpb24gb2YgY2F0ZWdvcmll cy48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHls ZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0K Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KDQo8cCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGli cmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCmNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPkhlcmI8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48 L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtm b250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86cD4m bmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KDQo8ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSdib3JkZXI6bm9uZTtib3JkZXIt dG9wOnNvbGlkICNCNUM0REYgMS4wcHQ7cGFkZGluZzozLjBwdCAwaW4gMGluIDBpbic+DQoNCjxw IGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZh bWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPkZyb206PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3Bhbg0Kc3R5bGU9 J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4gQXNz ZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZQ0KVGVhY2hpbmcgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCBHcmFtbWFyIFttYWlsdG86QVRFR0BM SVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVXSA8Yj5PbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgPC9iPkpvcmRhbg0KRWFybDxicj4N CjxiPlNlbnQ6PC9iPiAyMDA5LTA1LTI3IDIwOjAzPGJyPg0KPGI+VG86PC9iPiBBVEVHQExJU1RT RVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8YnI+DQo8Yj5TdWJqZWN0OjwvYj4gUmU6IFNlbnRlbmNlcyBiZWdpbm5p bmcgd2l0aCBjb25qdW5jdGlvbnM8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjwvZGl2Pg0KDQo8 cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQoNCjx0YWJsZSBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWxUYWJsZSBib3JkZXI9MCBjZWxsc3BhY2luZz0wIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5nPTA+DQogPHRy Pg0KICA8dGQgdmFsaWduPXRvcCBzdHlsZT0ncGFkZGluZzowaW4gMGluIDBpbiAwaW4nPg0KICA8 ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+Q2FuIEkgdGhyb3cgaW4gYSBxdWVzdGlvbiBoZXJl PyZuYnNwOyBUaGUgcmV2aXNlZCB2ZXJzaW9uDQogIHNlZW1zIHRvIG1lIHRvIGNyZWF0ZSBhIG5l dyBwcm9ibGVtLi4uIHdlIGhhdmUgb25seSBvbmUgc2VudGVuY2Ugd2l0aA0KICBhJm5ic3A7dmFy eWluZyBzdGFydCBub3csIGFuZCBpbiBpdCwgdGhlIHN1YmplY3QgaXMgYSBwcm9ub3VuIHJlZmVy cmluZyBiYWNrDQogIHRvIGFuIGFkamVjdGl2ZSBpbiB0aGUgcHJldmlvdXMgc2VudGVuY2UuJm5i c3A7IEkgcmVhbGl6ZSB0aGF0IHRoaXMNCiAgcGhlbm9tZW5vbiBpcyBhY2NlcHRhYmxlIGluIHNw b2tlbiBzcGVlY2ggYW5kIHByb2JhYmx5IGhhcHBlbnMgYSBsb3QgaW4NCiAgd3JpdGluZywgYnV0 IEknbSB3b25kZXJpbmcgaWYgb3RoZXJzIG91dCB0aGVyZSB0ZWFjaGluZyB3b3VsZCBwb2ludCB0 aGlzIG91dA0KICB0byBzdHVkZW50cyBvciBsZXQgaXQgZ28uLi48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAg PC9kaXY+DQogIDxkaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48YnI+DQogICZsdDtMYW5kb24g aXMgY29tcGFyaW5nIEphbWll4oCZcyB3ZWlnaHQgdG8gbGVhdmVzIGZhbGxpbmcuJm5ic3A7IFNo ZSBoYXMNCiAgYmVjb21lIHNvIHNpY2sgdGhhdCBzaGUgaGFzIGxvc3QgYSBsb3Qgb2Ygd2VpZ2h0 LCBhbmQgaGUgaGFzIHJlYWxseSBzdGFydGVkDQogIHRvIG5vdGljZSBpdC4mZ3Q7PG86cD48L286 cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+Jm5ic3A7PG86 cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+SXQg c2VlbXMgdG8gbWUgdGhhdCZuYnNwOypzaGUqIHdvdWxkJm5ic3A7d29yayZuYnNwO3dlbGwNCiAg aWYgTGFuZG9uIHdlcmUmbmJzcDtmZW1hbGU7IGFsdGVybmF0ZWx5LCBvbmUmbmJzcDttaWdodCBi ZWdpbiZuYnNwO3RoZSBzZWNvbmQNCiAgc2VudGVuY2Ugd2l0aCZuYnNwOypKYW1pZSogYW5kIHNv bHZlIHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtLCBhcyB0aGUgMm5kICpzaGUqIHdvdWxkIHRoZW4NCiAgYmUgY2xlYXIu PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+ Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29O b3JtYWw+Q3VyaW91cyB3aGF0IG90aGVycyB0aGluayAtLTxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8L2Rp dj4NCiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPi0tSm9yZGFuJm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286 cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8L3RkPg0KIDwvdHI+DQo8L3RhYmxlPg0KDQo8cCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGli cmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+PGJyPg0KVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxp c3QsIHBsZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6DQpodHRwOi8vbGlz dHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAmcXVvdDtKb2lu IG9yIGxlYXZlDQp0aGUgbGlzdCZxdW90OyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjxwPlZp c2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQoN CjwvZGl2Pg0KDQo8L2JvZHk+DQoNCjwvaHRtbD4NCg= --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF3EMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 21:21:32 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-42-1029604289 --Apple-Mail-42-1029604289 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Also, the PAP is an error of confusion when it occurs in parallel structure as in this SAT test question: Unlike her sister Heather, who would always put spiders safely outside if she found them in the house, Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures. A. Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures B. Joanne’s fear is what kept her from going anywhere near the creatures C. fear is why Joanne had not gone anywhere near them D. Joanne was too afraid to go anywhere near the creatures E. they scared Joanne too much to go anywhere near them On May 27, 2009, at 8:30 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: > This supposed error is an instance of what Arnold Zwicky has called > the Possessive Antecedent Proscription (PAP) (see http:// > listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0306B&L=ADS- > L&P=R3281&I=-3 and other articles in that thread for extensive > discussion on the American Dialect Society List (ADS-L)). PAP is > found in a fair number of handbooks now, and it was mentioned in > some 18th c. language advice books. It doesn’t appear in a modern > handbook till 1941, so it is for all practical purposes a fairly > recent invention. The problem is not that one cannot have a > pronoun refer to a preceding possessive noun but that one should > avoid doing so if ambiguity would result. In “Mary’s father sent > her to Radcliffe,” there is no problem of reference, and many > careful writers have written such sentences. In “Mary’s mother > paid her tuition,” it’s not entirely clear whose tuition was paid, > and the sentence should be revised. The problem is not the > possessive noun as antecedent but the ambiguity that results from > having a possessive noun and a head noun both of which are female. > The PAP is another instance of a grammatical proscription, like > “Don’t start sentences with ‘Because’” or “Don’t end sentences with > a preposition,” that represents the sort of teaching shortcut > participants in this thread have expressed concern about. A small > side note: “Jamie’” is not an adjective. Possessive constructions > behave like determiners, which puts them in a category with “the.” > I’m aware that some definitions of parts of speech for English do > not separate adjectives from determiners, but most grammarians have > rejected such a conflation of categories. > > Herb > > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jordan Earl > Sent: 2009-05-27 20:03 > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions > > Can I throw in a question here? The revised version seems to me to > create a new problem... we have only one sentence with a varying > start now, and in it, the subject is a pronoun referring back to an > adjective in the previous sentence. I realize that this phenomenon > is acceptable in spoken speech and probably happens a lot in > writing, but I'm wondering if others out there teaching would point > this out to students or let it go... > > become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really > started to notice it.> > > It seems to me that *she* would work well if Landon were female; > alternately, one might begin the second sentence with *Jamie* and > solve the problem, as the 2nd *she* would then be clear. > > Curious what others think -- > --Jordan > > 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/ --Apple-Mail-42-1029604289 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Also, the PAP is an error of confusion when it occurs in parallel structure as in this SAT test question:
Unlike her sister Heather, who would always put spiders safely outside if she found them in the house, Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures.
A.     Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures
B.     Joanne’s fear is what kept her from going anywhere near the creatures
C.     fear is why Joanne had not gone anywhere near them
D.     Joanne was too afraid to go anywhere near the creatures
E.     they scared Joanne too much to go anywhere near them

On May 27, 2009, at 8:30 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:

This supposed error is an instance of what Arnold Zwicky has called the Possessive Antecedent Proscription (PAP) (see http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0306B&L=ADS-L&P=R3281&I=-3 and other articles in that thread for extensive discussion on the American Dialect Society List (ADS-L)). PAP is found in a fair number of handbooks now, and it was mentioned in some 18^th c. language advice books. It doesn’t appear in a modern handbook till 1941, so it is for all practical purposes a fairly recent invention. The problem is not that one cannot have a pronoun refer to a preceding possessive noun but that one should avoid doing so if ambiguity would result. In “Mary’s father sent her to Radcliffe,” there is no problem of reference, and many careful writers have written such sentences. In “Mary’s mother paid her tuition,” it’s not entirely clear whose tuition was paid, and the sentence should be revised. The problem is not the possessive noun as antecedent but the ambiguity that results from having a possessive noun and a head noun both of which are female. The PAP is another instance of a grammatical proscription, like “Don’t start sentences with ‘Because’” or “Don’t end sentences with a preposition,” that represents the sort of teaching shortcut participants in this thread have expressed concern about. A small side note: “Jamie’” is not an adjective. Possessive constructions behave like determiners, which puts them in a category with “the.” I’m aware that some definitions of parts of speech for English do not separate adjectives from determiners, but most grammarians have rejected such a conflation of categories.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jordan Earl
Sent: 2009-05-27 20:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Can I throw in a question here? The revised version seems to me to create a new problem... we have only one sentence with a varying start now, and in it, the subject is a pronoun referring back to an adjective in the previous sentence. I realize that this phenomenon is acceptable in spoken speech and probably happens a lot in writing, but I'm wondering if others out there teaching would point this out to students or let it go...

<Landon is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling. She has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started to notice it.>

It seems to me that *she* would work well if Landon were female; alternately, one might begin the second sentence with *Jamie* and solve the problem, as the 2nd *she* would then be clear.

Curious what others think --
--Jordan

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/ --Apple-Mail-42-1029604289-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 22:39:11 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF4EMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF4EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Actually, it was a PAP example on a 2003 PSAT that occasioned the whole ADS-L discussion. The PSAT test item began, "Toni Morrison's genius enables her to..." If I remember the story correctly, the grammatical error the PSAT was looking for was not reference to a possessive noun but something else. A high school student in Florida identified the problem as a possessive antecedent error and had the question marked wrong. He and his teacher protested to ETS and succeeded not only in getting the student's answer marked correct but all of the other answers marked wrong. The story made national news. In the example you provide below, I find choice A by far the best. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten Sent: 2009-05-27 22:22 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Also, the PAP is an error of confusion when it occurs in parallel structure as in this SAT test question: Unlike her sister Heather, who would always put spiders safely outside if she found them in the house, Joanne's fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures. A. Joanne's fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures B. Joanne's fear is what kept her from going anywhere near the creatures C. fear is why Joanne had not gone anywhere near them D. Joanne was too afraid to go anywhere near the creatures E. they scared Joanne too much to go anywhere near them On May 27, 2009, at 8:30 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: This supposed error is an instance of what Arnold Zwicky has called the Possessive Antecedent Proscription (PAP) (see http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0306B&L=ADS-L&P=R3281&I=-3 and other articles in that thread for extensive discussion on the American Dialect Society List (ADS-L)). PAP is found in a fair number of handbooks now, and it was mentioned in some 18th c. language advice books. It doesn't appear in a modern handbook till 1941, so it is for all practical purposes a fairly recent invention. The problem is not that one cannot have a pronoun refer to a preceding possessive noun but that one should avoid doing so if ambiguity would result. In "Mary's father sent her to Radcliffe," there is no problem of reference, and many careful writers have written such sentences. In "Mary's mother paid her tuition," it's not entirely clear whose tuition was paid, and the sentence should be revised. The problem is not the possessive noun as antecedent but the ambiguity that results from having a possessive noun and a head noun both of which are female. The PAP is another instance of a grammatical proscription, like "Don't start sentences with 'Because'" or "Don't end sentences with a preposition," that represents the sort of teaching shortcut participants in this thread have expressed concern about. A small side note: "Jamie'" is not an adjective. Possessive constructions behave like determiners, which puts them in a category with "the." I'm aware that some definitions of parts of speech for English do not separate adjectives from determiners, but most grammarians have rejected such a conflation of categories. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jordan Earl Sent: 2009-05-27 20:03 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Can I throw in a question here? The revised version seems to me to create a new problem... we have only one sentence with a varying start now, and in it, the subject is a pronoun referring back to an adjective in the previous sentence. I realize that this phenomenon is acceptable in spoken speech and probably happens a lot in writing, but I'm wondering if others out there teaching would point this out to students or let it go... It seems to me that *she* would work well if Landon were female; alternately, one might begin the second sentence with *Jamie* and solve the problem, as the 2nd *she* would then be clear. Curious what others think -- --Jordan 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/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF4EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Actually, it was a PAP example on a 2003 PSAT that occasioned the whole ADS-L discussion. The PSAT test item began, "Toni Morrison's genius enables her to..." If I remember the story correctly, the grammatical error the PSAT was looking for was not reference to a possessive noun but something else. A high school student in Florida identified the problem as a possessive antecedent error and had the question marked wrong. He and his teacher protested to ETS and succeeded not only in getting the student’s answer marked correct but all of the other answers marked wrong. The story made national news.

In the example you provide below, I find choice A by far the best.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten
Sent: 2009-05-27 22:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Also, the PAP is an error of confusion when it occurs in parallel structure as in this SAT test question:

Unlike her sister Heather, who would always put spiders safely outside if she found them in the house, Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures.

A.     Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures

B.     Joanne’s fear is what kept her from going anywhere near the creatures

C.     fear is why Joanne had not gone anywhere near them

D.     Joanne was too afraid to go anywhere near the creatures

E.     they scared Joanne too much to go anywhere near them

On May 27, 2009, at 8:30 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:

This supposed error is an instance of what Arnold Zwicky has called the Possessive Antecedent Proscription (PAP) (see http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0306B&L=ADS-L&P=R3281&I=-3 and other articles in that thread for extensive discussion on the American Dialect Society List (ADS-L)). PAP is found in a fair number of handbooks now, and it was mentioned in some 18^th c. language advice books. It doesn’t appear in a modern handbook till 1941, so it is for all practical purposes a fairly recent invention. The problem is not that one cannot have a pronoun refer to a preceding possessive noun but that one should avoid doing so if ambiguity would result. In “Mary’s father sent her to Radcliffe,” there is no problem of reference, and many careful writers have written such sentences. In “Mary’s mother paid her tuition,” it’s not entirely clear whose tuition was paid, and the sentence should be revised. The problem is not the possessive noun as antecedent but the ambiguity that results from having a possessive noun and a head noun both of which are female. The PAP is another instance of a grammatical proscription, like “Don’t start sentences with ‘Because’” or “Don’t end sentences with a preposition,” that represents the sort of teaching shortcut participants in this thread have expressed concern about. A small side note: “Jamie’” is not an adjective. Possessive constructions behave like determiners, which puts them in a category with “the.” I’m aware that some definitions of parts of speech for English do not separate adjectives from determiners, but most grammarians have rejected such a conflation of categories.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jordan Earl
Sent: 2009-05-27 20:03
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Can I throw in a question here? The revised version seems to me to create a new problem... we have only one sentence with a varying start now, and in it, the subject is a pronoun referring back to an adjective in the previous sentence. I realize that this phenomenon is acceptable in spoken speech and probably happens a lot in writing, but I'm wondering if others out there teaching would point this out to students or let it go...

<Landon is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling. She has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started to notice it.>

It seems to me that *she* would work well if Landon were female; alternately, one might begin the second sentence with *Jamie* and solve the problem, as the 2nd *she* would then be clear.

Curious what others think --

--Jordan

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/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF4EMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 22:54:32 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "O'Sullivan, Brian P" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean that boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some solutions to the problem of boring essays are short term (or superficial) solutions. As I meant to imply, I read plenty of boring essays by college students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even as a percentage of my total haul of papers, than high school teachers read--just because my students' high school teachers have done a good job with them). I could come up with silly solutions to this problem--use a world from a funny vocabulary list every few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might amuse me (I have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more effective writing. Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good writers do include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only 25% of the time, and it's not outlandish to teach students how good writers go about doing this. I actually do not think that sentence starts and coherence are an either/or--you've made it clear that you teach coherence, and I don't see how that could be totally negated by the little time you spend teaching sentence start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way put coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence is , pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's experience of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the time, if a revision with more varied sentence starts is better than the draft, that variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant change--like improved coordination or subordination, or improved topic focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision is better is simply because she started her sentences in more various ways, she may understand what really made the revision better, and thus she may be less likely to transfer her learning to the next context and do even better in the future. And she may not be helped on the path to the (even) longer-term goal of greater syntactical maturity (as you put it) or greater rhetorical awareness and control (as I put it). I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our students to produce easy to read and pleasurable, informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're in a particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as a student experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, that student's writing may have to get more convoluted before it gets clearer and more pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the student advice that would privilege a clear and enjoyable product today over a more deliberate and effective writing process tomorrow. I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he or she really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of the revision from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. Was there a rhetorical purpose, other than simply variation, for switching from "he" to "she" as a subject, only to then switch back again? If so--and there could be such a purpose--great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where sentence start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I would have favored coherence. Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly not learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence must have a different subject." I don't think the different sides in this Great War of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear about how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? Really??! Really. Really??! Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems for a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from chaotic coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is causing it. This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is simply not true that we must pit sentence start variation against coherence. Both are important. Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, informative reading. > Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might > the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how > each sentence connects]?" Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's inconclusive (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her revision: Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she has not been considering. Susan On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: > It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a > teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," > as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, > "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing > more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on > a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? > These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* > conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? > I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- > term improvement should take priority. > > I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers > hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change > up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having > been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think > in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I > think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short > term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a > little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been > worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately > attaining a mature style). > > Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class > sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably > read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" > repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face > tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term > improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- > often but not always English Language Learners--who can write > simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start > combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students > like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading > convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually > improve at, coordination and subordination. > > "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad > advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in > my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help > eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness > and control. > > At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're > probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking > about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond > to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: > > "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate > from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, > which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One > of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers > is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few > different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to > five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you > take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, > that will make this easier." > > The results would be less predictible then if I just told the > student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the > student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and > to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And > consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over > the long one. > > But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and > I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of > advice? > > Brian > > > Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor of English > Director of the Writing Center > St. Mary's College of Maryland > Montgomery Hall 50 > 18952 E. Fisher Rd. > St. Mary's City, Maryland > 20686 > 240-895-4242 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of > Susan van Druten > Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions > > John, you have actually made my point. > > You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, > coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to > consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging > of verb choice." > > If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me > like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say > that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up > their sentence starts. > > Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences > (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is > what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school > classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix > the core problem. > > I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to > reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can > keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts > with what I have experienced. > > > > On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: > > > I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as > there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly > has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given > information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate > topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the > structure). > > I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and > complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more > carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. > > Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) > quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the > maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core > problems and would likely produce confusing sentences > (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is > what teachers want. > > John Alexander > Austin, Texas > > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up > Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is > the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your > argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th > when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." > > I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to > school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree > that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her > sentence starts? > > Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had > fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves > falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so > sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her > because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing > just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken > over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He > realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. > > On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > Susan, > I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid > understanding of how language works. If we tell students that > varying > sentence openings (using something other than the subject as > opening)is > a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those > variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. > As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that > students > sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a > row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite > often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which > starts > every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie > Silko's > much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of > the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and > copied > a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he > effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for > long > stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with > mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and > repeating > sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. > There are good reasons for this. If you look at information > flow in a > text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost > always > last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the > subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The > opening > establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to > accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit > repetition > for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too > quickly. > The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different > structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should > have those available as resources. I believe they should be used > for > continuity, though, not for variation. > I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what > kind of > variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A > variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is > another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open > sentences is > another. > Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting > that most > sentences will start with the subject and that when we have > variation > form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple > adverbials. > As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is > harmful to > imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence > openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them > to see > how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of > subjects, to > build coherence into texts. > I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good > teaching > practices, not a personal criticism. > > Craig > > Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still > believe > > it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to > start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up > sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea > that I > was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) > > I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought > you > were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am > not enjoying myself. > > Susan > > > On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > Susan, > I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward > a mature > literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should > all be > constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, > far from > perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our > profession > as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if > what we > are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you > posted to > the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings > to keep > from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of > conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at > all to do > with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad > teacher. We > simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an > open mind. > I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was > never > intended to be personal. > That being said, I would ask you to question seriously > whether the > "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. > It says, > first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% > of the > time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly > study. The > studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a > professional > writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an > average of > about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the > highest > about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the > case, > then > students already vary sentence openings more than mature > writers. I > would add that the writers in the study were successful, not > boring. > I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical > Grammar" as a > more linguistically sound source of advice. > But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I > apologize if > anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a > teacher. > As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully > grounded, > effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful > of each > other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures > on my > part to do that. > > Craig > > > Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style > guides. > > I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing > Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same > starting word > in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more > outrage, tar, and feathers! > > Sentence Beginnings > Vary the beginnings of your sentences. > > > Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- > far > more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But > overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous > writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your > sentences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WORDS > > > > > > Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to > fight back. > > > An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and > clattering came > from the heights around us. > > > > A connecting word: For students who have just > survived the > brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere > is all > too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high > school, > find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. > > > > An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as > important as a healthy mind. > > > > A series of words: Light, water, temperature, > minerals- > these affect the health of plants. > > PHRASES > > > > > > > A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of > athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For > one > thing, it can be ruthless. > > > > A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of > their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this > existence. > > > > An infinitive: To be really successful, you will > have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. > > > A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise > program > is essential. > > > A participle: Looking out of the window high > over > the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse > surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead > surrounded > by fields. > > > An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission > provides > food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. > > > An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went > on the > attack. > > CLAUSES > > > > > > > An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and > I think > it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to > death that > if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never > going to > show up again. > > > An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a > joiner of > organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of > a group > of animal lovers. > > > > A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a > questions to > ask a geologist. > > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: > > > Susan, > This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students > HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you > just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. > > What method do you use to teach the different possible > variations? > > Jean Waldman > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" 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/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:13:55 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: parallel structure In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Susan, I wouldn't consider Silko's use of "I" as parallel structure. For Obama, I'll certainly grant you the point. Repetition of subject is not a direct goal--coherence is the goal, repetition one means toward that end. Since subjects are in the usual "given" slot, this is especially relevant to subjects, whether in parallel structures or not. . I would take serious issue, though, with calling your students' writing "mindless repetition" or "dull, typical, and uninspired." I didn't have that reaction to it at all. Generally speaking, the "given" in an utterance gets very little attention. The weakness in the passage has nothing to do with the sentence openers. If I were working with the same student, I would focus on bringing the meaning into a clearer focus. That means considering these sentences in relation to the purpose of the whole paper. I'm guessing that the central focus is intended to be Landon's growing recognition of Jamie's worsening condition. If that is inaccurate or unimportant to the overall paper, then those adjustments come first. Conceivably, the whole passage could be cut. But if the observations are both important and accurate, then the passage could be made more coherent by making that purpose more explicit. I wouldn't normally model this kind of rewriting for a student, but here's another version. I took the liberty of shifting pronouns, but wouldn't have to. "Landon realizes that Jamie doesn't have much longer. She is so weak she can barely stand up and he has to support her. She has lost so much weight that he compares her to falling leaves. He now realizes that leukemia has taken over her whole body in such a short period of time. She is dying." My goal would be to be clear and direct and let the form fit the meaning. Since the meaning itself is inherently moving, we don't need to generate artificial interest. I wouldn't deal with this passage, though, as separate from the goals of the paper. I would hope for a connection to the overall goals of the paper, perhaps set up earlier with a strong lead. This passage seems out of the blue, with no strong transition, so it's hard to know what comes before or what comes after. I don't know the writer, whole paper, or assignment. I try not to encourage revision of sentences apart from larger concerns. Craig Susan van Druten wrote: > There's nothing simple about parallel structure. Obama's and Silko's > parallel structure are purposeful, beautiful, and effective. My > student's mindless repetition of her simple subjects is dull, typical, > and uninspired. There is no point in comparing the two types of > repetitions. > > But here's an even more intriguing point: you say when Obama and Silko > are doing their repetitions we mustn't "dismiss" them as simply > parallel. What does that mean? What more do these passages do that > relates to our discussion about my student's use of repetition? > > On May 26, 2009, at 10:35 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> I find it strange that you think the passages from Obama and Silko are >> irrelevant. You can't dismiss them simply as parallel structure. These >> are effective passages that repeat simple subjects. >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On May 26, 2009, at 8:20 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >>>> I'm less interested in how things should work and more interested >>>> in how they actually do work. I'm sorry if I sounded pie in the >>>> skyish. >>> >>> I agree and gave this group an actual student example. What plain >>> language would you say to a junior in high school to help her write >>> more effectively? What plain words would you say about this writer's >>> "verb string." Remember you have 2 minutes at the most unless you >>> can convince her to come after school and stay while you explain your >>> "string" theory. >>> >>> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >>> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves >>> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so >>> sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >>> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing >>> just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken >>> over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes >>> that she doesn’t have that much longer. >>> >>>> I believe that [focusing on structural variation in sentence- >>>> initial position] can produce unnecessarily complex sentences. >>>> That's just my opinion though. Considering that you don't know me, >>>> my students, or my results, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. >>>> That's the nature of informal, online, listserv discussions, and >>>> I'm fine with that. >>> >>> Yes, well, there we have it. You just have an opinion based on >>> experience. So do I. >>> >>>> We disagree on this point. No big deal. Please don't take that to >>>> mean that I think you're a bad teacher. >>> >>> John, are you concerned that I think you are a bad teacher? Why >>> bring this up? It's irrelevant if you are concerned about what >>> actually works. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John Alexander >>>> Austin, Texas >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Susan van Druten >>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> John, you have actually made my point. >>>> >>>> You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, >>>> coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to >>>> consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging >>>> of verb choice." >>>> >>>> If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me >>>> like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say >>>> that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up >>>> their sentence starts. >>>> >>>> Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences >>>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>>> what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school >>>> classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix >>>> the core problem. >>>> >>>> I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to >>>> reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can >>>> keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts >>>> with what I have experienced. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as >>>>> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly >>>>> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given >>>>> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an >>>>> appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the >>>>> problem, not the structure). >>>>> >>>>> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and >>>>> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more >>>>> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. >>>>> >>>>> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) >>>>> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the >>>>> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core >>>>> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences >>>>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>>>> what teachers want. >>>>> >>>>> John Alexander >>>>> Austin, Texas >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten >>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up >>>>> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is >>>>> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your >>>>> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th >>>>> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." >>>>> >>>>> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to >>>>> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree >>>>> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her >>>>> sentence starts? >>>>> >>>>> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >>>>> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves >>>>> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become >>>>> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >>>>> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only >>>>> realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her >>>>> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period >>>>> of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer. >>>>> >>>>> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Susan, >>>>>> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >>>>>> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that >>>>>> varying >>>>>> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >>>>>> opening)is >>>>>> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those >>>>>> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >>>>>> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >>>>>> students >>>>>> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a >>>>>> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >>>>>> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts >>>>>> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie >>>>>> Silko's >>>>>> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of >>>>>> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >>>>>> copied >>>>>> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >>>>>> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for >>>>>> long >>>>>> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with >>>>>> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and >>>>>> repeating >>>>>> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. >>>>>> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >>>>>> flow in a >>>>>> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost >>>>>> always >>>>>> last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the >>>>>> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >>>>>> opening >>>>>> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >>>>>> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >>>>>> repetition >>>>>> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too >>>>>> quickly. >>>>>> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different >>>>>> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should >>>>>> have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for >>>>>> continuity, though, not for variation. >>>>>> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >>>>>> kind of >>>>>> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >>>>>> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >>>>>> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >>>>>> sentences is >>>>>> another. >>>>>> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >>>>>> that most >>>>>> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have >>>>>> variation >>>>>> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >>>>>> adverbials. >>>>>> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >>>>>> harmful to >>>>>> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >>>>>> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them >>>>>> to see >>>>>> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >>>>>> subjects, to >>>>>> build coherence into texts. >>>>>> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >>>>>> teaching >>>>>> practices, not a personal criticism. >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still >>>>>> believe >>>>>>> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to >>>>>>> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >>>>>>> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea >>>>>>> that I >>>>>>> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you >>>>>>> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am >>>>>>> not enjoying myself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>>> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a >>>>>>>> mature >>>>>>>> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should >>>>>>>> all be >>>>>>>> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, >>>>>>>> far from >>>>>>>> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >>>>>>>> profession >>>>>>>> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >>>>>>>> what we >>>>>>>> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >>>>>>>> posted to >>>>>>>> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings >>>>>>>> to keep >>>>>>>> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >>>>>>>> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at >>>>>>>> all to do >>>>>>>> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We >>>>>>>> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an >>>>>>>> open mind. >>>>>>>> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was >>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>> intended to be personal. >>>>>>>> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >>>>>>>> whether the >>>>>>>> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. >>>>>>>> It says, >>>>>>>> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% >>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. >>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >>>>>>>> professional >>>>>>>> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an >>>>>>>> average of >>>>>>>> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >>>>>>>> highest >>>>>>>> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, >>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>> students already vary sentence openings more than mature >>>>>>>> writers. I >>>>>>>> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >>>>>>>> boring. >>>>>>>> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >>>>>>>> Grammar" as a >>>>>>>> more linguistically sound source of advice. >>>>>>>> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >>>>>>>> apologize if >>>>>>>> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >>>>>>>> teacher. >>>>>>>> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >>>>>>>> grounded, >>>>>>>> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful >>>>>>>> of each >>>>>>>> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures >>>>>>>> on my >>>>>>>> part to do that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >>>>>>>> guides. >>>>>>>>> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing >>>>>>>>> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same >>>>>>>>> starting word >>>>>>>>> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >>>>>>>>> outrage, tar, and feathers! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sentence Beginnings >>>>>>>>> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject— >>>>>>>>> far >>>>>>>>> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >>>>>>>>> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >>>>>>>>> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >>>>>>>>> sentences. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WORDS >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to >>>>>>>>> fight back. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and >>>>>>>>> clattering came >>>>>>>>> from the heights around us. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A connecting word: For students who have just >>>>>>>>> survived the >>>>>>>>> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >>>>>>>>> is all >>>>>>>>> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >>>>>>>>> school, >>>>>>>>> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >>>>>>>>> important as a healthy mind. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, >>>>>>>>> minerals— >>>>>>>>> these affect the health of plants. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PHRASES >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >>>>>>>>> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For >>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> thing, it can be ruthless. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of >>>>>>>>> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >>>>>>>>> existence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will >>>>>>>>> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>> is essential. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A participle: Looking out of the window high >>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >>>>>>>>> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >>>>>>>>> surrounded >>>>>>>>> by fields. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >>>>>>>>> provides >>>>>>>>> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went >>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>> attack. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CLAUSES >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and >>>>>>>>> I think >>>>>>>>> it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to >>>>>>>>> death that >>>>>>>>> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >>>>>>>>> going to >>>>>>>>> show up again. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a >>>>>>>>> joiner of >>>>>>>>> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of >>>>>>>>> a group >>>>>>>>> of animal lovers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >>>>>>>>> questions to >>>>>>>>> ask a geologist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>>>>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >>>>>>>>>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do >>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What method do you use to teach the different possible >>>>>>>>>> variations? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jean Waldman >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to >>>>>>>>>> evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The >>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>> boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You >>>>>>>>>> admitted >>>>>>>>>> the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it >>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>> make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't >>>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>> believe the varying sentence starts made it better. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their >>>>>>>>>> sentence starts compromises their ability to write with >>>>>>>>>> coherence? >>>>>>>>>> It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't >>>>>>>>>> force >>>>>>>>>> students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts >>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>> lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> other concerns as well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't >>>>>>>>>>> mean to >>>>>>>>>>> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence >>>>>>>>>>> openings is >>>>>>>>>>> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary >>>>>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>>>>> openings is not based on close observation of how language >>>>>>>>>>> works in >>>>>>>>>>> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may >>>>>>>>>>> have the >>>>>>>>>>> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a >>>>>>>>>>> distraction from more relevant choices. >>>>>>>>>>> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already >>>>>>>>>>> have it in >>>>>>>>>>> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow >>>>>>>>>>> woman". >>>>>>>>>>> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more >>>>>>>>>>> typical of >>>>>>>>>>> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence >>>>>>>>>>> openings are >>>>>>>>>>> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can >>>>>>>>>>> base >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on >>>>>>>>>>> personal >>>>>>>>>>> preferences. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun >>>>>>>>>>> rising up >>>>>>>>>>> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds >>>>>>>>>>> came to >>>>>>>>>>> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches >>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I >>>>>>>>>>> could hear >>>>>>>>>>> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel >>>>>>>>>>> bubbled >>>>>>>>>>> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him >>>>>>>>>>> beside >>>>>>>>>>> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I >>>>>>>>>>> cleaned >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the >>>>>>>>>>> sun was >>>>>>>>>>> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, >>>>>>>>>>> sleeping on >>>>>>>>>>> the white river sand. >>>>>>>>>>> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had >>>>>>>>>>> come the >>>>>>>>>>> night before, following our footprints that were already >>>>>>>>>>> blurred by >>>>>>>>>>> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying >>>>>>>>>>> down, and >>>>>>>>>>> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up— >>>>>>>>>>> maybe it >>>>>>>>>>> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches >>>>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>>>> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look >>>>>>>>>>> beyond the >>>>>>>>>>> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I >>>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>>> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same >>>>>>>>>>> river >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >>>>>>>>>>> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and >>>>>>>>>>> pawed >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to >>>>>>>>>>> follow, >>>>>>>>>>> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the >>>>>>>>>>> river. I >>>>>>>>>>> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I >>>>>>>>>>> waked >>>>>>>>>>> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >>>>>>>>>>> footprints over footprints. >>>>>>>>>>> “Wake up.” >>>>>>>>>>> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his >>>>>>>>>>> eyes still >>>>>>>>>>> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >>>>>>>>>>> “I’m leaving.” >>>>>>>>>>> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me, >>>>>>>>>>> remember?” >>>>>>>>>>> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >>>>>>>>>>> “Where?” >>>>>>>>>>> “To my place.” >>>>>>>>>>> “And will I come back?” >>>>>>>>>>> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling >>>>>>>>>>> him >>>>>>>>>>> behind me >>>>>>>>>>> and smelling the willows. >>>>>>>>>>> “Yellow woman,” he said. >>>>>>>>>>> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >>>>>>>>>>> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his >>>>>>>>>>> face >>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had >>>>>>>>>>> come.” >>>>>>>>>>> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to >>>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>>> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and >>>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>>> his warmth around me. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>>>>> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But >>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my >>>>>>>>>>>> students as >>>>>>>>>>>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their >>>>>>>>>>>> essays. I >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such >>>>>>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you >>>>>>>>>>>> have not >>>>>>>>>>>> thought this through. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> better essay, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>>>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but, >>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are >>>>>>>>>>>>> preaching to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that >>>>>>>>>>>>> varying >>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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/ > > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 09:38:07 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: parallel structure In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 It seems that Craig wants to say that if you understand the semantic structure of the concepts being conveyed, the syntax of English will take care of itself. I cannot agree more. But the syntax (grammar) is what this teachers' discussion group is about. Before the syntax can behave, the choice of structures needs to be made available. I think Craig has pin-pointed the challenge in Silko's paragraph. The metaphor of the falling leaves took first position. I think the metaphor should be extended. That seems to have been the point of the essay after all. "Landon realizes that Jamie's winter is fast approaching. She is the leaf of a tree in autumn, so weak she can barely stand up and he has to support her. She has lost so much weight that he fears she will be falling soon. He now realizes that leukemia has taken over her whole body and all this in such a short three-month period!" -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:14 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: parallel structure Susan, I wouldn't consider Silko's use of "I" as parallel structure. For Obama, I'll certainly grant you the point. Repetition of subject is not a direct goal--coherence is the goal, repetition one means toward that end. Since subjects are in the usual "given" slot, this is especially relevant to subjects, whether in parallel structures or not. . I would take serious issue, though, with calling your students' writing "mindless repetition" or "dull, typical, and uninspired." I didn't have that reaction to it at all. Generally speaking, the "given" in an utterance gets very little attention. The weakness in the passage has nothing to do with the sentence openers. If I were working with the same student, I would focus on bringing the meaning into a clearer focus. That means considering these sentences in relation to the purpose of the whole paper. I'm guessing that the central focus is intended to be Landon's growing recognition of Jamie's worsening condition. If that is inaccurate or unimportant to the overall paper, then those adjustments come first. Conceivably, the whole passage could be cut. But if the observations are both important and accurate, then the passage could be made more coherent by making that purpose more explicit. I wouldn't normally model this kind of rewriting for a student, but here's another version. I took the liberty of shifting pronouns, but wouldn't have to. "Landon realizes that Jamie doesn't have much longer. She is so weak she can barely stand up and he has to support her. She has lost so much weight that he compares her to falling leaves. He now realizes that leukemia has taken over her whole body in such a short period of time. She is dying." My goal would be to be clear and direct and let the form fit the meaning. Since the meaning itself is inherently moving, we don't need to generate artificial interest. I wouldn't deal with this passage, though, as separate from the goals of the paper. I would hope for a connection to the overall goals of the paper, perhaps set up earlier with a strong lead. This passage seems out of the blue, with no strong transition, so it's hard to know what comes before or what comes after. I don't know the writer, whole paper, or assignment. I try not to encourage revision of sentences apart from larger concerns. Craig Susan van Druten wrote: > There's nothing simple about parallel structure. Obama's and Silko's > parallel structure are purposeful, beautiful, and effective. My > student's mindless repetition of her simple subjects is dull, typical, > and uninspired. There is no point in comparing the two types of > repetitions. > > But here's an even more intriguing point: you say when Obama and Silko > are doing their repetitions we mustn't "dismiss" them as simply > parallel. What does that mean? What more do these passages do that > relates to our discussion about my student's use of repetition? > > On May 26, 2009, at 10:35 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> I find it strange that you think the passages from Obama and Silko are >> irrelevant. You can't dismiss them simply as parallel structure. These >> are effective passages that repeat simple subjects. >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On May 26, 2009, at 8:20 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >>>> I'm less interested in how things should work and more interested >>>> in how they actually do work. I'm sorry if I sounded pie in the >>>> skyish. >>> >>> I agree and gave this group an actual student example. What plain >>> language would you say to a junior in high school to help her write >>> more effectively? What plain words would you say about this writer's >>> "verb string." Remember you have 2 minutes at the most unless you >>> can convince her to come after school and stay while you explain your >>> "string" theory. >>> >>> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >>> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves >>> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so >>> sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >>> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing >>> just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken >>> over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes >>> that she doesn't have that much longer. >>> >>>> I believe that [focusing on structural variation in sentence- >>>> initial position] can produce unnecessarily complex sentences. >>>> That's just my opinion though. Considering that you don't know me, >>>> my students, or my results, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. >>>> That's the nature of informal, online, listserv discussions, and >>>> I'm fine with that. >>> >>> Yes, well, there we have it. You just have an opinion based on >>> experience. So do I. >>> >>>> We disagree on this point. No big deal. Please don't take that to >>>> mean that I think you're a bad teacher. >>> >>> John, are you concerned that I think you are a bad teacher? Why >>> bring this up? It's irrelevant if you are concerned about what >>> actually works. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John Alexander >>>> Austin, Texas >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Susan van Druten >>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> John, you have actually made my point. >>>> >>>> You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, >>>> coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to >>>> consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging >>>> of verb choice." >>>> >>>> If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me >>>> like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say >>>> that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up >>>> their sentence starts. >>>> >>>> Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences >>>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>>> what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school >>>> classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix >>>> the core problem. >>>> >>>> I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to >>>> reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can >>>> keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts >>>> with what I have experienced. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as >>>>> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly >>>>> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given >>>>> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an >>>>> appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the >>>>> problem, not the structure). >>>>> >>>>> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and >>>>> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more >>>>> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. >>>>> >>>>> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) >>>>> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the >>>>> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core >>>>> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences >>>>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>>>> what teachers want. >>>>> >>>>> John Alexander >>>>> Austin, Texas >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten >>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up >>>>> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is >>>>> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your >>>>> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th >>>>> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." >>>>> >>>>> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to >>>>> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree >>>>> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her >>>>> sentence starts? >>>>> >>>>> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >>>>> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves >>>>> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become >>>>> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >>>>> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only >>>>> realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her >>>>> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period >>>>> of time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >>>>> >>>>> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Susan, >>>>>> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >>>>>> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that >>>>>> varying >>>>>> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >>>>>> opening)is >>>>>> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those >>>>>> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >>>>>> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >>>>>> students >>>>>> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a >>>>>> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >>>>>> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts >>>>>> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie >>>>>> Silko's >>>>>> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of >>>>>> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >>>>>> copied >>>>>> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >>>>>> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for >>>>>> long >>>>>> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with >>>>>> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and >>>>>> repeating >>>>>> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. >>>>>> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >>>>>> flow in a >>>>>> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost >>>>>> always >>>>>> last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the >>>>>> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >>>>>> opening >>>>>> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >>>>>> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >>>>>> repetition >>>>>> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too >>>>>> quickly. >>>>>> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different >>>>>> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should >>>>>> have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for >>>>>> continuity, though, not for variation. >>>>>> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >>>>>> kind of >>>>>> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >>>>>> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >>>>>> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >>>>>> sentences is >>>>>> another. >>>>>> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >>>>>> that most >>>>>> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have >>>>>> variation >>>>>> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >>>>>> adverbials. >>>>>> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >>>>>> harmful to >>>>>> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >>>>>> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them >>>>>> to see >>>>>> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >>>>>> subjects, to >>>>>> build coherence into texts. >>>>>> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >>>>>> teaching >>>>>> practices, not a personal criticism. >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig >>>>>> >>>>>> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still >>>>>> believe >>>>>>> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to >>>>>>> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >>>>>>> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea >>>>>>> that I >>>>>>> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you >>>>>>> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am >>>>>>> not enjoying myself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>>> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a >>>>>>>> mature >>>>>>>> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should >>>>>>>> all be >>>>>>>> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, >>>>>>>> far from >>>>>>>> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >>>>>>>> profession >>>>>>>> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >>>>>>>> what we >>>>>>>> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >>>>>>>> posted to >>>>>>>> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings >>>>>>>> to keep >>>>>>>> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >>>>>>>> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at >>>>>>>> all to do >>>>>>>> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We >>>>>>>> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an >>>>>>>> open mind. >>>>>>>> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was >>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>> intended to be personal. >>>>>>>> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >>>>>>>> whether the >>>>>>>> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. >>>>>>>> It says, >>>>>>>> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% >>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. >>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >>>>>>>> professional >>>>>>>> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an >>>>>>>> average of >>>>>>>> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >>>>>>>> highest >>>>>>>> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, >>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>> students already vary sentence openings more than mature >>>>>>>> writers. I >>>>>>>> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >>>>>>>> boring. >>>>>>>> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >>>>>>>> Grammar" as a >>>>>>>> more linguistically sound source of advice. >>>>>>>> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >>>>>>>> apologize if >>>>>>>> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >>>>>>>> teacher. >>>>>>>> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >>>>>>>> grounded, >>>>>>>> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful >>>>>>>> of each >>>>>>>> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures >>>>>>>> on my >>>>>>>> part to do that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >>>>>>>> guides. >>>>>>>>> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing >>>>>>>>> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same >>>>>>>>> starting word >>>>>>>>> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >>>>>>>>> outrage, tar, and feathers! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sentence Beginnings >>>>>>>>> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- >>>>>>>>> far >>>>>>>>> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >>>>>>>>> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >>>>>>>>> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >>>>>>>>> sentences. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WORDS >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to >>>>>>>>> fight back. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and >>>>>>>>> clattering came >>>>>>>>> from the heights around us. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A connecting word: For students who have just >>>>>>>>> survived the >>>>>>>>> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >>>>>>>>> is all >>>>>>>>> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >>>>>>>>> school, >>>>>>>>> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >>>>>>>>> important as a healthy mind. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, >>>>>>>>> minerals- >>>>>>>>> these affect the health of plants. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PHRASES >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >>>>>>>>> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For >>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>> thing, it can be ruthless. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of >>>>>>>>> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >>>>>>>>> existence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will >>>>>>>>> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>> is essential. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A participle: Looking out of the window high >>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >>>>>>>>> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >>>>>>>>> surrounded >>>>>>>>> by fields. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >>>>>>>>> provides >>>>>>>>> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went >>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>> attack. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CLAUSES >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and >>>>>>>>> I think >>>>>>>>> it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to >>>>>>>>> death that >>>>>>>>> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >>>>>>>>> going to >>>>>>>>> show up again. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a >>>>>>>>> joiner of >>>>>>>>> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of >>>>>>>>> a group >>>>>>>>> of animal lovers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >>>>>>>>> questions to >>>>>>>>> ask a geologist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>>>>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >>>>>>>>>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that >>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do >>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What method do you use to teach the different possible >>>>>>>>>> variations? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jean Waldman >>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM >>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to >>>>>>>>>> evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The >>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>> boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You >>>>>>>>>> admitted >>>>>>>>>> the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it >>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>> make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't >>>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>> believe the varying sentence starts made it better. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their >>>>>>>>>> sentence starts compromises their ability to write with >>>>>>>>>> coherence? >>>>>>>>>> It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't >>>>>>>>>> force >>>>>>>>>> students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts >>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>> lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> other concerns as well. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't >>>>>>>>>>> mean to >>>>>>>>>>> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence >>>>>>>>>>> openings is >>>>>>>>>>> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary >>>>>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>>>>> openings is not based on close observation of how language >>>>>>>>>>> works in >>>>>>>>>>> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may >>>>>>>>>>> have the >>>>>>>>>>> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a >>>>>>>>>>> distraction from more relevant choices. >>>>>>>>>>> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already >>>>>>>>>>> have it in >>>>>>>>>>> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow >>>>>>>>>>> woman". >>>>>>>>>>> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more >>>>>>>>>>> typical of >>>>>>>>>>> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence >>>>>>>>>>> openings are >>>>>>>>>>> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can >>>>>>>>>>> base >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on >>>>>>>>>>> personal >>>>>>>>>>> preferences. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun >>>>>>>>>>> rising up >>>>>>>>>>> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds >>>>>>>>>>> came to >>>>>>>>>>> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches >>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I >>>>>>>>>>> could hear >>>>>>>>>>> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel >>>>>>>>>>> bubbled >>>>>>>>>>> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him >>>>>>>>>>> beside >>>>>>>>>>> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I >>>>>>>>>>> cleaned >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the >>>>>>>>>>> sun was >>>>>>>>>>> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, >>>>>>>>>>> sleeping on >>>>>>>>>>> the white river sand. >>>>>>>>>>> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had >>>>>>>>>>> come the >>>>>>>>>>> night before, following our footprints that were already >>>>>>>>>>> blurred by >>>>>>>>>>> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying >>>>>>>>>>> down, and >>>>>>>>>>> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up- >>>>>>>>>>> maybe it >>>>>>>>>>> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches >>>>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>>>> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look >>>>>>>>>>> beyond the >>>>>>>>>>> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I >>>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>>> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same >>>>>>>>>>> river >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >>>>>>>>>>> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and >>>>>>>>>>> pawed >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to >>>>>>>>>>> follow, >>>>>>>>>>> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the >>>>>>>>>>> river. I >>>>>>>>>>> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I >>>>>>>>>>> waked >>>>>>>>>>> north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in >>>>>>>>>>> footprints over footprints. >>>>>>>>>>> "Wake up." >>>>>>>>>>> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his >>>>>>>>>>> eyes still >>>>>>>>>>> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >>>>>>>>>>> "I'm leaving." >>>>>>>>>>> He smiled now, eyes still closed. "You are coming with me, >>>>>>>>>>> remember?" >>>>>>>>>>> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun. >>>>>>>>>>> "Where?" >>>>>>>>>>> "To my place." >>>>>>>>>>> "And will I come back?" >>>>>>>>>>> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling >>>>>>>>>>> him >>>>>>>>>>> behind me >>>>>>>>>>> and smelling the willows. >>>>>>>>>>> "Yellow woman," he said. >>>>>>>>>>> I turned to face him. "Who are you?" I asked. >>>>>>>>>>> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his >>>>>>>>>>> face >>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>> river. "Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had >>>>>>>>>>> come." >>>>>>>>>>> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to >>>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>>> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and >>>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>>> his warmth around me. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>>>>> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But >>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my >>>>>>>>>>>> students as >>>>>>>>>>>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their >>>>>>>>>>>> essays. I >>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such >>>>>>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>>>>>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you >>>>>>>>>>>> have not >>>>>>>>>>>> thought this through. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows more >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> better essay, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why >>>>>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>>>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but, >>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are >>>>>>>>>>>>> preaching to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that >>>>>>>>>>>>> varying >>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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/ > > 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/ NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. 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/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:52:02 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brian,
   I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very thoughtful and helpful. I especially like the way you bring this back to the opening discussion, whether weaker writers needed 'training wheels". I would echo what I see as the core of your position: they do more harm than good. Craig
O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean that boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some solutions to the problem of boring essays are short term (or superficial) solutions. As I meant to imply, I read plenty of boring essays by college students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even as a percentage of my total haul of papers, than high school teachers read--just because my students' high school teachers have done a good job with them). I could come up with silly solutions to this problem--use a world from a funny vocabulary list every few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might amuse me (I have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more effective writing. Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good writers do include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only 25% of the time, and it's not outlandish to teach students how good writers go about doing this. I actually do not think that sentence starts and coherence are an either/or--you've made it clear that you teach coherence, and I don't see how that could be totally negated by the little time you spend teaching sentence start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way put coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence is , pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's experience of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the time, if a revision with more varied sentence starts is better than the draft, that variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant change--like improved coordination or subordination, or improved topic focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision is better is simply because she started her sentences in more various ways, she may understand what really made the revision better, and thus she may be less likely to transfer her learning to the next context and do even better in the future. And she may not be helped on the path to the (even) longer-term goal of greater syntactical maturity (as you put it) or greater rhetorical awareness and control (as I put it). I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our students to produce easy to read and pleasurable, informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're in a particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as a student experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, that student's writing may have to get more convoluted before it gets clearer and more pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the student advice that would privilege a clear and enjoyable product today over a more deliberate and effective writing process tomorrow. I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he or she really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of the revision from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. Was there a rhetorical purpose, other than simply variation, for switching from "he" to "she" as a subject, only to then switch back again? If so--and there could be such a purpose--great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where sentence start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I would have favored coherence. Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly not learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence must have a different subject." I don't think the different sides in this Great War of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear about how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? Really??! Really. Really??! Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems for a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from chaotic coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is causing it. This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is simply not true that we must pit sentence start variation against coherence. Both are important. Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, informative reading.

Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how each sentence connects]?"

Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's inconclusive (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her revision: Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she has not been considering. Susan On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:

It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- term improvement should take priority. I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately attaining a mature style). Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- often but not always English Language Learners--who can write simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually improve at, coordination and subordination. "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness and control. At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, that will make this easier." The results would be less predictible then if I just told the student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over the long one. But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of advice? Brian Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of English Director of the Writing Center St. Mary's College of Maryland Montgomery Hall 50 18952 E. Fisher Rd. St. Mary's City, Maryland 20686 240-895-4242 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions John, you have actually made my point. You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice." If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up their sentence starts. Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix the core problem. I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts with what I have experienced. On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the structure). I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want. John Alexander Austin, Texas On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts? Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too quickly. The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for continuity, though, not for variation. I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is another. Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple adverbials. As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to build coherence into texts. I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching practices, not a personal criticism. Craig Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am not enjoying myself. Susan On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind. I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never intended to be personal. That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says, first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the highest about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, then students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring. I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical Grammar" as a more linguistically sound source of advice. But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a teacher. As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded, effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures on my part to do that. Craig Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more outrage, tar, and feathers! Sentence Beginnings Vary the beginnings of your sentences. Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- far more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your sentences. WORDS Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to fight back. An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came from the heights around us. A connecting word: For students who have just survived the brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school, find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as important as a healthy mind. A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals- these affect the health of plants. PHRASES A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one thing, it can be ruthless. A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this existence. An infinitive: To be really successful, you will have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program is essential. A participle: Looking out of the window high over the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded by fields. An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the attack. CLAUSES An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and I think it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to death that if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to show up again. An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group of animal lovers. A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to ask a geologist. On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: Susan, This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? Jean Waldman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten"

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/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:11:03 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed,
   What constitutes a "given" in a discourse context is a very rich and interesting area and one I don't think has been adequately investigated. (I hope somebody can correct me if I'm wrong.) On the surface of it, I would say these subject shifts are problematic, but with the full sentences in front of us, I suspect those problems would go away. Are all these mathematicians? (Napolean as well?) Would the reader be expected to know this?
   Here's a possible parallel example with missing predicates. "Many left handed hitters have done well at Fenway Park. Wade Boggs.......... Carl Yastremski..........Ted Williams...... Now Jacoby Ellsbury..... "
   This sort of shift requires that the reader know that these are all left handed hitters who played (or are playing) for the Red Sox and that the stadium they play home games in is Fenway Park.
   Given can be created by discourse. As a matter of fact, Langacker uses the term"Current Discourse Space" to emphasize that it is constantly being updated as the text moves along. It is also created by shared knowledge. A writer, of course, often guesses wrong on both sides--either explaining too much or not enough--for some readers.
   Much of the pressure of nominalization also comes from the build-up of meaning within a discipline or a text. "Non-restrictive post-nominal modifiers should be set off by commas" presupposes that the complex noun phrase that opens the sentence is already clear from context or shared understanding. What I find is that my students cannot read a typical handbook because they haven't been bought up to speed with the terminology and (more important) underlying concepts.
   Pulling given from one sentence to the next often requires the ability to build a complex noun phrase (or other alternatives). Where I differ with Susan is probably seeing coherence, not variation, as the primary goal.

Craig

Edgar Schuster wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

I just happened to be reading "A Law of Acceleration" by Henry Adams and have come across two paragraphs that have some relation to what we have been discussed on the issue of varying sentence openings and coherence.

The first paragraph begins with "Thus" and the sentence concludes "only the mathematician could help." Here are the first words (NPs) of the remaining six sentences:

            La Place

            Watt

            Volta and Benjamin Franklin

            Dalton

            Napoleon I

            No one

The other starts with the word "Nothing." The remaining five sentences begin:

            Thought

            Power

            Man

            Forces

            So long as the rates of progress held good, . . . .

Comments?

Ed S

On May 27, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Jordan Earl wrote:

Can I throw in a question here? The revised version seems to me to create a new problem... we have only one sentence with a varying start now, and in it, the subject is a pronoun referring back to an adjective in the previous sentence. I realize that this phenomenon is acceptable in spoken speech and probably happens a lot in writing, but I'm wondering if others out there teaching would point this out to students or let it go...

<Landon is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves falling. She has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started to notice it.>

It seems to me that *she* would work well if Landon were female; alternately, one might begin the second sentence with *Jamie* and solve the problem, as the 2nd *she* would then be clear.

Curious what others think --

--Jordan

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/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 14:22:38 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: john whicker <[log in to unmask]> Subject: New shopping new life! Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_d5a4f9b6-40e6-4c93-941d-c345ad20f157_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_d5a4f9b6-40e6-4c93-941d-c345ad20f157_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable New shopping new life! i would like to introduce a good company who trades mainly in electornic products. Now the company is under sales promotion,all the products are sold nearly at its cost. They provide the best service to customers,they provide you with original products of good quality,and what is more,the price is a surprising happiness to you! It is realy a good chance for shopping.just grasp the opportunity,Now or never! The web address: (www.2tgg.com) 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/ --_d5a4f9b6-40e6-4c93-941d-c345ad20f157_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable New shopping new life!
i would like to introduce a good company who trades mainly in electornic products.
Now the company is under sales promotion,all the products are sold nearly at its cost.
They provide the best service to customers,they provide you with original products of
good quality,and what is more,the price is a surprising happiness to you!
It is realy a good chance for shopping.just grasp the opportunity,Now or never!
The web address: (www.2tgg.com) 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/ --_d5a4f9b6-40e6-4c93-941d-c345ad20f157_-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 16:48:25 -0600 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: john whicker <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Bogus Emails Comments: To: Alana Bowers <[log in to unmask]>, Andrew Excobedo <[log in to unmask]>, andy franta <[log in to unmask]>, bill hampton <[log in to unmask]>, Bonnie Kyburz <[log in to unmask]>, Brian WHALEY <[log in to unmask]>, Catherine Bailey <[log in to unmask]>, Catherine Bailey <[log in to unmask]>, charityann25 <[log in to unmask]>, Charity Gardner <[log in to unmask]>, "Christianne Davis (alternate)" <[log in to unmask]>, Christianne Davis <[log in to unmask]>, Christine Young <[log in to unmask]>, david rodeback <[log in to unmask]>, Debra Thornton <[log in to unmask]>, Deb Thornton <[log in to unmask]>, Deb Thornton <[log in to unmask]>, Dorice Galbraith <[log in to unmask]>, Doug Downs <[log in to unmask]>, Doug Downs <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask], "frank crowther jr." <[log in to unmask]>, Frank Crowther <[log in to unmask]>, Frank Crowther <[log in to unmask]>, Frankl Crowther <[log in to unmask]>, gerda saunders <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask], John Goshert <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask], letters salt lake tribune <[log in to unmask]>, Loreta Whicker <[log in to unmask]>, Louise Bown <[log in to unmask]>, matt potolsky <[log in to unmask]>, Matt Potolsky <[log in to unmask]>, Melissa Crowther <[log in to unmask]>, mindy ellsworth <[log in to unmask]>, Pat Merriell <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_f0a1f099-054c-4336-b613-6bda2bb45964_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_f0a1f099-054c-4336-b613-6bda2bb45964_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm afraid someone must have hacked my email account to send out spam in my name. I apologize and ask that all of you refrain from visiting the site that would advertise using such methods. John H. Whicker Adjunct Faculty Department of English & Literature Utah Valley University 800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 "Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider." ~Francis Bacon 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/ --_f0a1f099-054c-4336-b613-6bda2bb45964_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm afraid someone must have hacked my email account to send out spam in my name. I apologize and ask that all of you refrain from visiting the site that would advertise using such methods.

John H. Whicker Adjunct Faculty Department of English & Literature Utah Valley University 800 W University Pkwy, Orem UT 84058 "Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider." ~Francis Bacon

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/ --_f0a1f099-054c-4336-b613-6bda2bb45964_-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 18:57:31 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: parallel structure In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-46--1040120471 --Apple-Mail-46--1040120471 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed Craig, yes, my bad. Silko was not using parallel structure. But I think you get my drift. Some repetition is intended and inspired and some is unintended and not. The weakness in my student's writing is related to sentence starts. She has not done enough connecting of her ideas. I am very big on logic (which surprisingly can come without coherence), next big on coherence and interesting vocabulary, and somewhere before using capital letters. periods, and good penmanship is changing up sentence starts. But if a student needs more logical connections between ideas and has dull sentence starts, then I kill two birds with one stone by asking her to revise her starts. At the beginning of the year my students memorize 21 subordinating conjunctions. Then they practice combining sentences. Sentence combining forces logical connection and sometimes creates interesting sentence starts. When I walk around the room while they are writing, I'll point to two sentences and say try combining those two with one of those. And I gesture to the 21 sub conjunctions poster. I think when you preteach ideas like subordination, sentence starts, and interesting vocabulary, it will start to show up in their writing. They may be clumsy with it at first, but I like to see experimentation. I never present anything stylistic in a dogmatic way. I always say my rules/suggestions are up for the breaking. Try it, you may be right. Sometime I even say write it both ways (my way and theirs) and I'll let you what I think. If they are thinking about two alternatives, and thinking they've got one over on the teacher, how great is that when I comment on their paper that I admire their choice. It's all in how we present "rules." My student was not writing a paper. She was required to find and explain figurative language in a book she read outside of class. Here is a better example of what my students can do. This is still a regular (nonAP, non-honors) student. The writing is okay, but the thinking and logic is incredible. It's really irrelevant to show you this because I did not ask this student to change her sentence starts. It appears on the handout I give my students as an example of C versus A work. The C was the Sparks' inspired paragraph. Ordinary People Judith Guest Metaphor/simile page 98 A tiny seed opens slowly inside his mind. In the hospital the seed would grow and begin to produce thick, shiny leaves with fibrous veins running through them. More leaves to come. Like tiny, curled up fists they will hit at him. The author compared Conrad’s feeling of all his emotions to a plant. In the hospital he was forced to feel emotions because when he was depressed he didn’t feel anything at all. Berger, the psychiatrist, tried to get him to open up and find out what he was suppressing. It turns out to be the guilt he feels over his brother’s death. The seed is the first emotion that he began to feel and the leaves are all the other connected feelings that have started to develop. Seeds are connected to leaves in the same way that the suppressed guilt is connected to his larger problem of depression. The author uses a lot of positive imagery to describe that it is a good thing that he is starting to feel again. They are also described as “fists” because the emotions came fast and with a lot of force. Even though it might be painful at first, it is better for him to feel and deal with his emotions, than to hide and suppress them. The discussion he has with his psychiatrist allows him to release his guilty feelings. On May 28, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > Susan, > I wouldn't consider Silko's use of "I" as parallel structure. > For Obama, I'll certainly grant you the point. Repetition of > subject is not a direct goal--coherence is the goal, repetition one > means toward that end. Since subjects are in the usual "given" > slot, this is especially relevant to subjects, whether in parallel > structures or not. . > I would take serious issue, though, with calling your students' > writing "mindless repetition" or "dull, typical, and uninspired." I > didn't have that reaction to it at all. Generally speaking, the > "given" in an utterance gets very little attention. The weakness in > the passage has nothing to do with the sentence openers. > If I were working with the same student, I would focus on > bringing the meaning into a clearer focus. That means considering > these sentences in relation to the purpose of the whole paper. I'm > guessing that the central focus is intended to be Landon's growing > recognition of Jamie's worsening condition. If that is inaccurate > or unimportant to the overall paper, then those adjustments come > first. Conceivably, the whole passage could be cut. But if the > observations are both important and accurate, then the passage > could be made more coherent by making that purpose more explicit. I > wouldn't normally model this kind of rewriting for a student, but > here's another version. I took the liberty of shifting pronouns, > but wouldn't have to. > "Landon realizes that Jamie doesn't have much longer. She is so > weak she can barely stand up and he has to support her. She has > lost so much weight that he compares her to falling leaves. He now > realizes that leukemia has taken over her whole body in such a > short period of time. She is dying." > My goal would be to be clear and direct and let the form fit the > meaning. Since the meaning itself is inherently moving, we don't > need to generate artificial interest. > I wouldn't deal with this passage, though, as separate from the > goals of the paper. I would hope for a connection to the overall > goals of the paper, perhaps set up earlier with a strong lead. This > passage seems out of the blue, with no strong transition, so it's > hard to know what comes before or what comes after. I don't know > the writer, whole paper, or assignment. > I try not to encourage revision of sentences apart from larger > concerns. > > Craig > > Susan van Druten wrote: >> There's nothing simple about parallel structure. Obama's and >> Silko's parallel structure are purposeful, beautiful, and >> effective. My student's mindless repetition of her simple >> subjects is dull, typical, and uninspired. There is no point in >> comparing the two types of repetitions. >> >> But here's an even more intriguing point: you say when Obama and >> Silko are doing their repetitions we mustn't "dismiss" them as >> simply parallel. What does that mean? What more do these >> passages do that relates to our discussion about my student's use >> of repetition? >> >> On May 26, 2009, at 10:35 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>> I find it strange that you think the passages from Obama and >>> Silko are >>> irrelevant. You can't dismiss them simply as parallel structure. >>> These >>> are effective passages that repeat simple subjects. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On May 26, 2009, at 8:20 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >>>>> I'm less interested in how things should work and more interested >>>>> in how they actually do work. I'm sorry if I sounded pie in the >>>>> skyish. >>>> >>>> I agree and gave this group an actual student example. What plain >>>> language would you say to a junior in high school to help her write >>>> more effectively? What plain words would you say about this >>>> writer's >>>> "verb string." Remember you have 2 minutes at the most unless you >>>> can convince her to come after school and stay while you explain >>>> your >>>> "string" theory. >>>> >>>> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >>>> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves >>>> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so >>>> sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >>>> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing >>>> just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken >>>> over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He >>>> realizes >>>> that she doesn’t have that much longer. >>>> >>>>> I believe that [focusing on structural variation in sentence- >>>>> initial position] can produce unnecessarily complex sentences. >>>>> That's just my opinion though. Considering that you don't know me, >>>>> my students, or my results, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. >>>>> That's the nature of informal, online, listserv discussions, and >>>>> I'm fine with that. >>>> >>>> Yes, well, there we have it. You just have an opinion based on >>>> experience. So do I. >>>> >>>>> We disagree on this point. No big deal. Please don't take that to >>>>> mean that I think you're a bad teacher. >>>> >>>> John, are you concerned that I think you are a bad teacher? Why >>>> bring this up? It's irrelevant if you are concerned about what >>>> actually works. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John Alexander >>>>> Austin, Texas >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Susan van Druten >>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> John, you have actually made my point. >>>>> >>>>> You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, >>>>> coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to >>>>> consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging >>>>> of verb choice." >>>>> >>>>> If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me >>>>> like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say >>>>> that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up >>>>> their sentence starts. >>>>> >>>>> Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences >>>>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>>>> what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school >>>>> classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix >>>>> the core problem. >>>>> >>>>> I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to >>>>> reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can >>>>> keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it >>>>> conflicts >>>>> with what I have experienced. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as >>>>>> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly >>>>>> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given >>>>>> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an >>>>>> appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the >>>>>> problem, not the structure). >>>>>> >>>>>> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and >>>>>> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more >>>>>> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb >>>>>> choice. >>>>>> >>>>>> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) >>>>>> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the >>>>>> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core >>>>>> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences >>>>>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>>>>> what teachers want. >>>>>> >>>>>> John Alexander >>>>>> Austin, Texas >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten >>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>>> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up >>>>>> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is >>>>>> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of >>>>>> your >>>>>> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th >>>>>> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." >>>>>> >>>>>> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to >>>>>> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree >>>>>> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her >>>>>> sentence starts? >>>>>> >>>>>> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >>>>>> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves >>>>>> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become >>>>>> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support >>>>>> her >>>>>> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only >>>>>> realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her >>>>>> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period >>>>>> of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer. >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >>>>>>> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that >>>>>>> varying >>>>>>> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >>>>>>> opening)is >>>>>>> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of >>>>>>> those >>>>>>> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >>>>>>> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >>>>>>> students >>>>>>> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences >>>>>>> in a >>>>>>> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >>>>>>> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which >>>>>>> starts >>>>>>> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie >>>>>>> Silko's >>>>>>> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great >>>>>>> majority of >>>>>>> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >>>>>>> copied >>>>>>> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >>>>>>> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for >>>>>>> long >>>>>>> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and >>>>>>> repeating >>>>>>> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature >>>>>>> style. >>>>>>> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >>>>>>> flow in a >>>>>>> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost >>>>>>> always >>>>>>> last. The most important function of a sentence opener >>>>>>> (usually the >>>>>>> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >>>>>>> opening >>>>>>> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >>>>>>> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >>>>>>> repetition >>>>>>> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on >>>>>>> much too >>>>>>> quickly. >>>>>>> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of >>>>>>> different >>>>>>> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students >>>>>>> should >>>>>>> have those available as resources. I believe they should be >>>>>>> used for >>>>>>> continuity, though, not for variation. >>>>>>> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >>>>>>> kind of >>>>>>> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >>>>>>> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >>>>>>> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >>>>>>> sentences is >>>>>>> another. >>>>>>> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >>>>>>> that most >>>>>>> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have >>>>>>> variation >>>>>>> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >>>>>>> adverbials. >>>>>>> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >>>>>>> harmful to >>>>>>> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >>>>>>> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them >>>>>>> to see >>>>>>> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >>>>>>> subjects, to >>>>>>> build coherence into texts. >>>>>>> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >>>>>>> teaching >>>>>>> practices, not a personal criticism. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still >>>>>>> believe >>>>>>>> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various >>>>>>>> ways to >>>>>>>> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >>>>>>>> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea >>>>>>>> that I >>>>>>>> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I >>>>>>>> thought you >>>>>>>> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't >>>>>>>> mean I am >>>>>>>> not enjoying myself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>>>> I believe that mentoring young people on their path >>>>>>>>> toward a >>>>>>>>> mature >>>>>>>>> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should >>>>>>>>> all be >>>>>>>>> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, >>>>>>>>> far from >>>>>>>>> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >>>>>>>>> profession >>>>>>>>> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >>>>>>>>> what we >>>>>>>>> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >>>>>>>>> posted to >>>>>>>>> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings >>>>>>>>> to keep >>>>>>>>> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >>>>>>>>> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at >>>>>>>>> all to do >>>>>>>>> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad >>>>>>>>> teacher. We >>>>>>>>> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an >>>>>>>>> open mind. >>>>>>>>> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was >>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>> intended to be personal. >>>>>>>>> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >>>>>>>>> whether the >>>>>>>>> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. >>>>>>>>> It says, >>>>>>>>> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly >>>>>>>>> study. >>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >>>>>>>>> professional >>>>>>>>> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an >>>>>>>>> average of >>>>>>>>> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> highest >>>>>>>>> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is >>>>>>>>> the case, >>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>> students already vary sentence openings more than mature >>>>>>>>> writers. I >>>>>>>>> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >>>>>>>>> boring. >>>>>>>>> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >>>>>>>>> Grammar" as a >>>>>>>>> more linguistically sound source of advice. >>>>>>>>> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >>>>>>>>> apologize if >>>>>>>>> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >>>>>>>>> teacher. >>>>>>>>> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >>>>>>>>> grounded, >>>>>>>>> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful >>>>>>>>> of each >>>>>>>>> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any >>>>>>>>> failures >>>>>>>>> on my >>>>>>>>> part to do that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >>>>>>>>> guides. >>>>>>>>>> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a >>>>>>>>>> writing >>>>>>>>>> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same >>>>>>>>>> starting word >>>>>>>>>> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots >>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>> outrage, tar, and feathers! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sentence Beginnings >>>>>>>>>> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the >>>>>>>>>> subject— >>>>>>>>>> far >>>>>>>>>> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. >>>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>>> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >>>>>>>>>> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of >>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>> sentences. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> WORDS >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice >>>>>>>>>> resolved to >>>>>>>>>> fight back. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and >>>>>>>>>> clattering came >>>>>>>>>> from the heights around us. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A connecting word: For students who have just >>>>>>>>>> survived the >>>>>>>>>> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >>>>>>>>>> is all >>>>>>>>>> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >>>>>>>>>> school, >>>>>>>>>> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is >>>>>>>>>> just as >>>>>>>>>> important as a healthy mind. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, >>>>>>>>>> minerals— >>>>>>>>>> these affect the health of plants. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PHRASES >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >>>>>>>>>> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. >>>>>>>>>> For >>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>> thing, it can be ruthless. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched >>>>>>>>>> all of >>>>>>>>>> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> existence. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An infinitive: To be really successful, >>>>>>>>>> you will >>>>>>>>>> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and >>>>>>>>>> computer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >>>>>>>>>> program >>>>>>>>>> is essential. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A participle: Looking out of the window >>>>>>>>>> high >>>>>>>>>> over >>>>>>>>>> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >>>>>>>>>> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >>>>>>>>>> surrounded >>>>>>>>>> by fields. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >>>>>>>>>> provides >>>>>>>>>> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat >>>>>>>>>> went >>>>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>>>> attack. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> CLAUSES >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and >>>>>>>>>> I think >>>>>>>>>> it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to >>>>>>>>>> death that >>>>>>>>>> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >>>>>>>>>> going to >>>>>>>>>> show up again. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a >>>>>>>>>> joiner of >>>>>>>>>> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of >>>>>>>>>> a group >>>>>>>>>> of animal lovers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >>>>>>>>>> questions to >>>>>>>>>> ask a geologist. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>>>>>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the >>>>>>>>>>> students >>>>>>>>>>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether >>>>>>>>>>> they do >>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What method do you use to teach the different possible >>>>>>>>>>> variations? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jean Waldman >>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were >>>>>>>>>>> asked to >>>>>>>>>>> evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The >>>>>>>>>>> first >>>>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>>>> boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You >>>>>>>>>>> admitted >>>>>>>>>>> the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't >>>>>>>>>>> possibly >>>>>>>>>>> believe the varying sentence starts made it better. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That struck me as arrogantly dismissive. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary >>>>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>>>> sentence starts compromises their ability to write with >>>>>>>>>>> coherence? >>>>>>>>>>> It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> force >>>>>>>>>>> students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do >>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>> other concerns as well. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Susan, >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>> mean to >>>>>>>>>>>> be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence >>>>>>>>>>>> openings is >>>>>>>>>>>> not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of >>>>>>>>>>>> study >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary >>>>>>>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>>>>>>> openings is not based on close observation of how language >>>>>>>>>>>> works in >>>>>>>>>>>> effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those >>>>>>>>>>>> points >>>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may >>>>>>>>>>>> have the >>>>>>>>>>>> effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at >>>>>>>>>>>> best, a >>>>>>>>>>>> distraction from more relevant choices. >>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I >>>>>>>>>>>> already >>>>>>>>>>>> have it in >>>>>>>>>>>> an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's >>>>>>>>>>>> "Yellow >>>>>>>>>>>> woman". >>>>>>>>>>>> It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more >>>>>>>>>>>> typical of >>>>>>>>>>>> narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence >>>>>>>>>>>> openings are >>>>>>>>>>>> quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can >>>>>>>>>>>> base >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> discussion on observations of effective writing, not on >>>>>>>>>>>> personal >>>>>>>>>>>> preferences. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched >>>>>>>>>>>> the sun >>>>>>>>>>>> rising up >>>>>>>>>>>> through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water >>>>>>>>>>>> birds >>>>>>>>>>>> came to >>>>>>>>>>>> the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown >>>>>>>>>>>> scratches >>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>> alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I >>>>>>>>>>>> could hear >>>>>>>>>>>> the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel >>>>>>>>>>>> bubbled >>>>>>>>>>>> and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked >>>>>>>>>>>> at him >>>>>>>>>>>> beside >>>>>>>>>>>> me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I >>>>>>>>>>>> cleaned >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting >>>>>>>>>>>> because the >>>>>>>>>>>> sun was >>>>>>>>>>>> above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time, >>>>>>>>>>>> sleeping on >>>>>>>>>>>> the white river sand. >>>>>>>>>>>> I felt hungry and followed the river south the way >>>>>>>>>>>> we had >>>>>>>>>>>> come the >>>>>>>>>>>> night before, following our footprints that were already >>>>>>>>>>>> blurred by >>>>>>>>>>>> lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying >>>>>>>>>>>> down, and >>>>>>>>>>>> the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get >>>>>>>>>>>> up— >>>>>>>>>>>> maybe it >>>>>>>>>>>> was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches >>>>>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>>>>> horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look >>>>>>>>>>>> beyond the >>>>>>>>>>>> pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even >>>>>>>>>>>> if I >>>>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>>>> not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same >>>>>>>>>>>> river >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night. >>>>>>>>>>>> The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> pawed >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate >>>>>>>>>>>> trying to >>>>>>>>>>>> follow, >>>>>>>>>>>> and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket >>>>>>>>>>>> beside the >>>>>>>>>>>> river. I >>>>>>>>>>>> slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I >>>>>>>>>>>> waked >>>>>>>>>>>> north with the river again, and the white sand broke >>>>>>>>>>>> loose in >>>>>>>>>>>> footprints over footprints. >>>>>>>>>>>> “Wake up.” >>>>>>>>>>>> He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me >>>>>>>>>>>> with his >>>>>>>>>>>> eyes still >>>>>>>>>>>> closed. I knelt down to touch him. >>>>>>>>>>>> “I’m leaving.” >>>>>>>>>>>> He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming >>>>>>>>>>>> with me, >>>>>>>>>>>> remember?” >>>>>>>>>>>> He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the >>>>>>>>>>>> sun. >>>>>>>>>>>> “Where?” >>>>>>>>>>>> “To my place.” >>>>>>>>>>>> “And will I come back?” >>>>>>>>>>>> He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, >>>>>>>>>>>> feeling >>>>>>>>>>>> him >>>>>>>>>>>> behind me >>>>>>>>>>>> and smelling the willows. >>>>>>>>>>>> “Yellow woman,” he said. >>>>>>>>>>>> I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked. >>>>>>>>>>>> He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing >>>>>>>>>>>> his >>>>>>>>>>>> face >>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>> river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why >>>>>>>>>>>> I had >>>>>>>>>>>> come.” >>>>>>>>>>>> I stared past him at the shallow moving water and >>>>>>>>>>>> tried to >>>>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>>>> the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and >>>>>>>>>>>> remember >>>>>>>>>>>> his warmth around me. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Craig >>>>>>>>>>>> I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. >>>>>>>>>>>> But >>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>> really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my >>>>>>>>>>>>> students as >>>>>>>>>>>>> a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their >>>>>>>>>>>>> essays. I >>>>>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>>>>> seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to >>>>>>>>>>>>> have such >>>>>>>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think >>>>>>>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>> have not >>>>>>>>>>>>> thought this through. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make it a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better essay, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> why >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> better, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> preaching to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> varying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence starts is not a panacea. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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/ >> >> > > 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/ --Apple-Mail-46--1040120471 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Craig, yes, my bad. Silko was not using parallel structure. But I think you get my drift. Some repetition is intended and inspired and some is unintended and not.

The weakness in my student's writing is related to sentence starts. She has not done enough connecting of her ideas. I am very big on logic (which surprisingly can come without coherence), next big on coherence and interesting vocabulary, and somewhere before using capital letters. periods, and good penmanship is changing up sentence starts. But if a student needs more logical connections between ideas and has dull sentence starts, then I kill two birds with one stone by asking her to revise her starts. At the beginning of the year my students memorize 21 subordinating conjunctions. Then they practice combining sentences. Sentence combining forces logical connection and sometimes creates interesting sentence starts. When I walk around the room while they are writing, I'll point to two sentences and say try combining those two with one of those. And I gesture to the 21 sub conjunctions poster.

I think when you preteach ideas like subordination, sentence starts, and interesting vocabulary, it will start to show up in their writing. They may be clumsy with it at first, but I like to see experimentation. I never present anything stylistic in a dogmatic way. I always say my rules/suggestions are up for the breaking. Try it, you may be right. Sometime I even say write it both ways (my way and theirs) and I'll let you what I think. If they are thinking about two alternatives, and thinking they've got one over on the teacher, how great is that when I comment on their paper that I admire their choice. It's all in how we present "rules."

My student was not writing a paper. She was required to find and explain figurative language in a book she read outside of class. Here is a better example of what my students can do. This is still a regular (nonAP, non-honors) student. The writing is okay, but the thinking and logic is incredible. It's really irrelevant to show you this because I did not ask this student to change her sentence starts. It appears on the handout I give my students as an example of C versus A work. The C was the Sparks' inspired paragraph.

Ordinary People Judith Guest

Metaphor/simile       page 98

A tiny seed opens slowly inside his mind. In the hospital the seed would grow and begin to produce thick, shiny leaves with fibrous veins running through them. More leaves to come. Like tiny, curled up fists they will hit at him.

The author compared Conrad’s feeling of all his emotions to a plant. In the hospital he was forced to feel emotions because when he was depressed he didn’t feel anything at all. Berger, the psychiatrist, tried to get him to open up and find out what he was suppressing. It turns out to be the guilt he feels over his brother’s death. The seed is the first emotion that he began to feel and the leaves are all the other connected feelings that have started to develop. Seeds are connected to leaves in the same way that the suppressed guilt is connected to his larger problem of depression. The author uses a lot of positive imagery to describe that it is a good thing that he is starting to feel again. They are also described as “fists” because the emotions came fast and with a lot of force. Even though it might be painful at first, it is better for him to feel and deal with his emotions, than to hide and suppress them. The discussion he has with his psychiatrist allows him to release his guilty feelings.

On May 28, 2009, at 10:13 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I wouldn't consider Silko's use of "I" as parallel structure. For Obama, I'll certainly grant you the point. Repetition of subject is not a direct goal--coherence is the goal, repetition one means toward that end. Since subjects are in the usual "given" slot, this is especially relevant to subjects, whether in parallel structures or not. .
I would take serious issue, though, with calling your students' writing "mindless repetition" or "dull, typical, and uninspired." I didn't have that reaction to it at all. Generally speaking, the "given" in an utterance gets very little attention. The weakness in the passage has nothing to do with the sentence openers.
If I were working with the same student, I would focus on bringing the meaning into a clearer focus. That means considering these sentences in relation to the purpose of the whole paper. I'm guessing that the central focus is intended to be Landon's growing recognition of Jamie's worsening condition. If that is inaccurate or unimportant to the overall paper, then those adjustments come first. Conceivably, the whole passage could be cut. But if the observations are both important and accurate, then the passage could be made more coherent by making that purpose more explicit. I wouldn't normally model this kind of rewriting for a student, but here's another version. I took the liberty of shifting pronouns, but wouldn't have to.
"Landon realizes that Jamie doesn't have much longer. She is so weak she can barely stand up and he has to support her. She has lost so much weight that he compares her to falling leaves. He now realizes that leukemia has taken over her whole body in such a short period of time. She is dying."
My goal would be to be clear and direct and let the form fit the meaning. Since the meaning itself is inherently moving, we don't need to generate artificial interest.
I wouldn't deal with this passage, though, as separate from the goals of the paper. I would hope for a connection to the overall goals of the paper, perhaps set up earlier with a strong lead. This passage seems out of the blue, with no strong transition, so it's hard to know what comes before or what comes after. I don't know the writer, whole paper, or assignment.
I try not to encourage revision of sentences apart from larger concerns.

Craig

Susan van Druten wrote:

There's nothing simple about parallel structure. Obama's and Silko's parallel structure are purposeful, beautiful, and effective. My student's mindless repetition of her simple subjects is dull, typical, and uninspired. There is no point in comparing the two types of repetitions.

But here's an even more intriguing point: you say when Obama and Silko are doing their repetitions we mustn't "dismiss" them as simply parallel. What does that mean? What more do these passages do that relates to our discussion about my student's use of repetition?

On May 26, 2009, at 10:35 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

I find it strange that you think the passages from Obama and Silko are
irrelevant. You can't dismiss them simply as parallel structure. These
are effective passages that repeat simple subjects.

Craig

On May 26, 2009, at 8:20 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

I'm less interested in how things should work and more interested
in how they actually do work. I'm sorry if I sounded pie in the
skyish.

I agree and gave this group an actual student example. What plain
language would you say to a junior in high school to help her write
more effectively? What plain words would you say about this writer's
"verb string." Remember you have 2 minutes at the most unless you
can convince her to come after school and stay while you explain your
"string" theory.

Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had
fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves
falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so
sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her
because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing
just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken
over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes
that she doesn’t have that much longer.

I believe that [focusing on structural variation in sentence-
initial position] can produce unnecessarily complex sentences.
That's just my opinion though. Considering that you don't know me,
my students, or my results, it doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.
That's the nature of informal, online, listserv discussions, and
I'm fine with that.

Yes, well, there we have it. You just have an opinion based on
experience. So do I.

We disagree on this point. No big deal. Please don't take that to
mean that I think you're a bad teacher.

John, are you concerned that I think you are a bad teacher? Why
bring this up? It's irrelevant if you are concerned about what
actually works.

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Susan van Druten
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
John, you have actually made my point.

You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate,
coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to
consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging
of verb choice."

If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me
like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say
that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up
their sentence starts.

Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences
(unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is
what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school
classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix
the core problem.

I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to
reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can
keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts
with what I have experienced.

On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as
there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly
has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given
information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an
appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the
problem, not the structure).

I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and
complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more
carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice.

Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me)
quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the
maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core
problems and would likely produce confusing sentences
(unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is
what teachers want.

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up
Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is
the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your
argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th
when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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."

I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to
school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree
that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her
sentence starts?

Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had
fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie’s weight to leaves
falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become
so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her
because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only
realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her
leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period
of time. He realizes that she doesn’t have that much longer.

On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid
understanding of how language works. If we tell students that
varying
sentence openings (using something other than the subject as
opening)is
a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those
variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't.
As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that
students
sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a
row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite
often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts
every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie
Silko's
much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of
the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and
copied
a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he
effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for
long
stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with
mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and
repeating
sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style.
   There are good reasons for this. If you look at information
flow in a
text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost
always
last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the
subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The
opening
establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to
accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit
repetition
for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too
quickly.
   The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different
structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should
have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for
continuity, though, not for variation.
   I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what
kind of
variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A
variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is
another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open
sentences is
another.
Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting
that most
sentences will start with the subject and that when we have
variation
form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple
adverbials.
   As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is
harmful to
imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence
openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them
to see
how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of
subjects, to
build coherence into texts.
   I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good
teaching
practices, not a personal criticism.

Craig

Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still
believe

it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to
start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up
sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea
that I
was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.)

I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you
were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am
not enjoying myself.

Susan

On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a
mature
literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should
all be
constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far,
far from
perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our
profession
as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if
what we
are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you
posted to
the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings
to keep
from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of
conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at
all to do
with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We
simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an
open mind.
I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was
never
intended to be personal.
   That being said, I would ask you to question seriously
whether the
"style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate.
It says,
first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50%
of the
time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study.
The
studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a
professional
writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an
average of
about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the
highest
about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case,
then
students already vary sentence openings more than mature
writers. I
would add that the writers in the study were successful, not
boring.
   I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical
Grammar" as a
more linguistically sound source of advice.
   But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I
apologize if
anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a
teacher.
As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully
grounded,
effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful
of each
other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures
on my
part to do that.

Craig

Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style
guides.

I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing
Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same
starting word
in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more
outrage, tar, and feathers!

Sentence Beginnings
Vary the beginnings of your sentences.

Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject—
far
more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But
overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous
writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your
sentences.

WORDS

Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to
fight back.

An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and
clattering came
from the heights around us.

A connecting word: For students who have just
survived the
brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere
is all
too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high
school,
find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers.

An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as
important as a healthy mind.

A series of words: Light, water, temperature,
minerals—
these affect the health of plants.

PHRASES

A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of
athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For
one
thing, it can be ruthless.

A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of
their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this
existence.

An infinitive: To be really successful, you will
have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer.

A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise
program
is essential.

A participle: Looking out of the window high
over
the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse
surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead
surrounded
by fields.

An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission
provides
food and shelter for Springfield's homeless.

An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went
on the
attack.

CLAUSES

An adverbial clause: When you first start writing—and
I think
it's true for a lot of beginning writers—you’re scared to
death that
if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never
going to
show up again.

An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a
joiner of
organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of
a group
of animal lovers.

A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a
questions to
ask a geologist.

On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote:

Susan,
This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students
HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that
you
just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do
it.

What method do you use to teach the different possible
variations?

Jean Waldman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten"
<[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Craig, I just don't understand your logic. You were asked to
evaluate two passages that contained the same content. The
first
had
boring sentence starts and the second had variation. You
admitted
the second had "more flexibility" but then concluded that it
doesn't
make it better and went on to speak for Ed that he couldn't
possibly
believe the varying sentence starts made it better.

That struck me as arrogantly dismissive.

Do you have any proof that teaching students how to vary their
sentence starts compromises their ability to write with
coherence?
It seems like such a stretch Varying a sentence start doesn't
force
students to vary the subject. If varying sentence starts
doesn't
lead to incoherence, would you change your stance? Or do you
have
other concerns as well.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
   I'm sorry if I come across as arrogantly dismissive. I don't
mean to
be. I do believe that teaching students to vary sentence
openings is
not a good idea, and I have given that a great deal of study
and
thought. I believe that the conventional advice to vary
sentence
openings is not based on close observation of how language
works in
effective texts. I'm not sure why you would say those points
are
irrelevant. Asking students to vary sentence openings may
have the
effect of pushing them further away from coherence--at best, a
distraction from more relevant choices.
   Here's a opening passage--chosen in part because I already
have it in
an electronic file to copy from--from Leslie Silko's "Yellow
woman".
It's a short story, so the sentence openings are more
typical of
narrative than of a more expository text, but the sentence
openings are
quite unremarkable, almost entirely pronouns. I hope we can
base
the
discussion on observations of effective writing, not on
personal
preferences.

Yellow Woman (Leslie Silko)

My thigh clung to his with dampness, and I watched the sun
rising up
through the tamaracks and willows. The small brown water birds
came to
the river and hopped across the mud, leaving brown scratches
in the
alkali-white crust. They bathed in the river silently. I
could hear
the water, almost at our feet where the narrow fast channel
bubbled
and washed green ragged moss and fern leaves. I looked at him
beside
me, rolled in the red blanket on the white river sand. I
cleaned
the
sand out of the cracks between my toes, squinting because the
sun was
above the willow trees. I looked at him for the last time,
sleeping on
the white river sand.
   I felt hungry and followed the river south the way we had
come the
night before, following our footprints that were already
blurred by
lizard tracks and bug trails. The horses were still lying
down, and
the black one whinnied when he saw me but he did not get up—
maybe it
was because the corral was made out of thick cedar branches
and the
horse had not yet felt the sun like I had. I tried to look
beyond the
pale red mesas to the pueblo. I knew it was there, even if I
could
not see it, on the sandrock hill above the river, the same
river
that
moved past me now and had reflected the moon last night.
The horse felt warm underneath me. He shook his head and
pawed
the
sand. The bay whinnied and leaned against the gate trying to
follow,
and I remembered him asleep inside the red blanket beside the
river. I
slid off the horse and tied him close to the other horse, I
waked
north with the river again, and the white sand broke loose in
footprints over footprints.
“Wake up.”
He moved in the blanket and turned his face to me with his
eyes still
closed. I knelt down to touch him.
“I’m leaving.”
He smiled now, eyes still closed. “You are coming with me,
remember?”
He sat up now with his bare dark chest and belly in the sun.
“Where?”
“To my place.”
“And will I come back?”
   He pulled his pants on. I walked away from him, feeling
him
behind me
and smelling the willows.
“Yellow woman,” he said.
I turned to face him. “Who are you?” I asked.
He laughed and knelt on the low, sandy bank, washing his
face
in the
river. “Last night you guessed my name, and you knew why I had
come.”
   I stared past him at the shallow moving water and tried to
remember
the night, but I could only see the moon in the water and
remember
his warmth around me.

Craig

Craig
I sounded snarky in my last email. I'm sorry for that. But
you

really are arrogantly dismissive of something I teach my
students as
a mini-lesson but do not require them to do in their
essays. I
have
seen better writing from them, and it is annoying to have such
strong
evidence be dismissed without much thought. I do think you
have not
thought this through.

Susan

On May 20, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Susan van Druten wrote:

On May 20, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

You can certainly make the judgment that Ed's version
shows more
flexibility on the part of the writer, but it doesn't
make it a
better essay,

Craig, it's clearly better. You offer no evidence for why
it is
worse or even equal. Own up, dude: It is clearly better,
but,
yes, it still sucks. Your tower is showing.

The rest of your argument is irrelevant. You are
preaching to
the
choir. We do know what makes a good essay. We know that
varying
sentence starts is not a panacea.

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/

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/

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/ --Apple-Mail-46--1040120471-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 19:09:48 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: training wheels In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-47--1039383833 --Apple-Mail-47--1039383833 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed So weak writers suffer from training wheels? A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. So...let'e be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence starts has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the spigots. What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing texts do you find harmful? Have at it. But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you? I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with its name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of this listserv. Jenkies, how's that for irony? Hurts, donut? On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > Brian, > I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very > thoughtful and helpful. I especially like the way you bring this > back to the opening discussion, whether weaker writers needed > 'training wheels". I would echo what I see as the core of your > position: they do more harm than good. > > Craig > > O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean >> that boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some >> solutions to the problem of boring essays are short term (or >> superficial) solutions. As I meant to imply, I read plenty of >> boring essays by college students(though I'm sure I read fewer, >> even as a percentage of my total haul of papers, than high school >> teachers read--just because my students' high school teachers have >> done a good job with them). I could come up with silly solutions >> to this problem--use a world from a funny vocabulary list every >> few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might amuse me (I >> have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more >> effective writing. >> >> Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good >> writers do include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only >> 25% of the time, and it's not outlandish to teach students how >> good writers go about doing this. I actually do not think that >> sentence starts and coherence are an either/or--you've made it >> clear that you teach coherence, and I don't see how that could be >> totally negated by the little time you spend teaching sentence >> start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way put >> coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. >> Coherence is , pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of >> a reader's experience of a text. Sentence start variation >> is...not. Most of the time, if a revision with more varied >> sentence starts is better than the draft, that variation is >> probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant change--like >> improved coordination or subordination, or improved topic focus in >> general. If a student thinks that her revision >> >> is better is simply because she started her sentences in more >> various ways, she may understand what really made the revision >> better, and thus she may be less likely to transfer her learning >> to the next context and do even better in the future. And she may >> not be helped on the path to the (even) longer-term goal of >> greater syntactical maturity (as you put it) or greater rhetorical >> awareness and control (as I put it). >> >> I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our >> students to produce easy to read and pleasurable, >> informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're >> in a particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as >> a student experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, >> that student's writing may have to get more convoluted before it >> gets clearer and more pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the >> student advice that would privilege a clear and enjoyable product >> today over a more deliberate and effective writing process tomorrow. >> >> I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he >> or she really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of >> the revision from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. >> Was there a rhetorical purpose, other than simply variation, for >> switching from "he" to "she" as a subject, only to then switch >> back again? If so--and there could be such a purpose--great. If >> not, maybe this revision is one instance where sentence start >> variation and coherence really did conflict, and I would have >> favored coherence. >> >> Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly >> not learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence >> must have a different subject." I don't think the different sides >> in this Great War of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart. >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van Druten >> Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >> >> Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear about >> how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. >> Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. >> I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts >> (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to >> them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. >> They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they >> get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. >> >> "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? >> >> Really??! Really. Really??! >> >> Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems >> for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems for >> a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one >> must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion >> between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to >> a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. >> The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from chaotic >> coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can >> all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is >> causing it. >> >> This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is simply >> not true that we must pit sentence start variation against >> coherence. Both are important. >> >> Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make >> one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. >> The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, >> informative reading. >> >> >>> Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might >>> the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how >>> each sentence connects]?" >>> >> >> Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying >> sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's inconclusive >> (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her >> revision: >> >> Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has become >> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started >> to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she >> could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her >> change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her >> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of >> time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >> >> I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer >> from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she >> has not been considering. >> >> Susan >> >> On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> >>> It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a >>> teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," >>> as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, >>> "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing >>> more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on >>> a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? >>> These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* >>> conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? >>> I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- >>> term improvement should take priority. >>> >>> I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers >>> hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change >>> up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having >>> been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think >>> in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I >>> think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short >>> term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a >>> little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been >>> worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately >>> attaining a mature style). >>> >>> Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class >>> sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably >>> read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" >>> repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face >>> tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term >>> improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- >>> often but not always English Language Learners--who can write >>> simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start >>> combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students >>> like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading >>> convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually >>> improve at, coordination and subordination. >>> >>> "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad >>> advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in >>> my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help >>> eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness >>> and control. >>> >>> At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're >>> probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking >>> about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond >>> to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: >>> >>> "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate >>> from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, >>> which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One >>> of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers >>> is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few >>> different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to >>> five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you >>> take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, >>> that will make this easier." >>> >>> The results would be less predictible then if I just told the >>> student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the >>> student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and >>> to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And >>> consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over >>> the long one. >>> >>> But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and >>> I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of >>> advice? >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> >>> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor of English >>> Director of the Writing Center >>> St. Mary's College of Maryland >>> Montgomery Hall 50 >>> 18952 E. Fisher Rd. >>> St. Mary's City, Maryland >>> 20686 >>> 240-895-4242 >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >>> Susan van Druten >>> Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>> >>> John, you have actually made my point. >>> >>> You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, >>> coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to >>> consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging >>> of verb choice." >>> >>> If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me >>> like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say >>> that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up >>> their sentence starts. >>> >>> Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences >>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>> what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school >>> classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix >>> the core problem. >>> >>> I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to >>> reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can >>> keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts >>> with what I have experienced. >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >>> >>> >>> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as >>> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly >>> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given >>> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate >>> topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the >>> structure). >>> >>> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and >>> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more >>> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. >>> >>> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) >>> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the >>> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core >>> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences >>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>> what teachers want. >>> >>> John Alexander >>> Austin, Texas >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten >>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up >>> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is >>> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your >>> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th >>> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." >>> >>> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to >>> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree >>> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her >>> sentence starts? >>> >>> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >>> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves >>> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so >>> sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >>> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing >>> just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken >>> over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He >>> realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >>> >>> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>> >>> >>> Susan, >>> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >>> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that >>> varying >>> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >>> opening)is >>> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of >>> those >>> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >>> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >>> students >>> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences >>> in a >>> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >>> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which >>> starts >>> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie >>> Silko's >>> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great >>> majority of >>> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >>> copied >>> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >>> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for >>> long >>> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing >>> with >>> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and >>> repeating >>> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. >>> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >>> flow in a >>> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost >>> always >>> last. The most important function of a sentence opener >>> (usually the >>> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >>> opening >>> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >>> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >>> repetition >>> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much >>> too >>> quickly. >>> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different >>> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students >>> should >>> have those available as resources. I believe they should be used >>> for >>> continuity, though, not for variation. >>> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >>> kind of >>> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >>> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >>> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >>> sentences is >>> another. >>> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >>> that most >>> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have >>> variation >>> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >>> adverbials. >>> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >>> harmful to >>> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >>> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them >>> to see >>> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >>> subjects, to >>> build coherence into texts. >>> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >>> teaching >>> practices, not a personal criticism. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still >>> believe >>> >>> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various >>> ways to >>> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >>> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea >>> that I >>> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >>> >>> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought >>> you >>> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean >>> I am >>> not enjoying myself. >>> >>> Susan >>> >>> >>> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>> >>> >>> Susan, >>> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward >>> a mature >>> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should >>> all be >>> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, >>> far from >>> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >>> profession >>> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >>> what we >>> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >>> posted to >>> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings >>> to keep >>> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >>> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at >>> all to do >>> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad >>> teacher. We >>> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an >>> open mind. >>> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was >>> never >>> intended to be personal. >>> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >>> whether the >>> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. >>> It says, >>> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% >>> of the >>> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly >>> study. The >>> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >>> professional >>> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an >>> average of >>> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >>> highest >>> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the >>> case, >>> then >>> students already vary sentence openings more than mature >>> writers. I >>> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >>> boring. >>> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >>> Grammar" as a >>> more linguistically sound source of advice. >>> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >>> apologize if >>> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >>> teacher. >>> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >>> grounded, >>> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful >>> of each >>> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any >>> failures >>> on my >>> part to do that. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >>> guides. >>> >>> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a >>> writing >>> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same >>> starting word >>> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >>> outrage, tar, and feathers! >>> >>> Sentence Beginnings >>> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >>> >>> >>> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- >>> far >>> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >>> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >>> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >>> sentences. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> WORDS >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice >>> resolved to >>> fight back. >>> >>> >>> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and >>> clattering came >>> from the heights around us. >>> >>> >>> >>> A connecting word: For students who have just >>> survived the >>> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >>> is all >>> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >>> school, >>> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >>> >>> >>> >>> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >>> important as a healthy mind. >>> >>> >>> >>> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, >>> minerals- >>> these affect the health of plants. >>> >>> PHRASES >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >>> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For >>> one >>> thing, it can be ruthless. >>> >>> >>> >>> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched >>> all of >>> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >>> existence. >>> >>> >>> >>> An infinitive: To be really successful, you >>> will >>> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and >>> computer. >>> >>> >>> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >>> program >>> is essential. >>> >>> >>> A participle: Looking out of the window high >>> over >>> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >>> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >>> surrounded >>> by fields. >>> >>> >>> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >>> provides >>> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >>> >>> >>> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went >>> on the >>> attack. >>> >>> CLAUSES >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and >>> I think >>> it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to >>> death that >>> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >>> going to >>> show up again. >>> >>> >>> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a >>> joiner of >>> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of >>> a group >>> of animal lovers. >>> >>> >>> >>> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >>> questions to >>> ask a geologist. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >>> >>> >>> Susan, >>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the >>> students >>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression >>> that you >>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they >>> do it. >>> >>> What method do you use to teach the different possible >>> variations? >>> >>> Jean Waldman >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >>> >> 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/ --Apple-Mail-47--1039383833 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
So weak writers suffer from training wheels?

