I like the idea of distinguishing a conjunction (in this case two conjunctions: 'and so') whose adverbial function works beyond the sentence level. Perhaps they could be called metaconjunctions or transitional conjunctions. 

I've worked with undergraduate students for the past 16 years, and I've yet to meet one who doesn't ascribe to the myth that coordinating conjunctions "can't" start sentences, I'm assuming school grammars still ignore the fact that professional writers regularly use them in that position. And if secondary instructors deny the appropriateness of coordinating conjunctions at the beginning of sentences, they likely dismiss the conjunctions' other functions (such as being larger discourse markers or acting as markers of parenthetical comments). 

Your hunch that the "And so" is functioning as a larger discourse marker is correct. Here's the context that sets up the sentence I asked about. (I'm including a fairly large chunk to show that this particular sentence--which shows the consequence of an idea--is nested in a paragraph that is marked off by another 'transitional conjunction'--but.

Unclear writing is a social problem, but it often has private causes. Michael Crichton mentioned one: some writers plump up their prose, hoping that complicated sentences indicate deep thought. And when we want to hide the fact that we don't know what we're talking about, we typically throw up a tangle of abstract words in long, complex sentences.

     Others write graceless prose not deliberately but because they are seized by the idea that good writing must be free of the kind of errors that only a grammarian can explain. They approach a blank page not as a space to explore ideas, but as a minefield of potential errors. They creep from word to word, concerned less with their readers' understanding than with their own survival. I address that issue in Lesson 2. 

     Others write unclearly because they freeze up, especially when they are learning to think and write in new academic or professional setting. As we struggle to master new ideas, most of us write worse than we do when we write about things we understand better. If that sounds like you, take heart: you will write more clearly when you more clearly understand what you are writing about. 

     But the biggest reason most of us write unclearly is that we don't know when readers will think we are unclear, much less why. Our own writing always seems clearer to us than to our readers because we read into it what we want them to get out of it. And so instead of revising our writing to meet their needs, we sent it off the moment it meets ours. 

Williams, Joseph M. and Joseph Bizup. Style - Lessons in Clarity and Grace. 12th ed. pp. 6-7. Pearson. Boston. 2017.

Richard

 

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Richard,

    Bruce would be in a better position to say what the placement of "and so" in that way means within the diagramming system.  

    Sentence adverbials are usually intonationally marked--"as a result, instead of"--and are usually movable. A coordinating conjunction is pretty much locked into place at sentence opening. It has no role within the sentence. If you think of "and so" as a paraphrase of "as a result," you can make that case. 

    Why start a sentence with a coordinating conjunction? The school book grammars don't seem to account for it. Often, it's because the shift is a larger shift in the discourse. I would be interested in the sentences before it, whether "and so" refers back to a single clause or to a series of clauses. Maybe we should have a term for that kind of conjunction. I use the sentence "So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition" from King's I Have a Dream speech as a good example. It follows an opening paragraph talking about the hundred year old promise of emancipation and another denouncing the the fact that "one hundred years later" the promise hasn't been fulfilled, The march on Washington is positioned as a response (result) of all of that. Conjunctions often function to make connections at a higher level of the discourse. 

    I don't think deep structure versus surface structure is all that useful as a distinction. To say something differently is to say something different. A good question might be why the sentence is organized to put so much stress on "ours." "We send it off the moment it meets our needs instead of revising to meet theirs" would be a more straightforward version. I like their version much better, perhaps because it puts the two choices in a more balanced opposition. "Ours" feels very selfish when it comes. "The moment" makes it lazy. We are selfish and lazy. The structure of the sentence (I am reading it out of context) seems to make that judgment clear.  Those are good choices if they fit the overall purposes of the text.

---

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Richard Grant <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2017 10:20 AM

To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Request for Help with Diagramming a Sentence

 

Craig, he has indeed! I was stunned that Bruce replied so quickly and that he was willing to go to such lengths to help a brother out. I appreciate your taking the time to check it as well. 

Does the fact that "The introductory "and so" would be placed above and to the left on its own horizontal line" mean the phrase is working as a sentence adverb--the way 'Consequently' or 'Therefore' would? That's the conclusion I came to when I was thinking about it, but my strengths lie more with writing on the surface level rather than analyzing the deep structure--or whatever folks are calling it these days. 

Richard

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Hancock, Craig G <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Bruce,

    You have done some heavy lifting.

    I would see "to meet their needs" as adverbial, probably modifying "revising" rather than "writing." It passes the "in order to" test. (Revising...in order to meet their needs) as paraphrase. I'm not sure how you handle adverbial infinitives in Reed/Kellog. 

     

Craig

---

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Bruce Despain <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 8:26:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Request for Help with Diagramming a Sentence

 

Richard, 

The fact that ATEG doesn't accept attachments seems to require a description of the Reed-Kellogg diagram in words.  

Here is how I would be inclined to do it:

The introductory "and so" would be placed above and to the left on its own horizontal line.  
The phrasal preposition "instead of" would be on a diagonal line sloping away from the main verb "send" as and adverbial modification.  

The object of the said phrasal preposition, "writing."  would extend above its base on stilts being a gerund object on a jagged line separated from its object by a short vertical stroke. 

The "our" is an adjective modifier of "writing" diagonally and extending from the jagged gerund line. 

The noun object of "writing" is an infinitive phrase and belongs on stilts with the "to" on a diagonal line down to the horizontal base of the verb "meet." 

The noun object "needs" of "meet" is separated from this verb with a short horizontal stroke and has it adjective modifier "their" on a diagonal line projecting downward.   

The main horizontal base line is for the subject "we" separated from its verb "send" with a perpendicular vertical line.  

The adverbial particle "off" is considered a modifier of the verb "send."  It's direct object "it" is separated with a short vertical stroke.   

The time noun "moment" is taken as object of an understood preposition "x" also extending from "send" as an time modifier of the verb.  
The phrase "it meets ours" is taken as an adjective (relative) clause with an understood pronoun connective "x" meaning "at which."  

The "which" is a modifier of "moment." and joined with that noun by a dotted line. (If the understood nature is retained in the "x," that is where the dotted line ends.)   

The subject of the adjective clause "it" is on a base line separated from its verb "meets" with the perpendicular line crossing the line. 

The direct object of "meets" is represented by the pronoun "ours."  

Phew!

I'll send a R&K diagram to your personal e-mail, if you'd like.  

Bruce

--- [log in to unmask] wrote:

From: Richard Grant <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Request for Help with Diagramming a Sentence
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 18:18:59 -0500

Could someone with more practice/experiencing with sentence diagramming please help me out with this?

And so instead of revising our writing to meet their needs, we send it off the moment it meets ours. (from Joseph Williams and Joseph Bizup's Style, Lessons in Clarity and Grace). 

Many thanks,

Richard

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/