The KISS Grammar Site -- Main Page
KISS Grammar
KISS Level 6.2: Style
—Focus, Logic, and Texture
Note: You probably do not want to print this entire book. Unlike the Grade-Level books, this book includes the exercise (sometimes in more than one format) followed by the analysis key. There are also more exercises in the on-line version of this section.
Free, from the KISS Grammar Web Site
© Ed Vavra
July 5, 2012
Contents
Introduction 3
Parallel Constructions 4
From “A Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King, Jr. 4
Focus (MIMC) 11
Alicia 11
Logic 15
Tense, Number, Logic, and Prepositional Phrases 15
# 1 Based on Lessons in English 15
The Logic of Subordinate Clauses 17
From At the Back of the North Wind by George Macdonald 17
From The Secret Garden, by Frances Hodgson Burnett (#2) 21
Texture 25
Multiple Ways of Combining Sentences 25
Rose Valley Lake 25
From Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll 27
Comparing Two Versions of the Same Text 31
Aesop’s “The Ass in the Lion's Skin” 31
Two Translations of a Passage from Plutarch’s “Dion” 37
Comparing Two Students’ Papers 47
Two Sixth Grade Essays about Fires 47
Introduction
“Parallel construction” denotes parallel ideas expressed in parallel (identical) grammatical constructions. Perhaps the most famous example of parallel constructions is Lincoln’s “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” KISS introduces students to parallel constructions in Level 3.1.2 (Subordinate Clauses). But students should probably do at least one exercise on parallel constructions every year after they do KISS Level 3.1.
For now, the primary exercise on focus is the MIMC (Main Idea in Main Clause) on “Alicia.” In this exercise, students are given two topic sentences, one of which focuses on “Alicia won.” The other emphasizes that “Alicia had to overcome many difficulties.” Seven supporting sentences are constructed as compound main clauses. The students are to revise these to support one of the two topic sentences—by subordinating one clause in each of the seven sentences. Both arguments can be supported in this way, using the same “facts.” This exercise not only shows how subordinate clauses affect focus; it also shows how the same “facts” can be manipulated to support different arguments.
Most of the exercises on logic that were originally in this section have been moved to the levels on clauses, verbals, appositives, or post-positioned adjectives. The “Tense, Number, Logic, and Prep Phrases” exercises were made for a review section after KISS Level One. The exercies on “The Logic of Subordinate Clauses” are more important. Many students would be helped by doing one of these every year after they complete KISS Level 3.1, where they are introduced.
Texture includes focus, logic, general variety in sentence construction, vocabulary, etc. For now, KISS exercises on texture present students with two short translations of the same text. The students can analyze both, and the class can then discuss the differences between the two.
Parallel Constructions
|[pic] |From “A Letter from Birmingham Jail” |
| |by Martin Luther King, Jr. |
Directions:
1. Place parentheses ( ) around each prepositional phrase.
2. Underline verbs twice, their subjects once, and label complements (PA, PN, IO, or DO).
3. Place brackets [ ] around each adverbial clause and draw an arrow from the opening bracket to the word that the clause modifies.
4. Place a vertical line after each main clause.
5. Note King’s use of parallel subordinate clauses in this single main clause. Try to de-combine the main clause into two or more main clauses, and discuss the results with your classmates.
But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on the television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking, “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness”—then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.
From “A Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King, Jr.
Analysis Key
But [Adv. to "will understand" when you have seen vicious mobs lynch [#1] your mothers and fathers {at will} and drown your sisters and brothers [#1] {at whim}]; [Adv. to "will understand" when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, and even kill your black brothers and sisters [#2] ]; [Adv. to "will understand" when you see the vast majority {of your twenty million Negro brothers} smothering [#3] {in an airtight cage} {of poverty} {in the midst} {of an affluent society}]; [Adv. to "will understand" when you suddenly find your tongue twisted [#3] and your speech stammering [#3] [Adv. to "find" or to "twisted" and "stammering" as you seek to explain [#4] {to your six-year-old daughter} [DO of "to explain" why she can't go {to the public amusement park} [Adj. to "park" that has just been advertised (P) {on the television}]] [#5], and see tears welling [#3] up {in her eyes} [Adv. to "welling" when she is told (P) [ (R)DO [#6] of "is told" that Funtown is closed (P) {to colored children},]] and see ominous clouds {of inferiority} beginning [#3] to form [#7] {in her little mental sky}, and see her beginning [#3] to distort her personality [#8] {by developing an unconscious bitterness [#9]} {toward white people}]]; [Adv. to "will understand" when you have to concoct an answer (DO) {for a five-year-old son} [Adj. to "son" who is asking, [DO of "is asking" "Daddy [DirA], why do white people treat colored people (DO) so mean?"]]]; [Adv. to "will understand" when you take a cross-country drive (DO) and find it necessary to sleep [#10] night [NuA] {after night} {in the uncomfortable corners} {of your automobile} [Adv. to "necessary" because no motel will accept you (DO)]]; [Adv. to "will understand" when you are humiliated (P) day [NuA] in and day [NuA] out {by nagging signs} reading "white" and "colored" [#11] ]; [Adv. to "will understand" when your first name becomes "nigger," (PN) ][Adv. to "will understand" *when* your middle name becomes "boy" (PN) ([ [#12] however old (PA) you are ])] and [Adv. to "will understand" *when* your last name becomes "John," (PA) and [Adv. to "will understand" *when* your wife and mother are never given (P) the respected title (RDO) "Mrs." [#13] ]; [Adv. to "will understand" when you are harried (P) {by day} and haunted (P) {by night} {by the fact} [Adj. to "fact" that you are a Negro (PN), living [#14] constantly {at tiptoe stance}, never quite knowing [#14] what to expect [#15] next], and are plagued (P) {with inner fears and outer resentments}]; [Adv. to "will understand" when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense (DO) {of "nobodiness"}] -- then you will understand [DO of "will understand" why we find it difficult to wait [#16] ]. |
Notes
1. Some students will wonder why “mobs lynch” is not a subject and finite verb here. To explain, show them that, if we substitute a pronoun here, it would probably be an “object,” not a “subject” pronoun -- When you have seen them lynch, not When you have seen they lynch. Note that the tense (have seen) and the meaning are also relevant here. We could analyze this sentence (and the next one about policemen) as constituted with subordinate clauses -- When you have seen *that* they lynch . . . .” But doesn’t the infinitive construction imply that they literally saw this, whereas the clause construction implies that they have seen evidence of it, but not necessarily seen it first hand? Thus “mobs” is the subject of the infinitive “lynch,” and “mothers” and “fathers” are direct objects of that infinitive. The infinitive “drown” has the same subject, but its direct objects are “brothers” and “sisters.” The infinitive constructions function as direct objects of “have seen.”
2. This infinitive phrase functions just as the preceding one does.
3. When they get to KISS Level Five and Noun Absolutes, students have the option of explaining these constructions as noun absolute phrases that function as direct objects:
You see the majority smothering . . .
You find your tongue twisted . . .
You find your speech stammering . . .
You see tears welling . . .
You see clouds beginning to form . . .
You see her beginning to distort . . .
This is not a traditional, or even a widely accepted explanation, but no linguist or grammarian has been able to explain why they should not be considered noun absolutes other than to say that they are not noun absolutes. And that is not an explanation.
This is a particularly interesting passage for exploring noun absolutes that function as nouns because it includes a wide range of gerundives, some of which slide into absolutes and some of which do not. The primary question is one of meaning, and it involves nexus and modification. Gerundives are primarily modifiers, whereas, in a noun absolute, the relationship between the noun and participle is nexal. We can begin with one of the simple gerundives in the passage -- “reading.” There is almost no, if there is any, change in meaning or emphasis if we change “signs reading ‘white’ and ‘colored’” into a subordinate, adjectival clause -- “signs that read ‘white’ and “colored’.”
The next two gerundives (“living” and “knowing”) are set off from their noun (“Negro”) by a comma. If you are familiar with the concepts of restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers, the comma here suggests that these are non-restrictive, i.e., simple gerundives. Note, however, that Brock Haussamen has explained that “restrictive” and “non-restrictive” are “Polarities, not Categories.” (Revising, 90-97.) Our current examples (“living” and “knowing”) are at one end of the polarity. The emphasis in this sentence is on “you are a Negro.” The “living” and “knowing” can easily be reduced to subordinate clauses with little, if any, change in emphasis or meaning -- “a Negro, who is ... and who never knows . . . .”
We can now turn to the other end of the polarity, or, as I prefer to look at it, the continuum, and consider “tongue twisted.” Would anyone seriously suggest that this could be rewritten as “you find you tongue which is twisted”? The “twisted” is as much an answer to “You find what?” as is “tongue.” And the noun absolute gives us a way of explaining this. And close to the “tongue twisted” end of the continuum is “speech stammering.” Slightly more toward the center is “majority smothering.” We could replace the gerundive here with a subordinate clause, “you see the majority ... that is smothering...,” but I would suggest that if we look at it in that way, we de-emphasize “smothering” by reducing it to a modifier. And the “smothering,” in this phrase, is as important as “majority.” Note that this discussion is highly concerned with meaning, and meaning can be subjective, but, for most people (but not all grammarians) meaning is the primary purpose for studying grammar.
I noted the subjectivity involved because I still see “tears welling” and “clouds beginning” as noun absolutes that function as direct objects, but they are close to the middle of the continuum. “welling” and “beginning” are not as important to the meaning as are “smothering,” “twisted,” and “stammering.”
The final example, “You see her beginning to distort . . . ,” is even more interesting. Some grammar texts consider “her” (and “his,” “its,” etc.) as possessive adjectives, and other textbooks consider them to be possessive pronouns. Either explanation allows some grammarians to consider “beginning” as a gerund (not a gerundive) that functions as the direct object of “see.” Thus we have three possible explanations -- 1) “her” is the direct object and “beginning” is a gerundive that modifies “her,” 2) “beginning” is the direct object and “her” modifies (or is the subject of) “beginning,” and 3) “her beginning to distort” is the core of a noun absolute phrase that functions as the direct object of “see.” The choice is yours.
4. The infinitive “to explain” functions as the direct object of “seek.”
5. This could also be considered as the end of the “you seek” clause and thus have a third closing bracket. I have analyzed it on the assumption that the following “and” joins “seek” and “see.”
6. Students who have studied retained complements should catch this as a retained direct object after the passive “is told.” Otherwise, let the students explain it as a direct object.
7. The infinitive “to form” is the direct object of “beginning.”
8. “Personality” is the direct object of the infinitive “to distort” which is the object of “beginning.”