A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. So...let'e be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence starts has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the spigots. What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing texts do you find harmful?

Have at it.

But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you?

I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with its name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of this listserv.

Jenkies, how's that for irony?

Hurts, donut?

On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Brian,
   I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very thoughtful and helpful. I especially like the way you bring this back to the opening discussion, whether weaker writers needed 'training wheels". I would echo what I see as the core of your position: they do more harm than good. Craig
O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean that boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some solutions to the problem of boring essays are short term (or superficial) solutions. As I meant to imply, I read plenty of boring essays by college students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even as a percentage of my total haul of papers, than high school teachers read--just because my students' high school teachers have done a good job with them). I could come up with silly solutions to this problem--use a world from a funny vocabulary list every few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might amuse me (I have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more effective writing. Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good writers do include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only 25% of the time, and it's not outlandish to teach students how good writers go about doing this. I actually do not think that sentence starts and coherence are an either/or--you've made it clear that you teach coherence, and I don't see how that could be totally negated by the little time you spend teaching sentence start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way put coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence is , pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's experience of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the time, if a revision with more varied sentence starts is better than the draft, that variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant change--like improved coordination or subordination, or improved topic focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision is better is simply because she started her sentences in more various ways, she may understand what really made the revision better, and thus she may be less likely to transfer her learning to the next context and do even better in the future. And she may not be helped on the path to the (even) longer-term goal of greater syntactical maturity (as you put it) or greater rhetorical awareness and control (as I put it). I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our students to produce easy to read and pleasurable, informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're in a particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as a student experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, that student's writing may have to get more convoluted before it gets clearer and more pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the student advice that would privilege a clear and enjoyable product today over a more deliberate and effective writing process tomorrow. I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he or she really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of the revision from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. Was there a rhetorical purpose, other than simply variation, for switching from "he" to "she" as a subject, only to then switch back again? If so--and there could be such a purpose--great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where sentence start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I would have favored coherence. Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly not learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence must have a different subject." I don't think the different sides in this Great War of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear about how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? Really??! Really. Really??! Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems for a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from chaotic coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is causing it. This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is simply not true that we must pit sentence start variation against coherence. Both are important. Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, informative reading.

Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how each sentence connects]?"

Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's inconclusive (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her revision: Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she has not been considering. Susan On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:

It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- term improvement should take priority. I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately attaining a mature style). Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- often but not always English Language Learners--who can write simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually improve at, coordination and subordination. "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness and control. At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, that will make this easier." The results would be less predictible then if I just told the student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over the long one. But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of advice? Brian Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of English Director of the Writing Center St. Mary's College of Maryland Montgomery Hall 50 18952 E. Fisher Rd. St. Mary's City, Maryland 20686 240-895-4242 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions John, you have actually made my point. You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice." If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up their sentence starts. Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix the core problem. I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts with what I have experienced. On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the structure). I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want. John Alexander Austin, Texas On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts? Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too quickly. The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for continuity, though, not for variation. I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is another. Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple adverbials. As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to build coherence into texts. I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching practices, not a personal criticism. Craig Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am not enjoying myself. Susan On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind. I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never intended to be personal. That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says, first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the highest about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, then students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring. I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical Grammar" as a more linguistically sound source of advice. But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a teacher. As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded, effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures on my part to do that. Craig Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more outrage, tar, and feathers! Sentence Beginnings Vary the beginnings of your sentences. Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- far more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your sentences. WORDS Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to fight back. An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came from the heights around us. A connecting word: For students who have just survived the brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school, find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as important as a healthy mind. A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals- these affect the health of plants. PHRASES A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one thing, it can be ruthless. A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this existence. An infinitive: To be really successful, you will have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program is essential. A participle: Looking out of the window high over the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded by fields. An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the attack. CLAUSES An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and I think it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to death that if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to show up again. An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group of animal lovers. A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to ask a geologist. On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: Susan, This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? Jean Waldman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten"

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/ --Apple-Mail-47--1039383833-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 20:56:56 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: training wheels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Susan, If you want to call an accurate understanding of how language works (including grammar) a training wheel, I'm all for it. At issue, I thought, were inaccurate versions, such as "don't start a sentence with a conjunction", the title of our long thread. Grammar wouldn't be a training wheel because we never have a bike without it. It is a natural and inevitable part of all language. I don't think writers become weak from these "training wheels"-at issue is whether they become stronger, whether it does more harm than good in the long run, the point of Brian's very thoughtful posts. Craig So weak writers suffer from training wheels? > > A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. > So...let'e be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? > Sentence starts has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and > open up the spigots. What else? What other tactics that are > commonly found in writing texts do you find harmful? > > Have at it. > > But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you? > > I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our > district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with > its name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of > this listserv. > > Jenkies, how's that for irony? > > Hurts, donut? > > > > On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > >> Brian, >> I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very >> thoughtful and helpful. I especially like the way you bring this >> back to the opening discussion, whether weaker writers needed >> 'training wheels". I would echo what I see as the core of your >> position: they do more harm than good. >> >> Craig >> >> O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >>> >>> Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean >>> that boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some >>> solutions to the problem of boring essays are short term (or >>> superficial) solutions. As I meant to imply, I read plenty of >>> boring essays by college students(though I'm sure I read fewer, >>> even as a percentage of my total haul of papers, than high school >>> teachers read--just because my students' high school teachers have >>> done a good job with them). I could come up with silly solutions >>> to this problem--use a world from a funny vocabulary list every >>> few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might amuse me (I >>> have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more >>> effective writing. >>> >>> Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good >>> writers do include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only >>> 25% of the time, and it's not outlandish to teach students how >>> good writers go about doing this. I actually do not think that >>> sentence starts and coherence are an either/or--you've made it >>> clear that you teach coherence, and I don't see how that could be >>> totally negated by the little time you spend teaching sentence >>> start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way put >>> coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. >>> Coherence is , pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of >>> a reader's experience of a text. Sentence start variation >>> is...not. Most of the time, if a revision with more varied >>> sentence starts is better than the draft, that variation is >>> probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant change--like >>> improved coordination or subordination, or improved topic focus in >>> general. If a student thinks that her revision >>> >>> is better is simply because she started her sentences in more >>> various ways, she may understand what really made the revision >>> better, and thus she may be less likely to transfer her learning >>> to the next context and do even better in the future. And she may >>> not be helped on the path to the (even) longer-term goal of >>> greater syntactical maturity (as you put it) or greater rhetorical >>> awareness and control (as I put it). >>> >>> I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our >>> students to produce easy to read and pleasurable, >>> informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're >>> in a particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as >>> a student experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, >>> that student's writing may have to get more convoluted before it >>> gets clearer and more pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the >>> student advice that would privilege a clear and enjoyable product >>> today over a more deliberate and effective writing process tomorrow. >>> >>> I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he >>> or she really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of >>> the revision from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. >>> Was there a rhetorical purpose, other than simply variation, for >>> switching from "he" to "she" as a subject, only to then switch >>> back again? If so--and there could be such a purpose--great. If >>> not, maybe this revision is one instance where sentence start >>> variation and coherence really did conflict, and I would have >>> favored coherence. >>> >>> Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly >>> not learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence >>> must have a different subject." I don't think the different sides >>> in this Great War of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart. >>> >>> Brian >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >>> Susan van Druten >>> Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>> >>> Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear about >>> how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. >>> Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. >>> I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts >>> (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to >>> them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. >>> They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they >>> get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. >>> >>> "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? >>> >>> Really??! Really. Really??! >>> >>> Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems >>> for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems for >>> a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one >>> must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion >>> between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to >>> a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. >>> The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from chaotic >>> coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can >>> all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is >>> causing it. >>> >>> This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is simply >>> not true that we must pit sentence start variation against >>> coherence. Both are important. >>> >>> Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make >>> one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. >>> The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, >>> informative reading. >>> >>> >>>> Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might >>>> the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how >>>> each sentence connects]?" >>>> >>> >>> Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying >>> sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's inconclusive >>> (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her >>> revision: >>> >>> Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has become >>> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started >>> to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she >>> could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her >>> change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her >>> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of >>> time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >>> >>> I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer >>> from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she >>> has not been considering. >>> >>> Susan >>> >>> On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >>> >>> >>>> It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a >>>> teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," >>>> as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, >>>> "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing >>>> more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on >>>> a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? >>>> These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* >>>> conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? >>>> I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- >>>> term improvement should take priority. >>>> >>>> I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers >>>> hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change >>>> up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having >>>> been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think >>>> in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I >>>> think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short >>>> term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a >>>> little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been >>>> worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately >>>> attaining a mature style). >>>> >>>> Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class >>>> sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably >>>> read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" >>>> repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face >>>> tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term >>>> improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- >>>> often but not always English Language Learners--who can write >>>> simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start >>>> combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students >>>> like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading >>>> convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually >>>> improve at, coordination and subordination. >>>> >>>> "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad >>>> advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in >>>> my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help >>>> eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness >>>> and control. >>>> >>>> At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're >>>> probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking >>>> about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond >>>> to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: >>>> >>>> "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate >>>> from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, >>>> which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One >>>> of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers >>>> is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few >>>> different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to >>>> five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you >>>> take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, >>>> that will make this easier." >>>> >>>> The results would be less predictible then if I just told the >>>> student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the >>>> student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and >>>> to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And >>>> consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over >>>> the long one. >>>> >>>> But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and >>>> I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of >>>> advice? >>>> >>>> Brian >>>> >>>> >>>> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. >>>> Assistant Professor of English >>>> Director of the Writing Center >>>> St. Mary's College of Maryland >>>> Montgomery Hall 50 >>>> 18952 E. Fisher Rd. >>>> St. Mary's City, Maryland >>>> 20686 >>>> 240-895-4242 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >>>> Susan van Druten >>>> Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>>> >>>> John, you have actually made my point. >>>> >>>> You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, >>>> coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to >>>> consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging >>>> of verb choice." >>>> >>>> If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me >>>> like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say >>>> that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up >>>> their sentence starts. >>>> >>>> Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences >>>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>>> what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school >>>> classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix >>>> the core problem. >>>> >>>> I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to >>>> reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can >>>> keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts >>>> with what I have experienced. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as >>>> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly >>>> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given >>>> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate >>>> topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the >>>> structure). >>>> >>>> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and >>>> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more >>>> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. >>>> >>>> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) >>>> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the >>>> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core >>>> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences >>>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>>> what teachers want. >>>> >>>> John Alexander >>>> Austin, Texas >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten >>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up >>>> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is >>>> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your >>>> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th >>>> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." >>>> >>>> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to >>>> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree >>>> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her >>>> sentence starts? >>>> >>>> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >>>> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves >>>> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so >>>> sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >>>> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing >>>> just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken >>>> over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He >>>> realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >>>> >>>> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Susan, >>>> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >>>> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that >>>> varying >>>> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >>>> opening)is >>>> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of >>>> those >>>> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >>>> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >>>> students >>>> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences >>>> in a >>>> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >>>> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which >>>> starts >>>> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie >>>> Silko's >>>> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great >>>> majority of >>>> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >>>> copied >>>> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >>>> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for >>>> long >>>> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing >>>> with >>>> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and >>>> repeating >>>> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. >>>> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >>>> flow in a >>>> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost >>>> always >>>> last. The most important function of a sentence opener >>>> (usually the >>>> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >>>> opening >>>> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >>>> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >>>> repetition >>>> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much >>>> too >>>> quickly. >>>> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different >>>> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students >>>> should >>>> have those available as resources. I believe they should be used >>>> for >>>> continuity, though, not for variation. >>>> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >>>> kind of >>>> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >>>> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >>>> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >>>> sentences is >>>> another. >>>> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >>>> that most >>>> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have >>>> variation >>>> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >>>> adverbials. >>>> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >>>> harmful to >>>> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >>>> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them >>>> to see >>>> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >>>> subjects, to >>>> build coherence into texts. >>>> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >>>> teaching >>>> practices, not a personal criticism. >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still >>>> believe >>>> >>>> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various >>>> ways to >>>> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >>>> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea >>>> that I >>>> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >>>> >>>> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought >>>> you >>>> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean >>>> I am >>>> not enjoying myself. >>>> >>>> Susan >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Susan, >>>> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward >>>> a mature >>>> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should >>>> all be >>>> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, >>>> far from >>>> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >>>> profession >>>> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >>>> what we >>>> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >>>> posted to >>>> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings >>>> to keep >>>> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >>>> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at >>>> all to do >>>> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad >>>> teacher. We >>>> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an >>>> open mind. >>>> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was >>>> never >>>> intended to be personal. >>>> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >>>> whether the >>>> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. >>>> It says, >>>> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% >>>> of the >>>> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly >>>> study. The >>>> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >>>> professional >>>> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an >>>> average of >>>> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >>>> highest >>>> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the >>>> case, >>>> then >>>> students already vary sentence openings more than mature >>>> writers. I >>>> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >>>> boring. >>>> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >>>> Grammar" as a >>>> more linguistically sound source of advice. >>>> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >>>> apologize if >>>> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >>>> teacher. >>>> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >>>> grounded, >>>> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful >>>> of each >>>> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any >>>> failures >>>> on my >>>> part to do that. >>>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> >>>> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >>>> guides. >>>> >>>> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a >>>> writing >>>> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same >>>> starting word >>>> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >>>> outrage, tar, and feathers! >>>> >>>> Sentence Beginnings >>>> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >>>> >>>> >>>> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- >>>> far >>>> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >>>> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >>>> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >>>> sentences. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> WORDS >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice >>>> resolved to >>>> fight back. >>>> >>>> >>>> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and >>>> clattering came >>>> from the heights around us. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A connecting word: For students who have just >>>> survived the >>>> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >>>> is all >>>> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >>>> school, >>>> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >>>> important as a healthy mind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, >>>> minerals- >>>> these affect the health of plants. >>>> >>>> PHRASES >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >>>> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For >>>> one >>>> thing, it can be ruthless. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched >>>> all of >>>> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >>>> existence. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> An infinitive: To be really successful, you >>>> will >>>> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and >>>> computer. >>>> >>>> >>>> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >>>> program >>>> is essential. >>>> >>>> >>>> A participle: Looking out of the window high >>>> over >>>> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >>>> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >>>> surrounded >>>> by fields. >>>> >>>> >>>> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >>>> provides >>>> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >>>> >>>> >>>> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went >>>> on the >>>> attack. >>>> >>>> CLAUSES >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and >>>> I think >>>> it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to >>>> death that >>>> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >>>> going to >>>> show up again. >>>> >>>> >>>> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a >>>> joiner of >>>> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of >>>> a group >>>> of animal lovers. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >>>> questions to >>>> ask a geologist. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Susan, >>>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the >>>> students >>>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression >>>> that you >>>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they >>>> do it. >>>> >>>> What method do you use to teach the different possible >>>> variations? >>>> >>>> Jean Waldman >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >>>> >>> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 20:22:34 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: training wheels In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-48--1035016729 --Apple-Mail-48--1035016729 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Grammar isn't a training wheel, any more that using words, writing words in in a lump, or writing many lumps is a training wheel. Teaching the rules of grammar is a training wheel. Teaching sentences, teaching paragraphs, teaching essays and giving students rules--rules all of which can be broken if you know what you are doing--is a training wheel. We educators ARE training wheels. There are many, many, many people who think teaching students grammar is a waste of time, who think that time is better spent teaching other things, and who think that teaching grammar actually makes student writing more self-conscious. That is why you struck me as a kettle-caller. If calling attention to what students tend to do naturally and asking them to reflect on it is bad practice, then, my friend, teaching them grammar is the ultimate sin. And you are guilty. Guilty. On May 28, 2009, at 7:56 PM, Craig Hancock wrote: > Susan, > If you want to call an accurate understanding of how language works > (including grammar) a training wheel, I'm all for it. At issue, I > thought, were inaccurate versions, such as "don't start a sentence > with > a conjunction", the title of our long thread. > Grammar wouldn't be a training wheel because we never have a bike > without it. It is a natural and inevitable part of all language. > I don't think writers become weak from these "training wheels"- > at issue > is whether they become stronger, whether it does more harm than > good in > the long run, the point of Brian's very thoughtful posts. > > Craig > So weak writers suffer from training wheels? >> >> A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. >> So...let'e be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? >> Sentence starts has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and >> open up the spigots. What else? What other tactics that are >> commonly found in writing texts do you find harmful? >> >> Have at it. >> >> But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you? >> >> I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our >> district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with >> its name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of >> this listserv. >> >> Jenkies, how's that for irony? >> >> Hurts, donut? >> >> >> >> On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >>> Brian, >>> I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very >>> thoughtful and helpful. I especially like the way you bring this >>> back to the opening discussion, whether weaker writers needed >>> 'training wheels". I would echo what I see as the core of your >>> position: they do more harm than good. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean >>>> that boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some >>>> solutions to the problem of boring essays are short term (or >>>> superficial) solutions. As I meant to imply, I read plenty of >>>> boring essays by college students(though I'm sure I read fewer, >>>> even as a percentage of my total haul of papers, than high school >>>> teachers read--just because my students' high school teachers have >>>> done a good job with them). I could come up with silly solutions >>>> to this problem--use a world from a funny vocabulary list every >>>> few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might amuse me (I >>>> have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more >>>> effective writing. >>>> >>>> Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good >>>> writers do include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only >>>> 25% of the time, and it's not outlandish to teach students how >>>> good writers go about doing this. I actually do not think that >>>> sentence starts and coherence are an either/or--you've made it >>>> clear that you teach coherence, and I don't see how that could be >>>> totally negated by the little time you spend teaching sentence >>>> start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way put >>>> coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. >>>> Coherence is , pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of >>>> a reader's experience of a text. Sentence start variation >>>> is...not. Most of the time, if a revision with more varied >>>> sentence starts is better than the draft, that variation is >>>> probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant change--like >>>> improved coordination or subordination, or improved topic focus in >>>> general. If a student thinks that her revision >>>> >>>> is better is simply because she started her sentences in more >>>> various ways, she may understand what really made the revision >>>> better, and thus she may be less likely to transfer her learning >>>> to the next context and do even better in the future. And she may >>>> not be helped on the path to the (even) longer-term goal of >>>> greater syntactical maturity (as you put it) or greater rhetorical >>>> awareness and control (as I put it). >>>> >>>> I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our >>>> students to produce easy to read and pleasurable, >>>> informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're >>>> in a particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as >>>> a student experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, >>>> that student's writing may have to get more convoluted before it >>>> gets clearer and more pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the >>>> student advice that would privilege a clear and enjoyable product >>>> today over a more deliberate and effective writing process >>>> tomorrow. >>>> >>>> I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he >>>> or she really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of >>>> the revision from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. >>>> Was there a rhetorical purpose, other than simply variation, for >>>> switching from "he" to "she" as a subject, only to then switch >>>> back again? If so--and there could be such a purpose--great. If >>>> not, maybe this revision is one instance where sentence start >>>> variation and coherence really did conflict, and I would have >>>> favored coherence. >>>> >>>> Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly >>>> not learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence >>>> must have a different subject." I don't think the different sides >>>> in this Great War of Sentence Starters are really all that far >>>> apart. >>>> >>>> Brian >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >>>> Susan van Druten >>>> Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM >>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>>> >>>> Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear >>>> about >>>> how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. >>>> Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. >>>> I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence >>>> starts >>>> (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to >>>> them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. >>>> They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they >>>> get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. >>>> >>>> "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? >>>> >>>> Really??! Really. Really??! >>>> >>>> Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are >>>> problems >>>> for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are >>>> problems for >>>> a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one >>>> must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion >>>> between high school or college instructor: if an essay is >>>> boring to >>>> a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. >>>> The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from >>>> chaotic >>>> coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can >>>> all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is >>>> causing it. >>>> >>>> This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is >>>> simply >>>> not true that we must pit sentence start variation against >>>> coherence. Both are important. >>>> >>>> Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not >>>> make >>>> one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping >>>> reading. >>>> The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, >>>> informative reading. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might >>>>> the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how >>>>> each sentence connects]?" >>>>> >>>> >>>> Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying >>>> sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's >>>> inconclusive >>>> (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her >>>> revision: >>>> >>>> Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has >>>> become >>>> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really >>>> started >>>> to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because >>>> she >>>> could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her >>>> change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her >>>> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short >>>> period of >>>> time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >>>> >>>> I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a >>>> writer >>>> from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows >>>> she >>>> has not been considering. >>>> >>>> Susan >>>> >>>> On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a >>>>> teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," >>>>> as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, >>>>> "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing >>>>> more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set >>>>> them on >>>>> a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? >>>>> These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* >>>>> conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take >>>>> priority? >>>>> I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, >>>>> long- >>>>> term improvement should take priority. >>>>> >>>>> I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling >>>>> writers >>>>> hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change >>>>> up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that >>>>> having >>>>> been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to >>>>> think >>>>> in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I >>>>> think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short >>>>> term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a >>>>> little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have >>>>> been >>>>> worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately >>>>> attaining a mature style). >>>>> >>>>> Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class >>>>> sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably >>>>> read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that >>>>> "good" >>>>> repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face >>>>> tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term >>>>> improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of >>>>> students-- >>>>> often but not always English Language Learners--who can write >>>>> simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start >>>>> combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students >>>>> like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with >>>>> reading >>>>> convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually >>>>> improve at, coordination and subordination. >>>>> >>>>> "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad >>>>> advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in >>>>> my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to >>>>> help >>>>> eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness >>>>> and control. >>>>> >>>>> At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're >>>>> probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking >>>>> about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond >>>>> to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: >>>>> >>>>> "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate >>>>> from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, >>>>> which is more important than the other, which depends on which. >>>>> One >>>>> of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their >>>>> readers >>>>> is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few >>>>> different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to >>>>> five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If >>>>> you >>>>> take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, >>>>> that will make this easier." >>>>> >>>>> The results would be less predictible then if I just told the >>>>> student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the >>>>> student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make >>>>> and >>>>> to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And >>>>> consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over >>>>> the long one. >>>>> >>>>> But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and >>>>> I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this >>>>> kind of >>>>> advice? >>>>> >>>>> Brian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. >>>>> Assistant Professor of English >>>>> Director of the Writing Center >>>>> St. Mary's College of Maryland >>>>> Montgomery Hall 50 >>>>> 18952 E. Fisher Rd. >>>>> St. Mary's City, Maryland >>>>> 20686 >>>>> 240-895-4242 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >>>>> Susan van Druten >>>>> Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM >>>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>>> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >>>>> >>>>> John, you have actually made my point. >>>>> >>>>> You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, >>>>> coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to >>>>> consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging >>>>> of verb choice." >>>>> >>>>> If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me >>>>> like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say >>>>> that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up >>>>> their sentence starts. >>>>> >>>>> Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences >>>>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>>>> what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school >>>>> classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix >>>>> the core problem. >>>>> >>>>> I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to >>>>> reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can >>>>> keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it >>>>> conflicts >>>>> with what I have experienced. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as >>>>> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly >>>>> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given >>>>> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an >>>>> appropriate >>>>> topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the >>>>> structure). >>>>> >>>>> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and >>>>> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more >>>>> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb >>>>> choice. >>>>> >>>>> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) >>>>> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the >>>>> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core >>>>> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences >>>>> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>>>> what teachers want. >>>>> >>>>> John Alexander >>>>> Austin, Texas >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten >>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up >>>>> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is >>>>> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your >>>>> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th >>>>> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." >>>>> >>>>> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I >>>>> went to >>>>> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree >>>>> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her >>>>> sentence starts? >>>>> >>>>> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >>>>> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves >>>>> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has >>>>> become so >>>>> sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >>>>> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only >>>>> realizing >>>>> just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has >>>>> taken >>>>> over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He >>>>> realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >>>>> >>>>> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Susan, >>>>> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >>>>> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that >>>>> varying >>>>> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >>>>> opening)is >>>>> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of >>>>> those >>>>> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >>>>> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >>>>> students >>>>> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences >>>>> in a >>>>> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this >>>>> quite >>>>> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which >>>>> starts >>>>> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie >>>>> Silko's >>>>> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great >>>>> majority of >>>>> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >>>>> copied >>>>> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >>>>> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening >>>>> for >>>>> long >>>>> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing >>>>> with >>>>> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and >>>>> repeating >>>>> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature >>>>> style. >>>>> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >>>>> flow in a >>>>> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is >>>>> almost >>>>> always >>>>> last. The most important function of a sentence opener >>>>> (usually the >>>>> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >>>>> opening >>>>> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious >>>>> way to >>>>> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >>>>> repetition >>>>> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much >>>>> too >>>>> quickly. >>>>> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of >>>>> different >>>>> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students >>>>> should >>>>> have those available as resources. I believe they should be >>>>> used >>>>> for >>>>> continuity, though, not for variation. >>>>> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >>>>> kind of >>>>> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is >>>>> one. A >>>>> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >>>>> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >>>>> sentences is >>>>> another. >>>>> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >>>>> that most >>>>> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have >>>>> variation >>>>> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >>>>> adverbials. >>>>> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >>>>> harmful to >>>>> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >>>>> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them >>>>> to see >>>>> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >>>>> subjects, to >>>>> build coherence into texts. >>>>> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >>>>> teaching >>>>> practices, not a personal criticism. >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> >>>>> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still >>>>> believe >>>>> >>>>> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various >>>>> ways to >>>>> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >>>>> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea >>>>> that I >>>>> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >>>>> >>>>> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I >>>>> thought >>>>> you >>>>> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean >>>>> I am >>>>> not enjoying myself. >>>>> >>>>> Susan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Susan, >>>>> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward >>>>> a mature >>>>> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should >>>>> all be >>>>> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, >>>>> far from >>>>> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >>>>> profession >>>>> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >>>>> what we >>>>> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >>>>> posted to >>>>> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence >>>>> openings >>>>> to keep >>>>> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >>>>> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at >>>>> all to do >>>>> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad >>>>> teacher. We >>>>> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an >>>>> open mind. >>>>> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was >>>>> never >>>>> intended to be personal. >>>>> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >>>>> whether the >>>>> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. >>>>> It says, >>>>> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% >>>>> of the >>>>> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly >>>>> study. The >>>>> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >>>>> professional >>>>> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an >>>>> average of >>>>> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was >>>>> 60%, the >>>>> highest >>>>> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the >>>>> case, >>>>> then >>>>> students already vary sentence openings more than mature >>>>> writers. I >>>>> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >>>>> boring. >>>>> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >>>>> Grammar" as a >>>>> more linguistically sound source of advice. >>>>> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >>>>> apologize if >>>>> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack >>>>> as a >>>>> teacher. >>>>> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >>>>> grounded, >>>>> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be >>>>> respectful >>>>> of each >>>>> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any >>>>> failures >>>>> on my >>>>> part to do that. >>>>> >>>>> Craig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >>>>> guides. >>>>> >>>>> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a >>>>> writing >>>>> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same >>>>> starting word >>>>> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots >>>>> more >>>>> outrage, tar, and feathers! >>>>> >>>>> Sentence Beginnings >>>>> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the >>>>> subject- >>>>> far >>>>> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. >>>>> But >>>>> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >>>>> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of >>>>> your >>>>> sentences. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> WORDS >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice >>>>> resolved to >>>>> fight back. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and >>>>> clattering came >>>>> from the heights around us. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A connecting word: For students who have just >>>>> survived the >>>>> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >>>>> is all >>>>> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >>>>> school, >>>>> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is >>>>> just as >>>>> important as a healthy mind. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, >>>>> minerals- >>>>> these affect the health of plants. >>>>> >>>>> PHRASES >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >>>>> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. >>>>> For >>>>> one >>>>> thing, it can be ruthless. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched >>>>> all of >>>>> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into >>>>> this >>>>> existence. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An infinitive: To be really successful, you >>>>> will >>>>> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and >>>>> computer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >>>>> program >>>>> is essential. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A participle: Looking out of the window >>>>> high >>>>> over >>>>> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >>>>> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >>>>> surrounded >>>>> by fields. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >>>>> provides >>>>> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat >>>>> went >>>>> on the >>>>> attack. >>>>> >>>>> CLAUSES >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and >>>>> I think >>>>> it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to >>>>> death that >>>>> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >>>>> going to >>>>> show up again. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a >>>>> joiner of >>>>> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of >>>>> a group >>>>> of animal lovers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >>>>> questions to >>>>> ask a geologist. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Susan, >>>>> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the >>>>> students >>>>> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression >>>>> that you >>>>> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they >>>>> do it. >>>>> >>>>> What method do you use to teach the different possible >>>>> variations? >>>>> >>>>> Jean Waldman >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >>>>> >>>> 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/ --Apple-Mail-48--1035016729 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Grammar isn't a training wheel, any more that using words, writing words in in a lump, or writing many lumps is a training wheel.

Teaching the rules of grammar is a training wheel. Teaching sentences, teaching paragraphs, teaching essays and giving students rules--rules all of which can be broken if you know what you are doing--is a training wheel. We educators ARE training wheels.

There are many, many, many people who think teaching students grammar is a waste of time, who think that time is better spent teaching other things, and who think that teaching grammar actually makes student writing more self-conscious.

That is why you struck me as a kettle-caller.

If calling attention to what students tend to do naturally and asking them to reflect on it is bad practice, then, my friend, teaching them grammar is the ultimate sin. And you are guilty.

Guilty.

On May 28, 2009, at 7:56 PM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
If you want to call an accurate understanding of how language works
(including grammar) a training wheel, I'm all for it. At issue, I
thought, were inaccurate versions, such as "don't start a sentence with
a conjunction", the title of our long thread.
   Grammar wouldn't be a training wheel because we never have a bike
without it. It is a natural and inevitable part of all language.
   I don't think writers become weak from these "training wheels"-at issue
is whether they become stronger, whether it does more harm than good in
the long run, the point of Brian's very thoughtful posts.

Craig
So weak writers suffer from training wheels?

A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe.
So...let'e be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor?
Sentence starts has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and
open up the spigots. What else? What other tactics that are
commonly found in writing texts do you find harmful?

Have at it.

But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you?

I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our
district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with
its name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of
this listserv.

Jenkies, how's that for irony?

Hurts, donut?

On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Brian,
   I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very
thoughtful and helpful. I especially like the way you bring this
back to the opening discussion, whether weaker writers needed
'training wheels". I would echo what I see as the core of your
position: they do more harm than good.

Craig

O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:

Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean
that boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some
solutions to the problem of boring essays are short term (or
superficial) solutions. As I meant to imply, I read plenty of
boring essays by college students(though I'm sure I read fewer,
even as a percentage of my total haul of papers, than high school
teachers read--just because my students' high school teachers have
done a good job with them). I could come up with silly solutions
to this problem--use a world from a funny vocabulary list every
few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might amuse me (I
have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more
effective writing.

Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good
writers do include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only
25% of the time, and it's not outlandish to teach students how
good writers go about doing this. I actually do not think that
sentence starts and coherence are an either/or--you've made it
clear that you teach coherence, and I don't see how that could be
totally negated by the little time you spend teaching sentence
start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way put
coherence and sentence start variation on the same level.
Coherence is , pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of
a reader's experience of a text. Sentence start variation
is...not. Most of the time, if a revision with more varied
sentence starts is better than the draft, that variation is
probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant change--like
improved coordination or subordination, or improved topic focus in
general. If a student thinks that her revision

is better is simply because she started her sentences in more
various ways, she may understand what really made the revision
better, and thus she may be less likely to transfer her learning
to the next context and do even better in the future. And she may
not be helped on the path to the (even) longer-term goal of
greater syntactical maturity (as you put it) or greater rhetorical
awareness and control (as I put it).

I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our
students to produce easy to read and pleasurable,
informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're
in a particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as
a student experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions,
that student's writing may have to get more convoluted before it
gets clearer and more pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the
student advice that would privilege a clear and enjoyable product
today over a more deliberate and effective writing process tomorrow.

I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he
or she really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of
the revision from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition.
Was there a rhetorical purpose, other than simply variation, for
switching from "he" to "she" as a subject, only to then switch
back again? If so--and there could be such a purpose--great. If
not, maybe this revision is one instance where sentence start
variation and coherence really did conflict, and I would have
favored coherence.

Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly
not learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence
must have a different subject." I don't think the different sides
in this Great War of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
Susan van Druten
Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear about
how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts.
Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing.
I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts
(which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to
them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them.
They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they
get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice.

"Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems?

Really??! Really. Really??!

Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems
for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems for
a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one
must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion
between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to
a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor.
The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from chaotic
coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can
all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is
causing it.

This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is simply
not true that we must pit sentence start variation against
coherence. Both are important.

Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make
one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading.
The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable,
informative reading.

Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might
the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how
each sentence connects]?"

Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying
sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's inconclusive
(it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her
revision:

Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has become
so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started
to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she
could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her
change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her
leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of
time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer.

I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer
from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she
has not been considering.

Susan

On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:

It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a
teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style,"
as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka,
"triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing
more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on
a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run?
These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes*
conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority?
I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long-
term improvement should take priority.

I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers
hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change
up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having
been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think
in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I
think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short
term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a
little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been
worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately
attaining a mature style).

Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class
sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably
read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good"
repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face
tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term
improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students--
often but not always English Language Learners--who can write
simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start
combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students
like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading
convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually
improve at, coordination and subordination.

"Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad
advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in
my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help
eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness
and control.

At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're
probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking
about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond
to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph:

"[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate
from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect,
which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One
of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers
is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few
different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to
five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you
take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read,
that will make this easier."

The results would be less predictible then if I just told the
student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the
student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and
to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And
consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over
the long one.

But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and
I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of
advice?

Brian

Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of English
Director of the Writing Center
St. Mary's College of Maryland
Montgomery Hall 50
18952 E. Fisher Rd.
St. Mary's City, Maryland
20686
240-895-4242

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
Susan van Druten
Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

John, you have actually made my point.

You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate,
coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to
consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging
of verb choice."

If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me
like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say
that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up
their sentence starts.

Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences
(unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is
what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school
classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix
the core problem.

I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to
reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can
keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts
with what I have experienced.

On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as
there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly
has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given
information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate
topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the
structure).

I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and
complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more
carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice.

Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me)
quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the
maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core
problems and would likely produce confusing sentences
(unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is
what teachers want.

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up
Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is
the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your
argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th
when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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."

I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to
school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree
that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her
sentence starts?

Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had
fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves
falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so
sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her
because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing
just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken
over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He
realizes that she doesn't have that much longer.

On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid
understanding of how language works. If we tell students that
varying
sentence openings (using something other than the subject as
opening)is
a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of
those
variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't.
As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that
students
sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences
in a
row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite
often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which
starts
every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie
Silko's
much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great
majority of
the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and
copied
a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he
effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for
long
stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing
with
mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and
repeating
sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style.
There are good reasons for this. If you look at information
flow in a
text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost
always
last. The most important function of a sentence opener
(usually the
subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The
opening
establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to
accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit
repetition
for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much
too
quickly.
The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different
structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students
should
have those available as resources. I believe they should be used
for
continuity, though, not for variation.
I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what
kind of
variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A
variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is
another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open
sentences is
another.
Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting
that most
sentences will start with the subject and that when we have
variation
form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple
adverbials.
As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is
harmful to
imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence
openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them
to see
how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of
subjects, to
build coherence into texts.
I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good
teaching
practices, not a personal criticism.

Craig

Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still
believe

it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various
ways to
start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up
sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea
that I
was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.)

I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought
you
were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean
I am
not enjoying myself.

Susan

On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward
a mature
literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should
all be
constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far,
far from
perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our
profession
as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if
what we
are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you
posted to
the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings
to keep
from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of
conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at
all to do
with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad
teacher. We
simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an
open mind.
I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was
never
intended to be personal.
That being said, I would ask you to question seriously
whether the
"style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate.
It says,
first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50%
of the
time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly
study. The
studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a
professional
writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an
average of
about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the
highest
about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the
case,
then
students already vary sentence openings more than mature
writers. I
would add that the writers in the study were successful, not
boring.
I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical
Grammar" as a
more linguistically sound source of advice.
But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I
apologize if
anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a
teacher.
As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully
grounded,
effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful
of each
other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any
failures
on my
part to do that.

Craig

Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style
guides.

I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a
writing
Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same
starting word
in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more
outrage, tar, and feathers!

Sentence Beginnings
Vary the beginnings of your sentences.

Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject-
far
more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But
overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous
writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your
sentences.

WORDS

Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice
resolved to
fight back.

An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and
clattering came
from the heights around us.

A connecting word: For students who have just
survived the
brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere
is all
too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high
school,
find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers.

An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as
important as a healthy mind.

A series of words: Light, water, temperature,
minerals-
these affect the health of plants.

PHRASES

A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of
athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For
one
thing, it can be ruthless.

A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched
all of
their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this
existence.

An infinitive: To be really successful, you
will
have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and
computer.

A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise
program
is essential.

A participle: Looking out of the window high
over
the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse
surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead
surrounded
by fields.

An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission
provides
food and shelter for Springfield's homeless.

An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went
on the
attack.

CLAUSES

An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and
I think
it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to
death that
if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never
going to
show up again.

An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a
joiner of
organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of
a group
of animal lovers.

A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a
questions to
ask a geologist.

On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote:

Susan,
This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the
students
HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression
that you
just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they
do it.

What method do you use to teach the different possible
variations?

Jean Waldman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten"

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/ --Apple-Mail-48--1035016729-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 22:15:26 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "O'Sullivan, Brian P" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: training wheels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >Hurts, donut? Well, no, it "do nut", actually. (I know you're addressing Craig, but, since he was agreeing with me, I'm going to take a shot at answering this.) Grammar isn't training wheels. If you want a bicycle-riding analogy, I'd say grammar--especially as I've seen some of the real experts on this list practice it--is more like the physics of bicycle riding. Grammar describes the functioning of language, as physics describes the functioning of matter and energy. (That's not to say students shouldn't learn about grammar before the twelfth grade, by the way. Children riding bikes may not be ready to understand velocity and gravity scientifically, but it behooves them to have at least an intuitive sense of what velocity and gravity can do.) I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used as an example of the important educational techniques called "scaffolding." In scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and finally independent practice to help a student master tasks in his or her "zone of proximal development" (ZPD)--Vygotsky's term for the level of skill just beyond what the student is already capable of by himself or herself. Research and intuition (mine and many others') seem to agree that scaffolding can be a good thing. But there's a difference between modeling and guided practice, which is what scaffolding usually refers to in education studies, and made-up rules, which are at least part of what "training wheels" has meant in this discussion. I think that a lot of us have noticed that students have internalized certain made-up rules without actually having internalized the underlying skills or principles that those "rules" were presumably supposed to scaffold. But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because but still writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students--then I'm thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good. Speaking only for myself, I don't see anything wrong with modeling ways in which effective writers use sentence starters, guiding students in practicing these ways, and then expecting them to practice independently in their papers. That process looks to me like a good kind of "training wheels," or scaffolding. Ideally, I'd want to talk with students about why different kinds of sentence starters are effective or ineffective in different context, and how this is related to more fundamental issues of topicality and coherence. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to tell them students that using a large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good writers. That doesn't seem to be true, according to research that we've heard about in this conversation; it seems to be a made-up rule, and I think that's the wrong kind of "training wheels." Brian Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of English Director of the Writing Center St. Mary’s College of Maryland Montgomery Hall 50 18952 E. Fisher Rd. St. Mary’s City, Maryland 20686 240-895-4242 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: training wheels So weak writers suffer from training wheels? A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. So...let'e be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence starts has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the spigots. What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing texts do you find harmful? Have at it. But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you? I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with its name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of this listserv. Jenkies, how's that for irony? Hurts, donut? On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Brian, I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very thoughtful and helpful. I especially like the way you bring this back to the opening discussion, whether weaker writers needed 'training wheels". I would echo what I see as the core of your position: they do more harm than good. Craig O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean that boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some solutions to the problem of boring essays are short term (or superficial) solutions. As I meant to imply, I read plenty of boring essays by college students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even as a percentage of my total haul of papers, than high school teachers read--just because my students' high school teachers have done a good job with them). I could come up with silly solutions to this problem--use a world from a funny vocabulary list every few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might amuse me (I have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more effective writing. Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good writers do include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only 25% of the time, and it's not outlandish to teach students how good writers go about doing this. I actually do not think that sentence starts and coherence are an either/or--you've made it clear that you teach coherence, and I don't see how that could be totally negated by the little time you spend teaching sentence start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way put coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence is , pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's experience of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the time, if a revision with more varied sentence starts is better than the draft, that variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant change--like improved coordination or subordination, or improved topic focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision is better is simply because she started her sentences in more various ways, she may understand what really made the revision better, and thus she may be less likely to transfer her learning to the next context and do even better in the future. And she may not be helped on the path to the (even) longer-term goal of greater syntactical maturity (as you put it) or greater rhetorical awareness and control (as I put it). I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our students to produce easy to read and pleasurable, informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're in a particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as a student experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, that student's writing may have to get more convoluted before it gets clearer and more pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the student advice that would privilege a clear and enjoyable product today over a more deliberate and effective writing process tomorrow. I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he or she really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of the revision from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. Was there a rhetorical purpose, other than simply variation, for switching from "he" to "she" as a subject, only to then switch back again? If so--and there could be such a purpose--great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where sentence start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I would have favored coherence. Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly not learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence must have a different subject." I don't think the different sides in this Great War of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear about how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? Really??! Really. Really??! Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems for a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from chaotic coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is causing it. This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is simply not true that we must pit sentence start variation against coherence. Both are important. Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, informative reading. Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how each sentence connects]?" Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's inconclusive (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her revision: Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she has not been considering. Susan On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- term improvement should take priority. I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately attaining a mature style). Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- often but not always English Language Learners--who can write simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually improve at, coordination and subordination. "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness and control. At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, that will make this easier." The results would be less predictible then if I just told the student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over the long one. But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of advice? Brian Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of English Director of the Writing Center St. Mary's College of Maryland Montgomery Hall 50 18952 E. Fisher Rd. St. Mary's City, Maryland 20686 240-895-4242 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions John, you have actually made my point. You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice." If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up their sentence starts. Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix the core problem. I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts with what I have experienced. On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the structure). I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want. John Alexander Austin, Texas On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts? Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too quickly. The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for continuity, though, not for variation. I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is another. Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple adverbials. As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to build coherence into texts. I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching practices, not a personal criticism. Craig Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am not enjoying myself. Susan On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind. I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never intended to be personal. That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says, first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the highest about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, then students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring. I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical Grammar" as a more linguistically sound source of advice. But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a teacher. As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded, effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures on my part to do that. Craig Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more outrage, tar, and feathers! Sentence Beginnings Vary the beginnings of your sentences. Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- far more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your sentences. WORDS Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to fight back. An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came from the heights around us. A connecting word: For students who have just survived the brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school, find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as important as a healthy mind. A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals- these affect the health of plants. PHRASES A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one thing, it can be ruthless. A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this existence. An infinitive: To be really successful, you will have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program is essential. A participle: Looking out of the window high over the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded by fields. An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the attack. CLAUSES An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and I think it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to death that if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to show up again. An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group of animal lovers. A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to ask a geologist. On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: Susan, This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? Jean Waldman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" 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/ ========================================================================Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 22:41:02 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: training wheels In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-49--1026709038 --Apple-Mail-49--1026709038 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: > I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in > education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used > as an example of the important educational techniques called > "scaffolding." In scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, > guided practice and finally independent practice to help a student > master tasks I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are helpful. They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing if a dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is trying to fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents any "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However, under your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks his students to write complete sentences is risking that his students will "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having internalized the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after all. > But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because but > still writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such > students--then I'm thinking that, yes, those training wheels did > more harm than good. This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences beginning with "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If you have a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is don't use sentence fragments! Clearly this student is falling off the bike with the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels off and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to understand rules before she goes free- wheeling down a hill. > I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of > sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good writers. Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument. Don't be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never advocated "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring those who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in a row with the same start need to change up one or more more of them. If there is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or "there is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider what they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule allows for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked. Susan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of > Susan van Druten > Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: training wheels > > So weak writers suffer from training wheels? > > A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. > So...let'e be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? > Sentence starts has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and > open up the spigots. What else? What other tactics that are > commonly found in writing texts do you find harmful? > > Have at it. > > But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you? > > I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. > Our district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books > with its name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the > name of this listserv. > > Jenkies, how's that for irony? > > Hurts, donut? > > > > On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > Brian, > I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very > thoughtful and helpful. I especially like the way you bring this > back to the opening discussion, whether weaker writers needed > 'training wheels". I would echo what I see as the core of your > position: they do more harm than good. > > Craig > > O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: > > Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean > that boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some > solutions to the problem of boring essays are short term (or > superficial) solutions. As I meant to imply, I read plenty of > boring essays by college students(though I'm sure I read fewer, > even as a percentage of my total haul of papers, than high school > teachers read--just because my students' high school teachers have > done a good job with them). I could come up with silly solutions to > this problem--use a world from a funny vocabulary list every few > lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might amuse me (I have a > dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more effective > writing. > > Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good > writers do include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only > 25% of the time, and it's not outlandish to teach students how good > writers go about doing this. I actually do not think that sentence > starts and coherence are an either/or--you've made it clear that > you teach coherence, and I don't see how that could be totally > negated by the little time you spend teaching sentence start > variation. At the same time, i would not in any way put coherence > and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence is , > pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's > experience of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of > the time, if a revision with more varied sentence starts is better > than the draft, that variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some > more significant change--like improved coordination or > subordination, or improved topic focus in general. If a student > thinks that her revision > > is better is simply because she started her sentences in more > various ways, she may understand what really made the revision > better, and thus she may be less likely to transfer her learning to > the next context and do even better in the future. And she may not > be helped on the path to the (even) longer-term goal of greater > syntactical maturity (as you put it) or greater rhetorical > awareness and control (as I put it). > > I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our > students to produce easy to read and pleasurable, > informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while > they're in a particular class that we happen to be teaching. > Sometimes, as a student experiments with more complex thoughts and > expressions, that student's writing may have to get more convoluted > before it gets clearer and more pleasureable. I wouldn't want to > give the student advice that would privilege a clear and enjoyable > product today over a more deliberate and effective writing process > tomorrow. > > I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, > he or she really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence > of the revision from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. > Was there a rhetorical purpose, other than simply variation, for > switching from "he" to "she" as a subject, only to then switch back > again? If so--and there could be such a purpose--great. If not, > maybe this revision is one instance where sentence start variation > and coherence really did conflict, and I would have favored coherence. > > Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly > not learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence > must have a different subject." I don't think the different sides > in this Great War of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart. > > Brian > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of > Susan van Druten > Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions > > Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear > about > how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. > Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. > I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts > (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to > them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. > They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they > get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. > > "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? > > Really??! Really. Really??! > > Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems > for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems > for > a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one > must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion > between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to > a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. > The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from > chaotic > coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can > all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is > causing it. > > This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is > simply > not true that we must pit sentence start variation against > coherence. Both are important. > > Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make > one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. > The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, > informative reading. > > > > Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might > the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how > each sentence connects]?" > > > > Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying > sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's > inconclusive > (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her > revision: > > Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has > become > so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started > to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she > could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her > change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her > leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of > time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. > > I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer > from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she > has not been considering. > > Susan > > On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: > > > > It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a > teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," > as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, > "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing > more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on > a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? > These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* > conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? > I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- > term improvement should take priority. > > I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers > hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change > up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having > been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think > in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I > think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short > term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a > little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been > worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately > attaining a mature style). > > Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class > sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably > read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" > repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face > tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term > improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- > often but not always English Language Learners--who can write > simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start > combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students > like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading > convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually > improve at, coordination and subordination. > > "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad > advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in > my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help > eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness > and control. > > At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're > probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking > about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond > to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: > > "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate > from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, > which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One > of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers > is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few > different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to > five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you > take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, > that will make this easier." > > The results would be less predictible then if I just told the > student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the > student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and > to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And > consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over > the long one. > > But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and > I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of > advice? > > Brian > > > Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor of English > Director of the Writing Center > St. Mary's College of Maryland > Montgomery Hall 50 > 18952 E. Fisher Rd. > St. Mary's City, Maryland > 20686 > 240-895-4242 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of > Susan van Druten > Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions > > John, you have actually made my point. > > You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, > coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to > consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging > of verb choice." > > If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me > like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say > that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up > their sentence starts. > > Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences > (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is > what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school > classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix > the core problem. > > I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to > reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can > keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts > with what I have experienced. > > > > On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: > > > I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as > there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly > has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given > information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate > topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the > structure). > > I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and > complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more > carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. > > Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) > quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the > maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core > problems and would likely produce confusing sentences > (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is > what teachers want. > > John Alexander > Austin, Texas > > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up > Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is > the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your > argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th > when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." > > I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to > school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree > that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her > sentence starts? > > Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had > fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves > falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so > sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her > because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing > just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken > over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He > realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. > > On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > Susan, > I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid > understanding of how language works. If we tell students that > varying > sentence openings (using something other than the subject as > opening)is > a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of > those > variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. > As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that > students > sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences > in a > row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite > often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which > starts > every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie > Silko's > much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great > majority of > the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and > copied > a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he > effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for > long > stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing > with > mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and > repeating > sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature > style. > There are good reasons for this. If you look at information > flow in a > text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost > always > last. The most important function of a sentence opener > (usually the > subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The > opening > establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to > accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit > repetition > for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on > much too > quickly. > The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of > different > structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students > should > have those available as resources. I believe they should be used > for > continuity, though, not for variation. > I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what > kind of > variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A > variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is > another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open > sentences is > another. > Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting > that most > sentences will start with the subject and that when we have > variation > form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple > adverbials. > As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is > harmful to > imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence > openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them > to see > how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of > subjects, to > build coherence into texts. > I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good > teaching > practices, not a personal criticism. > > Craig > > Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still > believe > > it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various > ways to > start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up > sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea > that I > was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) > > I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought > you > were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't > mean I am > not enjoying myself. > > Susan > > > On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > Susan, > I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward > a mature > literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should > all be > constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, > far from > perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our > profession > as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if > what we > are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you > posted to > the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings > to keep > from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of > conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at > all to do > with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad > teacher. We > simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an > open mind. > I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was > never > intended to be personal. > That being said, I would ask you to question seriously > whether the > "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. > It says, > first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% > of the > time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly > study. The > studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a > professional > writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an > average of > about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, > the > highest > about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the > case, > then > students already vary sentence openings more than mature > writers. I > would add that the writers in the study were successful, not > boring. > I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical > Grammar" as a > more linguistically sound source of advice. > But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I > apologize if > anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a > teacher. > As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully > grounded, > effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful > of each > other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any > failures > on my > part to do that. > > Craig > > > Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style > guides. > > I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a > writing > Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same > starting word > in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots > more > outrage, tar, and feathers! > > Sentence Beginnings > Vary the beginnings of your sentences. > > > Most writers begin about half their sentences with the > subject- > far > more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But > overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous > writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of > your > sentences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WORDS > > > > > > Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice > resolved to > fight back. > > > An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and > clattering came > from the heights around us. > > > > A connecting word: For students who have just > survived the > brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere > is all > too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high > school, > find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. > > > > An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is > just as > important as a healthy mind. > > > > A series of words: Light, water, temperature, > minerals- > these affect the health of plants. > > PHRASES > > > > > > > A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of > athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For > one > thing, it can be ruthless. > > > > A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched > all of > their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into > this > existence. > > > > An infinitive: To be really successful, > you will > have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and > computer. > > > A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise > program > is essential. > > > A participle: Looking out of the window high > over > the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse > surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead > surrounded > by fields. > > > An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission > provides > food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. > > > An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went > on the > attack. > > CLAUSES > > > > > > > An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and > I think > it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to > death that > if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never > going to > show up again. > > > An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a > joiner of > organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of > a group > of animal lovers. > > > > A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a > questions to > ask a geologist. > > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: > > > Susan, > This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the > students > HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression > that you > just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they > do it. > > What method do you use to teach the different possible > variations? > > Jean Waldman > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" > > > 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/ --Apple-Mail-49--1026709038 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:
I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used as an example of the important educational techniques called "scaffolding." In scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and finally independent practice to help a student master tasks

I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are helpful. They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing if a dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is trying to fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents any "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However, under your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks his students to write complete sentences is risking that his students will "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having internalized the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after all.

