Composition studies began to take its contemporary form only in the early 1960s. There is no unbroken theoretical tradition from classical rhetoric to the present, although scholars in composition studies have attempted to reinvent the work of earlier theorists as foundations for their own work.' Perhaps because of this discontinuity in the tradition and because composition studies has been constituted as a field so recently, there is also no dominant theory governing composition studies today. Some theorists seek the universal laws of composition, or at least a universally applicable method for investigating such laws, while others seek to understand discourse in its historical context. Not coincidentally, the period in which composition studies has developed has also been a period of theoretical upheaval in English studies, the parent discipline. Composition theorists have drawn on the contending literary theories of this period as much as on the rhetorical tradition in shaping their own debates. One reason for this influence of literary theory on composition theory is that almost every active scholar in composition studies today holds a degree in English literature, not in composition and rhetoric. This situation is changing as degree programs in composition proliferate, but the majority of faculty who design and teach in these degree programs were themselves trained as literary critics. Much important work in composition studies shows the influence of the scholars' literary training. For example, Mina Shaughnessy has subjected the essays of unsuccessful student writers to a sort of new-critical close-reading. She is thus able to show that the students' tortured sentence structures are actually attempts to make meaning, albeit meaning in an unfamiliar world, the academic. Elaine Maimon has analyzed as literary genres the various kinds of academic discourse, thus uncovering their knowledge-generating conventions. Ann Berthoff has generalized a theory of the poetic imagination, derived primarily from the work of I. A. Richards, to explain all attempts at making meaning in language. Composition specialists have not only used literary training in their own work but also urged on their students a kind of literary close-reading ability as a means to develop the students' own writing. Pedagogy such as that of Peter Elbow and Ken Macrorie assumes that the same critical eye that allows the

Teachers of writing have currently been showing an interest in error analysis, a device that has been used informally for some time but has received serious attention from linguists and language teaching methodologists only recently. This interest in error analysis seems strange because this type of analysis possesses many of the characteristics of structuralism and few (if any) of the characteristics of tranformationalism. As a result, the objections to error analysis are partly theoretical in nature. Because the number of sentences in a language is infinite, the number of different kinds of errors that students can make is infinite or, at least, indefinitely large. Because of this, the chance of a student producing a particular sentence exhibiting a particular error is very small. This is the principal reason behind the creation of vague, general, and subsequently rather meaningless categories in the taxonomies that are used in error analysis. For this reason, it would seem to be appropriate for teachers to abandon error analysis and lead students through the use of creative language exercises into the writing of creative sentences.

Teaching with great literature gives me the feeling of being anointed yet unworthy; still feel compelled to bring great works into my classroom. Any teacher of freshman composition needs to be grounded, but an adjunct teacher of freshman composition needs to be especially grounded. So, ground myself on the likes of Martin Luther King, Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, Einstein, Lao Tzu, Gertrude Stein, Kerouac, Ginsberg, Stafford, Plato, and James Joyce. feel somewhat brazen in doing so, for am not a superpowered specialized scholar, but love these works and believe in their power of conversion. believe they are not meant to be our sacred and closeted gems, but our air and food and water and shelter. It has been my experience that there has been a shift in composition courses, away from reading literature until basic skills have been learned. have found that literature can be used to teach grammar and pass on the goods at the same time. The writers mentioned above are on my guest list, and for the most part am in the business of toying with my guests. Halfway through the semester, hand out a section of Martin Luther King Jr.'s I Have a Dream speech where I've deliberately tampered with grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and expect my students to right my wrongs. count on their ears, which believe more dependable than their ability to memorize a list of ever-changing rules. I've reduced the Tomorrow .. . passage in Macbeth to a discussion of subject and predicate. But it's with my most precious saint of words, Mr. Joyce, that I've truly tested my students. At the end of the semester, my students must add punctuation and in other ways make articulate the last six hundred words of Molly Bloom's poignant rambling soliloquy-the so-called stream of consciousness.' This exercise has on occasion gotten me into the deeper waters of the English Department. At first glance it appears to test the student's ability to tolerate tedium, but when students look at it a second time, they realize that they are being called upon to translate the stuff of dreams into the stuff of tangible communication-which is indeed hard work. When readers take it upon themselves to look at this block of unpunctuated prose, they will see that the option is to either sink or swim. One either remains barred from the private sea of consciousness, and, dumbstruck and resentful,