9. “Bitterness” is the direct object of the gerund “developing” which is the object of the preposition “by.”
10. “To sleep” is an infinitive that functions as a delayed subject to “it,” which is the subject of an ellipsed infinitive *to be*, the predicate adjective of which is “necessary”-- to sleep , . . *to be* necessary. The infinitive phrase functions as the direct object of “find.”
11. “White” and “colored” are direct objects of the gerundive “reading,” which functions as an adjective to “signs.”
12. This clause could be explained as adverbial to “becomes,” but because it is in parentheses, and is thus interjected into the sentence, it can also be explained as an interjection.
13. “Mrs.” is an appositive to “title.”
14. “Living” and “knowing” are gerundives to “Negro.”
15. The infinitive “to expect” functions as an adjective to “what,” which functions as the direct object of “knowing.”
16. The infinitive “to wait” is the delayed subject, chunking to “it.” “It” is the subject, and “difficult” is the predicate adjective in an ellipsed infinitive phrase that functions as the direct object of “find” -- find to wait *to be* difficult.
[pic]
Comment
A 311-word main clause, and what a beautiful main clause it is. Rev. King was, of course, trained as a public speaker, and I have to wonder if the parallel construction may be more characteristic of formal oral discourse. When spoken, sentences with parallel constructions allow for rhythmic pauses while simultaneously giving the audience meaningful semantic units and raising their expectations for what follows. In this sentence from “A Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Rev. King precedes a very short main clause pattern with ten adverbial clauses, each beginning with “when.” In order to handle a clause like this, the normal rules of punctuation are simply inadequate. Thus King uses semicolons, for example to separate the ten adverbial “when” clauses.
The repetition of the subordinate conjunction keeps the sentence clear and understandable, even though it is extremely long and irritating to read. The irritation results from the length -- most sentences are shorter, and we unconsciously expect the period that closes one sentence before we begin another. King thus uses his sentence structure to evoke frustration in the reader, thereby subtly suggesting the frustration that made him no longer want to wait. But if the reader is frustrated by the length of the sentence, how much more so must King and his colleagues have been -- they had to endure the insults listed in the sentence!
Yet the very structure of this sentence indicates that King -- and by association his fellow Blacks -- has controlled his frustration, has brought it into order. This is, after all, the kind of sentence that Walker Gibson was talking about in Tough, Sweet and Stuffy. The ten left-branching, parallel subordinate clauses, each of which details a reason for Black impatience, are clearly ordered in the writer’s mind. He knows that each of them not just depends on, but also leads toward that final “then you will understand.” King’s syntax thus has a double “semantic” effect: it evokes frustration in the reader to parallel the frustration of the Blacks, and it reflects the calm control of King.
Focus (MIMC)
|Alicia |[pic] |
|MIMC: One Set of Sentences | |
|Yields Two Paragraphs | |
DIRECTIONS:
1. Each sentence below contains two or three Main Clauses.
2. One clause relates to Topic Sentence A; the other relates to Topic Sentence B. Mark which topic each clause relates to—A or B.
3. Choose either Topic A or B.
4. Change each sentence so that the clause (or clauses) related to your chosen topic is the Main Clause(s).
5. Make the other clause (or clauses) Subordinate. Use a variety of subordinate conjunctions. [after, although, as, because, before, if, since, when, where, while, that, what, who, how, why, which, until, whenever, wherever, whatever, whoever, whichever, whether, for, so]
6. If your choices are correct, this one set of sentences will yield two different paragraphs!
TOPIC SENTENCES:
A. In spite of her many problems, Alicia won the contest for Prom Queen.
B. Alicia, who won the contest for Prom Queen, had to overcome many problems.
SUPPORTING SENTENCES:
1. Her boyfriend, Ralph, had lots of influence as the captain of the football team, and he almost missed the deadline for nominating her.
2. All of his teammates promised to vote for Alicia, and most of them did; but some of them never got around to voting at all.
3. The basketball players originally supported one of Alicia’s rivals; they eventually gave their votes to Alicia.
4. Alicia had trouble raising enough money for her campaign, so her sorority sisters came to her rescue.
5. Trudy was Alicia’s campaign manager, and she did a terrific job; however, she came down with the flu halfway through the campaign.
6. The ballots were counted and re-counted; they clearly gave Alicia the title of Prom Queen.
7. Alicia experienced many trying times, and she finally became the new Queen.
[pic]
This exercise has been adapted from Wanda Van Goor’s presentation at the Fifth Annual Conference of the NCTE Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar, August 12 & 13, 1994. Illinois State University, Normal, IL. Ms. Van Goor teaches at Prince George’s Community College, Largo, MD.
Notes for "Alicia"
MIMC: One Set of Sentences Yields Two Paragraphs
The following, of course, present only one of many possibilities for responding to this exercise.
[pic]
TOPIC SENTENCE A:
In spite of her many problems, Alicia won the contest for Prom Queen.
1. Her boyfriend, Ralph, had lots of influence as the captain of the football team, and he almost missed the deadline for nominating her.
[Although he almost missed the deadline for nominating her,] her boyfriend, Ralph, had lots of influence as the captain of the football team. [C/E - concession]
Her boyfriend, Ralph, [who almost missed the deadline for nominating her,] had lots of influence as the captain of the football team. [Identity]
2. All of his teammates promised to vote for Alicia, and most of them did; but some of them never got around to voting at all.
All of his teammates promised to vote for Alicia, and most of them did, [although some of them never got around to voting at all]. [C/E - concession]
Most of his teammates [who promised to vote for Alicia] did so, [although some of them never got around to voting at all]. [Identity][C/E - concession]
3. The basketball players originally supported one of Alicia's rivals; they eventually gave their votes to Alicia.
The basketball players, [who originally supported one of Alicia's rivals,] eventually gave their votes to Alicia. [Identity]
[Although the basketball players originally supported one of Alicia's rivals,] they eventually gave their votes to Alicia. [C/E - concession]
4. Alicia had trouble raising enough money for her campaign, so her sorority sisters came to her rescue.
[When Alicia had trouble raising enough money for her campaign,] her sorority sisters came to her rescue. [Time]
[Because Alicia had trouble raising enough money for her campaign,] her sorority sisters came to her rescue. [C/E]
5. Trudy was Alicia's campaign manager, and she did a terrific job; however, she came down with the flu halfway through the campaign.
Trudy was Alicia's campaign manager and did a terrific job [before she came down with the flu halfway through the campaign.] [Time]
Trudy, [who came down with the flu halfway through the campaign,] was Alicia's campaign manager, and she did a terrific job. [Identity]
6. The ballots were counted and re-counted; they clearly gave Alicia the title of Prom Queen.
[After they were counted and re-counted,] the ballots clearly gave Alicia the title of Prom Queen. [Time]
[Although the ballots had to be counted and re-counted,] they clearly gave Alicia the title of Prom Queen. [C/E - concession]
The ballots, [which were counted and re-counted,] clearly gave Alicia the title of Prom Queen. [Identity]
7. Alicia experienced many trying times, and she finally became the new Queen.
[After she experienced many trying times,] Alicia finally became the new Queen. [Time]
[Although she experienced many trying times,] Alicia finally became the new Queen. [C/E - concession]
Alicia, [who experienced many trying times,] finally became the new Queen. [Identity]
[pic]
TOPIC SENTENCE B:
Alicia, who won the contest for Prom Queen, had to overcome many problems.
1. Her boyfriend, Ralph, had lots of influence as the captain of the football team, and he almost missed the deadline for nominating her.
Her boyfriend, Ralph, [who had lots of influence as the captain of the football team,] almost missed the deadline for nominating her. [Identity]
[Although her boyfriend Ralph had lots of influence as the captain of the football team] he almost missed the deadline for nominating her. [C/E - concession]
2. All of his teammates promised to vote for Alicia, and most of them did; but some of them never got around to voting at all.
[While all of his teammates promised to vote for Alicia], and [*while* most of them did,] some of them never got around to voting at all. [C/E - concession]
Some of his teammates, [all of whom promised to vote for Alicia], and [most of whom did,] never got around to voting at all. [Identity; This one is awkward.]
Some of his teammates, [who all promised to vote for Alicia], never got around to voting at all, [although most of whom did.] [Identity] [C/E - concession]
3. The basketball players originally supported one of Alicia's rivals; they eventually gave their votes to Alicia.
The basketball players, [who eventually gave their votes to Alicia,] originally supported one of Alicia's rivals. [Identity]
[Before they eventually gave their votes to Alicia,] the basketball players originally supported one of her rivals. [Time]
The basketball players originally supported one of Alicia's rivals, [although they eventually gave their votes to Alicia]. [C/E - concession]
4. Alicia had trouble raising enough money for her campaign, so her sorority sisters came to her rescue.
[Before her sorority sisters came to her rescue,] Alicia had trouble raising enough money for her campaign. [Time]
[Note: KISS would already consider the "so" clause to be subordinate -- an adverbial clause of result. Click here for more on this.] [C/E - result]
5. Trudy was Alicia's campaign manager, and she did a terrific job; however, she came down with the flu halfway through the campaign.
Trudy, [who was Alicia's campaign manager and did a terrific job,] came down with the flu halfway through the campaign. [Identity]
[Although Trudy was Alicia's campaign manager,] and [she did a terrific job,] she came down with the flu halfway through the campaign. [C/E - concession]
6. The ballots were counted and re-counted; they clearly gave Alicia the title of Prom Queen.
The ballots were counted and re-counted [before they clearly gave Alicia the title of Prom Queen]. [Time]
The ballots, [which clearly gave Alicia the title of Prom Queen,] were counted and re-counted.[Identity]
[Although they clearly gave Alicia the title of Prom Queen,] the ballots were counted and re-counted. [C/E - concession]
7. Alicia experienced many trying times, and she finally became the new Queen.
Alicia, [who finally became the new Queen,] experienced many trying times.[Identity]
Alicia experienced many trying times [before she finally became the new Queen]. [Time]
[Although she finally became the new Queen,] Alicia experienced many trying times.[C/E - concession]
[pic]
The preceding possible "answers" only begin to suggest the richness of this exercise. Obviously you could have the students combine using a variety of prepositional phrases, subordinate clauses, and gerundives. (This would probably result in the best overall style.) You might also invite students to combine, wherever possible, finite verbs. Do they, for example, sense a difference in focus between the following two sentences?
Alicia experienced many trying times, but finally became the new Queen.
Alicia became the new Queen, but first experienced many trying times.