But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because but still writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students--then I'm thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good.

This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences beginning with "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If you have a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is don't use sentence fragments!  Clearly this student is falling off the bike with the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels off and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill.

I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good writers.

Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument. Don't be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never advocated "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring those who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in a row with the same start need to change up one or more more of them. If there is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or "there is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider what they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule allows for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked.

Susan

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten
Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: training wheels

So weak writers suffer from training wheels?

A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. So...let'e be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence starts has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the spigots. What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing texts do you find harmful?

Have at it.

But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you?

I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with its name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of this listserv.

Jenkies, how's that for irony?

Hurts, donut?

On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Brian,
I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very thoughtful and helpful. I especially like the way you bring this back to the opening discussion, whether weaker writers needed 'training wheels". I would echo what I see as the core of your position: they do more harm than good.

Craig

O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:

Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean that boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some solutions to the problem of boring essays are short term (or superficial) solutions. As I meant to imply, I read plenty of boring essays by college students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even as a percentage of my total haul of papers, than high school teachers read--just because my students' high school teachers have done a good job with them). I could come up with silly solutions to this problem--use a world from a funny vocabulary list every few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might amuse me (I have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more effective writing.

Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good writers do include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only 25% of the time, and it's not outlandish to teach students how good writers go about doing this. I actually do not think that sentence starts and coherence are an either/or--you've made it clear that you teach coherence, and I don't see how that could be totally negated by the little time you spend teaching sentence start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way put coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence is , pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's experience of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the time, if a revision with more varied sentence starts is better than the draft, that variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant change--like improved coordination or subordination, or improved topic focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision

is better is simply because she started her sentences in more various ways, she may understand what really made the revision better, and thus she may be less likely to transfer her learning to the next context and do even better in the future. And she may not be helped on the path to the (even) longer-term goal of greater syntactical maturity (as you put it) or greater rhetorical awareness and control (as I put it).

I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our students to produce easy to read and pleasurable,
informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're in a particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as a student experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, that student's writing may have to get more convoluted before it gets clearer and more pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the student advice that would privilege a clear and enjoyable product today over a more deliberate and effective writing process tomorrow.

I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he or she really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of the revision from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. Was there a rhetorical purpose, other than simply variation, for switching from "he" to "she" as a subject, only to then switch back again? If so--and there could be such a purpose--great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where sentence start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I would have favored coherence.

Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly not learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence must have a different subject." I don't think the different sides in this Great War of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart.

Brian

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten
Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear about
how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts.
Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing.
I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts
(which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to
them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them.
They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they
get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice.

"Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems?

Really??! Really. Really??!

Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems
for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems for
a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one
must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion
between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to
a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor.
The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from chaotic
coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can
all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is causing it.

This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is simply
not true that we must pit sentence start variation against
coherence. Both are important.

Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make
one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading.
The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable,
informative reading.

Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might
the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how
each sentence connects]?"

Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying
sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's inconclusive
(it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her revision:

Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has become
so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started
to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she
could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her
change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her
leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of
time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer.

I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer
from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she
has not been considering.

Susan

On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote:

It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a
teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style,"
as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka,
"triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing
more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on
a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run?
These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes*
conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority?
I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long-
term improvement should take priority.

I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers
hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change
up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having
been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think
in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I
think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short
term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a
little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been
worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately
attaining a mature style).

Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class
sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably
read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good"
repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face
tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term
improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students--
often but not always English Language Learners--who can write
simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start
combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students
like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading
convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually
improve at, coordination and subordination.

"Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad
advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in
my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help
eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness
and control.

At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're
probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking
about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond
to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph:

"[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate
from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect,
which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One
of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers
is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few
different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to
five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you
take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read,
that will make this easier."

The results would be less predictible then if I just told the
student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the
student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and
to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And
consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over
the long one.

But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and
I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of
advice?

Brian

Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of English
Director of the Writing Center
St. Mary's College of Maryland
Montgomery Hall 50
18952 E. Fisher Rd.
St. Mary's City, Maryland
20686
240-895-4242

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of
Susan van Druten
Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions

John, you have actually made my point.

You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate,
coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to
consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging
of verb choice."

If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me
like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say
that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up
their sentence starts.

Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences
(unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is
what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school
classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix
the core problem.

I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to
reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can
keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts
with what I have experienced.

On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote:

I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as
there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly
has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given
information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate
topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the
structure).

I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and
complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more
carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice.

Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me)
quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the
maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core
problems and would likely produce confusing sentences
(unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is
what teachers want.

John Alexander
Austin, Texas

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten
<[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up
Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is
the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your
argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th
when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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."

I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to
school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree
that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her
sentence starts?

Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had
fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves
falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so
sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her
because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing
just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken
over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He
realizes that she doesn't have that much longer.

On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid
understanding of how language works. If we tell students that
varying
sentence openings (using something other than the subject as
opening)is
a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those
variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't.
As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that
students
sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a
row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite
often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which
starts
every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie
Silko's
much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of
the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and
copied
a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he
effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for
long
stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with
mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and
repeating
sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style.
There are good reasons for this. If you look at information
flow in a
text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost
always
last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the
subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The
opening
establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to
accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit
repetition
for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too
quickly.
The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different
structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should
have those available as resources. I believe they should be used
for
continuity, though, not for variation.
I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what
kind of
variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A
variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is
another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open
sentences is
another.
Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting
that most
sentences will start with the subject and that when we have
variation
form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple
adverbials.
As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is
harmful to
imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence
openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them
to see
how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of
subjects, to
build coherence into texts.
I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good
teaching
practices, not a personal criticism.

Craig

Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still
believe

it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to
start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up
sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea
that I
was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.)

I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought
you
were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am
not enjoying myself.

Susan

On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

Susan,
I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward
a mature
literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should
all be
constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far,
far from
perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our
profession
as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if
what we
are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you
posted to
the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings
to keep
from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of
conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at
all to do
with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad
teacher. We
simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an
open mind.
I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was
never
intended to be personal.
That being said, I would ask you to question seriously
whether the
"style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate.
It says,
first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50%
of the
time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly
study. The
studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a
professional
writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an
average of
about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the
highest
about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the
case,
then
students already vary sentence openings more than mature
writers. I
would add that the writers in the study were successful, not
boring.
I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical
Grammar" as a
more linguistically sound source of advice.
But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I
apologize if
anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a
teacher.
As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully
grounded,
effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful
of each
other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures
on my
part to do that.

Craig

Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style
guides.

I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing
Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same
starting word
in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more
outrage, tar, and feathers!

Sentence Beginnings
Vary the beginnings of your sentences.

Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject-
far
more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But
overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous
writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your
sentences.

WORDS

Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to
fight back.

An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and
clattering came
from the heights around us.

A connecting word: For students who have just
survived the
brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere
is all
too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high
school,
find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers.

An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as
important as a healthy mind.

A series of words: Light, water, temperature,
minerals-
these affect the health of plants.

PHRASES

A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of
athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For
one
thing, it can be ruthless.

A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of
their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this
existence.

An infinitive: To be really successful, you will
have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer.

A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise
program
is essential.

A participle: Looking out of the window high
over
the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse
surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead
surrounded
by fields.

An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission
provides
food and shelter for Springfield's homeless.

An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went
on the
attack.

CLAUSES

An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and
I think
it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to
death that
if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never
going to
show up again.

An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a
joiner of
organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of
a group
of animal lovers.

A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a
questions to
ask a geologist.

On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote:

Susan,
This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students
HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you
just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it.

What method do you use to teach the different possible
variations?

Jean Waldman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten"

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/ --Apple-Mail-49--1026709038-- ========================================================================Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 23:55:23 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Peter Adams <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: training wheels In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) I think I may be the originator of the term "training wheels." I've used it for years and have used the term several times over the years on this listserv. So, whether someone actually used the term before I did or not, let me take a crack at explaining what I meant by the term when I used it. Training wheels, in the literal sense, are something we attach to a bicycle so that a young child learning to ride doesn't have to master too many things at once--steering, peddling, braking, balancing, and ringing the bell. To make the task simpler during the learning phase, we put on training wheels, which eliminates the need for the child to attend to one of the more demanding tasks: balancing. In teaching young people to swim, we sometimes use a kick board to accomplish the same purpose: the young swimmer doesn't have to think about what to do with his or her arms or how to stay afloat and can, instead, focus on learning how to kick. So "training wheels" is (are?) a perfectly legitimate way of teaching a complex skill. And writing is certainly a complex skill. So many writing instructors employ the equivalent of training wheels. We try to simplify the apprentice writer's task by eliminating some of the many decisions that might make his or her writing less successful. We tell student some of the following: • never use the pronoun "you" (to avoid point of view shifts) • never start a sentence with "because" (to avoid fragments) • paragraphs must have at least five (or some other number) of paragraphs (to prevent underdeveloped paragraphs) • always put the thesis statement as the last sentence in the first paragraph (to insure the essay has a thesis) • and, perhaps, vary sentence starters I call these "training wheels" because like their literal counterpart, they are intended to simplify a complex task so that other parts of that task can be mastered before the more sophisticated entire task is attempted. In each of these cases, I have reservations about whether the "training wheels" strategy is a good idea or not, but of one thing I am certain: at some point teachers have a responsibility to explain that what was once presented as a rule to simpligy the task of writing is really not a rule, just a temporary piece of advice to simplify the learning process. Otherwise, I fear that what started as "training wheels" will, at least in some students' minds, become regarded as an actual rule about writing. I do not, by the way, have anything against kick boards in swimming classes or literal training wheels for youngsters learning to ride bikes. Peter Adams Department of English Community College Baltimore County On May 28, 2009, at 10:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> Hurts, donut? > > Well, no, it "do nut", actually. (I know you're addressing Craig, > but, since he was agreeing with me, I'm going to take a shot at > answering this.) > > Grammar isn't training wheels. If you want a bicycle-riding > analogy, I'd say grammar--especially as I've seen some of the real > experts on this list practice it--is more like the physics of > bicycle riding. Grammar describes the functioning of language, as > physics describes the functioning of matter and energy. (That's not > to say students shouldn't learn about grammar before the twelfth > grade, by the way. Children riding bikes may not be ready to > understand velocity and gravity scientifically, but it behooves them > to have at least an intuitive sense of what velocity and gravity can > do.) > > I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in > education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used > as an example of the important educational techniques called > "scaffolding." In scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided > practice and finally independent practice to help a student master > tasks in his or her "zone of proximal development" (ZPD)--Vygotsky's > term for the level of skill just beyond what the student is already > capable of by himself or herself. Research and intuition (mine and > many others') seem to agree that scaffolding can be a good thing. > > But there's a difference between modeling and guided practice, which > is what scaffolding usually refers to in education studies, and made- > up rules, which are at least part of what "training wheels" has > meant in this discussion. I think that a lot of us have noticed that > students have internalized certain made-up rules without actually > having internalized the underlying skills or principles that those > "rules" were presumably supposed to scaffold. But if a college > student avoids starting sentences with because but still writes > sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students--then I'm > thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good. > > Speaking only for myself, I don't see anything wrong with modeling > ways in which effective writers use sentence starters, guiding > students in practicing these ways, and then expecting them to > practice independently in their papers. That process looks to me > like a good kind of "training wheels," or scaffolding. Ideally, I'd > want to talk with students about why different kinds of sentence > starters are effective or ineffective in different context, and how > this is related to more fundamental issues of topicality and > coherence. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to tell them students > that using a large amount of sentence starter variation is a > hallmark of good writers. That doesn't seem to be true, according to > research that we've heard about in this conversation; it seems to be > a made-up rule, and I think that's the wrong kind of "training > wheels." > > > Brian > > > > Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor of English > Director of the Writing Center > St. Mary’s College of Maryland > Montgomery Hall 50 > 18952 E. Fisher Rd. > St. Mary’s City, Maryland > 20686 > 240-895-4242 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of > Susan van Druten > Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: training wheels > > So weak writers suffer from training wheels? > > A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. > So...let'e be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? > Sentence starts has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and > open up the spigots. What else? What other tactics that are > commonly found in writing texts do you find harmful? > > Have at it. > > But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you? > > I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our > district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with > its name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of > this listserv. > > Jenkies, how's that for irony? > > Hurts, donut? > > > > On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > Brian, > I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very > thoughtful and helpful. I especially like the way you bring this > back to the opening discussion, whether weaker writers needed > 'training wheels". I would echo what I see as the core of your > position: they do more harm than good. > > Craig > > O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: > > Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't > mean that boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some > solutions to the problem of boring essays are short term (or > superficial) solutions. As I meant to imply, I read plenty of > boring essays by college students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even > as a percentage of my total haul of papers, than high school > teachers read--just because my students' high school teachers have > done a good job with them). I could come up with silly solutions to > this problem--use a world from a funny vocabulary list every few > lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might amuse me (I have a > dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more effective > writing. > > Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, > good writers do include some variant sentence starts, even if it's > only 25% of the time, and it's not outlandish to teach students how > good writers go about doing this. I actually do not think that > sentence starts and coherence are an either/or--you've made it clear > that you teach coherence, and I don't see how that could be totally > negated by the little time you spend teaching sentence start > variation. At the same time, i would not in any way put coherence > and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence is , > pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's > experience of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the > time, if a revision with more varied sentence starts is better than > the draft, that variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more > significant change--like improved coordination or subordination, or > improved topic focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision > > is better is simply because she started her sentences in more > various ways, she may understand what really made the revision > better, and thus she may be less likely to transfer her learning to > the next context and do even better in the future. And she may not > be helped on the path to the (even) longer-term goal of greater > syntactical maturity (as you put it) or greater rhetorical awareness > and control (as I put it). > > I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for > our students to produce easy to read and pleasurable, > informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while > they're in a particular class that we happen to be teaching. > Sometimes, as a student experiments with more complex thoughts and > expressions, that student's writing may have to get more convoluted > before it gets clearer and more pleasureable. I wouldn't want to > give the student advice that would privilege a clear and enjoyable > product today over a more deliberate and effective writing process > tomorrow. > > I guess my question for your student would be whether, and > why, he or she really wanted to switch the focus of the second > sentence of the revision from the Landon's perception to Jamie's > condition. Was there a rhetorical purpose, other than simply > variation, for switching from "he" to "she" as a subject, only to > then switch back again? If so--and there could be such a purpose-- > great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where sentence > start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I would have > favored coherence. > > Still, your student is revising and experimenting and > certainly not learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every > sentence must have a different subject." I don't think the > different sides in this Great War of Sentence Starters are really > all that far apart. > > Brian > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf > of Susan van Druten > Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions > > Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more > clear about > how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence > starts. > Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are > writing. > I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence > starts > (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention > it to > them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to > them. > They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." > So they > get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for > advice. > > "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? > > Really??! Really. Really??! > > Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are > problems > for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are > problems for > a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The > amount one > must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of > opinion > between high school or college instructor: if an essay is > boring to > a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college > instructor. > The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from > chaotic > coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. > We can > all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is > causing it. > > This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It > is simply > not true that we must pit sentence start variation against > coherence. Both are important. > > Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does > not make > one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping > reading. > The goal is that our students produce easy to read and > pleasurable, > informative reading. > > > > Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; > how might > the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show > me how > each sentence connects]?" > > > > Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering > varying > sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's > inconclusive > (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her > revision: > > Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She > has become > so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really > started > to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there > because she > could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just > her > change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how > much her > leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short > period of > time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. > > I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a > writer > from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing > shows she > has not been considering. > > Susan > > On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: > > > > It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is > what a > teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature > style," > as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training > wheels" (aka, > "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their > writing > more presentable in the short term, or should we try to > set them on > a path towards developing a more mature style in the long > run? > These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they > "sometimes* > conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take > priority? > I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they > do, long- > term improvement should take priority. > > I believe Susan when she says that her young and > struggling writers > hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice > to "change > up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig > that having > been trained this way may make it hard for college > writers to think > in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. > If, as I > think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's > short > term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers > found a > little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not > have been > worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in > ultimately > attaining a mature style). > > Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller > class > sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I > probably > read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was > that "good" > repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, > too, face > tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and > long-term > improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of > students-- > often but not always English Language Learners--who can > write > simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they > start > combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage > students > like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up > with reading > convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and > eventually > improve at, coordination and subordination. > > "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly > such bad > advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The > similarity, in > my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a > scaffold to help > eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical > awareness > and control. > > At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; > they're > probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and > talking > about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I > might respond > to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." > paragraph: > > "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is > separate > from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they > connect, > which is more important than the other, which depends on > which. One > of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for > their readers > is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try > a few > different ways of combining those seven sentences into > three to > five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and > why? If you > take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we > read, > that will make this easier." > > The results would be less predictible then if I just told > the > student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be > asking the > student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices > to make and > to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And > consistently asking students to do that can make a > difference over > the long one. > > But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college > writers, and > I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to > this kind of > advice? > > Brian > > > Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor of English > Director of the Writing Center > St. Mary's College of Maryland > Montgomery Hall 50 > 18952 E. Fisher Rd. > St. Mary's City, Maryland > 20686 > 240-895-4242 > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 03:52:39 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "O'Sullivan, Brian P" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: training wheels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Susan, I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict anger." I was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I called "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of them--but I do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think you're picking up from me. We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called "training wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something" differently, and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that has been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that training wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of skills just at the edge of students' reach) can be grat, while training wheels in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules can do more harm than good. (I would not, however, agree with you that teachers who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic," OK, but "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?) I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin sentences with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule," some students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning what it was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences). These students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without getting much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training wheels doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers use sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that "avoid sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a made-up rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a sentence with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of effective writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated from; the latter is not even a norm. Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even characterizing your argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't always been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember right, you quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their sentence starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students to try to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has become more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that using a large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good writers"; I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was that I wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule, which would be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule is borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having students practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or scaffolding. What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you practice; I'll leave that for you to judge. I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that he considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I now understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's statement, IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of this conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to be. They're just different enough to make things interesting. Brian Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of English Director of the Writing Center St. Mary’s College of Maryland Montgomery Hall 50 18952 E. Fisher Rd. St. Mary’s City, Maryland 20686 240-895-4242 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 11:41 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: training wheels On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used as an example of the important educational techniques called "scaffolding." In scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and finally independent practice to help a student master tasks I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are helpful. They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing if a dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is trying to fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents any "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However, under your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks his students to write complete sentences is risking that his students will "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having internalized the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after all. But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because but still writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students--then I'm thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good. This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences beginning with "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If you have a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is don't use sentence fragments! Clearly this student is falling off the bike with the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels off and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill. I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good writers. Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument. Don't be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never advocated "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring those who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in a row with the same start need to change up one or more more of them. If there is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or "there is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider what they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule allows for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked. Susan -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: training wheels So weak writers suffer from training wheels? A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. So...let'e be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence starts has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the spigots. What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing texts do you find harmful? Have at it. But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you? I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with its name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of this listserv. Jenkies, how's that for irony? Hurts, donut? On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Brian, I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very thoughtful and helpful. I especially like the way you bring this back to the opening discussion, whether weaker writers needed 'training wheels". I would echo what I see as the core of your position: they do more harm than good. Craig O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean that boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some solutions to the problem of boring essays are short term (or superficial) solutions. As I meant to imply, I read plenty of boring essays by college students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even as a percentage of my total haul of papers, than high school teachers read--just because my students' high school teachers have done a good job with them). I could come up with silly solutions to this problem--use a world from a funny vocabulary list every few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might amuse me (I have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more effective writing. Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good writers do include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only 25% of the time, and it's not outlandish to teach students how good writers go about doing this. I actually do not think that sentence starts and coherence are an either/or--you've made it clear that you teach coherence, and I don't see how that could be totally negated by the little time you spend teaching sentence start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way put coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence is , pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's experience of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the time, if a revision with more varied sentence starts is better than the draft, that variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant change--like improved coordination or subordination, or improved topic focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision is better is simply because she started her sentences in more various ways, she may understand what really made the revision better, and thus she may be less likely to transfer her learning to the next context and do even better in the future. And she may not be helped on the path to the (even) longer-term goal of greater syntactical maturity (as you put it) or greater rhetorical awareness and control (as I put it). I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our students to produce easy to read and pleasurable, informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're in a particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as a student experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, that student's writing may have to get more convoluted before it gets clearer and more pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the student advice that would privilege a clear and enjoyable product today over a more deliberate and effective writing process tomorrow. I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he or she really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of the revision from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. Was there a rhetorical purpose, other than simply variation, for switching from "he" to "she" as a subject, only to then switch back again? If so--and there could be such a purpose--great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where sentence start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I would have favored coherence. Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly not learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence must have a different subject." I don't think the different sides in this Great War of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear about how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? Really??! Really. Really??! Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems for a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from chaotic coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is causing it. This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is simply not true that we must pit sentence start variation against coherence. Both are important. Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, informative reading. Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how each sentence connects]?" Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's inconclusive (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her revision: Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she has not been considering. Susan On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- term improvement should take priority. I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately attaining a mature style). Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- often but not always English Language Learners--who can write simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually improve at, coordination and subordination. "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness and control. At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, that will make this easier." The results would be less predictible then if I just told the student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over the long one. But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of advice? Brian Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of English Director of the Writing Center St. Mary's College of Maryland Montgomery Hall 50 18952 E. Fisher Rd. St. Mary's City, Maryland 20686 240-895-4242 -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van Druten Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions John, you have actually made my point. You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice." If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up their sentence starts. Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix the core problem. I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts with what I have experienced. On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the structure). I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core problems and would likely produce confusing sentences (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is what teachers want. John Alexander Austin, Texas On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her sentence starts? Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid understanding of how language works. If we tell students that varying sentence openings (using something other than the subject as opening)is a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that students sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which starts every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie Silko's much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and copied a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for long stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and repeating sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. There are good reasons for this. If you look at information flow in a text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost always last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The opening establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit repetition for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too quickly. The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should have those available as resources. I believe they should be used for continuity, though, not for variation. I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what kind of variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open sentences is another. Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting that most sentences will start with the subject and that when we have variation form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple adverbials. As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is harmful to imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them to see how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of subjects, to build coherence into texts. I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good teaching practices, not a personal criticism. Craig Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still believe it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea that I was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought you were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am not enjoying myself. Susan On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: Susan, I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward a mature literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should all be constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, far from perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our profession as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if what we are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you posted to the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings to keep from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at all to do with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad teacher. We simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an open mind. I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was never intended to be personal. That being said, I would ask you to question seriously whether the "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. It says, first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% of the time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly study. The studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a professional writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an average of about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the highest about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the case, then students already vary sentence openings more than mature writers. I would add that the writers in the study were successful, not boring. I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical Grammar" as a more linguistically sound source of advice. But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I apologize if anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a teacher. As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully grounded, effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful of each other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures on my part to do that. Craig Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style guides. I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same starting word in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more outrage, tar, and feathers! Sentence Beginnings Vary the beginnings of your sentences. Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- far more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your sentences. WORDS Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to fight back. An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and clattering came from the heights around us. A connecting word: For students who have just survived the brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere is all too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high school, find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as important as a healthy mind. A series of words: Light, water, temperature, minerals- these affect the health of plants. PHRASES A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For one thing, it can be ruthless. A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this existence. An infinitive: To be really successful, you will have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise program is essential. A participle: Looking out of the window high over the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead surrounded by fields. An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission provides food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went on the attack. CLAUSES An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and I think it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to death that if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never going to show up again. An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a joiner of organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of a group of animal lovers. A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a questions to ask a geologist. On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: Susan, This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. What method do you use to teach the different possible variations? Jean Waldman ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:45:22 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: training wheels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think this has the potential to be a very rich and interesting thread, especially if we can keep it as a discussion and agree to disagree in patient ways. I can think of about ten points to add, so I'll resist that and try to keep it to a few. 1) Part of the problem is created by progressive views toward grammar that emphasize "in context" instruction with "minimal terminology." Advocates say the students don't need a wide understanding of grammar in order to use it, and this pressures what I would call "soft understandings" that are never meant as scaffolds to a deeper understanding. Some of these get communicated as "rules" and are difficult to displace. 2) We have to be careful about what we mean by "rule." As we observe language, we inevitably discover patterns (rules) that the languge itself follows: for example, that given tends to come first and new tends to come last in the information structure of a clause. This is an observation about patterned behavior in language, not a constraint on how to use it. Another example might be that "because" subordinates the clause that follows it. These are not rules we can choose to break any more than we can choose to break the law of gravity. (Though they are more dynamic than gravity, they can't be altered at the whim of an individual.) We can simply try to work in harmony with these patterns, to use them purposefully. 3) Scaffolding implies that there is a desirable level of understanding that we are working toward, but we don't have any kind of consensus about what that understanding might entail OR even that--for a typical educated adult--knowing about grammar is a desirable end. For the great bulk of the population, grammar is still about how we behave, not what we know, and it is primarily understood as a loose collection of constraints. 4) This does not have to be an either/or choice, since a deeper understanding of language allows someone to make reasoned judgements about other people's rules or advice. As it stands, the typical student is in some sort of limbo, not knowing enough about grammar to write either effectively or "correctly". > Craig Susan, > > I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict anger." I > was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I called > "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of them--but I > do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think you're > picking up from me. > > We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called "training > wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something" differently, > and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that has > been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that training > wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of skills > just at the edge of students' reach) can be grat, while training wheels > in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules can do > more harm than good. (I would not, however, agree with you that teachers > who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic," OK, but > "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?) > > I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin sentences > with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule," some > students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning what it > was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences). These > students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without getting > much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training wheels > doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers use > sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that "avoid > sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a made-up > rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a sentence > with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of effective > writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated from; the > latter is not even a norm. > > Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even characterizing your > argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't always > been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember right, you > quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their sentence > starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students to try > to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has become > more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that using a > large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good writers"; > I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was that I > wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule, which would > be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule is > borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind > modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having students > practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or scaffolding. > What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you > practice; I'll leave that for you to judge. > > I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that he > considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I now > understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's statement, > IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or > near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of this > conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to be. > They're just different enough to make things interesting. > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor of English > Director of the Writing Center > St. Mary’s College of Maryland > Montgomery Hall 50 > 18952 E. Fisher Rd. > St. Mary’s City, Maryland > 20686 > 240-895-4242 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van > Druten > Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 11:41 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: training wheels > > On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: > > I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in > education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used as an > example of the important educational techniques called "scaffolding." In > scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and finally > independent practice to help a student master tasks > > > I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are helpful. > They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing if a > dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is trying to > fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents any > "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However, under > your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks his > students to write complete sentences is risking that his students will > "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having internalized > the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after all. > > > But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because but still > writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students--then I'm > thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good. > > > This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences beginning with > "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If you have > a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame > training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is don't > use sentence fragments! Clearly this student is falling off the bike with > the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels off > and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to > understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill. > > > I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of sentence > starter variation is a hallmark of good writers. > > > Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument. Don't > be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never advocated > "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring those > who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in a row > with the same start need to change up one or more more of them. If there > is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or "there > is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider what > they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule allows > for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked. > > Susan > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van > Druten > Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: training wheels > > So weak writers suffer from training wheels? > > A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. So...let'e > be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence starts > has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the spigots. > What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing texts > do you find harmful? > > Have at it. > > But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you? > > I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our > district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with its > name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of this > listserv. > > Jenkies, how's that for irony? > > Hurts, donut? > > > > On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > Brian, > I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very thoughtful and > helpful. I especially like the way you bring this back to the opening > discussion, whether weaker writers needed 'training wheels". I would > echo what I see as the core of your position: they do more harm than > good. > > > > > Craig > > > > > O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: > > Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean that > boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some solutions to > the problem of boring essays are short term (or superficial) solutions. > As I meant to imply, I read plenty of boring essays by college > students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even as a percentage of my total > haul of papers, than high school teachers read--just because my students' > high school teachers have done a good job with them). I could come up > with silly solutions to this problem--use a world from a funny vocabulary > list every few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might amuse me > (I have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more > effective writing. > > > > > Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good writers do > include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only 25% of the time, > and it's not outlandish to teach students how good writers go about doing > this. I actually do not think that sentence starts and coherence are an > either/or--you've made it clear that you teach coherence, and I don't see > how that could be totally negated by the little time you spend teaching > sentence start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way put > coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence is , > pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's experience > of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the time, if a > revision with more varied sentence starts is better than the draft, that > variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant > change--like improved coordination or subordination, or improved topic > focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision > > > > > is better is simply because she started her sentences in more various > ways, she may understand what really made the revision better, and thus > she may be less likely to transfer her learning to the next context and > do even better in the future. And she may not be helped on the path to > the (even) longer-term goal of greater syntactical maturity (as you put > it) or greater rhetorical awareness and control (as I put it). > > > > > I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our students > to produce easy to read and pleasurable, > informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're in a > particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as a student > experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, that student's > writing may have to get more convoluted before it gets clearer and more > pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the student advice that would > privilege a clear and enjoyable product today over a more deliberate and > effective writing process tomorrow. > > > > > I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he or she > really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of the revision > from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. Was there a rhetorical > purpose, other than simply variation, for switching from "he" to "she" as > a subject, only to then switch back again? If so--and there could be such > a purpose--great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where > sentence start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I would > have favored coherence. > > > > > Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly not > learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence must have a > different subject." I don't think the different sides in this Great War > of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart. > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Susan van > Druten > Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions > > > > > Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear about > how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. > Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. > I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts > (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to > them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. > They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they > get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. > > > > > "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? > > > > > Really??! Really. Really??! > > > > > Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems > for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems for > a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one > must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion > between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to > a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. > The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from chaotic > coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can > all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is causing it. > > > > > This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is simply > not true that we must pit sentence start variation against > coherence. Both are important. > > > > > Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make > one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. > The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, > informative reading. > > > > > > > > > Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might > the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how > each sentence connects]?" > > > > > > > > > Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying > sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's inconclusive > (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her revision: > > > > > Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has become > so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started > to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she > could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her > change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her > leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of > time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. > > > > > I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer > from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she > has not been considering. > > > > > Susan > > > > > On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: > > > > > > > > > It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a > teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," > as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, > "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing > more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on > a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? > These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* > conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? > I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- > term improvement should take priority. > > > > > I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers > hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change > up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having > been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think > in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I > think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short > term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a > little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been > worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately > attaining a mature style). > > > > > Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class > sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably > read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" > repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face > tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term > improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- > often but not always English Language Learners--who can write > simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start > combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students > like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading > convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually > improve at, coordination and subordination. > > > > > "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad > advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in > my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help > eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness > and control. > > > > > At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're > probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking > about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond > to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: > > > > > "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate > from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, > which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One > of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers > is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few > different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to > five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you > take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, > that will make this easier." > > > > > The results would be less predictible then if I just told the > student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the > student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and > to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And > consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over > the long one. > > > > > But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and > I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of > advice? > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor of English > Director of the Writing Center > St. Mary's College of Maryland > Montgomery Hall 50 > 18952 E. Fisher Rd. > St. Mary's City, Maryland > 20686 > 240-895-4242 > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of > Susan van Druten > Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions > > > > > John, you have actually made my point. > > > > > You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, > coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to > consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging > of verb choice." > > > > > If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me > like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say > that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up > their sentence starts. > > > > > Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences > (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is > what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school > classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix > the core problem. > > > > > I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to > reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can > keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts > with what I have experienced. > > > > > > > > > > > On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: > > > > > > > > I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as > there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly > has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given > information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate > topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the > structure). > > > > > I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and > complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more > carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. > > > > > Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) > quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the > maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core > problems and would likely produce confusing sentences > (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is > what teachers want. > > > > > John Alexander > Austin, Texas > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up > Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is > the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your > argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th > when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." > > > > > I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to > school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree > that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her > sentence starts? > > > > > Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had > fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves > falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so > sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her > because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing > just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken > over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He > realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. > > > > > On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > > > > > > Susan, > I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid > understanding of how language works. If we tell students that > varying > sentence openings (using something other than the subject as > opening)is > a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those > variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. > As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that > students > sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a > row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite > often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which > starts > every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie > Silko's > much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of > the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and > copied > a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he > effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for > long > stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with > mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and > repeating > sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. > There are good reasons for this. If you look at information > flow in a > text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost > always > last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the > subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The > opening > establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to > accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit > repetition > for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too > quickly. > The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different > structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should > have those available as resources. I believe they should be used > for > continuity, though, not for variation. > I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what > kind of > variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A > variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is > another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open > sentences is > another. > Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting > that most > sentences will start with the subject and that when we have > variation > form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple > adverbials. > As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is > harmful to > imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence > openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them > to see > how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of > subjects, to > build coherence into texts. > I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good > teaching > practices, not a personal criticism. > > > > > Craig > > > > > Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still > believe > > > > > it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to > start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up > sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea > that I > was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) > > > > > I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought > you > were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am > not enjoying myself. > > > > > Susan > > > > > > > > On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > > > > > > > > Susan, > I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward > a mature > literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should > all be > constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, > far from > perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our > profession > as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if > what we > are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you > posted to > the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings > to keep > from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of > conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at > all to do > with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad > teacher. We > simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an > open mind. > I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was > never > intended to be personal. > That being said, I would ask you to question seriously > whether the > "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. > It says, > first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% > of the > time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly > study. The > studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a > professional > writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an > average of > about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the > highest > about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the > case, > then > students already vary sentence openings more than mature > writers. I > would add that the writers in the study were successful, not > boring. > I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical > Grammar" as a > more linguistically sound source of advice. > But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I > apologize if > anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a > teacher. > As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully > grounded, > effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful > of each > other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures > on my > part to do that. > > > > > Craig > > > > > > > > Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style > guides. > > > > > I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing > Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same > starting word > in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more > outrage, tar, and feathers! > > > > > Sentence Beginnings > Vary the beginnings of your sentences. > > > > > > > > Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- > far > more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But > overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous > writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your > sentences. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WORDS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to > fight back. > > > > > > > > An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and > clattering came > from the heights around us. > > > > > > > > > > > A connecting word: For students who have just > survived the > brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere > is all > too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high > school, > find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. > > > > > > > > > > > An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as > important as a healthy mind. > > > > > > > > > > > A series of words: Light, water, temperature, > minerals- > these affect the health of plants. > > > > > PHRASES > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of > athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For > one > thing, it can be ruthless. > > > > > > > > > > > A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of > their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this > existence. > > > > > > > > > > > An infinitive: To be really successful, you will > have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. > > > > > > > > A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise > program > is essential. > > > > > > > > A participle: Looking out of the window high > over > the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse > surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead > surrounded > by fields. > > > > > > > > An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission > provides > food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. > > > > > > > > An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went > on the > attack. > > > > > CLAUSES > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and > I think > it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to > death that > if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never > going to > show up again. > > > > > > > > An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a > joiner of > organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of > a group > of animal lovers. > > > > > > > > > > > A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a > questions to > ask a geologist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: > > > > > > > > Susan, > This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students > HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you > just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. > > > > > What method do you use to teach the different possible > variations? > > > > > Jean Waldman > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" > > > > > > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:24:15 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Peter Adams <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: training wheels In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Craig, I think you've put your finger on an important issue, one I have not resolved in my own mind. Put simply, the question is how much grammar should students know. It seems to me the questions derives from two different goals for grammar instruction: Goal 1: To give students the capability to produce writing that conforms reasonably to the constraints of Standard Written English. Goal 2: To provide students with some level of understanding of how language works. (This is the goal that asserts that we require students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our humanity: our language?) Because these are two disparate goals, the answer to the simple question of how much grammar should students know is difficult to agree on. In addition, for those who espouse either of these goals, it is still difficult to reach agreement on how much grammar it takes to reach that goal. And then there is a third goal for grammar instruction that complicates the argument even further: students need to know grammar so that they have more options for how to express their ideas. I fear I have made absolutely no progress toward an answer to the question I called "simple," but perhaps I have clarified what the questions are. Peter Adams On May 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > I think this has the potential to be a very rich and interesting > thread, especially if we can keep it as a discussion and agree to > disagree in patient ways. I can think of about ten points to add, so > I'll resist that and try to keep it to a few. > 1) Part of the problem is created by progressive views toward grammar > that emphasize "in context" instruction with "minimal terminology." > Advocates say the students don't need a wide understanding of > grammar in > order to use it, and this pressures what I would call "soft > understandings" that are never meant as scaffolds to a deeper > understanding. Some of these get communicated as "rules" and are > difficult > to displace. > 2) We have to be careful about what we mean by "rule." As we observe > language, we inevitably discover patterns (rules) that the languge > itself > follows: for example, that given tends to come first and new tends > to come > last in the information structure of a clause. This is an observation > about patterned behavior in language, not a constraint on how to use > it. > Another example might be that "because" subordinates the clause that > follows it. These are not rules we can choose to break any more than > we > can choose to break the law of gravity. (Though they are more > dynamic than > gravity, they can't be altered at the whim of an individual.) We can > simply try to work in harmony with these patterns, to use them > purposefully. > 3) Scaffolding implies that there is a desirable level of > understanding > that we are working toward, but we don't have any kind of consensus > about > what that understanding might entail OR even that--for a typical > educated > adult--knowing about grammar is a desirable end. For the great bulk > of the > population, grammar is still about how we behave, not what we know, > and it > is primarily understood as a loose collection of constraints. > 4) This does not have to be an either/or choice, since a deeper > understanding of language allows someone to make reasoned judgements > about > other people's rules or advice. As it stands, the typical student is > in > some sort of limbo, not knowing enough about grammar to write either > effectively or "correctly". > > > Craig > > Susan, >> >> I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict >> anger." I >> was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I called >> "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of >> them--but I >> do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think you're >> picking up from me. >> >> We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called "training >> wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something" >> differently, >> and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that >> has >> been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that >> training >> wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of >> skills >> just at the edge of students' reach) can be grat, while training >> wheels >> in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules >> can do >> more harm than good. (I would not, however, agree with you that >> teachers >> who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic," >> OK, but >> "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?) >> >> I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin >> sentences >> with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule," >> some >> students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning >> what it >> was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences). >> These >> students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without >> getting >> much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training >> wheels >> doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers use >> sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that >> "avoid >> sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a >> made-up >> rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a >> sentence >> with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of effective >> writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated >> from; the >> latter is not even a norm. >> >> Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even >> characterizing your >> argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't >> always >> been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember >> right, you >> quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their >> sentence >> starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students >> to try >> to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has >> become >> more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that >> using a >> large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good >> writers"; >> I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was >> that I >> wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule, >> which would >> be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule >> is >> borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind >> modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having students >> practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or >> scaffolding. >> What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you >> practice; I'll leave that for you to judge. >> >> I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that >> he >> considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I >> now >> understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's >> statement, >> IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or >> near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of >> this >> conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to >> be. >> They're just different enough to make things interesting. >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor of English >> Director of the Writing Center >> St. Mary’s College of Maryland >> Montgomery Hall 50 >> 18952 E. Fisher Rd. >> St. Mary’s City, Maryland >> 20686 >> 240-895-4242 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 11:41 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: training wheels >> >> On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in >> education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used >> as an >> example of the important educational techniques called >> "scaffolding." In >> scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and >> finally >> independent practice to help a student master tasks >> >> >> I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are helpful. >> They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing if a >> dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is >> trying to >> fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents >> any >> "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However, >> under >> your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks his >> students to write complete sentences is risking that his students >> will >> "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having >> internalized >> the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after >> all. >> >> >> But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because >> but still >> writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students-- >> then I'm >> thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good. >> >> >> This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences >> beginning with >> "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If >> you have >> a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame >> training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is >> don't >> use sentence fragments! Clearly this student is falling off the >> bike with >> the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels >> off >> and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to >> understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill. >> >> >> I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of >> sentence >> starter variation is a hallmark of good writers. >> >> >> Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument. >> Don't >> be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never >> advocated >> "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring >> those >> who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in >> a row >> with the same start need to change up one or more more of them. >> If there >> is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or >> "there >> is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider >> what >> they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule >> allows >> for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked. >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: training wheels >> >> So weak writers suffer from training wheels? >> >> A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. >> So...let'e >> be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence >> starts >> has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the >> spigots. >> What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing >> texts >> do you find harmful? >> >> Have at it. >> >> But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you? >> >> I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our >> district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with >> its >> name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of this >> listserv. >> >> Jenkies, how's that for irony? >> >> Hurts, donut? >> >> >> >> On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >> Brian, >> I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very >> thoughtful and >> helpful. I especially like the way you bring this back to the opening >> discussion, whether weaker writers needed 'training wheels". I would >> echo what I see as the core of your position: they do more harm than >> good. >> >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean >> that >> boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some solutions >> to >> the problem of boring essays are short term (or superficial) >> solutions. >> As I meant to imply, I read plenty of boring essays by college >> students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even as a percentage of my >> total >> haul of papers, than high school teachers read--just because my >> students' >> high school teachers have done a good job with them). I could come up >> with silly solutions to this problem--use a world from a funny >> vocabulary >> list every few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might >> amuse me >> (I have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more >> effective writing. >> >> >> >> >> Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good >> writers do >> include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only 25% of the >> time, >> and it's not outlandish to teach students how good writers go about >> doing >> this. I actually do not think that sentence starts and coherence >> are an >> either/or--you've made it clear that you teach coherence, and I >> don't see >> how that could be totally negated by the little time you spend >> teaching >> sentence start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way >> put >> coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence >> is , >> pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's >> experience >> of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the time, if a >> revision with more varied sentence starts is better than the draft, >> that >> variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant >> change--like improved coordination or subordination, or improved >> topic >> focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision >> >> >> >> >> is better is simply because she started her sentences in more >> various >> ways, she may understand what really made the revision better, and >> thus >> she may be less likely to transfer her learning to the next context >> and >> do even better in the future. And she may not be helped on the path >> to >> the (even) longer-term goal of greater syntactical maturity (as you >> put >> it) or greater rhetorical awareness and control (as I put it). >> >> >> >> >> I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our >> students >> to produce easy to read and pleasurable, >> informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're >> in a >> particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as a >> student >> experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, that >> student's >> writing may have to get more convoluted before it gets clearer and >> more >> pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the student advice that would >> privilege a clear and enjoyable product today over a more >> deliberate and >> effective writing process tomorrow. >> >> >> >> >> I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he >> or she >> really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of the >> revision >> from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. Was there a >> rhetorical >> purpose, other than simply variation, for switching from "he" to >> "she" as >> a subject, only to then switch back again? If so--and there could >> be such >> a purpose--great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where >> sentence start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I >> would >> have favored coherence. >> >> >> >> >> Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly not >> learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence must >> have a >> different subject." I don't think the different sides in this >> Great War >> of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart. >> >> >> >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >> Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear >> about >> how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. >> Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. >> I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts >> (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to >> them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. >> They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they >> get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. >> >> >> >> >> "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? >> >> >> >> >> Really??! Really. Really??! >> >> >> >> >> Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems >> for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems >> for >> a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one >> must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion >> between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to >> a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. >> The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from >> chaotic >> coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can >> all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is >> causing it. >> >> >> >> >> This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is >> simply >> not true that we must pit sentence start variation against >> coherence. Both are important. >> >> >> >> >> Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make >> one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. >> The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, >> informative reading. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might >> the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how >> each sentence connects]?" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying >> sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's >> inconclusive >> (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her >> revision: >> >> >> >> >> Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has >> become >> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started >> to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she >> could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her >> change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her >> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of >> time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >> >> >> >> >> I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer >> from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she >> has not been considering. >> >> >> >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a >> teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," >> as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, >> "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing >> more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on >> a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? >> These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* >> conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? >> I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- >> term improvement should take priority. >> >> >> >> >> I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers >> hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change >> up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having >> been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think >> in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I >> think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short >> term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a >> little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been >> worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately >> attaining a mature style). >> >> >> >> >> Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class >> sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably >> read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" >> repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face >> tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term >> improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- >> often but not always English Language Learners--who can write >> simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start >> combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students >> like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading >> convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually >> improve at, coordination and subordination. >> >> >> >> >> "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad >> advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in >> my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help >> eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness >> and control. >> >> >> >> >> At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're >> probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking >> about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond >> to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: >> >> >> >> >> "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate >> from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, >> which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One >> of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers >> is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few >> different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to >> five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you >> take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, >> that will make this easier." >> >> >> >> >> The results would be less predictible then if I just told the >> student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the >> student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and >> to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And >> consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over >> the long one. >> >> >> >> >> But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and >> I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of >> advice? >> >> >> >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor of English >> Director of the Writing Center >> St. Mary's College of Maryland >> Montgomery Hall 50 >> 18952 E. Fisher Rd. >> St. Mary's City, Maryland >> 20686 >> 240-895-4242 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van Druten >> Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >> >> >> >> >> John, you have actually made my point. >> >> >> >> >> You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, >> coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to >> consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging >> of verb choice." >> >> >> >> >> If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me >> like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say >> that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up >> their sentence starts. >> >> >> >> >> Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences >> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >> what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school >> classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix >> the core problem. >> >> >> >> >> I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to >> reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can >> keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts >> with what I have experienced. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as >> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly >> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given >> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate >> topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the >> structure). >> >> >> >> >> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and >> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more >> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. >> >> >> >> >> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) >> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the >> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core >> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences >> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >> what teachers want. >> >> >> >> >> John Alexander >> Austin, Texas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up >> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is >> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your >> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th >> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." >> >> >> >> >> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to >> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree >> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her >> sentence starts? >> >> >> >> >> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves >> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so >> sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing >> just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken >> over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He >> realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >> >> >> >> >> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Susan, >> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that >> varying >> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >> opening)is >> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those >> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >> students >> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a >> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which >> starts >> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie >> Silko's >> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of >> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >> copied >> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for >> long >> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with >> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and >> repeating >> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. >> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >> flow in a >> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost >> always >> last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the >> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >> opening >> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >> repetition >> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too >> quickly. >> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different >> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should >> have those available as resources. I believe they should be used >> for >> continuity, though, not for variation. >> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >> kind of >> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >> sentences is >> another. >> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >> that most >> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have >> variation >> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >> adverbials. >> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >> harmful to >> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them >> to see >> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >> subjects, to >> build coherence into texts. >> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >> teaching >> practices, not a personal criticism. >> >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still >> believe >> >> >> >> >> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to >> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea >> that I >> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >> >> >> >> >> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought >> you >> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am >> not enjoying myself. >> >> >> >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Susan, >> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward >> a mature >> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should >> all be >> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, >> far from >> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >> profession >> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >> what we >> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >> posted to >> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings >> to keep >> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at >> all to do >> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad >> teacher. We >> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an >> open mind. >> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was >> never >> intended to be personal. >> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >> whether the >> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. >> It says, >> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% >> of the >> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly >> study. The >> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >> professional >> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an >> average of >> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >> highest >> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the >> case, >> then >> students already vary sentence openings more than mature >> writers. I >> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >> boring. >> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >> Grammar" as a >> more linguistically sound source of advice. >> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >> apologize if >> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >> teacher. >> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >> grounded, >> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful >> of each >> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures >> on my >> part to do that. >> >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >> guides. >> >> >> >> >> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing >> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same >> starting word >> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >> outrage, tar, and feathers! >> >> >> >> >> Sentence Beginnings >> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- >> far >> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >> sentences. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> WORDS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to >> fight back. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and >> clattering came >> from the heights around us. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A connecting word: For students who have just >> survived the >> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >> is all >> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >> school, >> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >> important as a healthy mind. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, >> minerals- >> these affect the health of plants. >> >> >> >> >> PHRASES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For >> one >> thing, it can be ruthless. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of >> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >> existence. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will >> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >> program >> is essential. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A participle: Looking out of the window high >> over >> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >> surrounded >> by fields. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >> provides >> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went >> on the >> attack. >> >> >> >> >> CLAUSES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and >> I think >> it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to >> death that >> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >> going to >> show up again. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a >> joiner of >> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of >> a group >> of animal lovers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >> questions to >> ask a geologist. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Susan, >> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you >> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. >> >> >> >> >> What method do you use to teach the different possible >> variations? >> >> >> >> >> Jean Waldman >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/ 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:03:57 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: training wheels MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-2037249118-1243609437=:63038" --0-2037249118-1243609437=:63038 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Peter, Craig, et al., Â Regarding how much grammar students should know, it may beÂ useful to figure out what we want students to be able to do with the grammar we teach themÂ before we decide what they should know.Â My goal this year with grammar was to make my students more powerful.Â If I didn't know how learning a concept or skill in grammar would help them immediately, I didn't teach it.Â This forced me to focus on the needs of the students, my audience, and not on my desire to teach them lots of interesting things about language.Â Â Scott Woods Â --- On Fri, 5/29/09, Peter Adams <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Peter Adams <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: training wheels To: [log in to unmask] Date: Friday, May 29, 2009, 8:24 AM Craig, I think you've put your finger on an important issue, one I have not resolved in my own mind.Â Put simply, the question is how much grammar should students know. It seems to me the questions derives from two different goals for grammar instruction: Goal 1: To give students the capability to produce writing that conforms reasonably to the constraints of Standard Written English. Goal 2: To provide students with some level of understanding of how language works.Â (This is the goal that asserts that we require students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our humanity: our language?) Because these are two disparate goals, the answer to the simple question of how much grammar should students know is difficult to agree on.Â In addition, for those who espouse either of these goals, it is still difficult to reach agreement on how much grammar it takes to reach that goal. And then there is a third goal for grammar instruction that complicates the argument even further: students need to know grammar so that they have more options for how to express their ideas. I fear I have made absolutely no progress toward an answer to the question I called "simple," but perhaps I have clarified what the questions are. Peter Adams On May 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >Â Â Â I think this has the potential to be a very rich and interesting > thread, especially if we can keep it as a discussion and agree to > disagree in patient ways. I can think of about ten points to add, so > I'll resist that and try to keep it to a few. > 1)Â Part of the problem is created by progressive views toward grammar > that emphasize "in context" instruction with "minimal terminology." > Advocates say the students don't need a wide understanding of > grammar in > order to use it, and this pressures what I would call "soft > understandings" that are never meant as scaffolds to a deeper > understanding. Some of these get communicated as "rules" and are > difficult > to displace. > 2)Â We have to be careful about what we mean by "rule." As we observe > language, we inevitably discover patterns (rules) that the languge > itself > follows: for example, that given tends to come first and new tends > to come > last in the information structure of a clause. This is an observation > about patterned behavior in language, not a constraint on how to use > it. > Another example might be that "because" subordinates the clause that > follows it. These are not rules we can choose to break any more than > we > can choose to break the law of gravity. (Though they are more > dynamic than > gravity, they can't be altered at the whim of an individual.) We can > simply try to work in harmony with these patterns, to use them > purposefully. > 3)Â Scaffolding implies that there is a desirable level of > understanding > that we are working toward, but we don't have any kind of consensus > about > what that understanding might entail OR even that--for a typical > educated > adult--knowing about grammar is a desirable end. For the great bulk > of the > population, grammar is still about how we behave, not what we know, > and it > is primarily understood as a loose collection of constraints. > 4) This does not have to be an either/or choice, since a deeper > understanding of language allows someone to make reasoned judgements > about > other people's rules or advice. As it stands, the typical student is > in > some sort of limbo, not knowing enough about grammar to write either > effectively or "correctly".Â Â Â > > > Craig > > Susan, >> >> I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict >> anger." I >> was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I called >> "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of >> them--but I >> do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think you're >> picking up from me. >> >> We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called "training >> wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something" >> differently, >> and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that >> has >> been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that >> training >> wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of >> skills >> just at the edge of students' reach)Â can be grat, while training >> wheels >> in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules >> can do >> more harm than good.Â (I would not, however, agree with you that >> teachers >> who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic," >> OK, but >> "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?) >> >> I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin >> sentences >> with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule," >> some >> students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning >> what it >> was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences). >> These >> students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without >> getting >> much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training >> wheels >> doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers use >> sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that >> "avoid >> sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a >> made-up >> rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a >> sentence >> with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of effective >> writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated >> from; the >> latter is not even a norm. >> >> Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even >> characterizing your >> argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't >> always >> been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember >> right, you >> quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their >> sentence >> starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students >> to try >> to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has >> become >> more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that >> using a >> large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good >> writers"; >> I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was >> that I >> wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule, >> which would >> be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule >> is >> borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind >> modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having students >> practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or >> scaffolding. >> What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you >> practice; I'll leave that for you to judge. >> >> I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that >> he >> considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I >> now >> understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's >> statement, >> IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or >> near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of >> this >> conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to >> be. >> They're just different enough to make things interesting. >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor of English >> Director of the Writing Center >> St. Maryâ€™s College of Maryland >> Montgomery Hall 50 >> 18952 E. Fisher Rd. >> St. Maryâ€™s City, Maryland >> 20686 >> 240-895-4242 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 11:41 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: training wheels >> >> On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >>Â I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in >> education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used >> as an >> example of the important educational techniques called >> "scaffolding." In >> scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and >> finally >> independent practice to help a student master tasks >> >> >> I'm glad you to argue my point with me.Â Training wheels are helpful. >> They are a good thing if they are needed.Â They are a bad thing if a >> dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is >> trying to >> fly.Â Training wheels ARE made-up rules.Â The teacher who presents >> any >> "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against.Â However, >> under >> your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks his >> students to write complete sentences is risking that his students >> will >> "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having >> internalized >> the underlying skills."Â Â Â Professional writers use fragments, after >> all. >> >> >>Â But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because >> but still >> writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students-- >> then I'm >> thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good. >> >> >> This is a strawman.Â I teach my students to write sentences >> beginning with >> "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts.Â If >> you have >> a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame >> training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is >> don't >> use sentence fragments!Â Clearly this student is falling off the >> bike with >> the training wheels still attached.Â You take those training wheels >> off >> and you will get more fragments--not fewer.Â That student needs to >> understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill. >> >> >>Â Â Â I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of >> sentence >> starter variation is a hallmark of good writers. >> >> >> Yeah, see, here's the problem.Â You have just changed my argument. >> Don't >> be doin' that no more, 'kay?Â It's gettin' boring.Â I have never >> advocated >> "a large amount" of different starts.Â What I have said is (barring >> those >> who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in >> a row >> with the same start need to change up one or more more of them. >> If there >> is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or >> "there >> is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider >> what >> they wrote.Â If they can come up with a purpose, fine.Â The rule >> allows >> for that.Â But if they can't, then the rule has worked. >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â -----Original Message----- >>Â From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >>Â Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM >>Â To: [log in to unmask] >>Â Subject: training wheels >> >>Â So weak writers suffer from training wheels? >> >>Â A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. >> So...let'e >> be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor?Â Sentence >> starts >> has been deemed damaging.Â Let's mix metaphors and open up the >> spigots. >> What else?Â What other tactics that are commonly found in writing >> texts >> do you find harmful? >> >>Â Have at it. >> >>Â But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you? >> >>Â I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's.Â Our >> district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with >> its >> name in the title.Â And (the dead give away) it's in the name of this >> listserv. >> >>Â Jenkies, how's that for irony? >> >>Â Hurts, donut? >> >> >> >>Â On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >>Â Brian, >>Â Â I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very >> thoughtful and >> helpful. I especially like the way you bring this back to the opening >> discussion, whether weaker writers needed 'training wheels". I would >> echo what I see as the core of your position: they do more harm than >> good. >> >> >> >> >>Â Craig >> >> >> >> >>Â O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >>Â Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean >> that >> boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some solutions >> to >> the problem of boring essays are short term (or superficial) >> solutions. >> As I meant to imply, I read plenty ofÂ boring essays by college >> students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even as a percentage of my >> total >> haul of papers, than high school teachers read--just because my >> students' >> high school teachers have done a good job with them). I could come up >> with silly solutions to this problem--use a world from a funny >> vocabulary >> list every few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might >> amuse me >> (I have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more >> effective writing. >> >> >> >> >>Â Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good >> writers do >> include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only 25% of the >> time, >> and it's not outlandish to teach students how good writers go about >> doing >> this. I actually do not think that sentence starts and coherence >> are an >> either/or--you've made it clear that you teach coherence, and I >> don't see >> how that could be totally negated by the little time you spend >> teaching >> sentence start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way >> put >> coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence >> is , >> pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's >> experience >> of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the time, if a >> revision with more varied sentence starts is better than the draft, >> that >> variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant >> change--like improved coordination or subordination, or improved >> topic >> focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision >> >> >> >> >>Â is better is simply because she started her sentences in more >> various >> ways, she may understand what really made the revision better, and >> thus >> she may be less likely to transfer her learning to the next context >> and >> do even better in the future. And she may not be helped on the path >> to >> the (even) longer-term goal of greater syntactical maturity (as you >> put >> it) or greater rhetorical awareness and control (as I put it). >> >> >> >> >>Â I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our >> students >> to produce easy to read and pleasurable, >>Â informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're >> in a >> particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as a >> student >> experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, that >> student's >> writing may have to get more convoluted before it gets clearer and >> more >> pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the student advice that would >> privilege a clear and enjoyable product today over a more >> deliberate and >> effective writing process tomorrow. >> >> >> >> >>Â I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he >> or she >> really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of the >> revision >> from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. Was there a >> rhetorical >> purpose, other than simply variation, for switching from "he" to >> "she" as >> a subject, only to then switch back again? If so--and there could >> be such >> a purpose--great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where >> sentence start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I >> would >> have favored coherence. >> >> >> >> >>Â Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly not >> learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence must >> have a >> different subject."Â I don't think the different sides in this >> Great War >> of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart. >> >> >> >> >>Â Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â -----Original Message----- >>Â From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >>Â Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM >>Â To: [log in to unmask] >>Â Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >> >> >> >> >>Â Thanks, Brian, for some insight.Â Maybe I need to be more clear >> about >>Â how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. >>Â Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. >>Â I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts >>Â (which are not interesting parallel structure).Â I'll mention it to >>Â them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. >>Â They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read."Â So they >>Â get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. >> >> >> >> >>Â "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? >> >> >> >> >>Â Really??!Â Really.Â Really??! >> >> >> >> >>Â Bad writing is a long-term problem, period.Â Bad essays are problems >>Â for a high school teacher who has to read 150.Â They are problems >> for >>Â a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150.Â The amount one >>Â must read is irrelevant.Â There should be no difference of opinion >>Â between high school or college instructor:Â if an essay is boring to >>Â a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. >>Â The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from >> chaotic >>Â coherence problems.Â It doesn't matter what the problem is.Â We can >>Â all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is >> causing it. >> >> >> >> >>Â This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is >> simply >>Â not true that we must pit sentence start variation against >>Â coherence.Â Both are important. >> >> >> >> >>Â Class size is irrelevant.Â An exposure to more writing does not make >>Â one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. >>Â The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, >>Â informative reading. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â Brian asks about my student's revision,Â "I'm curious; how might >>Â the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how >>Â each sentence connects]?" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying >>Â sentence starts.Â So I do have an answer of sorts.Â It's >> inconclusive >>Â (it is very hard to get students to revise).Â But here is her >> revision: >> >> >> >> >>Â Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling.Â She has >> become >>Â so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started >>Â to notice it.Â He had to support her as they stood there because she >>Â could barely hold herself up.Â He is not only realizing just her >>Â change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her >>Â leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of >>Â time.Â He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >> >> >> >> >>Â I have better writers than this.Â But it's all about taking a writer >>Â from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she >>Â has not been considering. >> >> >> >> >>Â Susan >> >> >> >> >>Â On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a >>Â teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," >>Â as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, >>Â "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing >>Â more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on >>Â a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? >>Â These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* >>Â conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? >>Â I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- >>Â term improvement should take priority. >> >> >> >> >>Â I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers >>Â hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change >>Â up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having >>Â been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think >>Â in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I >>Â think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short >>Â term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a >>Â little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been >>Â worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately >>Â attaining a mature style). >> >> >> >> >>Â Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class >>Â sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably >>Â read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" >>Â repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face >>Â tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term >>Â improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- >>Â often but not always English Language Learners--who can write >>Â simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start >>Â combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students >>Â like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading >>Â convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually >>Â improve at, coordination and subordination. >> >> >> >> >>Â "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad >>Â advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in >>Â my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help >>Â eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness >>Â and control. >> >> >> >> >>Â At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're >>Â probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking >>Â about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond >>Â to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: >> >> >> >> >>Â "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate >>Â from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, >>Â which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One >>Â of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers >>Â is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few >>Â different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to >>Â five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you >>Â take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, >>Â that will make this easier." >> >> >> >> >>Â The results would be less predictible then if I just told the >>Â student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the >>Â student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and >>Â to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And >>Â consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over >>Â the long one. >> >> >> >> >>Â But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and >>Â I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of >>Â advice? >> >> >> >> >>Â Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. >>Â Assistant Professor of English >>Â Director of the Writing Center >>Â St. Mary's College of Maryland >>Â Montgomery Hall 50 >>Â 18952 E. Fisher Rd. >>Â St. Mary's City, Maryland >>Â 20686 >>Â 240-895-4242 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â -----Original Message----- >>Â From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >>Â Susan van Druten >>Â Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM >>Â To: [log in to unmask] >>Â Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >> >> >> >> >>Â John, you have actually made my point. >> >> >> >> >>Â You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, >>Â coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to >>Â consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging >>Â of verb choice." >> >> >> >> >>Â If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me >>Â like I was trying to be condescending.Â So, of course, I don't say >>Â that.Â Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up >>Â their sentence starts. >> >> >> >> >>Â Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences >>Â (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>Â what teachers want"?Â No.Â I am there in the high school >>Â classroom.Â They do not create twisted syntax.Â Instead they fix >>Â the core problem. >> >> >> >> >>Â I have expertise in this area.Â I have adjusted my lofty ideas to >>Â reflect what works with my struggling student writers.Â You can >>Â keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts >>Â with what I have experienced. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as >>Â there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly >>Â has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given >>Â information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate >>Â topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the >>Â structure). >> >> >> >> >>Â I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and >>Â complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more >>Â carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. >> >> >> >> >>Â Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) >>Â quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the >>Â maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core >>Â problems and would likely produce confusing sentences >>Â (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >>Â what teachers want. >> >> >> >> >>Â John Alexander >>Â Austin, Texas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten >>Â <[log in to unmask]> Â wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up >>Â Frost, Obama, and Silko.Â We agree that purposeful repetition is >>Â the mark of a mature style.Â Â Â You should now drop that out of your >>Â argument.Â In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th >>Â when I acknowledged and refuted your point.Â I said, "When I cover >>Â parallel structure in AP and honors classes, we talk about the >>Â difference between purposeful repetition (emphasis, humor, known- >>Â new, hooks, etc.) and repetition born by uninspired, lazy writing." >> >> >> >> >>Â I am teaching students who do not have a mature style.Â I went to >>Â school today to find you an example.Â Do you or do you not agree >>Â that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her >>Â sentence starts? >> >> >> >> >>Â Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >>Â fallen in autumn."Â He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves >>Â falling.Â He has really started to notice it that she has become so >>Â sick that she has lost a lot of weight.Â Â Â He had to support her >>Â because she could barely hold herself up.Â He is not only realizing >>Â just her change in weight.Â He sees how much her leukemia has taken >>Â over her whole body and in such a short period of time.Â He >>Â realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >> >> >> >> >>Â On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â Susan, >>Â Â I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >>Â understanding of how language works. If we tell students that >>Â varying >>Â sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >>Â opening)is >>Â a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those >>Â variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >>Â Â Â As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >>Â students >>Â sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a >>Â row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >>Â often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which >>Â starts >>Â every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie >>Â Silko's >>Â much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of >>Â the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >>Â copied >>Â a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >>Â effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for >>Â long >>Â stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with >>Â mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and >>Â repeating >>Â sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. >>Â Â There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >>Â flow in a >>Â text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost >>Â always >>Â last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the >>Â subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >>Â opening >>Â establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >>Â accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >>Â repetition >>Â for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too >>Â quickly. >>Â Â The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different >>Â structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should >>Â have those available as resources. I believe they should be used >>Â for >>Â continuity, though, not for variation. >>Â Â I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >>Â kind of >>Â variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >>Â variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >>Â another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >>Â sentences is >>Â another. >>Â Â Â Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >>Â that most >>Â sentences will start with the subject and that when we have >>Â variation >>Â form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >>Â adverbials. >>Â Â As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >>Â harmful to >>Â imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >>Â openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them >>Â to see >>Â how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >>Â subjects, to >>Â build coherence into texts. >>Â Â I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >>Â teaching >>Â practices, not a personal criticism. >> >> >> >> >>Â Craig >> >> >> >> >>Â Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand.Â Do you still >>Â believe >> >> >> >> >>Â it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to >>Â start sentences?Â Is it harmful to have them try changing up >>Â sentences on a worksheet?Â (I don't know how you got the idea >>Â that I >>Â was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >> >> >> >> >>Â I enjoy the spirit of the conversation.Â Just because I thought >>Â you >>Â were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am >>Â not enjoying myself. >> >> >> >> >>Â Susan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â Susan, >>Â Â I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward >>Â a mature >>Â literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should >>Â all be >>Â constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, >>Â far from >>Â perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >>Â profession >>Â as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >>Â what we >>Â are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >>Â posted to >>Â the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings >>Â to keep >>Â from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >>Â conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at >>Â all to do >>Â with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad >>Â teacher. We >>Â simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an >>Â open mind. >>Â I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was >>Â never >>Â intended to be personal. >>Â Â That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >>Â whether the >>Â "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. >>Â It says, >>Â first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% >>Â of the >>Â time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly >>Â study. The >>Â studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >>Â professional >>Â writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an >>Â average of >>Â about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >>Â highest >>Â about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the >>Â case, >>Â then >>Â students already vary sentence openings more than mature >>Â writers. I >>Â would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >>Â boring. >>Â Â I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >>Â Grammar" as a >>Â more linguistically sound source of advice. >>Â Â But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >>Â apologize if >>Â anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >>Â teacher. >>Â As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >>Â grounded, >>Â effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful >>Â of each >>Â other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures >>Â on my >>Â part to do that. >> >> >> >> >>Â Craig >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >>Â guides. >> >> >> >> >>Â I'm pasting it in.Â Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing >>Â Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same >>Â starting word >>Â in an entire essay.Â Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >>Â outrage, tar, and feathers! >> >> >> >> >>Â Sentence Beginnings >>Â Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- >>Â far >>Â more than the number of sentences begun in any other way.Â But >>Â overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >>Â writing.Â Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >>Â sentences. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â WORDS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â Two adjectives:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Angry and proud, Alice resolved to >>Â fight back. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â An adverb:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Suddenly a hissing and >>Â clattering came >>Â from the heights around us. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â A connecting word:Â Â Â Â Â For students who have just >>Â survived the >>Â brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >>Â is all >>Â too familiar.Â But others, accustomed to being stars in high >>Â school, >>Â find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â An interrupting adverb:Â Â Â Â A healthy body, however, is just as >>Â important as a healthy mind. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â A series of words:Â Â Â Â Â Â Light, water, temperature, >>Â minerals- >>Â these affect the health of plants. >> >> >> >> >>Â Â PHRASES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â A connecting phrase:Â Â Â Â If the Soviet care and feeding of >>Â athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect.Â For >>Â one >>Â thing, it can be ruthless. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â A prepositional phrase:Â Â Â Â Out of necessity they stitched all of >>Â their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >>Â existence. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â An infinitive:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â To be really successful, you will >>Â have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â A gerund:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Maintaining a daily exercise >>Â program >>Â is essential. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â A participle:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Looking out of the window high >>Â over >>Â the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >>Â surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >>Â surrounded >>Â by fields. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â An appositive:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â A place of refuge, the Mission >>Â provides >>Â food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â An absolute:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â His fur bristling, the cat went >>Â on the >>Â attack. >> >> >> >> >>Â Â CLAUSES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â An adverbial clause:Â Â Â Â Â Â When you first start writing-and >>Â I think >>Â it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to >>Â death that >>Â if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >>Â going to >>Â show up again. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â An adjective clause:Â Â Â Â Â Â The freshman, who was not a >>Â joiner of >>Â organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of >>Â a group >>Â of animal lovers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â A noun clause:Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Why earthquakes occur is a >>Â questions to >>Â ask a geologist. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â Susan, >>Â This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >>Â HOW to vary their sentences.Â I was under the impression that you >>Â just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. >> >> >> >> >>Â What method do you use to teach the different possible >>Â variations? >> >> >> >> >>Â Jean Waldman >>Â ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >> >> >> >> >> >>Â To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >>Â Â Â http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>Â and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> >> >> >>Â Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >>Â Â Â http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>Â and select "Join or leave the list" >> >> >> >> >>Â Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Â 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" >> >>Â Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >>Â 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" >> >>Â Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ >> >> >>Â To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web >> interface at: >>Â Â Â Â Â http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html >>Â and select "Join or leave the list" >> >>Â 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: >>Â Â Â Â 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: >Â Â Â Â 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: Â Â Â Â 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/ --0-2037249118-1243609437=:63038 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Peter, Craig, et al.,