Readability formulas have drawbacks when used with persons who are not fluent in English. Most such formulas depend upon the assumptions that longer words and longer sentences are more difficult than those which are not. The author asserts that these assumptions do not hold, and that there are other factors which contribute to relative difficulty when dealing with nonfluent readers. Vocabulary, sentence structure, text organization, and presentation, factors affecting readability that can be controlled by the writer, are discussed.

Proponents of computerized text-analysis (CTA) systems like Bell Laboratories' Writer's Workbench contend that the computer's analysis of a text's surface features can help students become better writers and editors. Several colleges and universities have already integrated the new technology into their writing programs, and others will consider doing so in the future. Teachers of technical writing, however, ought to investigate carefully the capabilities and limitations of CTA before applying it to the technical writing classroom. Not even the most sophisticated of today's computers can detect the basic grammar and punctuation errors that bedevil student writers. Moreover, the computer's evaluation of a text's readability and style is untrustworthy and lacks a sound theoretical and pedagogical foundation; indeed, the machine's quantitative-based analysis of writing style might do some students more harm than good. Finally, there is no empirical evidence that CTA helps students become better writers.

In this study, the effects of writing ability and mode of discourse of cognitive capacity engagement were investigated. Sixty-three college freshmen of varying writing abilities (basic, average, and honors) were randomly assigned to experimental treatments (descriptive writing, narrative writing, and persuasive writing). Using the secondary task method, it was found that writing ability differentially affects cognitive capacity engagement across modes. For example, honors writers were least engaged when writing descriptive essays but were most engaged when writing persuasive essays whereas average writers were most engaged when writing descriptive essays but were least engaged when writing narrative essays. Analytic quality scores and engagement were related and results were interpreted in the context of schema theory to estimate the learning potential of a given mode of discourse. Also, engagement and syntactic complexity treasures were related. It was found that as words per clause increased, engagement also increased; whereas, as clauses per T-unit increased, engagement decreased.

Readers and evaluators of children's writing still fall back on deficit explanations; papers are read for signs of what they lack rather than signs of growth. Presented here is a model that predicts how such growth may occur as a logical outcome of language acquisition. Drawing on research done in the past, the article provides a list of the kinds of language learning underway in the elementary school years and suggests that teachers may use this list to anticipate where and how such learning will influence the writing processes of children. Included in the list are sentence syntax, spelling conventions, and discourse grammars, all of which seem to be learned by “creative construction” (hypothesis building and refinement) and, to some extent, memorization. The article argues that children's writing performance is likely to suffer on one or more writing dimensions as the writer selectively attends to other dimensions of the task. For evaluators and teachers there are implications for feedback, for individual agendas, for revision, and for the kinds of conclusions one may draw from the examination of written products.

The aim of this study was to describe the development of audience-adapted writing skills between the end of elementary school and the beginning of college. Students in grades 5, 7, 9, and 11, and college freshmen, were given the task of rewriting a linguistically complex story for a young reader. Analyses of rewritten stories showed significant, agerelated decreases in mean lexical and syntactic complexity, as well as significant increases in mean reading ease. Further analyses of the alteration of difficult lexical items and rewriting of the moral of the story suggested a shift from extensive use of “word-oriented” strategies in the lower grades to increasing use of a “meaning-oriented” approach in the higher grades.

Experts on style agree that writers frequently have trouble using the unattended anaphoric this clearly. Few, however, have proposed explicit guidelines for sorting appropriate from inappropriate uses. This article examines the limitations of a recent classification proposed by Moskovit (1983), and then suggests an alternate classification relying on concepts from functional grammar. In particular, Moskovit's distinction between demarcational, syntactic, and semantic reference is found not to predict actual readers' judgments. In its place, the authors suggest a classification based on the functional notions of topic and focus. The unattended this is shown to be English's economical routine for moving the focus of a discourse from nominal topics to clausal predications relating those topics. Before deciding to employ this routine, however, writers are warned to evaluate its consequences on clarity and rhetoric.