Logic
Tense, Number, Logic, and Prepositional Phrases
|[pic] |KISS Grammar |
|An illustration by Kate Greenaway |# 1 Based on Lessons in English |
| |Pupil’s Edition. New York: William H. Sadlier, 1893 |
Directions: Use the subjects and verbs below to write six sentences.
In each sentence include at least three prepositional phrases, one that indicates where, one that indicates when or how long, and one that describes (identifies) a noun.
Make two of the sentences past tense, two present, and two future.
In different sentences, place the prepositional phrases in different places—before, after, or between the subject and the verb.
You can change the number (singular or plural) of the subjects and verbs, and you can add additional words and phrases if you so wish.
After each sentence, write “past” “present” or “future” to indicate the tense, and “singular” or “plural” to indicate the number of the subject and verb.
1. clock ticks
2. drums bang
3. robin sings
4. wind blows
5. child eats
6. baby plays
For an exercise for your classmates, make a set of six subjects and verbs like those above.
Based on Lessons in English
Notes
In addition to being an exercise on tense, number, and prepositional phrases, this is a challenging exercise in what writing teachers call “invention.” Students will need to “invent” the details of identity and extension in time and space. Weak writers often omit these details, and this omission accounts for much of the weakness in their writing, both in terms of details and in terms of main-clause length, a major yardstick of syntactic maturity.
Note that “identity” and “extension in time or space” are the first two of Hume’s three basic logical categories, so this is also an exercise in basic logic.
Examples of Possible Answers
1. {In the evening} [Adv. (when) to "was ticking"], the clock {in the bedroom} [Adj. to "clock"] was ticking {on the table} [Adv. (where) to "was ticking"]. [Past, singular]
2. The drums will be banging {throughout the afternoon} [Adv. (when) to "will be banging"] {in the streets} [Adv. (where) to "will be banging"] {of the town} [Adj. to "streets"]. [Future, plural]
3. {In the morning} [Adv. (when) to "sings"] a robin {with babies} [Adj. to "robin"] sings {in a tree) [Adv. (where) to "sings"] {near my window} [Adj. to "tree"]. [Present, singular]
4. Last night [NuA] the winds {from the storm} [Adj. to "winds"] blew {for hours} [Adv. (when) to "blew"] {through the windows) [Adv. (where) to "blew"]. [Past, plural]
5. Sometimes the children {of a family} [Adj. to "children"] eat early {in the evening} [Adv. (when) to "eat"] {in the kitchen} [Adv. (where) to "eat"]. [Present, plural]
6. {In the crib} [Adv. (where) to "will play"] {in the dining room} [Adj. to "crib"], the baby will play {with a doll} {for hours} [Adv. (when) to "will play"]. [Future, singular]
|[pic] |The Logic of Subordinate Clauses |
| |From At the Back of the North Wind |
| |by George Macdonald |
| |Simplified by Elizabeth Lewis; Illustrated by Maria L. Kirk |
Directions: After each sentence, write the type of the logical connection between each subordinate clause and what it modifies. Begin by determining the type of the subordinate clause (noun, adjective, or adverb). Then use the following:
For Noun Clauses—“ID” (for “Identity”) plus their function, for example, “ID, DO”
For Adjectival Clauses—ID” plus the word that the clause modifies
For Adverbial Clauses—Use one of the following plus the word that the clause modifies.
|Time |C/E - result |C/E - condition |
|Space |C/E - purpose |C/E - concession |
|C/E - cause |C/E - manner |Comparison |
1. After he was warmed and comforted, they took him back home and knocked on the door to arouse his mother.
2. North Wind had sunk his and Mr. Coleman’s ship because their business was not honest and was making bad men of them.
3. In parts, the river was so high that some of the grass and some of the roots of the trees were under water.
4. But how can you carry them there if you never saw the place?
5. How dark it was where she lived.
6. Once they ran through a hall where they found both the front and back doors open.
(Continues on the next page)
7. He came against the lowest of a few steps that stretched across the church.
8. He heard a low, soft murmuring as if they were talking to themselves about him.
9. You lamed yourself on purpose so you could stay in the stable and stuff yourself and grow fat!
10. But he was sorry that his mother looked so sad and depressed.
11. But you are no bigger than I am!
12. Diamond’s father had been stanch and true to his bargain, though it had turned out to be a hard one.
13. I am so happy that I am afraid it is a dream.
The Logic of Subordinate Clauses
from At the Back of the North Wind
Analysis Key
Students may ask about the functions of some words in the sentences. The following key provides answers to the specific directions plus the rest of the analysis.
1. [Adv. (Time) to "took" After he was warmed (P) and comforted (P) ], they took him (DO) back home [NuA] and knocked {on the door} to arouse his mother [#1]. |
2. North Wind had sunk his and Mr. Coleman's ship (DO) [Adv. (C/E - cause) to "had sunk" because their business was not honest (PA) and was making bad men (DO) {of them}]. |
3. {In parts}, the river was so high (PA) [Adv. (C/E - result) to "so" that some {of the grass} and some {of the roots} {of the trees} were {under water}]. |
4. But how can you carry them (DO) there [Adv. (C/E - condition) to "can carry" if you never saw the place (DO) ?] |
5. How dark (PA) it was [Adv. (Space) to "was" and/or "dark" where she lived]. |
6. Once they ran {through a hall} [Adj. (ID) to "hall" where they found both [#2] the front and back doors open [#3] ]. |
7. He came {against the lowest} {of a few steps} [Adj. (ID) to "steps" that stretched {across the church}]. |
8. He heard a low, soft murmuring (DO) [Adv. (C/E - manner) to "heard" and/or "low" and "soft" as if they were talking {to themselves} {about him}]. |
The talking is presented as a possible cause of what he heard.
9. You lamed yourself (DO) {on purpose} [Adv. (C/E - purpose) to "lamed" so you could stay {in the stable} and stuff yourself (DO) and grow fat (PA) !] |
The “You” is a horse.
10. But he was sorry (PA) [Adv. (C/E - cause to "sorry" that his mother looked so sad (PA) and depressed (PA) ]. |
His mother’s looks caused him to be sad.
11. But you are no bigger (PA) [Adv. (Comparison) to "bigger" than I am!] |
Note that it is a comparison of height (space).
12. Diamond's father had been stanch (PA) and true (PA) {to his bargain}, [Adv. (C/E - concession) to "had been" though it had turned out to be a hard one [#4] ]. |
Because it was a hard one, one might expect him not to have been stanch and true.
13. I am so happy (PA) [Adv. (result) to "so" that I am afraid (PA) [Adv. (C/E - cause to "afraid" it is a dream (PN) ]]. |
The “that” is ellipsed. That it is a dream causes me to be afraid.
Notes
1. “Mother” is the direct object of the verbal (infinitive) “to arouse.” The infinitive phrase functions as an adverb of purpose to “knocked.”
2. “Both” can be explained as an adjective to “doors,” as an appositive to “doors,” and or as part of the coordinating conjunction “both . . . and.”
3. “Doors” is the subject and “open” is the predicate adjective to an ellipsed infinitive “to be”—“the doors *to be* open.” The infinitive phrase functions as the direct object of “found.”
4. “One” is a predicate (pro)noun after the infinitive “to be.” The infinitive phrase can be explained as an adverb (result) to “had turned out.” Alternatively, “had turned out to be” can be considered the finite verb (it was a hard one), which makes “one” a simple predicate (pro)noun.
|[pic] |The Logic of Subordinate Clauses |
| |From The Secret Garden, |
| |by Frances Hodgson Burnett (#2) |
| |Illustrator: M. B. Kork, N.Y.: The Phillips Publishing Co., 1911 |
Directions: After each sentence, write the type of the logical connection between each subordinate clause and what it modifies. Begin by determining the type of the subordinate clause (noun, adjective, or adverb). Then use the following:
For Noun Clauses—“ID” (for “Identity”) plus their function, for example, “ID, DO”
For Adjectival Clauses—ID” plus the word that the clause modifies
For Adverbial Clauses—Use one of the following plus the word that the clause modifies.
|Time |C/E - result |C/E - condition |
|Space |C/E - purpose |C/E - concession |
|C/E - cause |C/E - manner |Comparison |
1. But just before Martha went down-stairs for the tea-tray, Mary asked a question.
2. He was not working where she had left him.
3. She spoke to him a little stiffly because she felt rather shy.
4. She was so happy that she scarcely dared to breathe.
5. The time had come when Mary had forgotten to resent Martha’s familiar talk.
6. If Martha had been a well-trained fine young lady’s maid she would have been more subservient and respectful.
7. The table and chairs and plates looked as if they had been hastily pushed back.
(Continues on the next page)
8. She was afraid that he would pick up his tools and go away.
9. The first man who came in was a large officer.
10. But though several times she saw Ben Weatherstaff at work he was too busy to look at her or was too surly.
11. She would always carry the key with her when she went out, so that if she ever should find the hidden door she would be ready.
12. He understood what Colin felt better than Colin did himself.
13. After everything was neat and calm and in order the nurse looked as if she would very gladly slip away also.
The Logic of Subordinate Clauses
From The Secret Garden, by Frances Hodgson Burnett (#2)
Analysis Key
Students may ask about the functions of some words in the sentences. The following key provides answers to the specific directions plus the rest of the analysis.
1. But just [#1] [Adv. (time) to "asked" before Martha went down-stairs [NuA] {for the tea-tray}], Mary asked a question (DO). |
2. He was not working [Adv. (Space) to "not" where she had left him (DO)]. |
3. She spoke {to him} a little [NuA] stiffly [Adv. (C/E - cause) to "stiffly" because she felt rather shy (PA)]. |
4. She was so happy (PA) [Adv. (C/E - result) to "so" that she scarcely dared to breathe [#2] ]. |
5. The time had come [Adj. (ID) to "time" when Mary had forgotten to resent Martha's familiar talk [#3] ]. |
6. [Adv. (C/E - condition) to "more" If Martha had been a well-trained fine young lady's [#4] maid (PN)] she would have been more subservient (PA) and respectful (PA). |
7. The table and chairs and plates looked [Adv. (C/E - manner) to "looked" as if they had been hastily pushed (P) back]. |
In this case, the content of the "as if" clause presents a possible cause of how they looked.
8. She was afraid (PA) [Adv. (C/E - cause) to "afraid" that he would pick up his tools (DO) and go away]. |
The “that” clause explains the cause of her fear.