Regarding how much grammar students should know, it may be useful to figure out what we want students to be able to do with the grammar we teach them before we decide what they should know. My goal this year with grammar was to make my students more powerful. If I didn't know how learning a concept or skill in grammar would help them immediately, I didn't teach it. This forced me to focus on the needs of the students, my audience, and not on my desire to teach them lots of interesting things about language.

Scott Woods

--- On Fri, 5/29/09, Peter Adams <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Peter Adams <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: training wheels
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, May 29, 2009, 8:24 AM

Craig,

I think you've put your finger on an important issue, one I have not
resolved in my own mind. Put simply, the question is how much grammar
should students know.

It seems to me the questions derives from two different goals for
grammar instruction:

Goal 1: To give students the capability to produce writing that
conforms reasonably to the constraints of Standard Written English.

Goal 2: To provide students with some level of understanding of how
language works. (This is the goal that asserts that we require
students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't
they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our
humanity: our language?)

Because these are two disparate goals, the answer to the simple
question of how much grammar should students know is difficult to
agree on. In addition, for those who espouse either of these goals,
it is still difficult to reach agreement on how much grammar it takes
to reach that goal.

And then there is a third goal for grammar instruction that
complicates the argument even further: students need to know grammar
so that they have more options for how to express their ideas.

I fear I have made absolutely no progress toward an answer to the
question I called "simple," but perhaps I have clarified what the
questions are.

Peter Adams

On May 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:

>   I think this has the potential to be a very rich and interesting
> thread, especially if we can keep it as a discussion and agree to
> disagree in patient ways. I can think of about ten points to add, so
> I'll resist that and try to keep it to a few.
> 1) Part of the problem is created by progressive views toward grammar
> that emphasize "in context" instruction with "minimal terminology."
> Advocates say the students don't need a wide understanding of
> grammar in
> order to use it, and this pressures what I would call "soft
> understandings" that are never meant as scaffolds to a deeper
> understanding. Some of these get communicated as "rules" and are
> difficult
> to displace.
> 2) We have to be careful about what we mean by "rule." As we observe
> language, we inevitably discover patterns (rules) that the languge
> itself
> follows: for example, that given tends to come first and new tends
> to come
> last in the information structure of a clause. This is an observation
> about patterned behavior in language, not a constraint on how to use
> it.
> Another example might be that "because" subordinates the clause that
> follows it. These are not rules we can choose to break any more than
> we
> can choose to break the law of gravity. (Though they are more
> dynamic than
> gravity, they can't be altered at the whim of an individual.) We can
> simply try to work in harmony with these patterns, to use them
> purposefully.
> 3) Scaffolding implies that there is a desirable level of
> understanding
> that we are working toward, but we don't have any kind of consensus
> about
> what that understanding might entail OR even that--for a typical
> educated
> adult--knowing about grammar is a desirable end. For the great bulk
> of the
> population, grammar is still about how we behave, not what we know,
> and it
> is primarily understood as a loose collection of constraints.
> 4) This does not have to be an either/or choice, since a deeper
> understanding of language allows someone to make reasoned judgements
> about
> other people's rules or advice. As it stands, the typical student is
> in
> some sort of limbo, not knowing enough about grammar to write either
> effectively or "correctly".   >
>
> Craig
>
> Susan,
>>
>> I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict
>> anger." I
>> was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I called
>> "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of
>> them--but I
>> do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think you're
>> picking up from me.
>>
>> We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called "training
>> wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something"
>> differently,
>> and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that
>> has
>> been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that
>> training
>> wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of
>> skills
>> just at the edge of students' reach) can be grat, while training
>> wheels
>> in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules
>> can do
>> more harm than good. (I would not, however, agree with you that
>> teachers
>> who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic,"
>> OK, but
>> "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?)
>>
>> I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin
>> sentences
>> with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule,"
>> some
>> students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning
>> what it
>> was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences).
>> These
>> students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without
>> getting
>> much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training
>> wheels
>> doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers use
>> sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that
>> "avoid
>> sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a
>> made-up
>> rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a
>> sentence
>> with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of effective
>> writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated
>> from; the
>> latter is not even a norm.
>>
>> Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even
>> characterizing your
>> argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't
>> always
>> been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember
>> right, you
>> quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their
>> sentence
>> starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students
>> to try
>> to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has
>> become
>> more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that
>> using a
>> large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good
>> writers";
>> I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was
>> that I
>> wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule,
>> which would
>> be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule
>> is
>> borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind
>> modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having students
>> practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or
>> scaffolding.
>> What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you
>> practice; I'll leave that for you to judge.
>>
>> I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that
>> he
>> considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I
>> now
>> understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's
>> statement,
>> IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or
>> near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of
>> this
>> conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to
>> be.
>> They're just different enough to make things interesting.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D.
>> Assistant Professor of English
>> Director of the Writing Center
>> St. Maryâ€™s College of Maryland
>> Montgomery Hall 50
>> 18952 E. Fisher Rd.
>> St. Maryâ€™s City, Maryland
>> 20686
>> 240-895-4242
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assembly for the Teaching of EngliTo 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:10:40 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: training wheels In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-53--985331811 --Apple-Mail-53--985331811 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Just as a comment on the metaphor, both my kids leaned to the outside of a curve when they had training wheels on their bicycles and had to learn a completely different strategy when the wheels came off. Best, Brett ----------------------- Brett Reynolds English Language Centre Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning Toronto, Ontario, Canada [log in to unmask] 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/ --Apple-Mail-53--985331811 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Just as a comment on the metaphor, both my kids leaned to the outside of a curve when they had training wheels on their bicycles and had to learn a completely different strategy when the wheels came off.

Best,
Brett

-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]

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/ --Apple-Mail-53--985331811-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:54:47 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: John Dews-Alexander <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Three Goals for Teaching Grammar MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary --000e0cd59b428cc1eb046b0f18e9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In our most recent thread about sentence structure, variation in style, and composition, the fundamental intersection of grammar and instructional goals was mentioned. I want to take just a moment to post the "Three Goals for Grammar Teaching" contained in one of my favorite texts, *Grammar Alive! A Guide for Teachers*, written by members of ATEG. This is just a very basic overview; the actual text elaborates on these goals quite elegantly. From page 4 of the text: "Goal A: Every student, from every background, will complete school with the ability to communicate comfortably and effectively in both spoken and written Standard English, with awareness of when use of Standard English is appropriate. Goal B: Every student will complete school with the ability to analyze the grammatical structure of sentences within English texts, using grammatical terminology correctly and demonstrating knowledge of how sentence-level grammatical structure contributes to the coherence of paragraphs and texts. Goal C: Every student will complete school with an understand of, and appreciation for, the natural variation that occurs in language across time, social situation, and social group. While recognizing the need for mastering Standard English, students will also demonstrate the understanding of the equality in the expressive capacity and linguistic structure among a range of language varieties both vernacular and standard, as well as an understanding of language-based prejudice." These goals won't make everyone happy, but I find them to be succinct, cogent, and extremely effective when implemented. I believe that, when used together, these goals provide the context (the "why are we learning this?" solution) and the mechanics of grammar instruction. I hope someone on the list who is not familiar with them finds them useful! John Alexander Austin, Texas 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/ --000e0cd59b428cc1eb046b0f18e9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In our most recent thread about sentence structure, variation in style, and composition, the fundamental intersection of grammar and instructional goals was mentioned. I want to take just a moment to post the "Three Goals for Grammar Teaching" contained in one of my favorite texts, Grammar Alive! A Guide for Teachers, written by members of ATEG. This is just a very basic overview; the actual text elaborates on these goals quite elegantly. From page 4 of the text:

"Goal A:
Every student, from every background, will complete school with the ability to communicate comfortably and effectively in both spoken and written Standard English, with awareness of when use of Standard English is appropriate.

Goal B:
Every student will complete school with the ability to analyze the grammatical structure of sentences within English texts, using grammatical terminology correctly and demonstrating knowledge of how sentence-level grammatical structure contributes to the coherence of paragraphs and texts.

Goal C:
Every student will complete school with an understand of, and appreciation for, the natural variation that occurs in language across time, social situation, and social group. While recognizing the need for mastering Standard English, students will also demonstrate the understanding of the equality in the expressive capacity and linguistic structure among a range of language varieties both vernacular and standard, as well as an understanding of language-based prejudice."

These goals won't make everyone happy, but I find them to be succinct, cogent, and extremely effective when implemented. I believe that, when used together, these goals provide the context (the "why are we learning this?" solution) and the mechanics of grammar instruction.

I hope someone on the list who is not familiar with them finds them useful!