9. The first man [Adj. (ID) to "man" who came in] was a large officer (PN). |
10. But [#5] [Adv. (C/E - concession) to "was" though several times [NuA] she saw Ben Weatherstaff (DO) {at work}] he was too busy (PA) to look [#6] {at her} or was too surly (PA). |
The concession is that since she saw him several times, one would have expected him to look at her and talk.
11. She would always carry the key (DO) {with her} [Adv. (time) to "would carry" when she went out], [Adv. (C/E - purpose) to "would carry" so that [Adv. (C/E - condition) to "would be" if she ever should find the hidden door (DO)] she would be ready (PA)]. |
12. He understood [ID, DO what Colin felt] better [Adv. (Comparison) to "better" than Colin did himself [#7] ]. |
13. [Adv. (time) to "looked" After everything was neat (PA) and calm (PA) and {in order} (PA) ] the nurse looked [Adv. (C/E - manner) to "looked" as if she would very gladly slip away also]. |
Although the “as if” clause expresses “how” she looked, it also suggests the the primary cause of how she looked. Thus this example supports the validity of including clauses of manner under “cause/effect.”
Notes
1. The adverb “just” modifies the entire “before” clause.
2. Grammarians don’t seem to agree on whether or not “dared” is a “helping verb.” Thus “dared to breathe” can be considered the finite verb phrase, or “dared” can be seen as the finite verb, and “to breathe” as a verbal (infinitive) that functions as the direct object of “dared.”
3. “Talk” is the direct object of the verbal (infinitive) “to resent,” and the infinitive phrase is the direct object of “had forgotten.”
4. Note how this description is more a reflection on the lady whom Martha serves than it is on Martha.
5. Don’t forget that you’re not supposed to start a sentence with “but.” ;)
6. The verbal (infinitive) “to look” functions as an adverb (of result) to “too,” which modifies “busy.”
7. “Himself” is an appositive to “Colin.” See KISS Level 5.4.
Texture
Multiple Ways of Combining Sentences
Rose Valley Lake
| |[pic] |
|The Original Sentences: | |
|Rose Valley Lake is a picturesque lake. It is nestled in a lovely valley in North Central | |
|Pennsylvania. | |
| | |
|Write your answers on separate paper. | |
Combining as Main Clauses with a Colon or Semicolon
1. Rewrite the sentence using a colon, semicolon or a dash. Indicate whether your version reflects amplification (formal or informal) or contrast.
Combining Using Subordinate Clauses
Use a subordinate conjunction to combine the two sentences to establish the indicated logical connection and focus.
2. Focus on "picturesque lake"; logical connection = identity
3. Focus on "is nestled"; logical connection = identity
4. Focus on "picturesque lake"; logical connection = cause/effect
Combining Using a Gerundive
5. Rewrite your response to (2) [Focus on "picturesque lake"; logical connection = identity] as a gerundive.
Combining Using an Appositive
6. Rewrite your response to (3) [Focus on "is nestled"; logical connection = identity] as an appositive.
Discussion of Multiple Ways of Combining Sentences
The Original Sentences
Rose Valley Lake is a picturesque lake. It is nestled in a lovely valley in North Central Pennsylvania.
Combining as Main Clauses with a Colon or Semicolon
1. Rewrite the sentence using a colon, semicolon or a dash. Indicate whether your version reflects amplification (formal or informal) or contrast.
|Rose Valley Lake is a picturesque lake: it is nestled in a lovely valley in North Central Pennsylvania. [amplification - |
|formal] |
|or |
|Rose Valley Lake is a picturesque lake -- it is nestled in a lovely valley in North Central Pennsylvania. [amplification - |
|informal] |
Combining Using Subordinate Clauses
Use a subordinate conjunction to combine the two sentences to establish the indicated logical connection and focus.
2. Focus on "picturesque lake"; logical connection = identity
|Rose Valley, which is nestled in a lovely valley in North Central Pennsylvania, is a picturesque lake. |
3. Focus on "is nestled"; logical connection = identity
|Rose Valley, which is a picturesque lake, is nestled in a lovely valley in North Central Pennsylvania. |
4. Focus on "picturesque lake"; logical connection = cause/effect
|Rose Valley Lake is a picturesque lake because it is nestled in a lovely valley in North Central Pennsylvania. |
Combining Using a Gerundive
5. Rewrite your response to (2) [Focus on "picturesque lake"; logical connection = identity] as a gerundive.
|Rose Valley Lake, nestled in a lovely valley in North Central Pennsylvania, is picturesque. |
Combining Using an Appositive
6. Rewrite your response to (3) [Focus on "is nestled"; logical connection = identity] as an appositive.
|Rose Valley, a picturesque lake, is nestled in a lovely valley in North Central Pennsylvania. |
|Multiple Ways of Combining Sentences |[pic] |
|From Alice in Wonderland |Colorized from a |
|by Lewis Carroll |B&W illustration |
| |by John Tenniel |
Directions: Combine the two sentences in each of the following. Do each set in two ways, first by making one a subordinate clause, and second by reducing the subordinate clause to the indicated construction (gerundive, appositive, or post-positioned adjective).
1. Next came the guests. They were mostly Kings and Queens.
As SC:
As Appositive:
2. The White Rabbit was still in sight. It was hurrying down the long passage.
As SC:
As Gerundive:
3. Alice was not a bit hurt, and she jumped up in a moment.
As SC:
As PPA:
4. Alice went back to the table. She was half hoping she might find another key on it.
As SC:
As Gerundive:
(Continues on the next page)
5. The next witness was the Duchess’s cook. She carried the pepper-box in her hand and the people near the door began sneezing all at once.
As SC:
As Appositive:
6. There was a sound of many footsteps and Alice looked 'round. She was eager to see the Queen.
As SC:
As PPA:
7. “Here! You may nurse it a bit, if you like!” the Duchess said to Alice. And she flung the baby at her as she spoke.
As SC:
As Gerundive:
8. Alice opened the door and found that it led into a small passage. It was not much larger than a rat-hole.
As SC:
As PPA:
9. Our family always hated cats. They are nasty, low, vulgar things!
As SC:
As Appositive:
Multiple Ways of Combining Sentences
From Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll
Because these sentences are relatively simple, I have not provided a complete analysis key. The examples I have given for responses are probably close to what most students will do, but there are, of course, other acceptable combinations. Remember that the objective of this exercise is to show students different ways to combine their sentences, thereby increasing their syntactic flexibility.
1. Next came the guests. They were mostly Kings and Queens.
As SC: Next came the guests, who were mostly Kings and Queens.
As App: Next came the guests, mostly Kings and Queens.
2. The White Rabbit was still in sight. It was hurrying down the long passage.
As SC: The White Rabbit, which was hurrying down the long passage, was still in sight.
As Gerundive: The White Rabbit was still in sight, hurrying down the long passage.
3. Alice was not a bit hurt, and she jumped up in a moment.
As SC: Alice, who was not a bit hurt, jumped up in a moment.
As PPA: Alice, not a bit hurt, jumped up in a moment.
4. Alice went back to the table. She was half hoping she might find another key on it.
As SC: Alice, who was half hoping she might find another key on it, went back to the table.
As Gerundive: Alice went back to the table, half hoping she might find another key on it.
5. The next witness was the Duchess's cook. She carried the pepper-box in her hand and the people near the door began sneezing all at once.
As SC: The next witness, who was the Duchess's cook, carried the pepper-box in her hand and the people near the door began sneezing all at once.
As App: The next witness, the Duchess's cook, carried the pepper-box in her hand and the people near the door began sneezing all at once.
6. There was a sound of many footsteps and Alice looked 'round. She was eager to see the Queen.
As SC: There was a sound of many footsteps and Alice, who was eager to see the Queen, looked 'round.
As PPA: There was a sound of many footsteps and Alice looked 'round, eager to see the Queen.
7. “Here! You may nurse it a bit, if you like!” the Duchess said to Alice. And she flung the baby at her as she spoke.
As SC: “Here! You may nurse it a bit, if you like!” the Duchess said to Alice, as she flung the baby at her as she spoke.
As Gerundive: “Here! You may nurse it a bit, if you like!” the Duchess said to Alice, flinging the baby at her as she spoke.
8. Alice opened the door and found that it led into a small passage. It was not much larger than a rat-hole.
As SC: Alice opened the door and found that it led into a small passage that was not much larger than a rat-hole.
As PPA: Alice opened the door and found that it led into a small passage, not much larger than a rat-hole.
9. Our family always hated cats. They are nasty, low, vulgar things!
As SC: Our family always hated cats, which are nasty, low, vulgar things!
As App: Our family always hated cats -- nasty, low, vulgar things!
Comparing Two Versions of the Same Text
|Two Versions of |[pic] |
|Aesop’s “The Ass in the Lion's Skin” | |
Directions: Analyze each of the two selections on the next page for the following:
1. Put parentheses ( ) around each prepositional phrase.
2. Underline subjects once, finite verbs twice, and label complements (PN, PA, IO, DO).
3. Place brackets around each subordinate clause. If the clause functions as a noun, label its function (PN, IO, DO, OP) above the opening bracket. If it functions as an adjective or adverb, draw an arrow from the opening bracket to the word that the clause modifies. Put a vertical line at the end of every main clause.
4. Put a box around every gerund and gerundive. If it is a gerund (i.e., it functions as a noun) indicate its function over the box. If it is a gerundive, draw an arrow to the word it modifies. Put an oval around every infinitive and indicate (as in three above) its function.
5. Use the following labels for the additional constructions:
NuA -- Noun used as an Adverb
App -- Appositive
Inj -- Interjection
DirA -- Direct Address
DS -- Delayed Subject
PPA -- Post-Positioned Adjective
Put an "R" before complements that are retained (RDO, RPN, RPA)
NAbs -- Noun Absolute (Put a wavy line under each noun absolute and label its function.)
Then find as many differences as you can between Caldecott's translation and Townsend's translation." To support your comparison, you should include vocabulary -- are there any words that students younger than you might not understand? If so, what are they? How many of them are there? Quote important words from each version. Be sure to put these words in quotation marks.
Also explain differences in sentence structure:
1. What is the difference in words per main clause in each selection?
2. Which version uses more subordinate clauses? Verbals? Appositives? Post-Positioned Adjectives? Noun Absolutes? Passive Voice?
3. Which version uses more passive voice?
Are there any differences in what happens in each version, or in how the animals are portrayed? (Are they active or passive?) Does each version have a moral? Are the morals the same?
Based on what you have found, which version might be better for younger students to read?