John Alexander
Austin, Texas
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/ --000e0cd59b428cc1eb046b0f18e9-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 16:49:09 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]IO.EDU> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Three Goals for Teaching Grammar MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit John, Those are worthy goals, and I echo your endorsement of the book. I wasn't part of the team that produced it, but from what I understand it morphed from a scope and sequence project, and NCTE didn't want to go along with endorsing an actual scope and sequence component within the book. The most controversial of the three would be the second goal, not currently part of most English curriculumms. Those of us who teach semester long grammar courses at the college level know how amibitious a goal it is. But there's no place in the book where it's stated, for example, that a student should know determiners by ninth grade or modal auxiliaries by 11th or even that a graduating student should be familiar with those categories and able to apply them to a particular text. I have yet to find a student coming out of high school who could meet that second goal. Mostly their knowledge of grammar is limited to prescriptive rules of the questionable variety we have been discussing. Is that because I teach in New York State? I'm not sure. Part of our problem comes from the fact that we are an assembly of NCTE. When scope and sequence came up again two ATEG conferences ago, there was some concern that we should try to lobby NCTE for change rather than develop an opposing program. Other people felt, perhaps with some justification, that thoughful grammars are already available, that we mainly need to endorse them rather than try to develop our own. My own position was and has been very different from that, but I have tried to be part of the loyal opposition. In New York state, there has been an affirmation of "literary elements" in the English curriculum. Metaphor is a literary element, but phrases and clauses are not. I'm not quite sure who has decided where to draw the line. I think much might be gained if we can get people to recognize that most great literature is simply a highly effective use of ordinary language. It's hard to make the point if the nature of ordinary language is below conscious radar. It is also hard to be in favor of teaching grammar when the teaching of grammar can mean so many different things. As Susan pointed out, most progressive teachers still think of it as harmful. That doesn't necessarily mean that we should support ALL teaching of grammar in opposition to that. It may mean admitting that some approaches can do more harm than good. Craig In our most recent thread about sentence structure, variation in style, > and > composition, the fundamental intersection of grammar and instructional > goals > was mentioned. I want to take just a moment to post the "Three Goals for > Grammar Teaching" contained in one of my favorite texts, *Grammar Alive! A > Guide for Teachers*, written by members of ATEG. This is just a very basic > overview; the actual text elaborates on these goals quite elegantly. From > page 4 of the text: > > "Goal A: > Every student, from every background, will complete school with the > ability > to communicate comfortably and effectively in both spoken and written > Standard English, with awareness of when use of Standard English is > appropriate. > > Goal B: > Every student will complete school with the ability to analyze the > grammatical structure of sentences within English texts, using grammatical > terminology correctly and demonstrating knowledge of how sentence-level > grammatical structure contributes to the coherence of paragraphs and > texts. > > Goal C: > Every student will complete school with an understand of, and appreciation > for, the natural variation that occurs in language across time, social > situation, and social group. While recognizing the need for mastering > Standard English, students will also demonstrate the understanding of the > equality in the expressive capacity and linguistic structure among a range > of language varieties both vernacular and standard, as well as an > understanding of language-based prejudice." > > These goals won't make everyone happy, but I find them to be succinct, > cogent, and extremely effective when implemented. I believe that, when > used > together, these goals provide the context (the "why are we learning this?" > solution) and the mechanics of grammar instruction. > > I hope someone on the list who is not familiar with them finds them > useful! > > John Alexander > Austin, Texas > > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 19:45:03 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: training wheels In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams [[log in to unmask]] Sent: May 29, 2009 10:24 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: training wheels Craig, I think you've put your finger on an important issue, one I have not resolved in my own mind. Put simply, the question is how much grammar should students know. It seems to me the questions derives from two different goals for grammar instruction: Goal 1: To give students the capability to produce writing that conforms reasonably to the constraints of Standard Written English. Goal 2: To provide students with some level of understanding of how language works. (This is the goal that asserts that we require students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our humanity: our language?) Because these are two disparate goals, the answer to the simple question of how much grammar should students know is difficult to agree on. In addition, for those who espouse either of these goals, it is still difficult to reach agreement on how much grammar it takes to reach that goal. And then there is a third goal for grammar instruction that complicates the argument even further: students need to know grammar so that they have more options for how to express their ideas. I fear I have made absolutely no progress toward an answer to the question I called "simple," but perhaps I have clarified what the questions are. Peter Adams On May 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > I think this has the potential to be a very rich and interesting > thread, especially if we can keep it as a discussion and agree to > disagree in patient ways. I can think of about ten points to add, so > I'll resist that and try to keep it to a few. > 1) Part of the problem is created by progressive views toward grammar > that emphasize "in context" instruction with "minimal terminology." > Advocates say the students don't need a wide understanding of > grammar in > order to use it, and this pressures what I would call "soft > understandings" that are never meant as scaffolds to a deeper > understanding. Some of these get communicated as "rules" and are > difficult > to displace. > 2) We have to be careful about what we mean by "rule." As we observe > language, we inevitably discover patterns (rules) that the languge > itself > follows: for example, that given tends to come first and new tends > to come > last in the information structure of a clause. This is an observation > about patterned behavior in language, not a constraint on how to use > it. > Another example might be that "because" subordinates the clause that > follows it. These are not rules we can choose to break any more than > we > can choose to break the law of gravity. (Though they are more > dynamic than > gravity, they can't be altered at the whim of an individual.) We can > simply try to work in harmony with these patterns, to use them > purposefully. > 3) Scaffolding implies that there is a desirable level of > understanding > that we are working toward, but we don't have any kind of consensus > about > what that understanding might entail OR even that--for a typical > educated > adult--knowing about grammar is a desirable end. For the great bulk > of the > population, grammar is still about how we behave, not what we know, > and it > is primarily understood as a loose collection of constraints. > 4) This does not have to be an either/or choice, since a deeper > understanding of language allows someone to make reasoned judgements > about > other people's rules or advice. As it stands, the typical student is > in > some sort of limbo, not knowing enough about grammar to write either > effectively or "correctly". > > > Craig > > Susan, >> >> I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict >> anger." I >> was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I called >> "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of >> them--but I >> do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think you're >> picking up from me. >> >> We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called "training >> wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something" >> differently, >> and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that >> has >> been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that >> training >> wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of >> skills >> just at the edge of students' reach) can be grat, while training >> wheels >> in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules >> can do >> more harm than good. (I would not, however, agree with you that >> teachers >> who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic," >> OK, but >> "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?) >> >> I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin >> sentences >> with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule," >> some >> students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning >> what it >> was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences). >> These >> students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without >> getting >> much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training >> wheels >> doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers use >> sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that >> "avoid >> sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a >> made-up >> rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a >> sentence >> with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of effective >> writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated >> from; the >> latter is not even a norm. >> >> Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even >> characterizing your >> argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't >> always >> been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember >> right, you >> quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their >> sentence >> starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students >> to try >> to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has >> become >> more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that >> using a >> large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good >> writers"; >> I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was >> that I >> wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule, >> which would >> be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule >> is >> borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind >> modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having students >> practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or >> scaffolding. >> What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you >> practice; I'll leave that for you to judge. >> >> I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that >> he >> considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I >> now >> understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's >> statement, >> IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or >> near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of >> this >> conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to >> be. >> They're just different enough to make things interesting. >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor of English >> Director of the Writing Center >> St. Mary’s College of Maryland >> Montgomery Hall 50 >> 18952 E. Fisher Rd. >> St. Mary’s City, Maryland >> 20686 >> 240-895-4242 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 11:41 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: training wheels >> >> On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in >> education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used >> as an >> example of the important educational techniques called >> "scaffolding." In >> scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and >> finally >> independent practice to help a student master tasks >> >> >> I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are helpful. >> They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing if a >> dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is >> trying to >> fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents >> any >> "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However, >> under >> your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks his >> students to write complete sentences is risking that his students >> will >> "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having >> internalized >> the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after >> all. >> >> >> But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because >> but still >> writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students-- >> then I'm >> thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good. >> >> >> This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences >> beginning with >> "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If >> you have >> a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame >> training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is >> don't >> use sentence fragments! Clearly this student is falling off the >> bike with >> the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels >> off >> and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to >> understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill. >> >> >> I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of >> sentence >> starter variation is a hallmark of good writers. >> >> >> Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument. >> Don't >> be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never >> advocated >> "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring >> those >> who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in >> a row >> with the same start need to change up one or more more of them. >> If there >> is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or >> "there >> is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider >> what >> they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule >> allows >> for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked. >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: training wheels >> >> So weak writers suffer from training wheels? >> >> A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. >> So...let'e >> be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence >> starts >> has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the >> spigots. >> What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing >> texts >> do you find harmful? >> >> Have at it. >> >> But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you? >> >> I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our >> district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with >> its >> name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of this >> listserv. >> >> Jenkies, how's that for irony? >> >> Hurts, donut? >> >> >> >> On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >> Brian, >> I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very >> thoughtful and >> helpful. I especially like the way you bring this back to the opening >> discussion, whether weaker writers needed 'training wheels". I would >> echo what I see as the core of your position: they do more harm than >> good. >> >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean >> that >> boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some solutions >> to >> the problem of boring essays are short term (or superficial) >> solutions. >> As I meant to imply, I read plenty of boring essays by college >> students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even as a percentage of my >> total >> haul of papers, than high school teachers read--just because my >> students' >> high school teachers have done a good job with them). I could come up >> with silly solutions to this problem--use a world from a funny >> vocabulary >> list every few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might >> amuse me >> (I have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more >> effective writing. >> >> >> >> >> Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good >> writers do >> include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only 25% of the >> time, >> and it's not outlandish to teach students how good writers go about >> doing >> this. I actually do not think that sentence starts and coherence >> are an >> either/or--you've made it clear that you teach coherence, and I >> don't see >> how that could be totally negated by the little time you spend >> teaching >> sentence start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way >> put >> coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence >> is , >> pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's >> experience >> of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the time, if a >> revision with more varied sentence starts is better than the draft, >> that >> variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant >> change--like improved coordination or subordination, or improved >> topic >> focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision >> >> >> >> >> is better is simply because she started her sentences in more >> various >> ways, she may understand what really made the revision better, and >> thus >> she may be less likely to transfer her learning to the next context >> and >> do even better in the future. And she may not be helped on the path >> to >> the (even) longer-term goal of greater syntactical maturity (as you >> put >> it) or greater rhetorical awareness and control (as I put it). >> >> >> >> >> I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our >> students >> to produce easy to read and pleasurable, >> informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're >> in a >> particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as a >> student >> experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, that >> student's >> writing may have to get more convoluted before it gets clearer and >> more >> pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the student advice that would >> privilege a clear and enjoyable product today over a more >> deliberate and >> effective writing process tomorrow. >> >> >> >> >> I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he >> or she >> really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of the >> revision >> from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. Was there a >> rhetorical >> purpose, other than simply variation, for switching from "he" to >> "she" as >> a subject, only to then switch back again? If so--and there could >> be such >> a purpose--great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where >> sentence start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I >> would >> have favored coherence. >> >> >> >> >> Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly not >> learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence must >> have a >> different subject." I don't think the different sides in this >> Great War >> of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart. >> >> >> >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >> Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear >> about >> how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. >> Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. >> I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts >> (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to >> them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. >> They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they >> get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. >> >> >> >> >> "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? >> >> >> >> >> Really??! Really. Really??! >> >> >> >> >> Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems >> for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems >> for >> a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one >> must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion >> between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to >> a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. >> The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from >> chaotic >> coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can >> all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is >> causing it. >> >> >> >> >> This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is >> simply >> not true that we must pit sentence start variation against >> coherence. Both are important. >> >> >> >> >> Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make >> one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. >> The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, >> informative reading. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might >> the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how >> each sentence connects]?" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying >> sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's >> inconclusive >> (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her >> revision: >> >> >> >> >> Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has >> become >> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started >> to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she >> could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her >> change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her >> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of >> time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >> >> >> >> >> I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer >> from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she >> has not been considering. >> >> >> >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a >> teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," >> as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, >> "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing >> more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on >> a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? >> These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* >> conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? >> I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- >> term improvement should take priority. >> >> >> >> >> I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers >> hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change >> up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having >> been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think >> in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I >> think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short >> term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a >> little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been >> worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately >> attaining a mature style). >> >> >> >> >> Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class >> sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably >> read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" >> repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face >> tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term >> improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- >> often but not always English Language Learners--who can write >> simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start >> combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students >> like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading >> convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually >> improve at, coordination and subordination. >> >> >> >> >> "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad >> advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in >> my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help >> eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness >> and control. >> >> >> >> >> At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're >> probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking >> about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond >> to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: >> >> >> >> >> "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate >> from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, >> which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One >> of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers >> is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few >> different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to >> five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you >> take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, >> that will make this easier." >> >> >> >> >> The results would be less predictible then if I just told the >> student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the >> student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and >> to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And >> consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over >> the long one. >> >> >> >> >> But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and >> I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of >> advice? >> >> >> >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor of English >> Director of the Writing Center >> St. Mary's College of Maryland >> Montgomery Hall 50 >> 18952 E. Fisher Rd. >> St. Mary's City, Maryland >> 20686 >> 240-895-4242 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van Druten >> Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >> >> >> >> >> John, you have actually made my point. >> >> >> >> >> You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, >> coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to >> consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging >> of verb choice." >> >> >> >> >> If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me >> like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say >> that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up >> their sentence starts. >> >> >> >> >> Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences >> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >> what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school >> classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix >> the core problem. >> >> >> >> >> I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to >> reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can >> keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts >> with what I have experienced. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as >> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly >> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given >> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate >> topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the >> structure). >> >> >> >> >> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and >> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more >> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. >> >> >> >> >> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) >> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the >> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core >> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences >> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >> what teachers want. >> >> >> >> >> John Alexander >> Austin, Texas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up >> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is >> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your >> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th >> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." >> >> >> >> >> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to >> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree >> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her >> sentence starts? >> >> >> >> >> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves >> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so >> sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing >> just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken >> over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He >> realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >> >> >> >> >> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Susan, >> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that >> varying >> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >> opening)is >> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those >> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >> students >> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a >> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which >> starts >> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie >> Silko's >> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of >> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >> copied >> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for >> long >> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with >> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and >> repeating >> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. >> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >> flow in a >> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost >> always >> last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the >> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >> opening >> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >> repetition >> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too >> quickly. >> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different >> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should >> have those available as resources. I believe they should be used >> for >> continuity, though, not for variation. >> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >> kind of >> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >> sentences is >> another. >> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >> that most >> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have >> variation >> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >> adverbials. >> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >> harmful to >> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them >> to see >> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >> subjects, to >> build coherence into texts. >> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >> teaching >> practices, not a personal criticism. >> >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still >> believe >> >> >> >> >> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to >> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea >> that I >> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >> >> >> >> >> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought >> you >> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am >> not enjoying myself. >> >> >> >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Susan, >> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward >> a mature >> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should >> all be >> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, >> far from >> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >> profession >> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >> what we >> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >> posted to >> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings >> to keep >> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at >> all to do >> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad >> teacher. We >> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an >> open mind. >> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was >> never >> intended to be personal. >> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >> whether the >> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. >> It says, >> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% >> of the >> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly >> study. The >> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >> professional >> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an >> average of >> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >> highest >> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the >> case, >> then >> students already vary sentence openings more than mature >> writers. I >> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >> boring. >> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >> Grammar" as a >> more linguistically sound source of advice. >> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >> apologize if >> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >> teacher. >> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >> grounded, >> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful >> of each >> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures >> on my >> part to do that. >> >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >> guides. >> >> >> >> >> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing >> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same >> starting word >> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >> outrage, tar, and feathers! >> >> >> >> >> Sentence Beginnings >> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- >> far >> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >> sentences. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> WORDS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to >> fight back. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and >> clattering came >> from the heights around us. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A connecting word: For students who have just >> survived the >> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >> is all >> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >> school, >> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >> important as a healthy mind. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, >> minerals- >> these affect the health of plants. >> >> >> >> >> PHRASES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For >> one >> thing, it can be ruthless. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of >> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >> existence. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will >> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >> program >> is essential. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A participle: Looking out of the window high >> over >> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >> surrounded >> by fields. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >> provides >> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went >> on the >> attack. >> >> >> >> >> CLAUSES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and >> I think >> it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to >> death that >> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >> going to >> show up again. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a >> joiner of >> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of >> a group >> of animal lovers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >> questions to >> ask a geologist. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Susan, >> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you >> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. >> >> >> >> >> What method do you use to teach the different possible >> variations? >> >> >> >> >> Jean Waldman >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/ 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 19:53:42 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: training wheels In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Peter, You've put your finger on precisely the reason why the discussions of how much grammar students need to know tend break down. You write of Goal Two: This is the goal that asserts that we require students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our humanity: our language? But this rationale falls into the domain of linguists, not writing and language arts teachers. How much students should know about language is directly analogous to how much students should know about biology, US history, economics, math, etc. In contrast, the question of how much students should know about grammar does fall much more directly into the domain of the writing teacher and the language arts teacher. Unfortunately, most of these people are the beneficiaries of a half century of bad teaching of and about grammar, but, that problem aside, linguists and grammarians need the guidance of writing and language arts teachers, and vice versa, to understand the questions of scope and sequence that K12 teachers know about that linguists tend not to. I must add that this thread, training wheels and its predecessor, is one of the most thoughtful and informative I've read on this list in quite a while. My thanks to all who have contributed of their knowledge, experience, and expertise. It confirms the sense of awe I have long felt towards good K12 teachers. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams [[log in to unmask]] Sent: May 29, 2009 10:24 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: training wheels Craig, I think you've put your finger on an important issue, one I have not resolved in my own mind. Put simply, the question is how much grammar should students know. It seems to me the questions derives from two different goals for grammar instruction: Goal 1: To give students the capability to produce writing that conforms reasonably to the constraints of Standard Written English. Goal 2: To provide students with some level of understanding of how language works. (This is the goal that asserts that we require students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our humanity: our language?) Because these are two disparate goals, the answer to the simple question of how much grammar should students know is difficult to agree on. In addition, for those who espouse either of these goals, it is still difficult to reach agreement on how much grammar it takes to reach that goal. And then there is a third goal for grammar instruction that complicates the argument even further: students need to know grammar so that they have more options for how to express their ideas. I fear I have made absolutely no progress toward an answer to the question I called "simple," but perhaps I have clarified what the questions are. Peter Adams On May 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > I think this has the potential to be a very rich and interesting > thread, especially if we can keep it as a discussion and agree to > disagree in patient ways. I can think of about ten points to add, so > I'll resist that and try to keep it to a few. > 1) Part of the problem is created by progressive views toward grammar > that emphasize "in context" instruction with "minimal terminology." > Advocates say the students don't need a wide understanding of > grammar in > order to use it, and this pressures what I would call "soft > understandings" that are never meant as scaffolds to a deeper > understanding. Some of these get communicated as "rules" and are > difficult > to displace. > 2) We have to be careful about what we mean by "rule." As we observe > language, we inevitably discover patterns (rules) that the languge > itself > follows: for example, that given tends to come first and new tends > to come > last in the information structure of a clause. This is an observation > about patterned behavior in language, not a constraint on how to use > it. > Another example might be that "because" subordinates the clause that > follows it. These are not rules we can choose to break any more than > we > can choose to break the law of gravity. (Though they are more > dynamic than > gravity, they can't be altered at the whim of an individual.) We can > simply try to work in harmony with these patterns, to use them > purposefully. > 3) Scaffolding implies that there is a desirable level of > understanding > that we are working toward, but we don't have any kind of consensus > about > what that understanding might entail OR even that--for a typical > educated > adult--knowing about grammar is a desirable end. For the great bulk > of the > population, grammar is still about how we behave, not what we know, > and it > is primarily understood as a loose collection of constraints. > 4) This does not have to be an either/or choice, since a deeper > understanding of language allows someone to make reasoned judgements > about > other people's rules or advice. As it stands, the typical student is > in > some sort of limbo, not knowing enough about grammar to write either > effectively or "correctly". > > > Craig > > Susan, >> >> I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict >> anger." I >> was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I called >> "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of >> them--but I >> do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think you're >> picking up from me. >> >> We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called "training >> wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something" >> differently, >> and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that >> has >> been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that >> training >> wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of >> skills >> just at the edge of students' reach) can be grat, while training >> wheels >> in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules >> can do >> more harm than good. (I would not, however, agree with you that >> teachers >> who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic," >> OK, but >> "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?) >> >> I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin >> sentences >> with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule," >> some >> students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning >> what it >> was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences). >> These >> students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without >> getting >> much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training >> wheels >> doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers use >> sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that >> "avoid >> sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a >> made-up >> rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a >> sentence >> with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of effective >> writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated >> from; the >> latter is not even a norm. >> >> Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even >> characterizing your >> argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't >> always >> been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember >> right, you >> quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their >> sentence >> starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students >> to try >> to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has >> become >> more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that >> using a >> large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good >> writers"; >> I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was >> that I >> wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule, >> which would >> be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule >> is >> borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind >> modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having students >> practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or >> scaffolding. >> What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you >> practice; I'll leave that for you to judge. >> >> I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that >> he >> considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I >> now >> understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's >> statement, >> IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or >> near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of >> this >> conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to >> be. >> They're just different enough to make things interesting. >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor of English >> Director of the Writing Center >> St. Mary’s College of Maryland >> Montgomery Hall 50 >> 18952 E. Fisher Rd. >> St. Mary’s City, Maryland >> 20686 >> 240-895-4242 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 11:41 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: training wheels >> >> On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in >> education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used >> as an >> example of the important educational techniques called >> "scaffolding." In >> scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and >> finally >> independent practice to help a student master tasks >> >> >> I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are helpful. >> They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing if a >> dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is >> trying to >> fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents >> any >> "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However, >> under >> your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks his >> students to write complete sentences is risking that his students >> will >> "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having >> internalized >> the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after >> all. >> >> >> But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because >> but still >> writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students-- >> then I'm >> thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good. >> >> >> This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences >> beginning with >> "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If >> you have >> a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame >> training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is >> don't >> use sentence fragments! Clearly this student is falling off the >> bike with >> the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels >> off >> and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to >> understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill. >> >> >> I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of >> sentence >> starter variation is a hallmark of good writers. >> >> >> Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument. >> Don't >> be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never >> advocated >> "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring >> those >> who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in >> a row >> with the same start need to change up one or more more of them. >> If there >> is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or >> "there >> is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider >> what >> they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule >> allows >> for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked. >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: training wheels >> >> So weak writers suffer from training wheels? >> >> A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. >> So...let'e >> be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence >> starts >> has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the >> spigots. >> What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing >> texts >> do you find harmful? >> >> Have at it. >> >> But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you? >> >> I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our >> district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with >> its >> name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of this >> listserv. >> >> Jenkies, how's that for irony? >> >> Hurts, donut? >> >> >> >> On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >> Brian, >> I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very >> thoughtful and >> helpful. I especially like the way you bring this back to the opening >> discussion, whether weaker writers needed 'training wheels". I would >> echo what I see as the core of your position: they do more harm than >> good. >> >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean >> that >> boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some solutions >> to >> the problem of boring essays are short term (or superficial) >> solutions. >> As I meant to imply, I read plenty of boring essays by college >> students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even as a percentage of my >> total >> haul of papers, than high school teachers read--just because my >> students' >> high school teachers have done a good job with them). I could come up >> with silly solutions to this problem--use a world from a funny >> vocabulary >> list every few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might >> amuse me >> (I have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more >> effective writing. >> >> >> >> >> Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good >> writers do >> include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only 25% of the >> time, >> and it's not outlandish to teach students how good writers go about >> doing >> this. I actually do not think that sentence starts and coherence >> are an >> either/or--you've made it clear that you teach coherence, and I >> don't see >> how that could be totally negated by the little time you spend >> teaching >> sentence start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way >> put >> coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence >> is , >> pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's >> experience >> of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the time, if a >> revision with more varied sentence starts is better than the draft, >> that >> variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant >> change--like improved coordination or subordination, or improved >> topic >> focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision >> >> >> >> >> is better is simply because she started her sentences in more >> various >> ways, she may understand what really made the revision better, and >> thus >> she may be less likely to transfer her learning to the next context >> and >> do even better in the future. And she may not be helped on the path >> to >> the (even) longer-term goal of greater syntactical maturity (as you >> put >> it) or greater rhetorical awareness and control (as I put it). >> >> >> >> >> I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our >> students >> to produce easy to read and pleasurable, >> informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're >> in a >> particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as a >> student >> experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, that >> student's >> writing may have to get more convoluted before it gets clearer and >> more >> pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the student advice that would >> privilege a clear and enjoyable product today over a more >> deliberate and >> effective writing process tomorrow. >> >> >> >> >> I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he >> or she >> really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of the >> revision >> from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. Was there a >> rhetorical >> purpose, other than simply variation, for switching from "he" to >> "she" as >> a subject, only to then switch back again? If so--and there could >> be such >> a purpose--great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where >> sentence start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I >> would >> have favored coherence. >> >> >> >> >> Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly not >> learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence must >> have a >> different subject." I don't think the different sides in this >> Great War >> of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart. >> >> >> >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >> Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear >> about >> how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. >> Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. >> I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts >> (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to >> them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. >> They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they >> get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. >> >> >> >> >> "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? >> >> >> >> >> Really??! Really. Really??! >> >> >> >> >> Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems >> for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems >> for >> a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one >> must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion >> between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to >> a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. >> The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from >> chaotic >> coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can >> all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is >> causing it. >> >> >> >> >> This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is >> simply >> not true that we must pit sentence start variation against >> coherence. Both are important. >> >> >> >> >> Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make >> one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. >> The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, >> informative reading. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might >> the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how >> each sentence connects]?" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying >> sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's >> inconclusive >> (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her >> revision: >> >> >> >> >> Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has >> become >> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started >> to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she >> could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her >> change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her >> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of >> time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >> >> >> >> >> I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer >> from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she >> has not been considering. >> >> >> >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a >> teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," >> as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, >> "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing >> more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on >> a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? >> These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* >> conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? >> I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- >> term improvement should take priority. >> >> >> >> >> I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers >> hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change >> up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having >> been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think >> in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I >> think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short >> term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a >> little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been >> worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately >> attaining a mature style). >> >> >> >> >> Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class >> sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably >> read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" >> repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face >> tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term >> improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- >> often but not always English Language Learners--who can write >> simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start >> combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students >> like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading >> convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually >> improve at, coordination and subordination. >> >> >> >> >> "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad >> advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in >> my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help >> eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness >> and control. >> >> >> >> >> At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're >> probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking >> about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond >> to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: >> >> >> >> >> "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate >> from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, >> which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One >> of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers >> is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few >> different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to >> five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you >> take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, >> that will make this easier." >> >> >> >> >> The results would be less predictible then if I just told the >> student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the >> student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and >> to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And >> consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over >> the long one. >> >> >> >> >> But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and >> I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of >> advice? >> >> >> >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor of English >> Director of the Writing Center >> St. Mary's College of Maryland >> Montgomery Hall 50 >> 18952 E. Fisher Rd. >> St. Mary's City, Maryland >> 20686 >> 240-895-4242 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van Druten >> Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >> >> >> >> >> John, you have actually made my point. >> >> >> >> >> You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, >> coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to >> consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging >> of verb choice." >> >> >> >> >> If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me >> like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say >> that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up >> their sentence starts. >> >> >> >> >> Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences >> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >> what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school >> classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix >> the core problem. >> >> >> >> >> I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to >> reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can >> keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts >> with what I have experienced. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as >> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly >> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given >> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate >> topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the >> structure). >> >> >> >> >> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and >> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more >> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. >> >> >> >> >> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) >> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the >> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core >> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences >> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >> what teachers want. >> >> >> >> >> John Alexander >> Austin, Texas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up >> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is >> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your >> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th >> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." >> >> >> >> >> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to >> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree >> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her >> sentence starts? >> >> >> >> >> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves >> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so >> sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing >> just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken >> over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He >> realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >> >> >> >> >> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Susan, >> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that >> varying >> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >> opening)is >> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those >> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >> students >> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a >> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which >> starts >> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie >> Silko's >> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of >> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >> copied >> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for >> long >> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with >> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and >> repeating >> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. >> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >> flow in a >> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost >> always >> last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the >> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >> opening >> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >> repetition >> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too >> quickly. >> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different >> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should >> have those available as resources. I believe they should be used >> for >> continuity, though, not for variation. >> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >> kind of >> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >> sentences is >> another. >> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >> that most >> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have >> variation >> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >> adverbials. >> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >> harmful to >> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them >> to see >> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >> subjects, to >> build coherence into texts. >> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >> teaching >> practices, not a personal criticism. >> >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still >> believe >> >> >> >> >> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to >> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea >> that I >> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >> >> >> >> >> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought >> you >> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am >> not enjoying myself. >> >> >> >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Susan, >> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward >> a mature >> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should >> all be >> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, >> far from >> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >> profession >> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >> what we >> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >> posted to >> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings >> to keep >> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at >> all to do >> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad >> teacher. We >> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an >> open mind. >> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was >> never >> intended to be personal. >> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >> whether the >> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. >> It says, >> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% >> of the >> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly >> study. The >> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >> professional >> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an >> average of >> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >> highest >> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the >> case, >> then >> students already vary sentence openings more than mature >> writers. I >> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >> boring. >> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >> Grammar" as a >> more linguistically sound source of advice. >> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >> apologize if >> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >> teacher. >> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >> grounded, >> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful >> of each >> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures >> on my >> part to do that. >> >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >> guides. >> >> >> >> >> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing >> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same >> starting word >> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >> outrage, tar, and feathers! >> >> >> >> >> Sentence Beginnings >> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- >> far >> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >> sentences. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> WORDS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to >> fight back. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and >> clattering came >> from the heights around us. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A connecting word: For students who have just >> survived the >> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >> is all >> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >> school, >> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >> important as a healthy mind. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, >> minerals- >> these affect the health of plants. >> >> >> >> >> PHRASES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For >> one >> thing, it can be ruthless. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of >> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >> existence. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will >> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >> program >> is essential. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A participle: Looking out of the window high >> over >> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >> surrounded >> by fields. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >> provides >> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went >> on the >> attack. >> >> >> >> >> CLAUSES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and >> I think >> it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to >> death that >> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >> going to >> show up again. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a >> joiner of >> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of >> a group >> of animal lovers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >> questions to >> ask a geologist. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Susan, >> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you >> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. >> >> >> >> >> What method do you use to teach the different possible >> variations? >> >> >> >> >> Jean Waldman >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/ 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 19:54:49 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: training wheels In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sorry for the preceding blank message. I didn't eve realize I'd sent it. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F [[log in to unmask]] Sent: May 29, 2009 7:53 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: training wheels Peter, You've put your finger on precisely the reason why the discussions of how much grammar students need to know tend break down. You write of Goal Two: This is the goal that asserts that we require students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our humanity: our language? But this rationale falls into the domain of linguists, not writing and language arts teachers. How much students should know about language is directly analogous to how much students should know about biology, US history, economics, math, etc. In contrast, the question of how much students should know about grammar does fall much more directly into the domain of the writing teacher and the language arts teacher. Unfortunately, most of these people are the beneficiaries of a half century of bad teaching of and about grammar, but, that problem aside, linguists and grammarians need the guidance of writing and language arts teachers, and vice versa, to understand the questions of scope and sequence that K12 teachers know about that linguists tend not to. I must add that this thread, training wheels and its predecessor, is one of the most thoughtful and informative I've read on this list in quite a while. My thanks to all who have contributed of their knowledge, experience, and expertise. It confirms the sense of awe I have long felt towards good K12 teachers. Herb Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of English Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306 [log in to unmask] ________________________________________ From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Adams [[log in to unmask]] Sent: May 29, 2009 10:24 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: training wheels Craig, I think you've put your finger on an important issue, one I have not resolved in my own mind. Put simply, the question is how much grammar should students know. It seems to me the questions derives from two different goals for grammar instruction: Goal 1: To give students the capability to produce writing that conforms reasonably to the constraints of Standard Written English. Goal 2: To provide students with some level of understanding of how language works. (This is the goal that asserts that we require students to know something about chemistry or biology, why shouldn't they know something about that most fundamental aspect of our humanity: our language?) Because these are two disparate goals, the answer to the simple question of how much grammar should students know is difficult to agree on. In addition, for those who espouse either of these goals, it is still difficult to reach agreement on how much grammar it takes to reach that goal. And then there is a third goal for grammar instruction that complicates the argument even further: students need to know grammar so that they have more options for how to express their ideas. I fear I have made absolutely no progress toward an answer to the question I called "simple," but perhaps I have clarified what the questions are. Peter Adams On May 29, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: > I think this has the potential to be a very rich and interesting > thread, especially if we can keep it as a discussion and agree to > disagree in patient ways. I can think of about ten points to add, so > I'll resist that and try to keep it to a few. > 1) Part of the problem is created by progressive views toward grammar > that emphasize "in context" instruction with "minimal terminology." > Advocates say the students don't need a wide understanding of > grammar in > order to use it, and this pressures what I would call "soft > understandings" that are never meant as scaffolds to a deeper > understanding. Some of these get communicated as "rules" and are > difficult > to displace. > 2) We have to be careful about what we mean by "rule." As we observe > language, we inevitably discover patterns (rules) that the languge > itself > follows: for example, that given tends to come first and new tends > to come > last in the information structure of a clause. This is an observation > about patterned behavior in language, not a constraint on how to use > it. > Another example might be that "because" subordinates the clause that > follows it. These are not rules we can choose to break any more than > we > can choose to break the law of gravity. (Though they are more > dynamic than > gravity, they can't be altered at the whim of an individual.) We can > simply try to work in harmony with these patterns, to use them > purposefully. > 3) Scaffolding implies that there is a desirable level of > understanding > that we are working toward, but we don't have any kind of consensus > about > what that understanding might entail OR even that--for a typical > educated > adult--knowing about grammar is a desirable end. For the great bulk > of the > population, grammar is still about how we behave, not what we know, > and it > is primarily understood as a loose collection of constraints. > 4) This does not have to be an either/or choice, since a deeper > understanding of language allows someone to make reasoned judgements > about > other people's rules or advice. As it stands, the typical student is > in > some sort of limbo, not knowing enough about grammar to write either > effectively or "correctly". > > > Craig > > Susan, >> >> I'm surprised that you thought I was "railing" and had "strict >> anger." I >> was feeling pretty mellow, actually. I'm dubious about what I called >> "made-up rules"--and at times I even venture to be critical of >> them--but I >> do not hate them with the undying wrath that you seem to think you're >> picking up from me. >> >> We do seem to agree that something that is sometimes called "training >> wheels" can be useful--but I think we define that "something" >> differently, >> and we may have different perspectives on the amount of damage that >> has >> been caused by misapplication of training wheels. I think that >> training >> wheels in teh form of scaffolding (modelling and guided practice of >> skills >> just at the edge of students' reach) can be grat, while training >> wheels >> in the form of made-up (or, to be more precise, unwarranted) rules >> can do >> more harm than good. (I would not, however, agree with you that >> teachers >> who misuse training wheels are "stupid." "Rigid" and "dogmatic," >> OK, but >> "stupid" seems over the top, don't you think?) >> >> I didn't say that you personally teach students not to begin >> sentences >> with "because." My point was that, whoever is teaching this "rule," >> some >> students seem to believe in it for a long time without learning >> what it >> was presumably intended to teach (writing in complete sentences). >> These >> students get an unintended drawback of the training wheels without >> getting >> much of the intended benefit--so this is one instance of training >> wheels >> doing mroe harm than good. (Your point that professional writers use >> sentence fragment is true, of course. But I hope we can agree that >> "avoid >> sentence fragments," or "write in complete sentences," is not a >> made-up >> rule in quite the same way that something like "never start a >> sentence >> with 'because'" is a made-up rule. The former is a norm of effective >> writing, though it can be strategically and effectively deviated >> from; the >> latter is not even a norm. >> >> Also, I wasn't "changing your argument"; I wasn't even >> characterizing your >> argument. (Actually, I avoided characterizing it, because it hasn't >> always >> been been completely clear to me; at one point, if I remember >> right, you >> quoted a handout that said that experienced writers vary their >> sentence >> starts 50% of the time, and I thought you were encouraging students >> to try >> to match that hallmark; but lately your more moderate position has >> become >> more evident.) Anyway, I didn't say that *you* "tell students that >> using a >> large amount of sentence starter variation is a hallmark of good >> writers"; >> I said that *I* would not want to tell students that. My point was >> that I >> wouldn't want to make "vary sentence structures often" a rule, >> which would >> be one kind of "training wheels," because I don't think such a rule >> is >> borne out by the practices of strong writers. But I wouldn't mind >> modelling the effective use of sentence straters and having students >> practice it, which is another kind of "training wheels," or >> scaffolding. >> What I'm describing may not really be very different from what you >> practice; I'll leave that for you to judge. >> >> I think this conversation started, just about, when Craig said that >> he >> considered "vary sentence starters" an example of bad advice. As I >> now >> understand your argument, you might actually agree with Craig's >> statement, >> IF "very sentence structures" is interpreted as an absolute or >> near-absolute commandment. So I don't think the different sides of >> this >> conversation are as far apart as they may sometimes have seemed to >> be. >> They're just different enough to make things interesting. >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor of English >> Director of the Writing Center >> St. Mary’s College of Maryland >> Montgomery Hall 50 >> 18952 E. Fisher Rd. >> St. Mary’s City, Maryland >> 20686 >> 240-895-4242 >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 11:41 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: training wheels >> >> On May 28, 2009, at 9:15 PM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> I don't think that everything that gets called "training wheels" in >> education is bad. On the contrary, "training wheels" are often used >> as an >> example of the important educational techniques called >> "scaffolding." In >> scaffolding, an instructor offers modeling, guided practice and >> finally >> independent practice to help a student master tasks >> >> >> I'm glad you to argue my point with me. Training wheels are helpful. >> They are a good thing if they are needed. They are a bad thing if a >> dogmatic instructor is too stupid too see that her student is >> trying to >> fly. Training wheels ARE made-up rules. The teacher who presents >> any >> "rule" as rigid and true is what you are railing against. However, >> under >> your strict anger against all "made-up" rules, a teacher who asks his >> students to write complete sentences is risking that his students >> will >> "internalize certain made-up rules without actually having >> internalized >> the underlying skills." Professional writers use fragments, after >> all. >> >> >> But if a college student avoids starting sentences with because >> but still >> writes sentence fragments--and yes, I have known such students-- >> then I'm >> thinking that, yes, those training wheels did more harm than good. >> >> >> This is a strawman. I teach my students to write sentences >> beginning with >> "because" AND I teach them to try different sentence starts. If >> you have >> a student who writes unsuccessful fragments, you can't really blame >> training wheels because the biggest "training wheel" of them all is >> don't >> use sentence fragments! Clearly this student is falling off the >> bike with >> the training wheels still attached. You take those training wheels >> off >> and you will get more fragments--not fewer. That student needs to >> understand rules before she goes free-wheeling down a hill. >> >> >> I wouldn't want to tell students that using a large amount of >> sentence >> starter variation is a hallmark of good writers. >> >> >> Yeah, see, here's the problem. You have just changed my argument. >> Don't >> be doin' that no more, 'kay? It's gettin' boring. I have never >> advocated >> "a large amount" of different starts. What I have said is (barring >> those >> who have a rhetorical purpose) students who start five sentences in >> a row >> with the same start need to change up one or more more of them. >> If there >> is no rhetorical purpose to five sentences that start with "he" or >> "there >> is," then it's a good training wheel to ask students to reconsider >> what >> they wrote. If they can come up with a purpose, fine. The rule >> allows >> for that. But if they can't, then the rule has worked. >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >> Sent: Thu 5/28/2009 8:09 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: training wheels >> >> So weak writers suffer from training wheels? >> >> A lovely metaphor which I started and to which I subscribe. >> So...let'e >> be clear, what are all the training wheels you abhor? Sentence >> starts >> has been deemed damaging. Let's mix metaphors and open up the >> spigots. >> What else? What other tactics that are commonly found in writing >> texts >> do you find harmful? >> >> Have at it. >> >> But you do know what the biggest "training wheel" is, don't you? >> >> I'll give you a hint it has been condemned since the late 70's. Our >> district curriculum director won't allow us to purchase books with >> its >> name in the title. And (the dead give away) it's in the name of this >> listserv. >> >> Jenkies, how's that for irony? >> >> Hurts, donut? >> >> >> >> On May 28, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >> Brian, >> I just wanted to say that I find your contributions very >> thoughtful and >> helpful. I especially like the way you bring this back to the opening >> discussion, whether weaker writers needed 'training wheels". I would >> echo what I see as the core of your position: they do more harm than >> good. >> >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> Thanks, Susan. Maybe I need to be more clear, too--I didn't mean >> that >> boring essays are a short-term problem; I meant that some solutions >> to >> the problem of boring essays are short term (or superficial) >> solutions. >> As I meant to imply, I read plenty of boring essays by college >> students(though I'm sure I read fewer, even as a percentage of my >> total >> haul of papers, than high school teachers read--just because my >> students' >> high school teachers have done a good job with them). I could come up >> with silly solutions to this problem--use a world from a funny >> vocabulary >> list every few lines, or write in rhyming couplets--which might >> amuse me >> (I have a dumb sense of humor) but would probably not make for more >> effective writing. >> >> >> >> >> Your solution, on the other hand, isn't silly--after all, good >> writers do >> include some variant sentence starts, even if it's only 25% of the >> time, >> and it's not outlandish to teach students how good writers go about >> doing >> this. I actually do not think that sentence starts and coherence >> are an >> either/or--you've made it clear that you teach coherence, and I >> don't see >> how that could be totally negated by the little time you spend >> teaching >> sentence start variation. At the same time, i would not in any way >> put >> coherence and sentence start variation on the same level. Coherence >> is , >> pretty much by definition, a fundamental aspect of a reader's >> experience >> of a text. Sentence start variation is...not. Most of the time, if a >> revision with more varied sentence starts is better than the draft, >> that >> variation is probably an epiphenomenon of some more significant >> change--like improved coordination or subordination, or improved >> topic >> focus in general. If a student thinks that her revision >> >> >> >> >> is better is simply because she started her sentences in more >> various >> ways, she may understand what really made the revision better, and >> thus >> she may be less likely to transfer her learning to the next context >> and >> do even better in the future. And she may not be helped on the path >> to >> the (even) longer-term goal of greater syntactical maturity (as you >> put >> it) or greater rhetorical awareness and control (as I put it). >> >> >> >> >> I agree with you that our goal (or, one of our goals) is for our >> students >> to produce easy to read and pleasurable, >> informative reading--eventually. But not necessarily while they're >> in a >> particular class that we happen to be teaching. Sometimes, as a >> student >> experiments with more complex thoughts and expressions, that >> student's >> writing may have to get more convoluted before it gets clearer and >> more >> pleasureable. I wouldn't want to give the student advice that would >> privilege a clear and enjoyable product today over a more >> deliberate and >> effective writing process tomorrow. >> >> >> >> >> I guess my question for your student would be whether, and why, he >> or she >> really wanted to switch the focus of the second sentence of the >> revision >> from the Landon's perception to Jamie's condition. Was there a >> rhetorical >> purpose, other than simply variation, for switching from "he" to >> "she" as >> a subject, only to then switch back again? If so--and there could >> be such >> a purpose--great. If not, maybe this revision is one instance where >> sentence start variation and coherence really did conflict, and I >> would >> have favored coherence. >> >> >> >> >> Still, your student is revising and experimenting and certainly not >> learning a pointless, inflexible rule, like "every sentence must >> have a >> different subject." I don't think the different sides in this >> Great War >> of Sentence Starters are really all that far apart. >> >> >> >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van >> Druten >> Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 7:40 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, Brian, for some insight. Maybe I need to be more clear >> about >> how much (how little) I ask students to vary their sentence starts. >> Usually, it occurs when I walk around the room as they are writing. >> I'll read over a shoulder and notice lots of similar sentence starts >> (which are not interesting parallel structure). I'll mention it to >> them and they'll read it it back and notice how it sounds to them. >> They don't want to sound "head-thumpingly boring to read." So they >> get it, and they change it on their own, or they'll ask for advice. >> >> >> >> >> "Head-thumpingly boring" essays are short-term problems? >> >> >> >> >> Really??! Really. Really??! >> >> >> >> >> Bad writing is a long-term problem, period. Bad essays are problems >> for a high school teacher who has to read 150. They are problems >> for >> a college instructor who doesn't have to read 150. The amount one >> must read is irrelevant. There should be no difference of opinion >> between high school or college instructor: if an essay is boring to >> a high school teacher, it should be boring to a college instructor. >> The boring might come from uninspired sentence starts or from >> chaotic >> coherence problems. It doesn't matter what the problem is. We can >> all spot the problem and help our students with whatever is >> causing it. >> >> >> >> >> This argument has now shifted to a fallacious either-or. It is >> simply >> not true that we must pit sentence start variation against >> coherence. Both are important. >> >> >> >> >> Class size is irrelevant. An exposure to more writing does not make >> one unable to distinguish easier reading from head-thumping reading. >> The goal is that our students produce easy to read and pleasurable, >> informative reading. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian asks about my student's revision, "I'm curious; how might >> the passage's author respond to this kind of advice [show me how >> each sentence connects]?" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian, that is good advice which often includes considering varying >> sentence starts. So I do have an answer of sorts. It's >> inconclusive >> (it is very hard to get students to revise). But here is her >> revision: >> >> >> >> >> Landon is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves falling. She has >> become >> so sick that she has lost a lot of weight, and he has really started >> to notice it. He had to support her as they stood there because she >> could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing just her >> change in weight, but it really hits him at this point how much her >> leukemia has taken over her whole body and in such a short period of >> time. He realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >> >> >> >> >> I have better writers than this. But it's all about taking a writer >> from where she is at and suggesting ideas that her writing shows she >> has not been considering. >> >> >> >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> On May 27, 2009, at 8:21 AM, O'Sullivan, Brian P wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It seems like one of the differences of opinion here is what a >> teacher should do with students who "do not have a mature style," >> as Susan puts it. Should we give them "training wheels" (aka, >> "triage" them, give them "bandaids," etc.) to make their writing >> more presentable in the short term, or should we try to set them on >> a path towards developing a more mature style in the long run? >> These goals don't *necessarily* conflict, but do they "sometimes* >> conflict? And when do they do conflict, which should take priority? >> I say that they do sometimes conflict, and that when they do, long- >> term improvement should take priority. >> >> >> >> >> I believe Susan when she says that her young and struggling writers >> hand in more readable prose when they follow her advice to "change >> up your sentence starters." But I also agree with Craig that having >> been trained this way may make it hard for college writers to think >> in terms of coherence and see the value of repetition. If, as I >> think, both Susan and Craig are right, then the student's short >> term gain (i.e., papers that their high school teachers found a >> little easier and head-thumpingly boring to read) may not have been >> worth their long-term loss (i.e, greater difficulty in ultimately >> attaining a mature style). >> >> >> >> >> Easy for me to say. As a college teacher, I have smaller class >> sizes and fewer classes than Susan, and, by and large, I probably >> read fewer of those head-thumpingly boring papers. (Was that "good" >> repetition or "bad," by the way?)But college teachers, too, face >> tradeoffs between immediate improvement of a paper and long-term >> improvement of a writer. For example, I've had plenty of students-- >> often but not always English Language Learners--who can write >> simple sentence clearly but get very tangled up when they start >> combining clauses. I'm sure none of us would encourage students >> like that to only write in simple sentences. We put up with reading >> convoluted sentences so that students can practice, and eventually >> improve at, coordination and subordination. >> >> >> >> >> "Vary sentences starters," I rush to admit, is not nearly such bad >> advice as "only use simple sentences" would be! The similarity, in >> my mind, is that neither piece of advice acts as a scaffold to help >> eventually students reach "mature" levels of rhetorical awareness >> and control. >> >> >> >> >> At least I'm probably getting Susan and John to agree; they're >> probably both thinking that I'm being too abstract and talking >> about what should be, not what is! So I'll say how I might respond >> to the student who wrote the "Landon says Jamie..." paragraph: >> >> >> >> >> "[Student], when I read this, I feel like each thought is separate >> from the next, and there's nothing to show me how they connect, >> which is more important than the other, which depends on which. One >> of the ways that writers fix that kind of problem for their readers >> is by combining sentences. Before next class, can you try a few >> different ways of combining those seven sentences into three to >> five sentences, and tell me which way you like best and why? If you >> take another look at that "sentence combining" chapter we read, >> that will make this easier." >> >> >> >> >> The results would be less predictible then if I just told the >> student to very sentence starters, but at least I'd be asking the >> student to realize that he or she has stylistic choices to make and >> to think about the effects of those choices on readers. And >> consistently asking students to do that can make a difference over >> the long one. >> >> >> >> >> But Susan, I defer to you as an expert on pre-college writers, and >> I'm curious; how might the passage's author respond to this kind of >> advice? >> >> >> >> >> Brian >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brian O'Sullivan, Ph.D. >> Assistant Professor of English >> Director of the Writing Center >> St. Mary's College of Maryland >> Montgomery Hall 50 >> 18952 E. Fisher Rd. >> St. Mary's City, Maryland >> 20686 >> 240-895-4242 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of >> Susan van Druten >> Sent: Tue 5/26/2009 8:56 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Sentences beginning with conjunctions >> >> >> >> >> John, you have actually made my point. >> >> >> >> >> You say you would "work with this writer to subordinate, >> coordinate, and complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to >> consider more carefully the semantic weight/information packaging >> of verb choice." >> >> >> >> >> If I said what you just said to my students, they would look at me >> like I was trying to be condescending. So, of course, I don't say >> that. Instead I just use plain-speak and ask them to change up >> their sentence starts. >> >> >> >> >> Is the student "likely [to] produce confusing sentences >> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >> what teachers want"? No. I am there in the high school >> classroom. They do not create twisted syntax. Instead they fix >> the core problem. >> >> >> >> >> I have expertise in this area. I have adjusted my lofty ideas to >> reflect what works with my struggling student writers. You can >> keep trying to justify what you think should work, but it conflicts >> with what I have experienced. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 26, 2009, at 6:48 PM, John Dews-Alexander wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I would not encourage this student to vary sentence openers as >> there is no problem with the sentence openers. The writer clearly >> has a focused topic in mind that will carry forward as given >> information throughout the paragraph (if that is not an appropriate >> topic for that length of time, then that is the problem, not the >> structure). >> >> >> >> >> I would work with this writer to subordinate, coordinate, and >> complementize/relativize clauses and perhaps to consider more >> carefully the semantic weight/information packaging of verb choice. >> >> >> >> >> Focusing on sentence opener variation here would seem (to me) >> quite a distraction from the real problems that indicate the >> maturity of the writing. The writer would not improve the core >> problems and would likely produce confusing sentences >> (unnecessarily complex structures) out of a belief that that is >> what teachers want. >> >> >> >> >> John Alexander >> Austin, Texas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Susan van Druten >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Craig, you are ignoring my concern when you continue to bring up >> Frost, Obama, and Silko. We agree that purposeful repetition is >> the mark of a mature style. You should now drop that out of your >> argument. In fact you should have dropped that on after May 18th >> when I acknowledged and refuted your point. I said, "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." >> >> >> >> >> I am teaching students who do not have a mature style. I went to >> school today to find you an example. Do you or do you not agree >> that the writer below could use some advice on changing up her >> sentence starts? >> >> >> >> >> Landon says Jamie is "lighter than the leaves of a tree that had >> fallen in autumn." He is comparing Jamie's weight to leaves >> falling. He has really started to notice it that she has become so >> sick that she has lost a lot of weight. He had to support her >> because she could barely hold herself up. He is not only realizing >> just her change in weight. He sees how much her leukemia has taken >> over her whole body and in such a short period of time. He >> realizes that she doesn't have that much longer. >> >> >> >> >> On May 26, 2009, at 7:47 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Susan, >> I believe our teaching practices should be based on a solid >> understanding of how language works. If we tell students that >> varying >> sentence openings (using something other than the subject as >> opening)is >> a goal of good writing, then we should find a high number of those >> variations in excellent writing. The truth is that we don't. >> As an explanation for your motivation, you mentioned that >> students >> sometimes keep the same subject for as much as five sentences in a >> row. Again, I tried to point out that good writers do this quite >> often. I mentioned Frost's "Acquainted with the Night", which >> starts >> every sentence with "I have", copied in the opening to Leslie >> Silko's >> much anthologized "Yellow Woman" to show that the great majority of >> the sentences started with "I", many of them consecutively, and >> copied >> a passage from Obama's heralded speech on race to show how he >> effectively repeats the same subject or same subject opening for >> long >> stretches of text. I don't mean to imply that you are dealing with >> mature writers, but starting sentences with the subject and >> repeating >> sentence openers can be thought of as the mark of a mature style. >> There are good reasons for this. If you look at information >> flow in a >> text (given/new), given is almost always first and new is almost >> always >> last. The most important function of a sentence opener (usually the >> subject for good writers) is not variation, but continuity. The >> opening >> establishes connection with what went before. One obvious way to >> accomplish that is to repeat openings. Good writers exploit >> repetition >> for these purposes. Inexperienced writers tend to move on much too >> quickly. >> The one place we agree, I think, is that a number of different >> structures can act as the subject of a sentence and students should >> have those available as resources. I believe they should be used >> for >> continuity, though, not for variation. >> I think we have gotten confused from time to time about what >> kind of >> variation we are talking about. A variation of subject is one. A >> variation of the kinds of structures that can act as subject is >> another. A variation of the kinds of structures that open >> sentences is >> another. >> Christensen's essay seems to me good argument for expecting >> that most >> sentences will start with the subject and that when we have >> variation >> form that (about 25% of the time), those will usually be simple >> adverbials. >> As a more direct answer to your question, I believe it is >> harmful to >> imply to students that good writers try to vary their sentence >> openings. I spend more time with my students trying to get them >> to see >> how good writers use repetition, including a repetition of >> subjects, to >> build coherence into texts. >> I'm glad you can understand this as a discussion about good >> teaching >> practices, not a personal criticism. >> >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> Craig, I'm still not clear on where you stand. Do you still >> believe >> >> >> >> >> it is bad practice for a teacher to show students various ways to >> start sentences? Is it harmful to have them try changing up >> sentences on a worksheet? (I don't know how you got the idea >> that I >> was requiring them to vary every start in their own essays.) >> >> >> >> >> I enjoy the spirit of the conversation. Just because I thought >> you >> were dismissing my argument and called you on it doesn't mean I am >> not enjoying myself. >> >> >> >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 24, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Craig Hancock wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Susan, >> I believe that mentoring young people on their path toward >> a mature >> literacy is a very difficult process. As teachers, we should >> all be >> constantly examining and refining our practices. We are far, >> far from >> perfect in what we do. That is at least equally true of our >> profession >> as a whole. We need to ask ourselves, over and over again, if >> what we >> are doing is best for the students we are serving. Once you >> posted to >> the list that you ask students to vary their sentence openings >> to keep >> from being boring, that advice became subject to the kind of >> conversation we do routinely on this list. It has nothing at >> all to do >> with whether any of us believe you are a nazi or a bad >> teacher. We >> simply need to be able to consider these approaches with an >> open mind. >> I hope you can understand that the spirit of conversation was >> never >> intended to be personal. >> That being said, I would ask you to question seriously >> whether the >> "style guide" you are using is at all thoughtful or accurate. >> It says, >> first of all, that students use non-subject openers about 50% >> of the >> time. I wonder if that is based on any kind of scholarly >> study. The >> studies refered to on list recently seem to show that a >> professional >> writer opens with the subject much MORE than that, at an >> average of >> about 75%. The lowest total in Christensen's study was 60%, the >> highest >> about 90% for acclaimed professional writers. If that is the >> case, >> then >> students already vary sentence openings more than mature >> writers. I >> would add that the writers in the study were successful, not >> boring. >> I would recommend a book like Martha Kolln's "Rhetorical >> Grammar" as a >> more linguistically sound source of advice. >> But above all, don't be shy about joining our talk. I >> apologize if >> anything I said made you feel as if you were under attack as a >> teacher. >> As a profession, we are still a long way from having fully >> grounded, >> effective, widely accepted practices. We need to be respectful >> of each >> other as we work that out, and I apologize again for any failures >> on my >> part to do that. >> >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jean, I give them a handout that can be found in many style >> guides. >> >> >> >> >> I'm pasting it in. Sorry if some of you thought I was a writing >> Nazi, who demanded students never dare repeat the same >> starting word >> in an entire essay. Yikes, I should have experienced lots more >> outrage, tar, and feathers! >> >> >> >> >> Sentence Beginnings >> Vary the beginnings of your sentences. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Most writers begin about half their sentences with the subject- >> far >> more than the number of sentences begun in any other way. But >> overuse of the subject-first beginnings results in monotonous >> writing. Below are several ways to vary the beginnings of your >> sentences. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> WORDS >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Two adjectives: Angry and proud, Alice resolved to >> fight back. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An adverb: Suddenly a hissing and >> clattering came >> from the heights around us. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A connecting word: For students who have just >> survived the >> brutal college-entrance marathon, this competitive atmosphere >> is all >> too familiar. But others, accustomed to being stars in high >> school, >> find themselves feeling lost in a crowd of overachievers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An interrupting adverb: A healthy body, however, is just as >> important as a healthy mind. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A series of words: Light, water, temperature, >> minerals- >> these affect the health of plants. >> >> >> >> >> PHRASES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A connecting phrase: If the Soviet care and feeding of >> athletes at times looks enviable, it is far from perfect. For >> one >> thing, it can be ruthless. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A prepositional phrase: Out of necessity they stitched all of >> their secret fears and lingering childhood nightmares into this >> existence. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An infinitive: To be really successful, you will >> have to be trilingual: fluent in English, Spanish, and computer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A gerund: Maintaining a daily exercise >> program >> is essential. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A participle: Looking out of the window high >> over >> the state of Kansas, we see a pattern of a single farmhouse >> surrounded by fields, followed by another single homestead >> surrounded >> by fields. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An appositive: A place of refuge, the Mission >> provides >> food and shelter for Springfield's homeless. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An absolute: His fur bristling, the cat went >> on the >> attack. >> >> >> >> >> CLAUSES >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An adverbial clause: When you first start writing-and >> I think >> it's true for a lot of beginning writers-you're scared to >> death that >> if you don't get that sentence right that minute it's never >> going to >> show up again. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> An adjective clause: The freshman, who was not a >> joiner of >> organizations, found herself unanimously elected president of >> a group >> of animal lovers. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A noun clause: Why earthquakes occur is a >> questions to >> ask a geologist. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 22, 2009, at 11:05 AM, Jean Waldman wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Susan, >> This is the first time you mentioned that you teach the students >> HOW to vary their sentences. I was under the impression that you >> just demand that they do it and grade them on whether they do it. >> >> >> >> >> What method do you use to teach the different possible >> variations? >> >> >> >> >> Jean Waldman >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Susan van Druten" >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/ 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 20:30:56 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however, the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in teaching writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My alma mater, MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed the English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my advisor had accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had to take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first Freshman English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that I had learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class size was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day instead of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an excellent teacher. Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my experience, class size is more important in English composition than in any other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages. N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD Professor Emeritus *************************************************************************** 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/ ========================================================================Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 17:41:26 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-22437275-1243644086=:44491" --0-22437275-1243644086=:44491 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that class size is a vital component in successful learning. This is especially important to the writing classroom. Paul E. Doniger "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128). ________________________________ From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however, the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in teaching writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My alma mater, MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed the English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my advisor had accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had to take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first Freshman English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that I had learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class size was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day instead of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an excellent teacher. Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my experience, class size is more important in English composition than in any other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages. N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD Professor Emeritus *************************************************************************** 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/ --0-22437275-1243644086=:44491 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that class size is a vital component in successful learning. This is especially important to the writing classroom.

Paul E. Doniger

"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).

From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM
Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127)

I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however,
the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in teaching
writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My alma mater,
MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had
a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed the
English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my advisor had
accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had to
take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first Freshman
English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that I had
learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class size
was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day instead
of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an excellent
teacher.

Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my
experience, class size is more important in English composition than in any
other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages.

N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
Professor Emeritus

***************************************************************************

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/ --0-22437275-1243644086=:44491-- ========================================================================Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 20:40:37 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size and SAT parallel structure questions In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-51--947534674 --Apple-Mail-51--947534674 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed > I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; > however, the list member who indicated that class size was > irrelevant in teaching > I missed this original comment. What was the reasoning? I missed this original comment. What was the reasoning? I think most people agree that smaller would be better, but that the money spent is prohibitive. FYI, I realize I never revealed the correct answer to the SAT grammar question. It is D. Joanne (as a noun) must be parallel to Heather (as a noun). It's funny how many of you have thought the training wheel thread just got interesting. I thought it had just dried up. Oh well. It was fun while it lasted. Thanks. Susan Unlike her sister Heather, who would always put spiders safely outside if she found them in the house, Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures. A. Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures B. Joanne’s fear is what kept her from going anywhere near the creatures C. fear is why Joanne had not gone anywhere near them D. Joanne was too afraid to go anywhere near the creatures E. they scared Joanne too much to go anywhere near them On May 29, 2009, at 7:30 PM, Scott wrote: > I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however, > the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in > teaching > writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My > alma mater, > MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had > a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had > failed the > English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my > advisor had > accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I > had to > take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first > Freshman > English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied > that I had > learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the > class size > was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day > instead > of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an excellent > teacher. > > Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my > experience, class size is more important in English composition > than in any > other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages. > > N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD > Professor Emeritus > > ********************************************************************** > ***** > > 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/ --Apple-Mail-51--947534674 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252
I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however, the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in teaching
I missed this original comment. What was the reasoning?
I missed this original comment. What was the reasoning? I think most people agree that smaller would be better, but that the money spent is prohibitive.
FYI, I realize I never revealed the correct answer to the SAT grammar question. It is D. Joanne (as a noun) must be parallel to Heather (as a noun).
It's funny how many of you have thought the training wheel thread just got interesting. I thought it had just dried up. Oh well. It was fun while it lasted. Thanks.
Susan
Unlike her sister Heather, who would always put spiders safely outside if she found them in the house, Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures.
A.     Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures
B.     Joanne’s fear is what kept her from going anywhere near the creatures
C.     fear is why Joanne had not gone anywhere near them
D.     Joanne was too afraid to go anywhere near the creatures
E.     they scared Joanne too much to go anywhere near them

On May 29, 2009, at 7:30 PM, Scott wrote:

I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however,
the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in teaching
writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My alma mater,
MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had
a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed the
English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my advisor had
accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had to
take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first Freshman
English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that I had
learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class size
was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day instead
of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an excellent
teacher.

Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my
experience, class size is more important in English composition than in any
other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages.

N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
Professor Emeritus

***************************************************************************

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/ --Apple-Mail-51--947534674-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 00:55:50 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size and SAT parallel structure questions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF7EMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF7EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Susan, You wrote: FYI, I realize I never revealed the correct answer to the SAT grammar question. It is D. Joanne (as a noun) must be parallel to Heather (as a noun). Unlike her sister Heather, who would always put spiders safely outside if she found them in the house, Joanne's fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures. A. Joanne's fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures B. Joanne's fear is what kept her from going anywhere near the creatures C. fear is why Joanne had not gone anywhere near them D. Joanne was too afraid to go anywhere near the creatures E. they scared Joanne too much to go anywhere near them I find D possible. I find BCE awkward, but I see nothing wrong with the sentence as it is. Context would certainly help me to choose between A and D, but I don't understand why Heather and Joanne must be parallel because they are both nouns, regardless of context, which seems to be what the test question and identifying only D as correct imply. If the topic of the paragraph is "fear," then A works better-or at least as well. Perhaps the passage will be about distinct phobias the sisters have, or about fear as the reason for Joanne's behavior rather than, perhaps, her mother's insistence. I'm sure we could come up with other contexts as well, but the point is that A and D have different structures because they have different meanings. This test question strikes me as an instance of the sort of rigid rule, like the PAP we discussed earlier in connection with this example, that should not be taught. Even if we teach the rule and also teach that other structures work in different contexts, we are still implying, and inviting our students to infer, that there is a default correct structure. I do understand that this is a standardized test question and not a point you were trying to make, which leads to the broader question we've frequently dealt with on this list, the poor level of grammatical knowledge that leads teachers, editors, employers, and test developers to insist on rules that aren't. Herb 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/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF7EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Susan,

You wrote:

FYI, I realize I never revealed the correct answer to the SAT grammar question. It is D. Joanne (as a noun) must be parallel to Heather (as a noun).

Unlike her sister Heather, who would always put spiders safely outside if she found them in the house, Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures.

A.     Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures

B.     Joanne’s fear is what kept her from going anywhere near the creatures

C.     fear is why Joanne had not gone anywhere near them

D.     Joanne was too afraid to go anywhere near the creatures

E.     they scared Joanne too much to go anywhere near them

I find D possible. I find BCE awkward, but I see nothing wrong with the sentence as it is. Context would certainly help me to choose between A and D, but I don’t understand why Heather and Joanne must be parallel because they are both nouns, regardless of context, which seems to be what the test question and identifying only D as correct imply. If the topic of the paragraph is “fear,” then A works better—or at least as well. Perhaps the passage will be about distinct phobias the sisters have, or about fear as the reason for Joanne’s behavior rather than, perhaps, her mother’s insistence. I’m sure we could come up with other contexts as well, but the point is that A and D have different structures because they have different meanings. This test question strikes me as an instance of the sort of rigid rule, like the PAP we discussed earlier in connection with this example, that should not be taught. Even if we teach the rule and also teach that other structures work in different contexts, we are still implying, and inviting our students to infer, that there is a default correct structure.

I do understand that this is a standardized test question and not a point you were trying to make, which leads to the broader question we’ve frequently dealt with on this list, the poor level of grammatical knowledge that leads teachers, editors, employers, and test developers to insist on rules that aren’t.

Herb

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/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D54312982D1AF7EMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 00:11:59 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Larry Beason <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size and SAT parallel structure questions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline I'm coming in on this thread really late, but I'm not sure that D is the correct answer because of a need to keep Heather/Joanne parallel as much as it is to make sure that the "unlike...." prepositional phrase modifies an appropriate noun. That is, it's Joanne who is unlike her sister Heather--not "fear" (ABC) or "they" (D), right? My reasoning is based on the prepositional phrase ("unlike...") being adjectival, but maybe I'm incorrect in that assumption. Larry Larry Beason Associate Professor & Composition Director Dept. of English, 240 HUMB Univ. of South Alabama Mobile AL 36688 (251) 460-7861 >>> "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> 05/29/09 11:59 PM >>> Susan, You wrote: FYI, I realize I never revealed the correct answer to the SAT grammar question. It is D. Joanne (as a noun) must be parallel to Heather (as a noun). Unlike her sister Heather, who would always put spiders safely outside if she found them in the house, Joanne's fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures. A. Joanne's fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures B. Joanne's fear is what kept her from going anywhere near the creatures C. fear is why Joanne had not gone anywhere near them D. Joanne was too afraid to go anywhere near the creatures E. they scared Joanne too much to go anywhere near them I find D possible. I find BCE awkward, but I see nothing wrong with the sentence as it is. Context would certainly help me to choose between A and D, but I don't understand why Heather and Joanne must be parallel because they are both nouns, regardless of context, which seems to be what the test question and identifying only D as correct imply. If the topic of the paragraph is "fear," then A works better-or at least as well. Perhaps the passage will be about distinct phobias the sisters have, or about fear as the reason for Joanne's behavior rather than, perhaps, her mother's insistence. I'm sure we could come up with other contexts as well, but the point is that A and D have different structures because they have different meanings. This test question strikes me as an instance of the sort of rigid rule, like the PAP we discussed earlier in connection with this example, that should not be taught. Even if we teach the rule and also teach that other structures work in different contexts, we are still implying, and inviting our students to infer, that there is a default correct structure. I do understand that this is a standardized test question and not a point you were trying to make, which leads to the broader question we've frequently dealt with on this list, the poor level of grammatical knowledge that leads teachers, editors, employers, and test developers to insist on rules that aren't. Herb 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 12:03:03 +0100 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit > It is often put about by administrators, school inspectors, and politicians in discussions concerning teacher numbers in the state schools in Britain is that one can teach a large class as effectively as a small one. It comes with the unspoken implication that the effectiveness depends on the individual teacher's professional ability, and that therefore one has no cause for complaint if faced with 30 plus students. It has, of course, the added advantage of keeping the overall cost of teachers' salaries within bounds, with a lower demand on the taxpayer's pocket. However, for secondary schools particularly, where homework is insisted upon, a key factor is absent from the discussion, namely the number of assignments that one has to mark in 'one's own time'. If one is conscientious in one's marking (for example, to quote one criterion, the endeavouring to match the marking and comment specifically to the student), the time taken is clearly greater for the large classes. The temptation for the less conscientious teacher to rush through the marking -- or to set work that can be quickly marked -- is always present. There is also no reference made to the fact that with a smaller class one can spend more time with individual students. Incidentally, it is also never mentioned in these discussions that those parents who send their children to private schools consider small classes high on their list of requirements, or that those private schools that do have small classes score well on the government's 'league tables' of examination results. Do American high school English teachers have to load their car boots at the end of the afternoon with three or four piles of 30+ homework books? (It is normal for two sets of homework to be set for each class in one week, and one is likely to be teaching seven or eight classes). Edmond Dr. Edmond Wright 3 Boathouse Court Trafalgar Road Cambridge CB4 1DU England Email: [log in to unmask] Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/ Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 08:59:58 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: richard betting <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Edmond and others, Talking is teaching. It seems to me that’s the premise upon which school administrators (and probably the general public) base their opinion that class size is not a requirement for effective teaching. High quality talking, to be sure, equated as Edmond mentions, with professional ability. The more charismatic the teacher, the better the motivator, the better the results. So increase class size and give them a microphone. No personal intervention between teacher and students is necessary in this model. On the other hand, if mere talking is not teaching, then interaction with students both on their essays and in classes becomes a matter of time, and time is reduced as numbers grow. Actually and unfortunately, in my opinion, some teachers see talking as teaching too. Richard Betting, Prof Emeritus Valley City State University Valley City, ND On May 30, 2009, at 6:03 AM, Edmond Wright wrote: >> It is often put about by administrators, school inspectors, and >> politicians in > discussions concerning teacher numbers in the state schools in > Britain is that > one can teach a large class as effectively as a small one. It comes > with the > unspoken implication that the effectiveness depends on the > individual teacher's > professional ability, and that therefore one has no cause for > complaint if faced > with 30 plus students. It has, of course, the added advantage of > keeping the > overall cost of teachers' salaries within bounds, with a lower > demand on the > taxpayer's pocket. > > However, for secondary schools particularly, where homework is > insisted > upon, a key factor is absent from the discussion, namely the number of > assignments that one has to mark in 'one's own time'. If one is > conscientious in one's marking (for example, to quote one criterion, > the > endeavouring to match the marking and comment specifically to the > student), > the time taken is clearly greater for the large classes. The > temptation for > the less conscientious teacher to rush through the marking -- or to > set work > that can be quickly marked -- is always present. > > There is also no reference made to the fact that with a smaller > class one > can spend more time with individual students. > > Incidentally, it is also never mentioned in these discussions that > those > parents who send their children to private schools consider small > classes > high on their list of requirements, or that those private schools > that do > have small classes score well on the government's 'league tables' of > examination results. > > Do American high school English teachers have to load their car > boots at the > end of the afternoon with three or four piles of 30+ homework > books? (It is > normal for two sets of homework to be set for each class in one > week, and > one is likely to be teaching seven or eight classes). > > Edmond > > > Dr. Edmond Wright > 3 Boathouse Court > Trafalgar Road > Cambridge > CB4 1DU > England > > Email: [log in to unmask] > Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/ > Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256 > > 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 09:44:19 -0500 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Susan van Druten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size and SAT parallel structure questions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-54--900513167 --Apple-Mail-54--900513167 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed I agree that some test maker sometimes ask questions based on obscure rules, but this one seems fair to me. Comparing "Heather" to "Joanne's fear" causes the reader one second of adjustment. Try reading the sentence without the interrupting clause. Unlike her sister Heather, Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures. Parallel structures (such as "unlike x") set up expectations in readers. When the writer doesn't deliver, it is as unsatisfying as the musician who withholds the final note. On May 29, 2009, at 11:55 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: > Susan, > > You wrote: > > FYI, I realize I never revealed the correct answer to the SAT > grammar question. It is D. Joanne (as a noun) must be parallel to > Heather (as a noun). > > Unlike her sister Heather, who would always put spiders safely > outside if she found them in the house, Joanne’s fear kept her from > going anywhere near the creatures. > > A. Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures > > B. Joanne’s fear is what kept her from going anywhere near the > creatures > > C. fear is why Joanne had not gone anywhere near them > > D. Joanne was too afraid to go anywhere near the creatures > > E. they scared Joanne too much to go anywhere near them > > I find D possible. I find BCE awkward, but I see nothing wrong > with the sentence as it is. Context would certainly help me to > choose between A and D, but I don’t understand why Heather and > Joanne must be parallel because they are both nouns, regardless of > context, which seems to be what the test question and identifying > only D as correct imply. If the topic of the paragraph is “fear,” > then A works better—or at least as well. Perhaps the passage will > be about distinct phobias the sisters have, or about fear as the > reason for Joanne’s behavior rather than, perhaps, her mother’s > insistence. I’m sure we could come up with other contexts as well, > but the point is that A and D have different structures because > they have different meanings. This test question strikes me as an > instance of the sort of rigid rule, like the PAP we discussed > earlier in connection with this example, that should not be > taught. Even if we teach the rule and also teach that other > structures work in different contexts, we are still implying, and > inviting our students to infer, that there is a default correct > structure. > > I do understand that this is a standardized test question and not a > point you were trying to make, which leads to the broader question > we’ve frequently dealt with on this list, the poor level of > grammatical knowledge that leads teachers, editors, employers, and > test developers to insist on rules that aren’t. > > Herb > 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/ --Apple-Mail-54--900513167 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 I agree that some test maker sometimes ask questions based on obscure rules, but this one seems fair to me. Comparing "Heather" to "Joanne's fear" causes the reader one second of adjustment. Try reading the sentence without the interrupting clause. Unlike her sister Heather, Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures. Parallel structures (such as "unlike x") set up expectations in readers. When the writer doesn't deliver, it is as unsatisfying as the musician who withholds the final note.

On May 29, 2009, at 11:55 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:

Susan,

You wrote:

FYI, I realize I never revealed the correct answer to the SAT grammar question. It is D. Joanne (as a noun) must be parallel to Heather (as a noun).
Unlike her sister Heather, who would always put spiders safely outside if she found them in the house, Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures.
A.     Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures
B.     Joanne’s fear is what kept her from going anywhere near the creatures
C.     fear is why Joanne had not gone anywhere near them
D.     Joanne was too afraid to go anywhere near the creatures
E.     they scared Joanne too much to go anywhere near them

I find D possible. I find BCE awkward, but I see nothing wrong with the sentence as it is. Context would certainly help me to choose between A and D, but I don’t understand why Heather and Joanne must be parallel because they are both nouns, regardless of context, which seems to be what the test question and identifying only D as correct imply. If the topic of the paragraph is “fear,” then A works better—or at least as well. Perhaps the passage will be about distinct phobias the sisters have, or about fear as the reason for Joanne’s behavior rather than, perhaps, her mother’s insistence. I’m sure we could come up with other contexts as well, but the point is that A and D have different structures because they have different meanings. This test question strikes me as an instance of the sort of rigid rule, like the PAP we discussed earlier in connection with this example, that should not be taught. Even if we teach the rule and also teach that other structures work in different contexts, we are still implying, and inviting our students to infer, that there is a default correct structure.

I do understand that this is a standardized test question and not a point you were trying to make, which leads to the broader question we’ve frequently dealt with on this list, the poor level of grammatical knowledge that leads teachers, editors, employers, and test developers to insist on rules that aren’t.

Herb
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/ --Apple-Mail-54--900513167-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 12:39:02 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size and SAT parallel structure questions In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431BF5BEED3CEMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431BF5BEED3CEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree that removing the non-restrictive relative makes a difference, but it does so because the result is a different sentence, with different expectations. Meaning tends to vary with form so that it's a truism that there is no such thing as exact paraphrase. Dwight Bolinger made the strong claim that there are no syntactic differences without semantic differences. I might not go quite that far, although if you include pragmatic and semantic differences the case gets stronger. However, even without the NRRC, the choice of main clause structures remains fairly open and is determined by pragmatics. Since English orthography doesn't mark stress or intonation, these differences aren't made explicit in writing, but if the written sentence represents a spoken sentence with tonic accent on "Joanne's," the contrast would be between Joanne's fear and Heather's fear. Perhaps the reason these written, out-of-context test sentences so often cause problems is that a single written English sentence represents a variety of different stress and intonation patterns and therefore distinct sentences with distinct contextual requirements. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten Sent: 2009-05-30 10:44 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Class size and SAT parallel structure questions I agree that some test maker sometimes ask questions based on obscure rules, but this one seems fair to me. Comparing "Heather" to "Joanne's fear" causes the reader one second of adjustment. Try reading the sentence without the interrupting clause. Unlike her sister Heather, Joanne's fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures. Parallel structures (such as "unlike x") set up expectations in readers. When the writer doesn't deliver, it is as unsatisfying as the musician who withholds the final note. On May 29, 2009, at 11:55 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: Susan, You wrote: FYI, I realize I never revealed the correct answer to the SAT grammar question. It is D. Joanne (as a noun) must be parallel to Heather (as a noun). Unlike her sister Heather, who would always put spiders safely outside if she found them in the house, Joanne's fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures. A. Joanne's fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures B. Joanne's fear is what kept her from going anywhere near the creatures C. fear is why Joanne had not gone anywhere near them D. Joanne was too afraid to go anywhere near the creatures E. they scared Joanne too much to go anywhere near them I find D possible. I find BCE awkward, but I see nothing wrong with the sentence as it is. Context would certainly help me to choose between A and D, but I don't understand why Heather and Joanne must be parallel because they are both nouns, regardless of context, which seems to be what the test question and identifying only D as correct imply. If the topic of the paragraph is "fear," then A works better-or at least as well. Perhaps the passage will be about distinct phobias the sisters have, or about fear as the reason for Joanne's behavior rather than, perhaps, her mother's insistence. I'm sure we could come up with other contexts as well, but the point is that A and D have different structures because they have different meanings. This test question strikes me as an instance of the sort of rigid rule, like the PAP we discussed earlier in connection with this example, that should not be taught. Even if we teach the rule and also teach that other structures work in different contexts, we are still implying, and inviting our students to infer, that there is a default correct structure. I do understand that this is a standardized test question and not a point you were trying to make, which leads to the broader question we've frequently dealt with on this list, the poor level of grammatical knowledge that leads teachers, editors, employers, and test developers to insist on rules that aren't. Herb 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/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431BF5BEED3CEMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I agree that removing the non-restrictive relative makes a difference, but it does so because the result is a different sentence, with different expectations. Meaning tends to vary with form so that it’s a truism that there is no such thing as exact paraphrase. Dwight Bolinger made the strong claim that there are no syntactic differences without semantic differences. I might not go quite that far, although if you include pragmatic and semantic differences the case gets stronger. However, even without the NRRC, the choice of main clause structures remains fairly open and is determined by pragmatics. Since English orthography doesn’t mark stress or intonation, these differences aren’t made explicit in writing, but if the written sentence represents a spoken sentence with tonic accent on “Joanne’s,” the contrast would be between Joanne’s fear and Heather’s fear. Perhaps the reason these written, out-of-context test sentences so often cause problems is that a single written English sentence represents a variety of different stress and intonation patterns and therefore distinct sentences with distinct contextual requirements.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten
Sent: 2009-05-30 10:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Class size and SAT parallel structure questions

I agree that some test maker sometimes ask questions based on obscure rules, but this one seems fair to me. Comparing "Heather" to "Joanne's fear" causes the reader one second of adjustment. Try reading the sentence without the interrupting clause. Unlike her sister Heather, Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures. Parallel structures (such as "unlike x") set up expectations in readers. When the writer doesn't deliver, it is as unsatisfying as the musician who withholds the final note.

On May 29, 2009, at 11:55 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote:

Susan,

You wrote:

FYI, I realize I never revealed the correct answer to the SAT grammar question. It is D. Joanne (as a noun) must be parallel to Heather (as a noun).

Unlike her sister Heather, who would always put spiders safely outside if she found them in the house, Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures.

A.     Joanne’s fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures

B.     Joanne’s fear is what kept her from going anywhere near the creatures

C.     fear is why Joanne had not gone anywhere near them

D.     Joanne was too afraid to go anywhere near the creatures

E.     they scared Joanne too much to go anywhere near them

I find D possible. I find BCE awkward, but I see nothing wrong with the sentence as it is. Context would certainly help me to choose between A and D, but I don’t understand why Heather and Joanne must be parallel because they are both nouns, regardless of context, which seems to be what the test question and identifying only D as correct imply. If the topic of the paragraph is “fear,” then A works better—or at least as well. Perhaps the passage will be about distinct phobias the sisters have, or about fear as the reason for Joanne’s behavior rather than, perhaps, her mother’s insistence. I’m sure we could come up with other contexts as well, but the point is that A and D have different structures because they have different meanings. This test question strikes me as an instance of the sort of rigid rule, like the PAP we discussed earlier in connection with this example, that should not be taught. Even if we teach the rule and also teach that other structures work in different contexts, we are still implying, and inviting our students to infer, that there is a default correct structure.

I do understand that this is a standardized test question and not a point you were trying to make, which leads to the broader question we’ve frequently dealt with on this list, the poor level of grammatical knowledge that leads teachers, editors, employers, and test developers to insist on rules that aren’t.

Herb

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/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431BF5BEED3CEMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 14:30:48 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would echo the thoughts on this one. In my experience, students don't learn to write without being fully engaged with the writing, and full engagement doesn't happen without enagaged reader or readers. It's much more of a mentoring process, and that involves knowing where the student is and helping guide them along an individualized path. I was struck by Scott's post about his experience in "dummy English." A good teacher teaches students, and he was blessed with a teacher who addressed his needs, not a "remedial" template. With our non-creidt placements, we have come to feel we are buying time to work with the student, not giving them anything especially different. The student writes and teacher responds. I think it was Robert Lowell who said he could tell everything he knows about writing in about nine minutes, but it might take you nine years to learn it. Some things you can't learn from talking--dance, music, painting, writing. Sex education class doesn't quite get you there. I'm sure the list could be extended. Craig> Edmond and others, > Talking is teaching. It seems to me that’s the premise upon which > school administrators (and probably the general public) base their > opinion that class size is not a requirement for effective teaching. > High quality talking, to be sure, equated as Edmond mentions, with > professional ability. The more charismatic the teacher, the better the > motivator, the better the results. So increase class size and give > them a microphone. No personal intervention between teacher and > students is necessary in this model. On the other hand, if mere > talking is not teaching, then interaction with students both on their > essays and in classes becomes a matter of time, and time is reduced as > numbers grow. Actually and unfortunately, in my opinion, some teachers > see talking as teaching too. > > > Richard Betting, Prof Emeritus > Valley City State University > Valley City, ND > > > On May 30, 2009, at 6:03 AM, Edmond Wright wrote: > >>> It is often put about by administrators, school inspectors, and >>> politicians in >> discussions concerning teacher numbers in the state schools in >> Britain is that >> one can teach a large class as effectively as a small one. It comes >> with the >> unspoken implication that the effectiveness depends on the >> individual teacher's >> professional ability, and that therefore one has no cause for >> complaint if faced >> with 30 plus students. It has, of course, the added advantage of >> keeping the >> overall cost of teachers' salaries within bounds, with a lower >> demand on the >> taxpayer's pocket. >> >> However, for secondary schools particularly, where homework is >> insisted >> upon, a key factor is absent from the discussion, namely the number of >> assignments that one has to mark in 'one's own time'. If one is >> conscientious in one's marking (for example, to quote one criterion, >> the >> endeavouring to match the marking and comment specifically to the >> student), >> the time taken is clearly greater for the large classes. The >> temptation for >> the less conscientious teacher to rush through the marking -- or to >> set work >> that can be quickly marked -- is always present. >> >> There is also no reference made to the fact that with a smaller >> class one >> can spend more time with individual students. >> >> Incidentally, it is also never mentioned in these discussions that >> those >> parents who send their children to private schools consider small >> classes >> high on their list of requirements, or that those private schools >> that do >> have small classes score well on the government's 'league tables' of >> examination results. >> >> Do American high school English teachers have to load their car >> boots at the >> end of the afternoon with three or four piles of 30+ homework >> books? (It is >> normal for two sets of homework to be set for each class in one >> week, and >> one is likely to be teaching seven or eight classes). >> >> Edmond >> >> >> Dr. Edmond Wright >> 3 Boathouse Court >> Trafalgar Road >> Cambridge >> CB4 1DU >> England >> >> Email: [log in to unmask] >> Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/ >> Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256 >> >> 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 17:24:47 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size Comments: To: Brad Johnston <[log in to unmask]>, "'undisclosed recipients:'"@mulnx11.mcs.muohio.edu In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0072_01C9E14B.87F1D720" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0072_01C9E14B.87F1D720 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD _____ From: Brad Johnston [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:42 PM To: undisclosed recipients: Subject: Class size My alma mater, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who (had) failed the English placement exam. I (had) scored a 100 in the exam but my advisor (had) accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had to take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first Freshman English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that I (had) learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class size was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day instead of one a week. ~~~~~~~~ Brad, The writer of the above ( ) has ( ) doesn't have a 'had' problem. 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/ ------=_NextPart_000_0072_01C9E14B.87F1D720 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD

From: Brad Johnston [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:42 PM
To: undisclosed recipients:
Subject: Class size