Aesop’s “The Ass in the Lion's Skin”
Alfred Caldecott’s Translation
An Ass who had dressed himself up in a Lion’s skin was mistaken by everybody for a lion, and there was a stampede of both herds and men. But presently the skin was whisked off by a gust of wind, and the Ass stood exposed; and then the men all charged at him, and with sticks and cudgels gave him a sound drubbing.
George Tyler Townsend’s Translation
An Ass, having put on the Lion’s skin, roamed about in the forest and amused himself by frightening all the foolish animals he met in his wanderings. At last coming upon a Fox, he tried to frighten him also, but the Fox no sooner heard the sound of his voice than he exclaimed, “I might possibly have been frightened myself, if I had not heard your bray.”
[pic]
Analysis Keys
Alfred Caldecott’s Translation
An Ass [Adj. to "Ass" who had dressed himself (DO) up {in a Lion's skin}] was mistaken (P) {by everybody} {for a lion}, | and there was a stampede (PN) {of both herds and men}. | But presently the skin was whisked (P) off {by a gust} {of wind}, | and the Ass stood exposed (P); | and then the men all [#1] charged {at him}, and {with sticks and cudgels} gave him (IO) a sound drubbing (DO). |
Note
1. The only word that has not been explained is "all." It can be considered as either an adjective to "men" or as an appositive to it.
George Tyler Townsend’s Translation
An Ass, having put on the Lion's skin [#1], roamed about {in the forest} and amused himself (DO) {by frightening all the foolish animals [#2]} [Adj. to "animals" he met {in his wanderings}]. | {At last} coming [#3] {upon a Fox}, he tried to frighten him [#4] also, | but the Fox no sooner heard the sound (DO) {of his voice} [than Adv. to "no sooner" he exclaimed, [DO of "exclaimed" "I might possibly have been frightened (P) myself [#5], [if Adv. to "might have been frightened" I had not heard your bray (DO)]]]." |
Notes
1. “Skin” is the direct object of the gerundive “having put” which modifies “Ass.”
2. “Animals” is the direct object of the gerund “frightening” which functions as the object of the preposition “by.”
3. Gerundive to “he.”
4. “Him” is the direct object of the infinitive “to frighten” which functions as the direct object of “tried.”
5. Appositive to “I.”
Comments on
Two Versions of Aesop’s “The Ass in the Lion's Skin”
The basic objective of this assignment is to get the students to see and explain differences in the text – in content as well as in grammar. The following suggests what some older students might be able to write. Much less, of course, would be expected of younger students.
Should Young Students Read Caldecott’s or Townsend’s
Version of Aesop’s “The Ass in the Lion’s Skin”?
Read, read, read. There is too much to read, especially when there are two or more translations of the same basic texts. Both Alfred Caldecott and George Tyler Townsend have translated Aesop’s fables, but the translations differ significantly in both style and content. If we want to give just one version to primary school students, perhaps it should be Caldecott’s.
Caldecott may have used more words that primary school students might not know, words such as “whisked,” “cudgel,” and “drubbing.” In Townsend’s version, “wanderings” and “bray” might be new to a few students, but none of the words in either text should be too troublesome to young students, and all would be good additions to their vocabularies.
Although the vocabulary in the two versions is almost equal in difficulty, the sentence structure of Townsend’s version is much more complex, and thus probably more appropriate for middle school students. Both texts consist of two sentences, but Caldecott breaks these into five main clauses. With 63 words in the text, these main clauses average 12.6 words per main clause. Townsend’s 67-word text consists of three main clauses that average 22.3 words per main clause. At almost twice the length of Caldecott’s main clauses, Townsend’s may be more difficult for young students to read.
The length of Townsend’s main clauses results from the subordinate clauses which may add to the confusion of some primary school students. Caldecott’s version has only one subordinate clause—“who had dressed himself up in a Lion’s skin.” Although this clause does separate the main subject (“Ass”) from its verb (“was mistaken”), most primary school schools can probably process it fairly easily. In Townsend’s text, on the other hand, an adjectival clause appears at the end of the first sentence, but in this position it is easily processed. But the other three subordinate clauses create a triple embedding -- the final “if” clause is embedded in the “I might” clause that is the direct object of “exclaimed,” and the “he exclaimed” is in a “than” clause. Even more difficult, these three clauses are embedded in a 27-word main clause that is itself the second main clause in its sentence. In that last main clause, in other words, students have to process four subject/verb patterns. That is a lot, even for professional writing.
Verbals also complicate Townsend’s text. There are no verbals in Caldecott’s text; there are four in Townsend’s. The gerund (“frightening”) that functions as the object of a preposition should not cause a problem. Neither will the infinitive (“to frighten”) that functions as the direct object of “tried.” But there are two gerundive phrases—“having put on the Lion’s skin” and “At last coming upon a Fox.” Gerundives are, in effect, shortened clauses – “An Ass, who had put on the Lion’s skin” and “At last he came upon a Fox.” Some researchers have suggested that many younger students need the full S/V/C pattern. They point to the fact that most middle school students, and even many high school students, do not use gerundives in their own writing. These gerundives, combined with the complex clause structure, almost certainly make Townsend’s text more difficult for many primary school students.
The two texts also differ significantly in their use of passive voice, and the differences raise questions of who is responsible for what. Both translations use seven finite verb phrases. Of his seven, Townsend used only one passive verb. The fox exclaimed “I might have been frightened.” “Might haven been,” however, indicates he was not. In Townsend’s text, nothing and no one is passive—people (animals) are responsible for what they do.
The three passive verbs in Caldecott’s version help imply that people may be subject to external (moral?) forces. Thus, in Caldecott’s version, the Ass actively dressed himself in a Lion’s skin, but he does not try to scare anyone. The passive (“was mistaken by people.”) implies that the Ass did not try to deceive, nor did the “people” actively “mistake” him. Something else is the cause here. (Townsend, on the other hand, has the Ass not only trying to frighten people, but amusing himself in so doing.) According to Caldecott, the Lion’s skin “was [passively] whisked off by a gust of wind,” thereby exposing the Ass. In Townsend’s text the Fox recognizes the Ass by the “sound of his voice.” The Ass’s own nature, and not some external force, exposes him such that “the Ass stood exposed.”
Do Caldecott’s passive verbs suggest that his Ass, as compared to Townsend’s, is not seriously guilty of any offence? Or do they focus attention on one specific offence—pretending to be someone different than who one is? The only active voice verb associated with Caldecott’s Ass is “had dressed.” In Townsend, however, the Ass is the subject of the gerundive “having put on.” He is then the subject of the finite verbs “roamed” and “amused” (“himself”), and then of the gerund “frightening.” He also “tried to frighten” the Fox. Townsend’s Ass actively does bad things.
How psychologically or morally serious one should be about these differences is a matter of debate, but readers, and especially many young readers, do subconsciously take moral and psychological ideas from what they read. Interestingly, Caldecott’s Ass, although he would seem to be less guilty than Townsend’s, receives physical punishment—a “sound drubbing,” by a group of men with “sticks and cudgels.” Townsend’s Ass, on the other hand, is simply recognized by the Fox for what he is—apparently with no one else around. Although they are supposedly translating the same fable, Caldecott and Townsend give reader two significantly different morals—“Pretend to be what you are not, and you can be (physically) punished,” and “Be a bully and try to scare people, and you may be exposed.”
Currently, physical punishment of children is not approved of, but primary school children could probably read Caldecott’s version, with its easy sentence structure, without suffering psychological harm. They would also probably get the main lesson—do not pretend to be someone you are not. Townsend’s version, with its more complex sentence structure, would probably be more appropriate for middle school students. After all, middle school students would probably consider the threat of physical punishment to be a joke; they would be much more concerned about being exposed for what they are.
Two Translations of a Passage from Plutarch’s “Dion”
A Study in Style
Celia (in Australia), who suggested these passages for the eighth or ninth grade literature sections, noted that these two translations of the same passage from Plutarch’s “Dion” “might be interesting because of style.” As usual, she was right. The selection from Plutarch describes Plato’s meeting with the Tyrant of Syracuse. Arthur Hugh Clough revised Dryden’s translation of Plutarch’s Lives in 1859. (For more on Clough, see The Victorian Web.) Ian Scott-Kilvert’s translation first appeared more than a century later (from what I can find, in 1973) under the title The Age of Alexander: Nine Greek Lives.
Readers accustomed to the analysis keys for this site can probably infer the basic stylistic difference between these two translations simply by looking the keys. The differences between the two texts, however, is worth an even closer look because they probably reflect differences between nineteenth and twentieth century writing styles.
Although both texts cover almost exactly the same material, Clough used 130 words compared to Scott-Kilvert’s 153. The Clough translation consists of six main clauses that average 21.7 words per main clause. Scott-Kilvert’s 153 words are divided among nine main clauses and thus average 17 words in length. As the KISS psycholinguistic model suggests, shorter main clauses present readers with fewer words to juggle in short-term memory, and thus they are easier to read. As for subordinate clauses, the Scott-Kilvert translation averages exactly one per main clause, whereas Clough used eight subordinate clauses within the six main clauses for an average of 1.33 per main clause. In this area also, in other words, the more modern translation is structurally simpler, structurally easier to read.
Another way to attack this stylistic difference is to examine the finite verbs and finite verb phrases. There are fourteen in the Clough translation, one for each of the six main clauses, and one for each of the eight subordinate clauses. Scott-Kilvert, on the other hand, used eighteen clauses (nine main, and nine subordinate) but twenty finite verbs phrases. The difference here results from the fact that two of his clauses have compounded finite verbs (“they admired and were charmed,” and “he lost ... and demanded....”) Clough, in other words, presents the same material, the same ideas, using 30% fewer finite verbs.
He is able to do so primarily because he uses six times as many gerundives. Scott-Kilvert used only one (“turning”). Clough used six. As a simple example of the difference, Scott-Kilvert wrote “he grew exasperated,” whereas Clough’s version is “exceedingly exasperated, he asked....” As modifiers, gerundives reduce the importance of words, thereby putting a sharper focus on the words in the finite verb phrases. But Clough not only used more gerundives. As the notes suggest, some of Clough’s gerundives can confuse readers.
But gerundives are not the only construction that complicates the structure of Clough’s text. Scott-Kilvert uses one infinitive phrase, whereas Clough used two obvious infinitive phrases plus at least two ellipsed infinitives. There are no appositives in the Scott-Kilvert text, whereas there are two in Clough’s, and one of them (“arguments”) is not a typical appositive. Similarly, Clough uses a post-positioned adjective (“full”), but no such construction appears in the Scott-Kilvert text.
Finally, there is the question of punctuation. Not only does Clough use two semicolons compared to Scott-Kilvert’s none, but those semicolons do not, as they would in more modern styles, designate clear breaks between main clauses. As a result, they tend to cause readability problems for modern readers. (For more on this, see the notes for the Clough keys.) As a semi-serious note, in the Word version, my grammar checker is perfectly happy with Scott-Kilvert’s version, but it has underlined as questionable everything but the last two lines of Clough’s version.
Having explored some of the major stylistic differences between the two translations, I would suggest that we need to look at these differences from two different perspectives. First, in terms of overall quality, we should not, I think, claim that one style is “better” than the other in any absolute sense. Although in general, modern prose tends to shorter main clauses with fewer gerundives and appositives, many modern writers (including, by the way, newspaper journalists) prefer the more complex structure. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of taste. Some people like meat and potatoes; others prefer quiche. Much also depends on the reader’s familiarity with the subject matter. If the subject matter itself is unfamiliar, the primarily S/V/C patterns of Scott-Kilvert (which, remember, require more words) probably make the text easier to understand. However, for readers who are familiar with the subject matter, Clough’s use of gerundives and appositives not only adds variety to the sentence structure, it is also able to convey the same information in fewer words.
We also need to look at these differences from the perspective of natural syntactic development and how it should affect what we teach, when we teach it, and what we expect from students. My guess is that ninth graders would have no trouble explaining the clause structure of Scott-Kilvert’s translation, especially if they have been working on clauses since seventh grade. The passage might well be used as an assessment quiz. But I would also bet that the clause structure of Clough’s version would give most students serious problems. It is very complex, and I would not be at all surprised to learn that grammarians would disagree among themselves about what does, and what does not, constitute a clause in Clough’s version. As teachers, we need to note these differences in complexity and gauge our expectations accordingly.
This does not mean that we should not have students attempt to read or analyze passages such as Clough’s. In fact, it may be imperative that we do so since an understanding of sentence structure affects students ability to read as well as their ability to write. The September 1984 issue of English Journal includes an article by Trevor J. Gambell titled “What High School Teachers Have to Say about Student Writing and Language across the Curriculum.” Gambell states:
Cause and effect relationships employ language that makes heavy use of subordinate clauses and conjunctions such as “if,” “because,” “whether,” “although,” “when,” “whenever,” “wherever,” and so on. Discussion of these syntactic devices for expressing cause-effect relationships would assuage many students’ fears and apprehensions. (43)
What he has in mind, however, is discussing the meanings of these words, i.e., vocabulary, not syntax, since he also states:
Teachers also found problems with texts which employed multiple choice questions with subordinate clauses. Students had difficulty determining the main idea of the sentence and thus the question; the subordinate clause led to ambiguity and confusion. Obviously, if students have problems reading questions with subordinate clauses, they will be reluctant to use such constructions in their own writing. (43)
Does he suggest that we teach students to be able to identify and understand the relationships among subordinate clauses? No: “This problem also warns us that multiple choice questions need to be worded as simple sentences so that content is being tested rather than language.” The implication clearly seems to be that we should not teach students how to understand complex sentences; rather, we should simplify the sentences so that we can test “content.” But which is more important—the content in a specific high school course, or the students’ ability to decipher complex sentences such that they can extract the content from any text on their own? Gambell’s position, and indeed the position of the writers of most grammar textbooks, seems to me to be unethical, if not immoral.
The question, once again, is a matter of adjusting exercises and assessment quizzes such that students can begin with the relatively simple, be assessed on passages that should be within their range of competence, and then be introduced, in this case, to passages which involve more, and more complex clause structures. To me, this is simply a matter of common sense. I would not, by the way, use the Clough passage as an assessment quiz at any grade level, simply because of its complexity and ambiguity. But the opening paragraph of The Declaration of Independence might be an excellent assessment quiz for ninth graders who have been studying clauses since seventh grade.
[pic]
For more on Plutarch, see “Plutarch of Chaeronea,” by Jona Lendering at .
|[pic] |From “Dion,” in The Age of Alexander |
| |by Plutarch, translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert |
At this encounter the general theme of the conversation was human virtue, and most of the discussion centered upon the topic of courage. Here Plato took the line that of all mankind the tyrant possesses the smallest share of this quality, and then turning to the subject of justice, he maintained that the life of the just is happy, while the life of the unjust is full of misery. Dionysius would not hear out this argument, since it implied a direct reproach to himself, and he grew exasperated with the audience when he saw how much they admired the speaker and were charmed by his doctrines. At last he lost his temper and angrily demanded of Plato why he had come to Sicily. Plato replied that he had come in search of a man of virtue; whereupon Dionysius retorted, “Indeed! Then, by the gods, you do not seem to have found one yet!”
-- Penguin Classics 1973
|[pic] |From “Dion,” by Plutarch |
| |translated by A.H. Clough |
At this their meeting, the subject-matter of their discourse in general was human virtue, but, more particularly, they disputed concerning fortitude, which Plato proved tyrants, of all men, had the least pretense to; and thence proceeding to treat of justice, asserted the happy estate of the just, and the miserable condition of the unjust; arguments which Dionysius would not hear out, but, feeling himself, as it were, convicted by his words, and much displeased to see the rest of the auditors full of admiration for the speaker and captivated with his doctrine, at last, exceedingly exasperated, he asked the philosopher in a rage, what business he had in Sicily. To which Plato answered, “I came to seek a virtuous man.” “It seems then,” replied Dionysius, “you have lost your labor.”
Analysis Key
From “Dion,” in The Age of Alexander
by Plutarch, translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert
{At this encounter} the general theme {of the conversation} was human virtue (PN), | and most {of the discussion} centered {upon the topic} {of courage}. | Here Plato took the line (DO) [Adj. to "line" that {of all mankind} the tyrant possesses the smallest share (DO) {of this quality}] | , and then turning [#1] {to the subject} {of justice}, he maintained [DO of "maintained" that the life {of the just} is happy (PA), [Adv. to "is" while the life {of the unjust} is full (PA) {of misery}.]] | Dionysius would not hear out [#2] this argument (DO), [Adv. to "not" since it implied a direct reproach (DO) [#3] {to himself},] | and he grew exasperated [#4] {with the audience} [Adv. to "grew" when he saw [DO of "saw" how much they admired the speaker (DO) and were charmed (P) {by his doctrines}.]] | {At last} he lost his temper (DO) and angrily demanded {of Plato} [DO of "demanded" why he had come {to Sicily}.] | Plato replied [DO of "replied" that he had come {in search} {of a man} {of virtue}]; | whereupon [#5] Dionysius retorted, [DO of "retorted" "Indeed! [Inj] Then, {by the gods}, you do not seem to have found [#6] one yet!"] |
Notes
1. Gerundive to “he.”
2. “Hear out” means “accept” or “heed,” so I am counting the “out” as part of the finite verb, but I would simply accept the response of any student who considered it as an adverb.
3. I am sometimes asked why KISS Grammar downplays the traditional categories of “transitive,” “intransitive,” and “linking” verbs. One of the more subtle reasons is that the traditional categories often lead to a rather mechanical analysis—“imply” is listed in the dictionary as a transitive verb, and therefore “reproach” is here a direct object. Using the KISS Approach, however, some thoughtful students will probably note how close “reproach” is to a predicate noun. In this case, the subject “it,” which means the “argument” mentioned in the preceded sentence, may well be ( i.e., equal) a reproach. Unlike the traditional approach, KISS invites students to think about what words and sentences mean, and meaning, after all, is what language is all about.
4. Alternatively, “exasperated” can be explained as a predicate adjective.
5. Some grammarians may feel that “whereupon” is essentially a subordinate conjunction. In this case, however, I would consider it as an adverb because the preceding semicolon implies the end of a main clause. If the semicolon had been a comma, I would have explained the “whereupon” clause as adverbial to “replied.” Note that the semicolon is essential here in that it marks the end of Plato’s reply. A comma would have led many readers to, at least initially, consider the “whereupon” clause as part of Plato’s reply.
6. I would also accept “do seem to have found” as the finite verb phrase, especially from students who are working at KISS Levels Two and Three. In this explanation, “one” would be the direct object of the finite verb phrase. If one does not consider “to have found” as part of the finite verb phrase, then the simplest explanation is to consider it to be an infinitive that functions as an adverb indicating how “you do not seem.” In this explanation, “one” is the direct object of the infinitive.
Analysis Key
From “Dion,” by Plutarch (translated by A.H. Clough)
{At this} their meeting [#1], the subject-matter {of their discourse} {in general} was human virtue (PN), | but, more particularly, they disputed {concerning [#2] fortitude}, [Adj. to "fortitude" which [#3] [Inj [#3] Plato proved] tyrants, {of all men}, had the least pretense to [#3] ]; | and thence proceeding to treat [#4] {of justice}, *Plato* asserted the happy estate (DO) {of the just}, and the miserable condition (DO) {of the unjust}; arguments [#5] [Adj. to "arguments" which Dionysius would not hear out], | but, feeling [#6] himself [#7], [Adv. to "feeling" as it were], convicted [#7] {by his words}, and much displeased [#7] to see [#7] the rest [#8] {of the auditors} full [#8] {of admiration} {for the speaker} and captivated [#8] {with his doctrine}, {at last}, exceedingly exasperated [#6] , he asked the philosopher (IO) {in a rage}, [DO what business (DO) he had {in Sicily}]. | {To which} [#9] Plato answered, [DO "I came to seek a virtuous man [#10]."] | "It seems then," [Inj replied Dionysius,] [Adv. to "seems" "you have lost your labor (DO)."] |
Notes
1. I suspect that some people will consider “At this their meeting” as the full prepositional phrase, and I would accept that answer from any student. On the other hand, many readers will probably process (as I do) “At this” as the prepositional phrase, and “meeting” (modified by “their”) as an appositive to “this.”
2. “Concerning” is not included in the lists of prepositions either on this KISS site, or in any other list that I remember seeing, so I would not expect students working at Levels Two or Three to get this phrase, even though “concerning” here means “about.” I expect that most students will simply ignore the phrase, such that it should not cause any problem for them. At Level Four, when students are dealing with gerunds and gerundives, “concerning” should come to students’ attention because of its “-ing” form. At that point they may, as I did, try to explain it as a gerundive to “they.” I wasn’t happy with that explanation so I looked “concerning” up in my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1961), where I found it listed as a preposition.