My alma mater, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who (had) failed the English placement exam. I (had) scored a 100 in the exam but my advisor (had) accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had to take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first Freshman English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that I (had) learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class size was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day instead of one a week.

~~~~~~~~

Brad,

The writer of the above

(     ) has

(     ) doesn't have

a 'had' problem.

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/ ------=_NextPart_000_0072_01C9E14B.87F1D720-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 07:45:13 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-56951862-1243781113=:71879" --0-56951862-1243781113=:71879 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Edmond, Most teachers do not assign very much homework, especially writing. When I taught at a public high school in Arizona, three years ago, my students wrote three essays each year. Most of the work was done in class. This was department policy. Another teacher I know assigned an essay every three weeks. He was reprimanded for doing so. His contract was not renewed. At the public high school closest to my charter school, 9th graders in the International Baccalaureate program write one essay per term, three per year, according to my informants. Scott Woods BASIS Scottsdale --- On Sat, 5/30/09, Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Do American high school English teachers have to load their car boots at the end of the afternoon with three or four piles of 30+ homework books? (It is normal for two sets of homework to be set for each class in one week, and one is likely to be teaching seven or eight classes). Edmond Dr. Edmond Wright 3 Boathouse Court Trafalgar Road Cambridge CB4 1DU England Email: [log in to unmask] Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/ Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256 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/ --0-56951862-1243781113=:71879 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Edmond,

Most teachers do not assign very much homework, especially writing. When I taught at a public high school in Arizona, three years ago, my students wrote three essays each year. Most of the work was done in class. This was department policy. Another teacher I know assigned an essay every three weeks. He was reprimanded for doing so. His contract was not renewed. At the public high school closest to my charter school, 9th graders in the International Baccalaureate program write one essay per term, three per year, according to my informants.

Scott Woods

BASIS Scottsdale

--- On Sat, 5/30/09, Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Do American high school English teachers have to load their car boots at the
end of the afternoon with three or four piles of 30+ homework books? (It is
normal for two sets of homework to be set for each class in one week, and
one is likely to be teaching seven or eight classes).

Edmond

Dr. Edmond Wright
3 Boathouse Court
Trafalgar Road
Cambridge
CB4 1DU
England

Email: [log in to unmask]" ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/
Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256

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/ --0-56951862-1243781113=:71879-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 08:10:30 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-452208744-1243782630=:92607" --0-452208744-1243782630=:92607 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Paul, I would be interested in seeing research that shows a strong link between reducing class size and increasing performance. The research I have seen strongly suggests that the most important factor in improving student performance is changing what teachers do. Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption in a class, but there is little research base (that I have seen) to suggest that if we reduced the size of every class in the country to 15 students that much would change in what students know and can do. As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total students, but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, I had all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together. That would give me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to their writing. Scott Woods BASIS Scottsdale --- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask] Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that class size is a vital component in successful learning. This is especially important to the writing classroom. Paul E. Doniger "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128). From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however, the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in teaching writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My alma mater, MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed the English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my advisor had accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had to take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first Freshman English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that I had learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class size was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day instead of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an excellent teacher. Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my experience, class size is more important in English composition than in any other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages. N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD Professor Emeritus *************************************************************************** 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/ --0-452208744-1243782630=:92607 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Paul,

I would be interested in seeing research that shows a strong link between reducing class size and increasing performance. The research I have seen strongly suggests that the most important factor in improving student performance is changing what teachers do. Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption in a class, but there is little research base (that I have seen) to suggest that if we reduced the size of every class in the country to 15 students that much would change in what students know and can do.

As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total students, but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, I had all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together. That would give me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to their writing.

Scott Woods

BASIS Scottsdale

--- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask]

Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that class size is a vital component in successful learning. This is especially important to the writing classroom.

Paul E. Doniger

"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).

From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM
Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127)

I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however,
the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in teaching
writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My alma mater,
MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had
a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed the
English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my advisor had
accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had to
take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first Freshman
English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that I had
learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class size
was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day instead
of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an excellent
teacher.

Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my
experience, class size is more important in English composition than in any
other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages.

N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
Professor Emeritus

***************************************************************************

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/ --0-452208744-1243782630=:92607-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 15:21:09 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431BF5BEED41EMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431BF5BEED41EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scott, I'm not join this debate because I don't know the research on either side, but meeting one group of 112 students twice a week rather than four groups of 28 students twice a week for each group strikes me as simply a different way of handling the same student-teacher ratio. Meeting four groups of 112 students twice a week for each group seems a more apt contrast. Or you could lower that to four groups of 42 or 56 students. The result would be much less writing and much less response to writing. Herb From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods Sent: 2009-05-31 11:11 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) Paul, I would be interested in seeing research that shows a strong link between reducing class size and increasing performance. The research I have seen strongly suggests that the most important factor in improving student performance is changing what teachers do. Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption in a class, but there is little research base (that I have seen) to suggest that if we reduced the size of every class in the country to 15 students that much would change in what students know and can do. As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total students, but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, I had all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together. That would give me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to their writing. Scott Woods BASIS Scottsdale --- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask] Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that class size is a vital component in successful learning. This is especially important to the writing classroom. Paul E. Doniger "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128). ________________________________ From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however, the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in teaching writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My alma mater, MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed the English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my advisor had accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had to take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first Freshman English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that I had learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class size was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day instead of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an excellent teacher. Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my experience, class size is more important in English composition than in any other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages. N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD Professor Emeritus *************************************************************************** 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/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431BF5BEED41EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Scott,

I’m not join this debate because I don’t know the research on either side, but meeting one group of 112 students twice a week rather than four groups of 28 students twice a week for each group strikes me as simply a different way of handling the same student-teacher ratio. Meeting four groups of 112 students twice a week for each group seems a more apt contrast. Or you could lower that to four groups of 42 or 56 students. The result would be much less writing and much less response to writing.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: 2009-05-31 11:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127)

Paul,

I would be interested in seeing research that shows a strong link between reducing class size and increasing performance. The research I have seen strongly suggests that the most important factor in improving student performance is changing what teachers do. Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption in a class, but there is little research base (that I have seen) to suggest that if we reduced the size of every class in the country to 15 students that much would change in what students know and can do.

As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total students, but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, I had all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together. That would give me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to their writing.

Scott Woods

BASIS Scottsdale

--- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask]

Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that class size is a vital component in successful learning. This is especially important to the writing classroom.

Paul E. Doniger

"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).

From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM
Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127)

I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however,
the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in teaching
writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My alma mater,
MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had
a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed the
English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my advisor had
accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had to
take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first Freshman
English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that I had
learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class size
was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day instead
of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an excellent
teacher.

Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my
experience, class size is more important in English composition than in any
other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages.

N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
Professor Emeritus

***************************************************************************

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/ --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431BF5BEED41EMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 15:45:07 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-87662824-1243809907=:97903" --0-87662824-1243809907=:97903 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Herb, Â I wasn't clear.Â Currently,Â for seventh grade English,Â I teach four groups of students for a total of 112 students.Â I meet with each group five times each week.Â I think that I could get better results by meeting with all the groups together on some days and with each group separately on others. This would reduce total student contact hours for me, but not for them.Â With 28 total contact hours per week next year (I teach other classes as well), I would benefit from reducing my contact load and spending that time planning, developing lessons, and responding to writing.Â Â Scott --- On Sun, 5/31/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) To: [log in to unmask] Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 1:21 PM Scott, Â Iâ€™m not join this debate because I donâ€™t know the research on either side, but meeting one group of 112 students twice a week rather than four groups of 28 students twice a week for each group strikes me as simply a different way of handling the same student-teacher ratio.Â Meeting four groups of 112 students twice a week for each group seems a more apt contrast.Â Or you could lower that to four groups of 42 or 56 students.Â The result would be much less writing and much less response to writing. Â Herb Â From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods Sent: 2009-05-31 11:11 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) Â Paul, Â I would be interested in seeing research that shows a strong link between reducing class size and increasing performance.Â The research I have seen strongly suggests that the most important factor in improving student performance is changing what teachers do.Â Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption in a class, but there is little research base (that I have seen) to suggest that if we reduced the size of every class in the country to 15 students that much would change in what students know and can do.Â Â As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total students, but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, I had all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together. Â That would give me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to their writing. Â Scott Woods BASIS Scottsdale Â --- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask] Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that class size is a vital component in successful learning.Â This is especially important to the writing classroom. Â Paul E. Doniger Â "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128). Â Â From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however, the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in teaching writing must have been brought up by a school board member.Â My alma mater, MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed the English placement exam.Â I had scored a 100 in the exam but my advisor had accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had to take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first Freshman English class.Â My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that I had learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class size was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day instead of one a week.Â The professor in the Dummy Class was also an excellent teacher. Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my experience, class size is more important in English composition than in any other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages. N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD Professor Emeritus *************************************************************************** To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: Â Â 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/ --0-87662824-1243809907=:97903 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Herb,

I wasn't clear. Currently, for seventh grade English, I teach four groups of students for a total of 112 students. I meet with each group five times each week. I think that I could get better results by meeting with all the groups together on some days and with each group separately on others. This would reduce total student contact hours for me, but not for them. With 28 total contact hours per week next year (I teach other classes as well), I would benefit from reducing my contact load and spending that time planning, developing lessons, and responding to writing.

Scott

--- On Sun, 5/31/09, STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: STAHLKE, HERBERT F <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127)
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 1:21 PM

Scott,

Iâ€™m not join this debate because I donâ€™t know the research on either side, but meeting one group of 112 students twice a week rather than four groups of 28 students twice a week for each group strikes me as simply a different way of handling the same student-teacher ratio. Meeting four groups of 112 students twice a week for each group seems a more apt contrast. Or you could lower that to four groups of 42 or 56 students. The result would be much less writing and much less response to writing.

Herb

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: 2009-05-31 11:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127)

Paul,

I would be interested in seeing research that shows a strong link between reducing class size and increasing performance. The research I have seen strongly suggests that the most important factor in improving student performance is changing what teachers do. Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption in a class, but there is little research base (that I have seen) to suggest that if we reduced the size of every class in the country to 15 students that much would change in what students know and can do.

As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total students, but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, I had all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together. That would give me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to their writing.

Scott Woods

BASIS Scottsdale

--- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]

Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that class size is a vital component in successful learning. This is especially important to the writing classroom.

Paul E. Doniger

"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).

From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM
Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127)

I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however,
the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in teaching
writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My alma mater,
MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had
a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed the
English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my advisor had
accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had to
take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first Freshman
English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that I had
learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class size
was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day instead
of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an excellent
teacher.

Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my
experience, class size is more important in English composition than in any
other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages.

N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
Professor Emeritus

***************************************************************************

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/ --0-87662824-1243809907=:97903-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 16:39:49 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "Paul E. Doniger" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1861680520-1243813189=:39258" I have a couple of questions and a comment in response t --0-1861680520-1243813189=:39258 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Scott, et al, I have a couple of questions and a comment in response to this last posting: 1. How much writing do you currently assign to your 112 students? 2. How long does it take to return the graded pieces to the students after they are handed in? 3. What percentage of students are non-compliant with assignments? 4. If the students are only writing three "essays" a year, what other writing are they submitting? Do they write any reading journals, creative pieces, timed pieces, etc.? 5. What is the logic behind this department policy? I teach in a Connecticut high school, and things are quite different here. We assign much more writing/homework than your Arizona experience. In my school, the average teacher/student ratio in English classes is probably about 1:90 (give or take a few -- BTW: This number is still higher than is recommended by some experts); of course, for me, it is lower being that I am a theatre teacher as well (this year, I have 40 English students -- honors sophomores -- but then, I only have two English classes). In our school, English teachers have four classes a day (45 minute blocks) and one conference period in which we are required to hold 1-on-1 conferences with our students. Even with these smaller numbers, everyone in my department spends LOTS of hours reading and commenting (yes, and grading) student writing, and scrambling to get papers back to students before they grow cobwebs (the papers, not the students). How does one provide meaningful feedback to 120 or more writing pieces in any timely fashion, unless there are fewer pieces per year (as your Arizona experience suggests)? And of course, the less students write, they less they grow as writers! The schedule at my school, by the way, is NOT typical in my state, but our students do quite well (state testing, SATs, college acceptances, etc.), and our school is highly rated nationally. Others in Connecticut probably have slightly higher ratios, but from what I can see, smaller numbers seem to produce better results. I remember when I taught in a lower achieving school where teachers typically had five classes with about 30 students in each, the situation was much weaker. We all assigned MUCH less writing. The students did less work, not only because of the more infrequent assignments, but because there were large numbers of students who just didn't do their assignments! I think this situation was probably also a result of class size. If my memory is correct, Ted Sizer and Alfie Kohn have both written about this issue. Also, I believe that NCTE advocates for lower teacher-student ratios. I can't remember the specific research that I've read since it was quite some time ago, but if I find it, I'll pass it along. Paul E. Doniger ________________________________ From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 10:45:13 AM Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) Edmond, Most teachers do not assign very much homework, especially writing. When I taught at a public high school in Arizona, three years ago, my students wrote three essays each year. Most of the work was done in class. This was department policy. Another teacher I know assigned an essay every three weeks. He was reprimanded for doing so. His contract was not renewed. At the public high school closest to my charter school, 9th graders in the International Baccalaureate program write one essay per term, three per year, according to my informants. Scott Woods BASIS Scottsdale --- On Sat, 5/30/09, Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Do American high school English teachers have to load their car boots at the end of the afternoon with three or four piles of 30+ homework books? (It is normal for two sets of homework to be set for each class in one week, and one is likely to be teaching seven or eight classes). Edmond Dr. Edmond Wright 3 Boathouse Court Trafalgar Road Cambridge CB4 1DU England Email: [log in to unmask] Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/ Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256 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/ --0-1861680520-1243813189=:39258 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Scott, et al,

I have a couple of questions and a comment in response to this last posting:

How much writing do you currently assign to your 112 students?

How long does it take to return the graded pieces to the students after they are handed in?

What percentage of students are non-compliant with assignments?

If the students are only writing three "essays" a year, what other writing are they submitting? Do they write any reading journals, creative pieces, timed pieces, etc.?

What is the logic behind this department policy?

I teach in a Connecticut high school, and things are quite different here. We assign much more writing/homework than your Arizona experience. In my school, the average teacher/student ratio in English classes is probably about 1:90 (give or take a few -- BTW: This number is still higher than is recommended by some experts); of course, for me, it is lower being that I am a theatre teacher as well (this year, I have 40 English students -- honors sophomores -- but then, I only have two English classes). In our school, English teachers have four classes a day (45 minute blocks) and one conference period in which we are required to hold 1-on-1 conferences with our students. Even with these smaller numbers, everyone in my department spends LOTS of hours reading and commenting (yes, and grading) student writing, and scrambling to get papers back to students before they grow cobwebs (the papers, not the students). How does one provide meaningful feedback to 120 or more writing pieces in any timely fashion, unless there are fewer pieces per year (as your Arizona experience suggests)? And of course, the less students write, they less they grow as writers!

The schedule at my school, by the way, is NOT typical in my state, but our students do quite well (state testing, SATs, college acceptances, etc.), and our school is highly rated nationally. Others in Connecticut probably have slightly higher ratios, but from what I can see, smaller numbers seem to produce better results. I remember when I taught in a lower achieving school where teachers typically had five classes with about 30 students in each, the situation was much weaker. We all assigned MUCH less writing. The students did less work, not only because of the more infrequent assignments, but because there were large numbers of students who just didn't do their assignments! I think this situation was probably also a result of class size.

If my memory is correct, Ted Sizer and Alfie Kohn have both written about this issue. Also, I believe that NCTE advocates for lower teacher-student ratios. I can't remember the specific research that I've read since it was quite some time ago, but if I find it, I'll pass it along.

Paul E. Doniger

From: Scott Woods <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 10:45:13 AM
Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127)

Edmond,

Most teachers do not assign very much homework, especially writing. When I taught at a public high school in Arizona, three years ago, my students wrote three essays each year. Most of the work was done in class. This was department policy. Another teacher I know assigned an essay every three weeks. He was reprimanded for doing so. His contract was not renewed. At the public high school closest to my charter school, 9th graders in the International Baccalaureate program write one essay per term, three per year, according to my informants.

Scott Woods

BASIS Scottsdale

--- On Sat, 5/30/09, Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Do American high school English teachers have to load their car boots at the
end of the afternoon with three or four piles of 30+ homework books? (It is
normal for two sets of homework to be set for each class in one week, and
one is likely to be teaching seven or eight classes).

Edmond

Dr. Edmond Wright
3 Boathouse Court
Trafalgar Road
Cambridge
CB4 1DU
England

Email: [log in to unmask]" target=_blank rel=nofollow>[log in to unmask]
Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/
Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256

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/ --0-1861680520-1243813189=:39258-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 17:10:03 -0700 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Dee Allen-Kirkhouse <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8" ------=_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Scott, I have taught in small learning communities at the university level. In remedial classes we had 12 students which gave me ample time to work individually with students on their writing and reading skills. We worked on grammar, vocabulary, writing strategies and critical reading. Students wrote an essay every two weeks; students wrote a rough draft in class, discussed ideas in small groups, typed a first draft, did a peer review, revision and editing before turning in for a final grade. When they moved into the freshman composition classes, the class size was 25 students and writing focused on a variety of rhetorical styles. Again the process allowed for some individual work with students in creating a portfolio of their best work. Now , in addition to teaching two sections of fresh comp at the local community college--25 students per class, I teach high school classes--33 students per class. I require an in-class essay every Monday from all 165 students at the high school. Obviously, there are not enough hours in the semester for me to effectively grade and respond to each of those essays. Once a month, students select one of their Monday essays to work on. They discuss the essays in small groups, take them home to type a first draft, and then participate in a peer review. The peer review works sometimes, sometimes not. With each essay, I focus on one element--effective introductions, identifying the use of various sentence-development strategies. At the end of each semester, students select four essays to include in a portfolio for a final grade. I try to meet with each student individually at some point during the semester, but it is very difficult. I begin every class with grammar, vocabulary and a journal entry tied to assigned reading or a topic of discussion. From my personal experience, I would say that the smaller class size allows for greater student success in developing the skills necessary for both written expression and critical reading. Secondary classes- under the provisions of No Child Left Behind-- are not conducive to helping students meet their full potential. When you put students with special needs in a regular classroom where every student is expected to prepare for a college education and throw in some GATE students for good measure, no one is served. The discipline issues alone can derail the best laid plans, even when there are two or three adults in the classroom. We have two problems from my perspective: class size and class demographics. We are expecting every child in this country to go on to college, but the reality is that many students would be just as happy pursuing a trade and getting the education necessary to secure a job after high school. Furthermore, in our particular school, students are expected to sit through two-hour classes; I have college students who are sometimes challenged by long classes, but for high school students who are distracted by shiny objects outside the class window, sitting in a classroom for two hours is beyond their attention span. I believe every student has a right to receive an education, but we need to have some major overhaul in the system to achieve that goal. Dee ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott Woods To: [log in to unmask] Sent: 5/31/2009 8:12:04 AM Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) Paul, I would be interested in seeing research that shows a strong link between reducing class size and increasing performance. The research I have seen strongly suggests that the most important factor in improving student performance is changing what teachers do. Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption in a class, but there is little research base (that I have seen) to suggest that if we reduced the size of every class in the country to 15 students that much would change in what students know and can do. As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total students, but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, I had all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together. That would give me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to their writing. Scott Woods BASIS Scottsdale --- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask] Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that class size is a vital component in successful learning. This is especially important to the writing classroom. Paul E. Doniger "If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128). From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however, the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in teaching writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My alma mater, MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed the English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my advisor had accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had to take a non-credit English class on the same semester as my first Freshman English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that I had learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class size was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day instead of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an excellent teacher. Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my experience, class size is more important in English composition than in any other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages. N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD Professor Emeritus *************************************************************************** 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/ ------=_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII
Scott,

I have taught in small learning communities at the university level. In remedial classes we had 12 students which gave me ample time to work individually with students on their writing and reading skills. We worked on grammar, vocabulary, writing strategies and critical reading. Students wrote an essay every two weeks; students wrote a rough draft in class, discussed ideas in small groups, typed a first draft, did a peer review, revision and editing before turning in for a final grade. When they moved into the freshman composition classes, the class size was 25 students and writing focused on a variety of rhetorical styles. Again the process allowed for some individual work with students in creating a portfolio of their best work.

Now , in addition to teaching two sections of fresh comp at the local community college--25 students per class, I teach high school classes--33 students per class.

I require an in-class essay every Monday from all 165 students at the high school. Obviously, there are not enough hours in the semester for me to effectively grade and respond to each of those essays. Once a month, students select one of their Monday essays to work on. They discuss the essays in small groups, take them home to type a first draft, and then participate in a peer review. The peer review works sometimes, sometimes not. With each essay, I focus on one element--effective introductions, identifying the use of various sentence-development strategies. At the end of each semester, students select four essays to include in a portfolio for a final grade. I try to meet with each student individually at some point during the semester, but it is very difficult. I begin every class with grammar, vocabulary and a journal entry tied to assigned reading or a topic of discussion.

From my personal experience, I would say that the smaller class size allows for greater student success in developing the skills necessary for both written expression and critical reading. Secondary classes- under the provisions of No Child Left Behind-- are not conducive to helping students meet their full potential. When you put students with special needs in a regular classroom where every student is expected to prepare for a college education and throw in some GATE students for good measure, no one is served. The discipline issues alone can derail the best laid plans, even when there are two or three adults in the classroom.

We have two problems from my perspective: class size and class demographics. We are expecting every child in this country to go on to college, but the reality is that many students would be just as happy pursuing a trade and getting the education necessary to secure a job after high school. Furthermore, in our particular school, students are expected to sit through two-hour classes; I have college students who are sometimes challenged by long classes, but for high school students who are distracted by shiny objects outside the class window, sitting in a classroom for two hours is beyond their attention span. I believe every student has a right to receive an education, but we need to have some major overhaul in the system to achieve that goal.

Dee

----- Original Message -----

From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Scott Woods

To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]

Sent: 5/31/2009 8:12:04 AM

Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127)

Paul,

I would be interested in seeing research that shows a strong link between reducing class size and increasing performance. The research I have seen strongly suggests that the most important factor in improving student performance is changing what teachers do. Reducing class size can reduce the amount of disruption in a class, but there is little research base (that I have seen) to suggest that if we reduced the size of every class in the country to 15 students that much would change in what students know and can do.

As an English teacher, I would prefer having fewer total students, but I could probably teach as well if, at least twice a week, I had all 112 of my students in a lecture hall together. That would give me eight hours of extra time to respond thoughtfully to their writing.

Scott Woods

BASIS Scottsdale

--- On Fri, 5/29/09, Paul E. Doniger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Paul E. Doniger [log in to unmask]

Yes! And all research in education that I've ever seen agrees that class size is a vital component in successful learning. This is especially important to the writing classroom.

Paul E. Doniger

"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).

From: Scott <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:30:56 PM
Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127)

I too am normally reluctant to classify a remark as stupid; however,
the list member who indicated that class size was irrelevant in teaching
writing must have been brought up by a school board member. My alma mater,
MSC, whose regular Freshman English program I have praised highly, had
a secondary program in basic writing skills for those who had failed the
English placement exam. I had scored a 100 in the exam but my advisor had
accidentally put my test in the "Dummy English" pile; therefore, I had to
take a non-credit English class on the same s emester as my first Freshman
English class. My advisor apologized to me later but I replied that I had
learned more in Dummy English than in regular English because the class size
was quite small--around ten students--and we wrote a theme each day instead
of one a week. The professor in the Dummy Class was also an excellent
teacher.

Having taught across the academic curriculum, I can aver that, in my
experience, class size is more important in English composition than in any
other academic class, including mathematics and foreign languages.

N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD
Professor Emeritus

***************************************************************************

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 leav e 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/ ------=_NextPart_84815C5ABAF209EF376268C8-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 20:41:59 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Class size ATEG Digest - 28 May 2009 to 29 May 2009 - Special issue (#2009-127) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431BF5BEED43EMAILBACKEND0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431BF5BEED43EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 U2NvdHQsDQoNClRoYW5rcyBmb3IgdGhlIGNsYXJpZmljYXRpb24uICBJIHN1c3BlY3QgeW914oCZ cmUgcmlnaHQuDQoNCkhlcmINCg0KRnJvbTogQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZSBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBF bmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgW21haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdIE9uIEJlaGFs ZiBPZiBTY290dCBXb29kcw0KU2VudDogMjAwOS0wNS0zMSAxODo0NQ0KVG86IEFURUdATElTVFNF UlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IENsYXNzIHNpemUgQVRFRyBEaWdlc3QgLSAyOCBN YXkgMjAwOSB0byAyOSBNYXkgMjAwOSAtIFNwZWNpYWwgaXNzdWUgKCMyMDA5LTEyNykNCg0KSGVy YiwNCg0KSSB3YXNuJ3QgY2xlYXIuICBDdXJyZW50bHksIGZvciBzZXZlbnRoIGdyYWRlIEVuZ2xp c2gsIEkgdGVhY2ggZm91ciBncm91cHMgb2Ygc3R1ZGVudHMgZm9yIGEgdG90YWwgb2YgMTEyIHN0 dWRlbnRzLiAgSSBtZWV0IHdpdGggZWFjaCBncm91cCBmaXZlIHRpbWVzIGVhY2ggd2Vlay4gIEkg dGhpbmsgdGhhdCBJIGNvdWxkIGdldCBiZXR0ZXIgcmVzdWx0cyBieSBtZWV0aW5nIHdpdGggYWxs IHRoZSBncm91cHMgdG9nZXRoZXIgb24gc29tZSBkYXlzIGFuZCB3aXRoIGVhY2ggZ3JvdXAgc2Vw YXJhdGVseSBvbiBvdGhlcnMuIFRoaXMgd291bGQgcmVkdWNlIHRvdGFsIHN0dWRlbnQgY29udGFj dCBob3VycyBmb3IgbWUsIGJ1dCBub3QgZm9yIHRoZW0uICBXaXRoIDI4IHRvdGFsIGNvbnRhY3Qg aG91cnMgcGVyIHdlZWsgbmV4dCB5ZWFyIChJIHRlYWNoIG90aGVyIGNsYXNzZXMgYXMgd2VsbCks IEkgd291bGQgYmVuZWZpdCBmcm9tIHJlZHVjaW5nIG15IGNvbnRhY3QgbG9hZCBhbmQgc3BlbmRp bmcgdGhhdCB0aW1lIHBsYW5uaW5nLCBkZXZlbG9waW5nIGxlc3NvbnMsIGFuZCByZXNwb25kaW5n IHRvIHdyaXRpbmcuDQoNClNjb3R0DQoNCi0tLSBPbiBTdW4sIDUvMzEvMDksIFNUQUhMS0UsIEhF UkJFUlQgRiA8aHN0YWhsa2VAQlNVLkVEVT4gd3JvdGU6DQoNCkZyb206IFNUQUhMS0UsIEhFUkJF UlQgRiA8aHN0YWhsa2VAQlNVLkVEVT4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBDbGFzcyBzaXplIEFURUcgRGln ZXN0IC0gMjggTWF5IDIwMDkgdG8gMjkgTWF5IDIwMDkgLSBTcGVjaWFsIGlzc3VlICgjMjAwOS0x MjcpDQpUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQpEYXRlOiBTdW5kYXksIE1heSAzMSwg MjAwOSwgMToyMSBQTQ0KU2NvdHQsDQoNCknigJltIG5vdCBqb2luIHRoaXMgZGViYXRlIGJlY2F1 c2UgSSBkb27igJl0IGtub3cgdGhlIHJlc2VhcmNoIG9uIGVpdGhlciBzaWRlLCBidXQgbWVldGlu ZyBvbmUgZ3JvdXAgb2YgMTEyIHN0dWRlbnRzIHR3aWNlIGEgd2VlayByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiBmb3Vy IGdyb3VwcyBvZiAyOCBzdHVkZW50cyB0d2ljZSBhIHdlZWsgZm9yIGVhY2ggZ3JvdXAgc3RyaWtl cyBtZSBhcyBzaW1wbHkgYSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgd2F5IG9mIGhhbmRsaW5nIHRoZSBzYW1lIHN0dWRl bnQtdGVhY2hlciByYXRpby4gIE1lZXRpbmcgZm91ciBncm91cHMgb2YgMTEyIHN0dWRlbnRzIHR3 aWNlIGEgd2VlayBmb3IgZWFjaCBncm91cCBzZWVtcyBhIG1vcmUgYXB0IGNvbnRyYXN0LiAgT3Ig eW91IGNvdWxkIGxvd2VyIHRoYXQgdG8gZm91ciBncm91cHMgb2YgNDIgb3IgNTYgc3R1ZGVudHMu ICBUaGUgcmVzdWx0IHdvdWxkIGJlIG11Y2ggbGVzcyB3cml0aW5nIGFuZCBtdWNoIGxlc3MgcmVz cG9uc2UgdG8gd3JpdGluZy4NCg0KSGVyYg0KDQpGcm9tOiBBc3NlbWJseSBmb3IgdGhlIFRlYWNo aW5nIG9mIEVuZ2xpc2ggR3JhbW1hciBbbWFpbHRvOkFURUdATElTVFNFUlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVV0g T24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIFNjb3R0IFdvb2RzDQpTZW50OiAyMDA5LTA1LTMxIDExOjExDQpUbzogQVRF R0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogQ2xhc3Mgc2l6ZSBBVEVHIERpZ2Vz dCAtIDI4IE1heSAyMDA5IHRvIDI5IE1heSAyMDA5IC0gU3BlY2lhbCBpc3N1ZSAoIzIwMDktMTI3 KQ0KDQpQYXVsLA0KDQpJIHdvdWxkIGJlIGludGVyZXN0ZWQgaW4gc2VlaW5nIHJlc2VhcmNoIHRo YXQgc2hvd3MgYSBzdHJvbmcgbGluayBiZXR3ZWVuIHJlZHVjaW5nIGNsYXNzIHNpemUgYW5kIGlu Y3JlYXNpbmcgcGVyZm9ybWFuY2UuIFRoZSByZXNlYXJjaCBJIGhhdmUgc2VlbiBzdHJvbmdseSBz dWdnZXN0cyB0aGF0IHRoZSBtb3N0IGltcG9ydGFudCBmYWN0b3IgaW4gaW1wcm92aW5nIHN0dWRl bnQgcGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgaXMgY2hhbmdpbmcgd2hhdCB0ZWFjaGVycyBkby4gIFJlZHVjaW5nIGNs YXNzIHNpemUgY2FuIHJlZHVjZSB0aGUgYW1vdW50IG9mIGRpc3J1cHRpb24gaW4gYSBjbGFzcywg YnV0IHRoZXJlIGlzIGxpdHRsZSByZXNlYXJjaCBiYXNlICh0aGF0IEkgaGF2ZSBzZWVuKSB0byBz dWdnZXN0IHRoYXQgaWYgd2UgcmVkdWNlZCB0aGUgc2l6ZSBvZiBldmVyeSBjbGFzcyBpbiB0aGUg Y291bnRyeSB0byAxNSBzdHVkZW50cyB0aGF0IG11Y2ggd291bGQgY2hhbmdlIGluIHdoYXQgc3R1 ZGVudHMga25vdyBhbmQgY2FuIGRvLg0KDQpBcyBhbiBFbmdsaXNoIHRlYWNoZXIsIEkgd291bGQg cHJlZmVyIGhhdmluZyBmZXdlciB0b3RhbCBzdHVkZW50cywgYnV0IEkgY291bGQgcHJvYmFibHkg dGVhY2ggYXMgd2VsbCBpZiwgYXQgbGVhc3QgdHdpY2UgYSB3ZWVrLCBJIGhhZCBhbGwgMTEyIG9m IG15IHN0dWRlbnRzIGluIGEgbGVjdHVyZSBoYWxsIHRvZ2V0aGVyLiAgVGhhdCB3b3VsZCBnaXZl IG1lIGVpZ2h0IGhvdXJzIG9mIGV4dHJhIHRpbWUgdG8gcmVzcG9uZCB0aG91Z2h0ZnVsbHkgdG8g dGhlaXIgd3JpdGluZy4NCg0KU2NvdHQgV29vZHMNCkJBU0lTIFNjb3R0c2RhbGUNCg0KDQotLS0g T24gRnJpLCA1LzI5LzA5LCBQYXVsIEUuIERvbmlnZXIgPHBkb25pZ2VyQFNORVQuTkVUPiB3cm90 ZToNCg0KRnJvbTogUGF1bCBFLiBEb25pZ2VyIHBkb25pZ2VyQFNORVQuTkVUPGh0dHA6Ly91cy5t YzUxMy5tYWlsLnlhaG9vLmNvbS9tYy9jb21wb3NlP3RvPXBkb25pZ2VyQFNORVQuTkVUPg0KWWVz ISBBbmQgYWxsIHJlc2VhcmNoIGluIGVkdWNhdGlvbiB0aGF0IEkndmUgZXZlciBzZWVuIGFncmVl cyB0aGF0IGNsYXNzIHNpemUgaXMgYSB2aXRhbCBjb21wb25lbnQgaW4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bCBsZWFy bmluZy4gIFRoaXMgaXMgZXNwZWNpYWxseSBpbXBvcnRhbnQgdG8gdGhlIHdyaXRpbmcgY2xhc3Ny b29tLg0KDQpQYXVsIEUuIERvbmlnZXINCg0KIklmIHRoaXMgd2VyZSBwbGF5J2QgdXBvbiBhIHN0 YWdlIG5vdywgSSBjb3VsZCBjb25kZW1uIGl0IGFzIGFuIGltcHJvYmFibGUgZmljdGlvbiIgKF9U d2VsZnRoIE5pZ2h0XyAzLjQuMTI3LTEyOCkuDQoNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX18NCkZyb206IFNjb3R0IDxzY2F0QENGTC5SUi5DT00+DQpUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VS Vi5NVU9ISU8uRURVDQpTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIE1heSAyOSwgMjAwOSA4OjMwOjU2IFBNDQpTdWJq ZWN0OiBSZTogQ2xhc3Mgc2l6ZSBBVEVHIERpZ2VzdCAtIDI4IE1heSAyMDA5IHRvIDI5IE1heSAy MDA5IC0gU3BlY2lhbCBpc3N1ZSAoIzIwMDktMTI3KQ0KDQpJIHRvbyBhbSBub3JtYWxseSByZWx1 Y3RhbnQgdG8gY2xhc3NpZnkgYSByZW1hcmsgYXMgc3R1cGlkOyBob3dldmVyLA0KdGhlIGxpc3Qg bWVtYmVyIHdobyBpbmRpY2F0ZWQgdGhhdCBjbGFzcyBzaXplIHdhcyBpcnJlbGV2YW50IGluIHRl YWNoaW5nDQp3cml0aW5nIG11c3QgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGJyb3VnaHQgdXAgYnkgYSBzY2hvb2wgYm9h cmQgbWVtYmVyLiAgTXkgYWxtYSBtYXRlciwNCk1TQywgd2hvc2UgcmVndWxhciBGcmVzaG1hbiBF bmdsaXNoIHByb2dyYW0gSSBoYXZlIHByYWlzZWQgaGlnaGx5LCBoYWQNCmEgc2Vjb25kYXJ5IHBy b2dyYW0gaW4gYmFzaWMgd3JpdGluZyBza2lsbHMgZm9yIHRob3NlIHdobyBoYWQgZmFpbGVkIHRo ZQ0KRW5nbGlzaCBwbGFjZW1lbnQgZXhhbS4gIEkgaGFkIHNjb3JlZCBhIDEwMCBpbiB0aGUgZXhh bSBidXQgbXkgYWR2aXNvciBoYWQNCmFjY2lkZW50YWxseSBwdXQgbXkgdGVzdCBpbiB0aGUgIkR1 bW15IEVuZ2xpc2giIHBpbGU7IHRoZXJlZm9yZSwgSSBoYWQgdG8NCnRha2UgYSBub24tY3JlZGl0 IEVuZ2xpc2ggY2xhc3Mgb24gdGhlIHNhbWUgc2VtZXN0ZXIgYXMgbXkgZmlyc3QgRnJlc2htYW4N CkVuZ2xpc2ggY2xhc3MuICBNeSBhZHZpc29yIGFwb2xvZ2l6ZWQgdG8gbWUgbGF0ZXIgYnV0IEkg cmVwbGllZCB0aGF0IEkgaGFkDQpsZWFybmVkIG1vcmUgaW4gRHVtbXkgRW5nbGlzaCB0aGFuIGlu IHJlZ3VsYXIgRW5nbGlzaCBiZWNhdXNlIHRoZSBjbGFzcyBzaXplDQp3YXMgcXVpdGUgc21hbGwt LWFyb3VuZCB0ZW4gc3R1ZGVudHMtLWFuZCB3ZSB3cm90ZSBhIHRoZW1lIGVhY2ggZGF5IGluc3Rl YWQNCm9mIG9uZSBhIHdlZWsuICBUaGUgcHJvZmVzc29yIGluIHRoZSBEdW1teSBDbGFzcyB3YXMg YWxzbyBhbiBleGNlbGxlbnQNCnRlYWNoZXIuDQoNCkhhdmluZyB0YXVnaHQgYWNyb3NzIHRoZSBh Y2FkZW1pYyBjdXJyaWN1bHVtLCBJIGNhbiBhdmVyIHRoYXQsIGluIG15DQpleHBlcmllbmNlLCBj bGFzcyBzaXplIGlzIG1vcmUgaW1wb3J0YW50IGluIEVuZ2xpc2ggY29tcG9zaXRpb24gdGhhbiBp biBhbnkNCm90aGVyIGFjYWRlbWljIGNsYXNzLCBpbmNsdWRpbmcgbWF0aGVtYXRpY3MgYW5kIGZv cmVpZ24gbGFuZ3VhZ2VzLg0KDQpOLiBTY290dCBDYXRsZWRnZSwgUGhEL1NURA0KUHJvZmVzc29y IEVtZXJpdHVzDQoNCioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKg0KDQpUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMg TElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDoN CiAgICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwNCmFuZCBz ZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQoNClZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBh dCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQpUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwg cGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDogaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2 Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgIkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUg dGhlIGxpc3QiDQpWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KDQoN ClRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxp c3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVvaGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZl cy9hdGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCINClZpc2l0IEFU RUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvDQpUbyBqb2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMg TElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZSBsaXN0J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDog aHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIGFuZCBzZWxlY3Qg IkpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QiDQpWaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2ViIHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDov L2F0ZWcub3JnLw0KDQoNClRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVh c2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0OiBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHNlcnYubXVv aGlvLmVkdS9hcmNoaXZlcy9hdGVnLmh0bWwgYW5kIHNlbGVjdCAiSm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUg bGlzdCINCg0KVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8NCg= --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431BF5BEED43EMAILBACKEND0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQoNCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9R2VuZXJhdG9y IGNvbnRlbnQ9Ik1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIDEyIChmaWx0ZXJlZCBtZWRpdW0pIj4NCjwhLS1baWYg IW1zb10+DQo8c3R5bGU+DQp2XDoqIHtiZWhhdmlvcjp1cmwoI2RlZmF1bHQjVk1MKTt9DQpvXDoq IHtiZWhhdmlvcjp1cmwoI2RlZmF1bHQjVk1MKTt9DQp3XDoqIHtiZWhhdmlvcjp1cmwoI2RlZmF1 bHQjVk1MKTt9DQouc2hhcGUge2JlaGF2aW9yOnVybCgjZGVmYXVsdCNWTUwpO30NCjwvc3R5bGU+ DQo8IVtlbmRpZl0tLT4NCjxzdHlsZT4NCjwhLS0NCiAvKiBGb250IERlZmluaXRpb25zICovDQog QGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FtYnJpYSBNYXRoIjsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDQg NSAzIDUgNCA2IDMgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6Q2FsaWJyaTsNCglw YW5vc2UtMToyIDE1IDUgMiAyIDIgNCAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OlRhaG9tYTsNCglwYW5vc2UtMToyIDExIDYgNCAzIDUgNCA0IDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJ e2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJCb29rbWFuIE9sZCBTdHlsZSI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiA1IDYgNCA1IDUg NSAyIDIgNDt9DQogLyogU3R5bGUgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCiBwLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgbGkuTXNv Tm9ybWFsLCBkaXYuTXNvTm9ybWFsDQoJe21hcmdpbjowaW47DQoJbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbTouMDAw MXB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiIs InNlcmlmIjt9DQpwDQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS1wcmlvcml0eTo5OTsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1h bHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tcmlnaHQ6MGluOw0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRv Ow0KCW1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0OjBpbjsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJU aW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5lbWFpbHN0eWxlMTgNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxl LW5hbWU6ZW1haWxzdHlsZTE4O30NCnNwYW4uZW1haWxzdHlsZTE4MQ0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtbmFt ZTplbWFpbHN0eWxlMTgxOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQoJ Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RDt9DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUyMA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpwZXJz b25hbC1yZXBseTsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KCWNvbG9y OiMxRjQ5N0Q7fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9ubHk7 fQ0KQHBhZ2UgU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo4LjVpbiAxMS4waW47DQoJbWFyZ2luOjEuMGluIDEu MGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluO30NCmRpdi5TZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOlNlY3Rpb24xO30NCi0tPg0K PC9zdHlsZT4NCjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KIDxvOnNoYXBlZGVmYXVsdHMgdjpl eHQ9ImVkaXQiIHNwaWRtYXg9IjEwMjYiIC8+DQo8L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT48IS0tW2lmIGd0 ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCiA8bzpzaGFwZWxheW91dCB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCI+DQogIDxvOmlkbWFw IHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBkYXRhPSIxIiAvPg0KIDwvbzpzaGFwZWxheW91dD48L3htbD48IVtlbmRp Zl0tLT4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCg0KPGJvZHkgbGFuZz1FTi1VUyBsaW5rPSIjMDAwMDAwIiB2bGluaz0i IzAwMDAwMCI+DQoNCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9U2VjdGlvbjE+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMt c2VyaWYiOw0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+U2NvdHQsPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KDQo8 cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCmNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNp emU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xvcjojMUY0 OTdEJz5UaGFua3MgZm9yIHRoZSBjbGFyaWZpY2F0aW9uLsKgIEkgc3VzcGVjdCB5b3XigJlyZSBy aWdodC48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBz dHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYi Ow0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KDQo8cCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNh bGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCmNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPkhlcmI8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBw dDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86 cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KDQo8ZGl2IHN0eWxlPSdib3JkZXI6bm9uZTtib3Jk ZXItdG9wOnNvbGlkICNCNUM0REYgMS4wcHQ7cGFkZGluZzozLjBwdCAwaW4gMGluIDBpbic+DQoN CjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250 LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPkZyb206PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3Bhbg0Kc3R5 bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4g QXNzZW1ibHkgZm9yIHRoZQ0KVGVhY2hpbmcgb2YgRW5nbGlzaCBHcmFtbWFyIFttYWlsdG86QVRF R0BMSVNUU0VSVi5NVU9ISU8uRURVXSA8Yj5PbiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgPC9iPlNjb3R0DQpXb29kczxi cj4NCjxiPlNlbnQ6PC9iPiAyMDA5LTA1LTMxIDE4OjQ1PGJyPg0KPGI+VG86PC9iPiBBVEVHQExJ U1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8YnI+DQo8Yj5TdWJqZWN0OjwvYj4gUmU6IENsYXNzIHNpemUgQVRF RyBEaWdlc3QgLSAyOCBNYXkgMjAwOSB0byAyOSBNYXkgMjAwOSAtDQpTcGVjaWFsIGlzc3VlICgj MjAwOS0xMjcpPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KDQo8L2Rpdj4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNv Tm9ybWFsPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KDQo8dGFibGUgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsVGFi bGUgYm9yZGVyPTAgY2VsbHNwYWNpbmc9MCBjZWxscGFkZGluZz0wPg0KIDx0cj4NCiAgPHRkIHZh bGlnbj10b3Agc3R5bGU9J3BhZGRpbmc6MGluIDBpbiAwaW4gMGluJz4NCiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAg Y2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPkhlcmIsPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0K ICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8 ZGl2Pg0KICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+SSB3YXNuJ3QgY2xlYXIuJm5ic3A7IEN1cnJlbnRs eSwmbmJzcDtmb3Igc2V2ZW50aCBncmFkZQ0KICBFbmdsaXNoLCZuYnNwO0kgdGVhY2ggZm91ciBn cm91cHMgb2Ygc3R1ZGVudHMgZm9yIGEgdG90YWwgb2YgMTEyDQogIHN0dWRlbnRzLiZuYnNwOyBJ IG1lZXQgd2l0aCBlYWNoIGdyb3VwIGZpdmUgdGltZXMgZWFjaCB3ZWVrLiZuYnNwOyBJIHRoaW5r DQogIHRoYXQgSSBjb3VsZCBnZXQgYmV0dGVyIHJlc3VsdHMgYnkgbWVldGluZyB3aXRoIGFsbCB0 aGUgZ3JvdXBzIHRvZ2V0aGVyIG9uDQogIHNvbWUgZGF5cyBhbmQgd2l0aCBlYWNoIGdyb3VwIHNl cGFyYXRlbHkgb24gb3RoZXJzLiBUaGlzIHdvdWxkIHJlZHVjZSB0b3RhbA0KICBzdHVkZW50IGNv bnRhY3QgaG91cnMgZm9yIG1lLCBidXQgbm90IGZvciB0aGVtLiZuYnNwOyBXaXRoIDI4IHRvdGFs IGNvbnRhY3QNCiAgaG91cnMgcGVyIHdlZWsgbmV4dCB5ZWFyIChJIHRlYWNoIG90aGVyIGNsYXNz ZXMgYXMgd2VsbCksIEkgd291bGQgYmVuZWZpdA0KICBmcm9tIHJlZHVjaW5nIG15IGNvbnRhY3Qg bG9hZCBhbmQgc3BlbmRpbmcgdGhhdCB0aW1lIHBsYW5uaW5nLCBkZXZlbG9waW5nDQogIGxlc3Nv bnMsIGFuZCByZXNwb25kaW5nIHRvIHdyaXRpbmcuJm5ic3A7IDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8 L2Rpdj4NCiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9w Pg0KICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPlNjb3R0PGJyPg0KICA8 YnI+DQogIC0tLSBPbiA8Yj5TdW4sIDUvMzEvMDksIFNUQUhMS0UsIEhFUkJFUlQgRiA8aT4mbHQ7 aHN0YWhsa2VAQlNVLkVEVSZndDs8L2k+PC9iPg0KICB3cm90ZTo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAg PC9kaXY+DQogIDxibG9ja3F1b3RlIHN0eWxlPSdib3JkZXI6bm9uZTtib3JkZXItbGVmdDpzb2xp ZCAjMTAxMEZGIDEuNXB0O3BhZGRpbmc6MGluIDBpbiAwaW4gNC4wcHQ7DQogIG1hcmdpbi1sZWZ0 OjMuNzVwdDttYXJnaW4tdG9wOjUuMHB0O21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206NS4wcHQnPg0KICA8cCBjbGFz cz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206MTIuMHB0Jz48YnI+DQogIEZyb206IFNU QUhMS0UsIEhFUkJFUlQgRiAmbHQ7aHN0YWhsa2VAQlNVLkVEVSZndDs8YnI+DQogIFN1YmplY3Q6 IFJlOiBDbGFzcyBzaXplIEFURUcgRGlnZXN0IC0gMjggTWF5IDIwMDkgdG8gMjkgTWF5IDIwMDkg LSBTcGVjaWFsDQogIGlzc3VlICgjMjAwOS0xMjcpPGJyPg0KICBUbzogQVRFR0BMSVNUU0VSVi5N VU9ISU8uRURVPGJyPg0KICBEYXRlOiBTdW5kYXksIE1heSAzMSwgMjAwOSwgMToyMSBQTTxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8ZGl2IGlkPXlpdjE1MDA3MDQwNjg+DQogIDxkaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNz PU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0 b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+U2NvdHQsPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFy Z2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byc+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5 bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtj b2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz4mbmJzcDs8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvZGl2Pg0KICA8 cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJn aW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDphdXRvJz48c3Bhbg0KICBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250 LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPknigJltDQogIG5v dCBqb2luIHRoaXMgZGViYXRlIGJlY2F1c2UgSSBkb27igJl0IGtub3cgdGhlIHJlc2VhcmNoIG9u IGVpdGhlciBzaWRlLCBidXQNCiAgbWVldGluZyBvbmUgZ3JvdXAgb2YgMTEyIHN0dWRlbnRzIHR3 aWNlIGEgd2VlayByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiBmb3VyIGdyb3VwcyBvZiAyOA0KICBzdHVkZW50cyB0d2lj ZSBhIHdlZWsgZm9yIGVhY2ggZ3JvdXAgc3RyaWtlcyBtZSBhcyBzaW1wbHkgYSBkaWZmZXJlbnQg d2F5IG9mDQogIGhhbmRsaW5nIHRoZSBzYW1lIHN0dWRlbnQtdGVhY2hlciByYXRpby4mbmJzcDsg TWVldGluZyBmb3VyIGdyb3VwcyBvZiAxMTINCiAgc3R1ZGVudHMgdHdpY2UgYSB3ZWVrIGZvciBl YWNoIGdyb3VwIHNlZW1zIGEgbW9yZSBhcHQgY29udHJhc3QuJm5ic3A7IE9yIHlvdQ0KICBjb3Vs ZCBsb3dlciB0aGF0IHRvIGZvdXIgZ3JvdXBzIG9mIDQyIG9yIDU2IHN0dWRlbnRzLiZuYnNwOyBU aGUgcmVzdWx0IHdvdWxkDQogIGJlIG11Y2ggbGVzcyB3cml0aW5nIGFuZCBtdWNoIGxlc3MgcmVz cG9uc2UgdG8gd3JpdGluZy48L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT4N CiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28t bWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0byc+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7 Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz4mbmJzcDs8 L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1h cmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxzcGFuDQogIHN0 eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7 Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+SGVyYjwvc3Bhbj48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNv Tm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1h bHQ6YXV0byc+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNh bGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz4mbmJzcDs8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286 cD48L3A+DQogIDxkaXYgc3R5bGU9J2JvcmRlcjpub25lO2JvcmRlci10b3A6c29saWQgI0I1QzRE RiAxLjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBpbiAwaW4gMGluJz4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFs IHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6YXV0 byc+PGI+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9t YSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5Gcm9tOjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PHNwYW4NCiAgc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6 ZToxMC4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz4gQXNzZW1ibHkgZm9y IHRoZQ0KICBUZWFjaGluZyBvZiBFbmdsaXNoIEdyYW1tYXIgW21haWx0bzpBVEVHQExJU1RTRVJW Lk1VT0hJTy5FRFVdIDxiPk9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZg0KICA8L2I+U2NvdHQgV29vZHM8YnI+DQogIDxi PlNlbnQ6PC9iPiAyMDA5LTA1LTMxIDExOjExPGJyPg0KICA8Yj5Ubzo8L2I+IEFURUdATElTVFNF UlYuTVVPSElPLkVEVTxicj4NCiAgPGI+U3ViamVjdDo8L2I+IFJlOiBDbGFzcyBzaXplIEFURUcg RGlnZXN0IC0gMjggTWF5IDIwMDkgdG8gMjkgTWF5IDIwMDkgLQ0KICBTcGVjaWFsIGlzc3VlICgj MjAwOS0xMjcpPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNv Tm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1h bHQ6YXV0byc+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogIDx0YWJsZSBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWxU YWJsZSBib3JkZXI9MCBjZWxsc3BhY2luZz0wIGNlbGxwYWRkaW5nPTA+DQogICA8dHI+DQogICAg PHRkIHZhbGlnbj10b3Agc3R5bGU9J3BhZGRpbmc6MGluIDBpbiAwaW4gMGluJz4NCiAgICA8ZGl2 Pg0KICAgIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87 bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0Og0KICAgIGF1dG8nPlBhdWwsPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQog ICAgPC9kaXY+DQogICAgPGRpdj4NCiAgICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1t YXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDoNCiAgICBhdXRvJz4mbmJz cDs8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgICA8ZGl2Pg0KICAgIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1z b05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20t YWx0Og0KICAgIGF1dG8nPkkgd291bGQgYmUgaW50ZXJlc3RlZCBpbiBzZWVpbmcgcmVzZWFyY2gg dGhhdCBzaG93cyBhIHN0cm9uZyBsaW5rDQogICAgYmV0d2VlbiByZWR1Y2luZyBjbGFzcyBzaXpl IGFuZCBpbmNyZWFzaW5nIHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlLiZuYnNwO1RoZSByZXNlYXJjaCBJDQogICAgaGF2 ZSBzZWVuIHN0cm9uZ2x5IHN1Z2dlc3RzIHRoYXQgdGhlIG1vc3QgaW1wb3J0YW50IGZhY3RvciBp biBpbXByb3ZpbmcNCiAgICBzdHVkZW50IHBlcmZvcm1hbmNlIGlzIGNoYW5naW5nIHdoYXQgdGVh Y2hlcnMgZG8uJm5ic3A7IFJlZHVjaW5nIGNsYXNzIHNpemUNCiAgICBjYW4gcmVkdWNlIHRoZSBh bW91bnQgb2YgZGlzcnVwdGlvbiBpbiBhIGNsYXNzLCBidXQgdGhlcmUgaXMgbGl0dGxlDQogICAg cmVzZWFyY2ggYmFzZSAodGhhdCBJIGhhdmUgc2VlbikgdG8gc3VnZ2VzdCB0aGF0IGlmIHdlIHJl ZHVjZWQgdGhlIHNpemUgb2YNCiAgICBldmVyeSBjbGFzcyBpbiB0aGUgY291bnRyeSB0byAxNSBz dHVkZW50cyB0aGF0IG11Y2ggd291bGQgY2hhbmdlIGluIHdoYXQNCiAgICBzdHVkZW50cyBrbm93 IGFuZCBjYW4gZG8uJm5ic3A7IDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICAgIDwvZGl2Pg0KICAgIDxkaXY+ DQogICAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bztt c28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6DQogICAgYXV0byc+Jm5ic3A7PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQog ICAgPC9kaXY+DQogICAgPGRpdj4NCiAgICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1t YXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDoNCiAgICBhdXRvJz5BcyBh biBFbmdsaXNoIHRlYWNoZXIsIEkgd291bGQgcHJlZmVyIGhhdmluZyBmZXdlciB0b3RhbCBzdHVk ZW50cywNCiAgICBidXQgSSBjb3VsZCBwcm9iYWJseSB0ZWFjaCBhcyB3ZWxsIGlmLCBhdCBsZWFz dCB0d2ljZSBhIHdlZWssIEkgaGFkIGFsbCAxMTINCiAgICBvZiBteSBzdHVkZW50cyBpbiBhIGxl Y3R1cmUgaGFsbCB0b2dldGhlci4gJm5ic3A7VGhhdCB3b3VsZCBnaXZlIG1lIGVpZ2h0DQogICAg aG91cnMgb2YgZXh0cmEgdGltZSB0byByZXNwb25kIHRob3VnaHRmdWxseSB0byB0aGVpciB3cml0 aW5nLiA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgICA8ZGl2Pg0KICAgIDxwIGNsYXNz PU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0 b20tYWx0Og0KICAgIGF1dG8nPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICAgIDwvZGl2Pg0KICAg IDxkaXY+DQogICAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6 YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6DQogICAgYXV0byc+U2NvdHQgV29vZHM8bzpwPjwv bzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgICA8ZGl2Pg0KICAgIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBz dHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0Og0KICAg IGF1dG8nPkJBU0lTIFNjb3R0c2RhbGU8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgICA8 ZGl2Pg0KICAgIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1 dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0Og0KICAgIGF1dG8nPiZuYnNwOzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9w Pg0KICAgIDwvZGl2Pg0KICAgIDxkaXY+DQogICAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdt c28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6DQogICAgYXV0byc+ PGJyPg0KICAgIC0tLSBPbiA8Yj5GcmksIDUvMjkvMDksIFBhdWwgRS4gRG9uaWdlciA8aT4mbHQ7 cGRvbmlnZXJAU05FVC5ORVQmZ3Q7PC9pPjwvYj4NCiAgICB3cm90ZTo8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4N CiAgICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgICA8YmxvY2txdW90ZSBzdHlsZT0nYm9yZGVyOm5vbmU7Ym9yZGVyLWxl ZnQ6c29saWQgIzEwMTBGRiAxLjVwdDtwYWRkaW5nOg0KICAgIDBpbiAwaW4gMGluIDQuMHB0O21h cmdpbi1sZWZ0OjMuNzVwdDttYXJnaW4tdG9wOjUuMHB0O21hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206NS4wcHQnPg0K ICAgIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bWFy Z2luLWJvdHRvbToxMi4wcHQnPjxicj4NCiAgICBGcm9tOiBQYXVsIEUuIERvbmlnZXIgPGENCiAg ICBocmVmPSJodHRwOi8vdXMubWM1MTMubWFpbC55YWhvby5jb20vbWMvY29tcG9zZT90bz1wZG9u aWdlckBTTkVULk5FVCINCiAgICB0YXJnZXQ9Il9ibGFuayI+PHU+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2NvbG9y OmJsdWUnPnBkb25pZ2VyQFNORVQuTkVUPC9zcGFuPjwvdT48L2E+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQog ICAgPC9ibG9ja3F1b3RlPg0KICAgIDxkaXYgaWQ9eWl2NDY5MDM4MDg1Pg0KICAgIDxkaXY+DQog ICAgPGRpdj4NCiAgICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFs dDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDoNCiAgICBhdXRvJz48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6IkJvb2ttYW4gT2xkIFN0eWxlIiwic2VyaWYiJz5ZZXMhIEFuZCBhbGwNCiAgICBy ZXNlYXJjaCBpbiBlZHVjYXRpb24gdGhhdCBJJ3ZlIGV2ZXIgc2VlbiBhZ3JlZXMgdGhhdCBjbGFz cyBzaXplIGlzIGEgdml0YWwNCiAgICBjb21wb25lbnQgaW4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bCBsZWFybmluZy4m bmJzcDsgVGhpcyBpcyBlc3BlY2lhbGx5IGltcG9ydGFudCB0byB0aGUNCiAgICB3cml0aW5nIGNs YXNzcm9vbS4gPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICAgIDwvZGl2Pg0KICAgIDwvZGl2Pg0K ICAgIDxkaXY+DQogICAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1h bHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1hbHQ6DQogICAgYXV0byc+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2Zv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJCb29rbWFuIE9sZCBTdHlsZSIsInNlcmlmIic+Jm5ic3A7PC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+ PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICAgIDwvZGl2Pg0KICAgIDwvZGl2Pg0KICAgIDxkaXY+DQogICAgPHAgY2xh c3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsIHN0eWxlPSdtc28tbWFyZ2luLXRvcC1hbHQ6YXV0bzttc28tbWFyZ2luLWJv dHRvbS1hbHQ6DQogICAgYXV0byc+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJCb29rbWFuIE9s ZCBTdHlsZSIsInNlcmlmIic+UGF1bCBFLiBEb25pZ2VyPGJyPg0KICAgICZuYnNwOzwvc3Bhbj48 bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgICA8L2Rpdj4NCiAgICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9 J21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDoNCiAgICBhdXRv Jz48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQm9va21hbiBPbGQg U3R5bGUiLCJzZXJpZiInPiZxdW90O0lmDQogICAgdGhpcyB3ZXJlIHBsYXknZCB1cG9uIGEgc3Rh Z2Ugbm93LCBJIGNvdWxkIGNvbmRlbW4gaXQgYXMgYW4gaW1wcm9iYWJsZQ0KICAgIGZpY3Rpb24m cXVvdDsgKF9Ud2VsZnRoIE5pZ2h0XyAzLjQuMTI3LTEyOCkuPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdm b250LWZhbWlseToNCiAgICAiQm9va21hbiBPbGQgU3R5bGUiLCJzZXJpZiInPiA8L3NwYW4+PG86 cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogICAgPGRpdj4NCiAgICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21z by1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tLWFsdDoNCiAgICBhdXRvJz48 c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkJvb2ttYW4gT2xkIFN0eWxlIiwic2VyaWYiJz4mbmJz cDs8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogICAgPC9kaXY+DQogICAgPGRpdj4NCiAgICA8cCBj bGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4t Ym90dG9tLWFsdDoNCiAgICBhdXRvJz48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkJvb2ttYW4g T2xkIFN0eWxlIiwic2VyaWYiJz4mbmJzcDs8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogICAgPC9k aXY+DQogICAgPGRpdj4NCiAgICA8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBhbGlnbj1jZW50ZXIgc3R5 bGU9J3RleHQtYWxpZ246Y2VudGVyJz48c3Bhbg0KICAgIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+DQogICAgPGhyIHNpemU9MSB3aWR0 aD0iMTAwJSIgYWxpZ249Y2VudGVyPg0KICAgIDwvc3Bhbj48L2Rpdj4NCiAgICA8cCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWwgc3R5bGU9J21zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRvO21zby1tYXJnaW4tYm90dG9t LWFsdDoNCiAgICBhdXRvJz48Yj48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZh bWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiInPkZyb206PC9zcGFuPjwvYj48c3Bhbg0KICAgIHN0 eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+ IFNjb3R0DQogICAgJmx0O3NjYXRAQ0ZMLlJSLkNPTSZndDs8YnI+DQogICAgPGI+VG86PC9iPiBB VEVHQExJU1RTRVJWLk1VT0hJTy5FRFU8YnI+DQogICAgPGI+U2VudDo8L2I+IEZyaWRheSwgTWF5 IDI5LCAyMDA5IDg6MzA6NTYgUE08YnI+DQogICAgPGI+U3ViamVjdDo8L2I+IFJlOiBDbGFzcyBz aXplIEFURUcgRGlnZXN0IC0gMjggTWF5IDIwMDkgdG8gMjkgTWF5IDIwMDkgLQ0KICAgIFNwZWNp YWwgaXNzdWUgKCMyMDA5LTEyNyk8YnI+DQogICAgPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LWZh bWlseToiQm9va21hbiBPbGQgU3R5bGUiLCJzZXJpZiInPjxicj4NCiAgICBJIHRvbyBhbSBub3Jt YWxseSByZWx1Y3RhbnQgdG8gY2xhc3NpZnkgYSByZW1hcmsgYXMgc3R1cGlkOyBob3dldmVyLDxi cj4NCiAgICB0aGUgbGlzdCBtZW1iZXIgd2hvIGluZGljYXRlZCB0aGF0IGNsYXNzIHNpemUgd2Fz IGlycmVsZXZhbnQgaW4gdGVhY2hpbmc8YnI+DQogICAgd3JpdGluZyBtdXN0IGhhdmUgYmVlbiBi cm91Z2h0IHVwIGJ5IGEgc2Nob29sIGJvYXJkIG1lbWJlci4mbmJzcDsgTXkgYWxtYQ0KICAgIG1h dGVyLDxicj4NCiAgICBNU0MsIHdob3NlIHJlZ3VsYXIgRnJlc2htYW4gRW5nbGlzaCBwcm9ncmFt IEkgaGF2ZSBwcmFpc2VkIGhpZ2hseSwgaGFkPGJyPg0KICAgIGEgc2Vjb25kYXJ5IHByb2dyYW0g aW4gYmFzaWMgd3JpdGluZyBza2lsbHMgZm9yIHRob3NlIHdobyBoYWQgZmFpbGVkIHRoZTxicj4N CiAgICBFbmdsaXNoIHBsYWNlbWVudCBleGFtLiZuYnNwOyBJIGhhZCBzY29yZWQgYSAxMDAgaW4g dGhlIGV4YW0gYnV0IG15IGFkdmlzb3INCiAgICBoYWQ8YnI+DQogICAgYWNjaWRlbnRhbGx5IHB1 dCBteSB0ZXN0IGluIHRoZSAmcXVvdDtEdW1teSBFbmdsaXNoJnF1b3Q7IHBpbGU7IHRoZXJlZm9y ZSwNCiAgICBJIGhhZCB0bzxicj4NCiAgICB0YWtlIGEgbm9uLWNyZWRpdCBFbmdsaXNoIGNsYXNz IG9uIHRoZSBzYW1lIHNlbWVzdGVyIGFzIG15IGZpcnN0IEZyZXNobWFuPGJyPg0KICAgIEVuZ2xp c2ggY2xhc3MuJm5ic3A7IE15IGFkdmlzb3IgYXBvbG9naXplZCB0byBtZSBsYXRlciBidXQgSSBy ZXBsaWVkIHRoYXQgSQ0KICAgIGhhZDxicj4NCiAgICBsZWFybmVkIG1vcmUgaW4gRHVtbXkgRW5n bGlzaCB0aGFuIGluIHJlZ3VsYXIgRW5nbGlzaCBiZWNhdXNlIHRoZSBjbGFzcw0KICAgIHNpemU8 YnI+DQogICAgd2FzIHF1aXRlIHNtYWxsLS1hcm91bmQgdGVuIHN0dWRlbnRzLS1hbmQgd2Ugd3Jv dGUgYSB0aGVtZSBlYWNoIGRheSBpbnN0ZWFkPGJyPg0KICAgIG9mIG9uZSBhIHdlZWsuJm5ic3A7 IFRoZSBwcm9mZXNzb3IgaW4gdGhlIER1bW15IENsYXNzIHdhcyBhbHNvIGFuIGV4Y2VsbGVudDxi cj4NCiAgICB0ZWFjaGVyLjxicj4NCiAgICA8YnI+DQogICAgSGF2aW5nIHRhdWdodCBhY3Jvc3Mg dGhlIGFjYWRlbWljIGN1cnJpY3VsdW0sIEkgY2FuIGF2ZXIgdGhhdCwgaW4gbXk8YnI+DQogICAg ZXhwZXJpZW5jZSwgY2xhc3Mgc2l6ZSBpcyBtb3JlIGltcG9ydGFudCBpbiBFbmdsaXNoIGNvbXBv c2l0aW9uIHRoYW4gaW4gYW55PGJyPg0KICAgIG90aGVyIGFjYWRlbWljIGNsYXNzLCBpbmNsdWRp bmcgbWF0aGVtYXRpY3MgYW5kIGZvcmVpZ24gbGFuZ3VhZ2VzLjxicj4NCiAgICA8YnI+DQogICAg Ti4gU2NvdHQgQ2F0bGVkZ2UsIFBoRC9TVEQ8YnI+DQogICAgUHJvZmVzc29yIEVtZXJpdHVzPGJy Pg0KICAgIDxicj4NCiAgICAqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioq KioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKioqKio8YnI+DQogICAgPGJyPg0KICAgIFRv IGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3Qn cyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlDQogICAgYXQ6PGJyPg0KICAgICZuYnNwOyAmbmJzcDsgPGEgaHJlZj0i aHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIg0KICAgIHRhcmdl dD0iX2JsYW5rIj48dT48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nY29sb3I6Ymx1ZSc+aHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11 b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sPC9zcGFuPjwvdT48L2E+PGJyPg0KICAgIGFuZCBz ZWxlY3QgJnF1b3Q7Sm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCZxdW90Ozxicj4NCiAgICA8YnI+DQog ICAgVmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IDxhIGhyZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly9hdGVnLm9yZy8iIHRh cmdldD0iX2JsYW5rIj48dT48c3Bhbg0KICAgIHN0eWxlPSdjb2xvcjpibHVlJz5odHRwOi8vYXRl Zy5vcmcvPC9zcGFuPjwvdT48L2E+PC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICAgIDwvZGl2Pg0K ICAgIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNv LW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0Og0KICAgIGF1dG8nPlRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNU U0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2UgdmlzaXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWINCiAgICBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYXQ6 IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vydi5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCBhbmQgc2VsZWN0 DQogICAgJnF1b3Q7Sm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCZxdW90OyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4N CiAgICA8ZGl2Pg0KICAgIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHlsZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3At YWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0Og0KICAgIGF1dG8nPlZpc2l0IEFURUcncyB3 ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvPG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQogICAgPC9kaXY+DQog ICAgPC90ZD4NCiAgIDwvdHI+DQogIDwvdGFibGU+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbCBzdHls ZT0nbXNvLW1hcmdpbi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87bXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG8nPjxz cGFuDQogIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fu cy1zZXJpZiInPjxicj4NCiAgVG8gam9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGlzIExJU1RTRVJWIGxpc3QsIHBs ZWFzZSB2aXNpdCB0aGUgbGlzdCdzIHdlYiBpbnRlcmZhY2UNCiAgYXQ6IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0c2Vy di5tdW9oaW8uZWR1L2FyY2hpdmVzL2F0ZWcuaHRtbCBhbmQgc2VsZWN0ICZxdW90O0pvaW4gb3IN CiAgbGVhdmUgdGhlIGxpc3QmcXVvdDsgPC9zcGFuPjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8ZGl2Pg0K ICA8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+VmlzaXQgQVRFRydzIHdlYiBzaXRlIGF0IGh0dHA6Ly9hdGVn Lm9yZy88bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPC9kaXY+DQogIDxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD5UbyBq b2luIG9yIGxlYXZlIHRoaXMgTElTVFNFUlYgbGlzdCwgcGxlYXNlIHZpc2l0IHRoZQ0KICBsaXN0 J3Mgd2ViIGludGVyZmFjZSBhdDogaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5lZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMv YXRlZy5odG1sIGFuZA0KICBzZWxlY3QgJnF1b3Q7Sm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZSB0aGUgbGlzdCZxdW90 OyA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvcD4NCiAgPGRpdj4NCiAgPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPlZpc2l0IEFU RUcncyB3ZWIgc2l0ZSBhdCBodHRwOi8vYXRlZy5vcmcvIDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KICA8L2Rp dj4NCiAgPC90ZD4NCiA8L3RyPg0KPC90YWJsZT4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFu IHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJp ZiInPjxicj4NClRvIGpvaW4gb3IgbGVhdmUgdGhpcyBMSVNUU0VSViBsaXN0LCBwbGVhc2Ugdmlz aXQgdGhlIGxpc3QncyB3ZWIgaW50ZXJmYWNlIGF0Og0KaHR0cDovL2xpc3RzZXJ2Lm11b2hpby5l ZHUvYXJjaGl2ZXMvYXRlZy5odG1sIGFuZCBzZWxlY3QgJnF1b3Q7Sm9pbiBvciBsZWF2ZQ0KdGhl IGxpc3QmcXVvdDsgPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KDQo8cD5WaXNpdCBBVEVHJ3Mgd2Vi IHNpdGUgYXQgaHR0cDovL2F0ZWcub3JnLzxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9wPg0KDQo8L2Rpdj4NCg0KPC9i b2R5Pg0KDQo8L2h0bWw+DQo --_000_0DDF38BA66ECD847B39F1FD4C801D5431BF5BEED43EMAILBACKEND0_-- ========================================================================Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 23:21:03 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: Scott <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Parallel structure and homework; ATEG Digest - 29 May 2009 to 30 May 2009 (#2009-129) In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I concur fully with Susan van Druten's comment: I have structured similar sentences for examinations. In response to Edmund Wright (I hope that I remembered the name correctly), American High School English do not normally have 6-7 classes; however, the classes are larger: My first year of teaching, I taught five different classes of 40 students each with homework required in each subject five days a week (English, mathematics, General Science, World Geography, Spanish. My third year, I ended up with Latin I, Latin II, French I, French II, and World History (the last was for Educable Mentally Handicapped students). My fifteenth year, I did have seven classes (2 sections of English II, Latin I, Latin II, Latin III, Latin IV, Spanish I). Classes only averaged 25 students (150 in lieu of the 200, with which I had started); however, homework was only four nights a week. Several of the Latin classes had two levels in the same room. N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD Professor Emeritus history & languages -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 12:00 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: ATEG Digest - 29 May 2009 to 30 May 2009 (#2009-129) From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten Sent: 2009-05-30 10:44 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Class size and SAT parallel structure questions I agree that some test maker sometimes ask questions based on obscure rules, but this one seems fair to me. Comparing "Heather" to "Joanne's fear" causes the reader one second of adjustment. Try reading the sentence without the interrupting clause. Unlike her sister Heather, Joanne's fear kept her from going anywhere near the creatures. Parallel structures (such as "unlike x") set up expectations in readers. When the writer doesn't deliver, it is as unsatisfying as the musician who withholds the final note. *********************************************************** 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/ ========================================================================Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 23:35:54 -0400 Reply-To: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> From: "STAHLKE, HERBERT F" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Parallel structure and homework; ATEG Digest - 29 May 2009 to 30 May 2009 (#2009-129) In-Reply-To: <63AD085B861C4831A441F6DA7E72113F@leordinateur> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 There are clearly errors which are appropriate to this technique. All of this started because I objected to one decontextualized sentence on an SAT. Susan and I do not agree on this sentence, but I maintain that if standardized test developers are going to use this technique they should at least make sure their test items are not context dependent as this one is. It was a bad test item. The technique itself can be useful, but the example in question demonstrates the kind of problems that can arise. There are whole classes of problem for which the technique works. Herb -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Sent: 2009-05-31 23:21 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Parallel structure and homework; ATEG Digest - 29 May 2009 to 30 May 2009 (#2009-129) I concur fully with Susan van Druten's comment: I have structured similar sentences for examinations. In response to Edmund Wright (I hope that I remembered the name correctly), American High School English do not normally have 6-7 classes; however, the classes are larger: My first year of teaching, I taught five different classes of 40 students each with homework required in each subject five days a week (English, mathematics, General Science, World Geography, Spanish. My third year, I ended up with Latin I, Latin II, French I, French II, and World History (the last was for Educable Mentally Handicapped students). My fifteenth year, I did have seven classes (2 sections of English II, Latin I, Latin II, Latin III, Latin IV, Spanish I). Classes only averaged 25 students (150 in lieu of the 200, with which I had started); however, homework was only four nights a week. Several of the Latin classes had two levels in the same room. N. Scott Catledge, PhD/STD Professor Emeritus history & languages -----Original Message----- From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 12:00 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: ATEG Digest - 29 May 2009 to 30 May 2009 (#2009-129) From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask] OHIO.EDU] On Behalf Of Susan van Druten Sent: 2009-05-30 10:44 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Class size and SAT parallel structure questions I agree that some test maker sometimes ask questions based on obscure rules= , but this one seems fair to me. Comparing "Heather" to "Joanne's fear" ca= uses the reader one second of adjustment. Try reading the sentence without= the interrupting clause. Unlike her sister Heather, Joanne's fear kept he= r from going anywhere near the creatures. Parallel structures (such as "unl= ike x") set up expectations in readers. When the writer doesn't deliver, i= t is as unsatisfying as the musician who withholds the final note. *********************************************************** 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/