3. It would be very interesting to see how traditional grammarians would explain a sentence such as this one, but traditional grammarians don’t usually explain sentences. The complexity of the syntax here may become clearer if we reword the subordinate clause as a main clause—“Plato proved that tyrants, of all men, had the least pretense to fortitude.” With it written this way, traditional grammarians would explain “Plato proved” as the main subject and verb and the rest of the sentence as a subordinate clause that functions as a direct object of “proved.” KISS, because it is based on a psycholinguistic model of how the brain decodes language, treats “Plato proved” as a subordinate clause that functions as an interjection
Note also that when the main clause (“Plato proved that tyrants, of all men, had the least pretense to fortitude.”) is subordinated as an adjective to “fortitude,” “fortitude” is replaced by the pronoun “which” and moved to the beginning of the clause, where it functions simultaneously as the subordinating conjunction and the object of the preposition “to.”
Because of the initial ambiguity of the subject of “asserted,” , and because of the semicolon after “to,” I have considered “to” as the end of a main clause and inserted an “ellipsed” “Plato” as the subject of “asserted.”
4. Close analysis leads to the conclusion that “proceeding” is a gerundive to the following ellipsed “Plato,” since it was Plato who proceeded to treat of justice. In normal reading, however, the style here could be very ambiguous. As a verbal adjective, “proceeding” should chunk to the nearest noun that would make sense as the performer of the “proceeding.” Normally, the noun can be either before or after the gerundive. In this case, there is no noun before “proceeding” and after the semicolon. Before the semicolon, working backward to find the noun closest to “proceeding,” we first encounter “tyrants.” Some readers will probably mentally test “tyrants” as the subject of “proceeding,” but that reading does not end up making sense. Thus, readers need to look for another possible subject, and that leads to “Plato,” the subject of “proved.” I would suggest, however, that even “Plato” is not totally satisfactory as the subject of “proceeded,” for, if we move back in the text still further, we find the “they” in “they disputed,” and this “they” may also be the subject of “proceeding.” The difference in meaning may be slight, but it may also be significant if we clear away the other ideas in the sentence. In one version, we would get “They disputed concerning fortitude, and thence they proceeded to treat of justice.” In the other version, we get a much more controlling view of Plato—“They disputed concerning fortitude, and thence Plato proceeded to treat of justice.” (The infinitive “to treat” functions as the direct object of “proceeding.”)
5. Modern styles tend toward shorter, less complicated sentences, and semicolons are usually used only to separate main clauses. We could consider this the end of a main clause and then insert “these were” to make “arguments” a predicate noun in a new main clause, but to do so would obscure the complexity of Clough’s style. Trained readers will probably not process “arguments” in this way; instead they will probably read it as an appositive to the previous assertions.
It is an interesting and complex appositive in that it depends on assumptions. Superficially, we can say that “arguments” is an appositive to “the happy estate of the just, and the miserable condition of the unjust.” The latter, however, are conclusions, not arguments. We are told that Plato asserted these ideas, but we are not given his arguments. Even careful readers who are unfamiliar with Plato (and his tight logical arguments) might find this appositive very confusing, especially if they are, as many of my college students are, unfamiliar with appositives in the first place.
6. “Feeling” is a gerundive. It modifies the “he” several lines further into the text. Unlike the problem with “proceeding,” however, in this case there is no doubt about who is “feeling.” The “he” means “Dionysius,” and “Dionysius” is also clearly the last noun before “feeling” in the text.
7. “Himself” is the subject and “convicted” and “displeased” are gerundives that function as predicate adjectives to an ellipsed infinitive “*to be*” The infinitive phrase functions as the direct object of “feeling.” [Traditional grammarians and many modern linguists would probably discuss “convicted” and “displeased” as objective or subjective complements.] The infinitive “to see” functions as an adverb to “displeased.” (Alternatively, some people may justifiably want to explain “himself ... convicted” and “displeased” as the core of a noun absolute that functions as the direct object of “feeling.”)
8. There are at least two ways of looking at “the rest ... full ... and captivated ...” within the KISS Approach. The first is to consider “rest” as the direct object of “to see” and then to explain “full” and “captivated” as post-positioned adjectives, i.e., reductions of subordinate clauses—to see the rest of the auditors *who were* full of admiration for the speaker and *who were* captivated with his doctrine. The other option is to assume ellipsed infinitives -- to see the rest of the auditors *be* full of admiration for the speaker and *be* captivated with his doctrine.
9. Most modern editors would probably consider “which” as a subordinating conjunction here, and therefore change this to “To this ....”
10. “Man” is the direct object of the infinitive “to seek” which functions as an adverb (of purpose) to “came.”
Comparing Two Students’ Papers
Two Sixth Grade Essays about Fires
(Note: The prompt, scoring guide, two essays, and other assignments follow this explanation.)
[pic]
The most profitable way to have students study sentence structure is probably to have them analyze and discuss the writing of their peers, especially when the identity of the writer is not known. “The Fire” and “The Rescue of Buddy” are from the Pennsylvania 2000-2001 Writing Assessment Handbook Supplement. Both are about fires. As the “Notes” with the assignments indicate, “The Rescue of Buddy” is an example of “Content” with an assessment of 4; “The Fire” is an example of “Organization” with an assessment of 2. There are several things that can be done with these two essays.
Students’ Scoring of the Two Essays
You might want to begin without telling the students the scores that the essays received. Instead, give them the prompt and the scoring guide, discuss the scoring guide, and have them score the essays. I’d suggest collecting their scores for each category—“Focus,” “Content,” “Organization,” “Style,” and “Conventions.” If possible, have an overhead up of each essay as the class discusses it. Depending on how detailed you want to be, this could take a couple of class periods. (Unfortunately, the Handbook Supplement presents essays as examples of each domain, but does not indicate how any one sample would be evaluated for all five domains. If, however, you examine the analyzed samples, you will probably conclude, what I did—essays that do well in one domain will usually do well in all five.)
Editing the Two Essays
With one of the essays on an overhead, have the class collectively edit it for spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Then do the other essay.
Statistical Stylistics?
If your students are working at KISS Level 3, you may want to have each student analyze each of the essays through clauses. You might even want them to do and discuss a statistical analysis. (See “KISS Level 6.5 - Statistical Stylistics.”) Have them analyze it individually, in pencil. You do not need to check or grade this. Simply review it in class. During the review, the students can correct their own homework. Do this review before the students calculate the number of words per main clause and the number of subordinate clauses per main clause.
Revising the Essays
Let the students take as long as they wish (out of class) in doing the two sentence-combining exercises. However, unlike the typical KISS sentence-combining exercises, tell the students to use their imaginations to add details to each essay. What you want from them, in other words, is the best that they can do to make each original a good essay. In class, have the students sit in a circle and pass the papers so that everyone can simply read what everyone else did.
Writing Their Own Responses to the Prompt
With or without the statistical analysis, complete the project by having each student write his or her own response to the prompt. Then ask the students to use the scoring guide to assess their own writing. Having students score each others’ papers is tricky, but you might want to try it, or you may just want to have all the students read each others’ papers.
Some Comments on the Two Essays
Although the Standards present “The Fire” as weak in organization, I would suggest that instruction in organization is not what the writer needs. The organization is weak because there is very little to organize. The paper needs more details that are specific. If students did not notice this in doing the analysis exercise, many will probably note it in doing the combining exercise. There are also significant differences in syntax between the two essays. “The Fire” has shorter, simpler sentences. To help students like the writer of “The Fire,” we need to consider several questions, questions which your students can also consider, if you have the class time in which they can do so.
First, there is the possibility that the writer was hindered by an actual lack of details. “The Fire” may never have happened, and a little thought suggests that it is much harder to write, and especially to write syntactically mature sentences, when one constantly has to stop to dream up what happened, where, when, how, etc. Studying sentence structure is not going to help students with this—the only thing that will is practice at writing in response to a variety of prompts under timed conditions.
Another possible cause for the weakness in “The Fire” is that the writer did not realize that detailed examples are important to a good essay. (Many of my college Freshmen still do not understand this when they enter college.) Here the syntactic analysis can help. Have the students list the words that are used as adjectives in the two papers. The list for “The Fire” will consist entirely of common words such as “four,” “big,” and “his.” On the list for “The Rescue,” we find “shabby,” and “scorching.” This may not seem like a lot of difference, but it is a major difference in quality. There is no setting, no sense of place, established at the beginning of “The Fire.” A “little shabby house” immediately establishes such a sense in “The Rescue.”
Likewise, have the students examine the use of adverbs. “Once upon a time” may be a cliché, but it is the opening of fairy tales, and fairy tales are about good, evil, struggles,—and bravery. And the prompt asked for “bravery.” Extend the analysis to prepositional phrases. I would suggest, for example, that “in the garden” plays an important role in “The Rescue.” Like the “shabby little house,” it creates a visual setting for the action expressed in “digging up worms,” and thus shows readers George and Buddy being best friends. The distinction between showing and telling is often discussed in the teaching of writing (even at the college level), and it is also an important concept in literary criticism. Instructors often tell students, “Show, don’t just tell.” But what does that mean? One of the things I am suggesting here is that these two essays demonstrate the difference. Students, as they look at the adjectives, adverbs, prepositional phrases—and discuss their effects on the writing—will begin to understand that difference.
Perhaps the major difference between the two essays can be seen simply by examining the finite verbs. What does Luke do in “The Fire”? He “saved,” “heard,” “woke up,” “saw,” “tried everything,” “thought,” “woke up everyone,” got his gerbil, and ran out of the house.” In the other essay, George “lived,” “owned,” “went.” George and Buddy “were digging.” and “were called in,” and “ate.” George “got up,” “stood up,” “smelled smoke.” Right here, we have a very important sequence. In “The Fire,” Luke “heard a big boom,” “woke up and saw the kitchen was on fire.” Why didn’t the rest of the family hear the big boom? Later we are told that “His family lives in the back of the house. That is why they didn’t hear the big boom.” Does that mean that Luke does not live with his family? What was he doing in the kitchen? Too much is simply left out.
Without looking at all the finite verbs in “The Rescue,” we can simply note the almost total lack of details on conflict in “The Fire.” (Bravery does imply some sort of conflict, does it not?) All we are told about Luke is that he “tried everything.” But that says nothing. Did he use a fire extinguisher? He he put water from the sink on it? Did he try to smother it with towels? What is “everything”? The verbs in “The Rescue,” in contrast, specify several conflicts: “his mom said he couldn’t ...”; He “tried,” but “his dad caught him.” [Note that “by the sleeve of his shirt”—there is no comparable detail in “The Fire.”] George “pulled,” “slipped,” “started running,” “dove,” “jumped,” darted,” and “grabbed.” He “tried to break the window,” “failed, and “tried again.” That “failed,” I would suggest, is important evidence of George’s bravery. The window “shattered.” They “climbed out,” and George “screamed” so that people would see them up on the roof. The verbs in “The Rescue” show readers what happened; those in “The Fire” simply tell. The reasons given in the Supplement to justify the poor assessment for organization include “the lack of connecting transitions.” Some people may take that to mean the lack of grammatical transitions, but I would suggest that it also means the lack of verbs to show the connecting actions.
There is still another question that students who are using the KISS Approach should explore. Was the writer of “The Fire” hindered by a lack of syntactic flexibility—the ability to easily combine ideas into more mature sentences? The essay certainly begins with a series of very short simple sentences. The comments in the Supplement note a “weak introduction” and cite “There was a boy.” I have not had the time to do a complete statistical analysis of the entire set of papers from which these two are taken, but one does not need such an analysis to see that the sentences in “The Rescue” are longer and more “mature” than those in “The Fire.” My subjective impression is that neither essay is among the more sophisticated in terms of subordinate clauses, but that makes them both good exercises for discussing the effects of sentence combining. There are at least two ways of doing this. One is simply to review the results of the sentence-combining exercises and to praise those combinations that are noticeably effective.
The other is to focus on a series of sentences in either essay:
He tried to run, but his dad caught him by the sleeve of his shirt. George pulled with all his might and slipped out of his father’s grasp. He started running towards the scorching house.
When he tried to run, his dad caught him by the sleeve of his shirt. George pulled with all his might, slipped out of his father’s grasp, and started running towards the scorching house.
When he tried to run, his dad caught him by the sleeve of his shirt. Because George pulled with all his might, he slipped out of his father’s grasp and started running towards the scorching house.
He tried to run. When his dad caught him by the sleeve of his shirt, George pulled with all his might. After he slipped out of his father’s grasp, he started running towards the scorching house.
None of these alterations is intrinsically better than the original, but they do entail differences in emphasis, tempo, and logic. (“When” and “after” make temporal connections; “because” highlights cause/effect.) The idea here is to explore some of the ways in which the sentences can be combined, thereby giving students syntactic options, syntactic flexibility.
[pic]
The preceding suggestions will take a lot of class time, but I would suggest that a detailed, interconnected study such as this provides students with contextual understanding that is much better than the typical short comments that we usually have to make before going on to the next assignment. (Note that I included myself in this situation.)
PENNSYLVANIA SYSTEM OF SCHOOL ASSESSMENT
FALL 2000
GRADE 6
WRITING PROMPT SHEET
PROMPT #1
You will have one class period (but no more than 60 minutes if your class is longer) to plan, write and proofread your response, making any necessary corrections.
|Planning: |Writing: |
|Think about what you want to write. |Proofread your essay and make necessary corrections. |
|Reread the prompt to make sure you are writing about the topic. | |
|Make notes. Use your prewriting skills, such as mapping or outlining. | |
|Carefully read the five statements below the prompt. Each statement | |
|refers to one of the scorable domains: focus, content, organization, | |
|style and conventions. | |
READ THE ENTIRE PROMPT CAREFULLY
|At different times in their lives, people face situations in which they need to be brave. |
|Write about a time when someone needed to be brave and why bravery was needed. |
As you write your paper, remember to:
* Write about this time and why bravery was needed.
* Use specific details to develop your narrative.
* Present your ideas in a clear and logical order, including an introduction, body and conclusion.
* Use a variety of words and well-constructed sentences.
* Correct any errors in grammar, mechanics, spelling, usage and sentence formation.
[Adapted from the 2000-2001 Writing Assessment Handbook Supplement - Grade 6 Page 2
Pennsylvania Writing Assessment Domain Scoring Guides, 2000-2001
[Reproduced from: 2000-2001 Writing Assessment Handbook Supplement - Grade 6]
|FOCUS |
|The single controlling point made with an awareness of task about a specific topic and mode. |
|Scoring |
|4 |Sharp, distinct controlling point made about a single topic with evident awareness of task |
|3 |Apparent point made about a single topic with sufficient awareness of task |
|2 |No apparent point but evidence of a specific topic |
|1 |Minimal evidence of a topic |
|CONTENT |
|The presence of ideas developed through facts, examples, anecdotes, details, opinions, statistics, reasons and/or |
|explanations. |
|Scoring |
|4 |Substantial, specific and/or illustrative content demonstrating strong |
| |development and sophisticated ideas |
|3 |Sufficiently developed content with adequate elaboration or explanation |
|2 |Limited content with inadequate elaboration or explanation |
|1 |Superficial and/or minimal content |
|ORGANIZATION |
|The order developed and sustained within and across paragraphs using transitional devices and including an introduction and |
|conclusion. |
|Scoring |
|4 |Sophisticated arrangement of content with evident and/or subtle transitions |
|3 |Functional arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with some |
| |evidence of transitions |
|2 |Confused or inconsistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at transition |
|1 |Minimal control of content arrangement |
|STYLE |
|The choice, use and arrangement of words and sentence structures that create tone and voice. |
|Scoring |
|4 |Precise, illustrative use of a variety of words and sentence structures to |
| |create consistent writer's voice and tone appropriate to audience |
|3 |Generic use of a variety of words and sentence structures that may or may |
| |not create writer's voice and tone appropriate to audience |
|2 |Limited word choice and control of sentence structures that inhibit voice and tone |
|1 |Minimal variety in word choice and minimal control of sentence structures |
|CONVENTIONS |
|Grammar, mechanics, spelling, usage and sentence formation |
|Scoring |
|4 |Evident control of grammar, mechanics, spelling, usage and sentence formation |
|3 |Sufficient control of grammar, mechanics, spelling, usage and sentence formation |
|2 |Limited control of grammar, mechanics, spelling, usage and sentence formation |
|1 |Minimal control of grammar, mechanics, spelling, usage and sentence formation |
The Rescue of Buddy
Once upon a time a young boy named George lived in a little shabby house. He owned a dog named Buddy. Buddy went everywhere George went and he even slept with him. Buddy was his best friend
One day George and Buddy were digging up worms in the garden. It was getting dark when they were called in for supper. After they ate, George did his homework. Shortly after that Buddy and George went to bed. At one o’clock in the morning George got up to get a drink of water. But when he stood up he smelled smoke. He ran and got his mom and dad up. They started to run into the kitchen but the door was on fire. So they ran down into the basement and out the door. They phoned the fire company at their neighbor’s house. Just then, George remembered about Buddy. He screamed Buddy! But his mom said he couldn’t go back into the house because it was up in flames. He tried to run but his dad caught him by the sleeve of his shirt. George pulled with all his might and slipped out of his father’s grasp. He started running towards the scorching house. The basement was now covered in flames so he dove through the window in his kitchen and jumped over a line of fire. Once inside the living room he darted upstairs to find Buddy still under his bed. He grabbed Buddy and ran out into the hall and downstairs but the entire living room was on fire so they rushed back upstairs. The only way out was climbing down the roof. He tried to break the window but failed. He tried again the window shattered. They climbed out on the roof and George screamed. They saw him and Buddy and rescued them. They soon recovered and built a new house. They lived happily ever after!
The Fire
There was a boy. His name was Luke. He saved his mom, his 4 brothers and his pet. It was a Satrday. Every body was a sleep. It was 5: A.M.. Wane Luke hred a big boom!!! He woke up and solw the kichen was on fire. He traid everything to put the fire out. Nothing worked! It was raining outside. The window was open. He touht it was ligtning because he hred a big boom. So he woke up everyone in the houes. His family lives in the back of the house. That is why they didn’t hire the big boom. He got his Jarble and ran out of the house. but he was very brave to do that. He got everyone out of the house savely.
The Rescue of Buddy
A Sentence-Combining Exercise
Directions: Read the passage all the way through. You will notice that the sentences are short and choppy. Study the passage, and then rewrite it in a better way. You may combine sentences, change the order of words, and omit words that are repeated too many times. But try not to leave out any of the information.
1. Once upon a time the was a boy named George. He was a young boy. He lived in a little house. The house was shabby. He owned a dog. The dog's name was Buddy. Buddy went everywhere George went. Buddy even slept with him. Buddy was his best friend.
2. One day George and Buddy were digging up worms in the garden. It was getting dark. They were called in for supper. After they ate, George did his homework. Shortly after that, Buddy and George went to bed.
3. It was one o'clock in the morning. George wanted a drink of water. He got up. He smelled smoke. He ran and got his mom and dad up. They started to run into the kitchen. The door was on fire. So they ran down into the basement. There they ran out the door. They went to their neighbor's house. From there, they phoned the fire company.
4. Just then, George remembered about Buddy. He screamed "Buddy!" But his mom said he couldn't go back into the house. She said it was up in flames. He tried to run. His dad caught him by the sleeve of his shirt. George pulled with all his might. He slipped out of his father's grasp. He started running towards the scorching house.
5. The basement was now covered in flames. He dove through the window in his kitchen. He jumped over a line of fire. He got inside the living room. He darted upstairs. He found Buddy. Buddy was still under his bed. He grabbed Buddy. He ran out into the hall and downstairs. The entire living room was on fire. They rushed back upstairs.
6. There was only one way out. He had to climb down the roof. He tried to break the window. He failed. He tried again. The window shattered. They climbed out on the roof. George screamed. People saw him and Buddy. The people rescued them. They soon recovered. They built a new house. They lived happily ever after!
The Fire
A Sentence-Combining Exercise
Directions: Read the passage all the way through. You will notice that the sentences are short and choppy. Study the passage, and then rewrite it in a better way. You may combine sentences, change the order of words, and omit words that are repeated too many times. But try not to leave out any of the information.
There was a boy. His name was Luke. He saved his mom, his four brothers, and his pet. It was a Saturday. Everybody was asleep. It was 5 a.m. Luke heard a big boom!!! He woke up. He saw the kitchen was on fire. He tried everything to put the fire out. Nothing worked! It was raining outside. The window was open. He thought it was lightning because he heard a big boom. So he woke up everyone in the house. His family lives in the back of the house. That is why they didn’t hear the big boom. He got his gerbil. He ran out of the house. He was very brave to do that. He got everyone out of the house safely.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- kiss because i m a girl
- describe a kiss in words
- describing a kiss in writing
- the basic grammar in english
- describe a kiss in detail
- correct the sentence grammar worksheet
- the crucible act 1 main characters
- the best grammar book
- describe a kiss scene
- the main function of the digestive system
- the breast cancer site store
- the best grammar books