Preview this article: Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/47/2/collegeenglish13293-1.gif

Advanced composition is now taught in colleges throughout the country to students in a variety of majors. But, unlike freshman English where one finds similar curricula and texts, this course has not had a traditional structure. In some schools, it may even indicate technical writing or advanced grammar study. In a 1979 survey, Michael Hogan discovered that at most colleges the course extended fundamentals learned in freshman English, with work on style and organization for argument, exposition, and other essay forms. Because few specialized texts were then available, teachers relied on books intended for freshmen, such as Hall's Writing Well and The Norton Reader, and thus repeated familiar advice on the modes of exposition, paragraphing and usage, with little attention given to research on composition.1

In its classical formulation, invention is the canon that provides a rhetorician with more or less systematic procedures for finding argu- ments appropriate to the rhetorical occasion that faces her. In most of the composition textbooks written by influential nineteenth-century teachers of writing, however, invention is either greatly transformed from its classical guise or is slighted altogether. By the end of the nineteenth century most popular composition textbooks written in the vein now described as current-traditional treat invention as a means of systematically delimiting an area of thought in order that the writer may handle its exposition in discourse with maximum clarity. 1 In what follows I trace the evolution-or better, devolution-of the inventional procedure recommended by influential composition texts written during the last half of the nineteenth century, and follow its course into our own century. The term evolution is of course metaphorical; however the continuity and development of the inventional tradition I am tracing is remarkably homogeneous. The first-generation authors in the tradition-Alexander Jamieson, Samuel Newman, H. N. Day, and Alex- ander Bain are among the best known-cite and use the work of British rhetoricians George Campbell or Hugh Blair, while members of the second generation-John Franklin Genung, Adams Sherman Hill, Bar- rett Wendell, Fred Newton Scott, and Joseph V. Denney-generally acknowledge at least Bain, Genung, and Day. And after 1900 until about 1940, Wendell and Scott and Denney are the authoritative names in the tradition; they are as routinely cited in early twentieth-century textbooks as were Blair and Campbell in nineteenth-century works. Early nineteenth-century American school rhetoric is an amalgam of classical and eighteenth-century discourse theory. No American rhetoric text had yet succeeded in creating a satisfactory blend of the epistemological rhetoric formulated by George Campbell in his influen- tial Philosophy of Rhetoric (1776) and the Ciceronian rhetoric imparted by such popular works as John Ward's System of Oratory (1759).2 Alexander Jamieson's popular Grammar of Rhetoric and Polite Litera- ture (1818) nicely represents the confusion of traditions which obtained in the early part of the century.3 Jamieson opens his treatise with a discussion of language which is an imitation of Hugh Blair's treatment of 146

(1985). The cultural tradition of nineteenth‐century “traditional” grammar teaching. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 15, No. 1-2, pp. 3-12.

Clarkson University is developing software tools to help students write with more skill and thought. The new programs include a powerful word processor, a spelling checker, an authoring system, numerous pre-writing programs, and computerized prose analyzers. The components of the Clarkson writing system function as an integrated whole, setting a standard for writing packages. Early use of these programs indicates that the computer is making itself indispensable to the writing teacher.

Retrievability is a major advantage of the Pocketbook. Instead of a traditional table of contents, it contains a topical key to the text to help the reader find specific information. Major divisions, such as “Grammar,” “Punctuation,” and “Mechanics,” make finding information simple.

It is argued that a course in letter writing can serve to sharpen communication skills that have become dulled over years of carelessness and thoughtlessness. It teaches the student to understand and respect the reader's needs in every writing situation and to use the necessary tact and diplomacy in all responses. Furthermore, when the 37 daily writing assignments in such a course have rigorous penalties imposed automatically for errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax, students learn quickly that correct writing is essential.

Preview this article: Forward to the Basics: Getting Down to Grammar, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/35/3/collegecompositionandcommunication14875-1.gif

Four parallels between technical communication and user-friendly systems are discussed. They are: (1) its overall structures should be apparent to the user; (2) it should be congenial without being chatty or too personal; (3) its nomenclature and syntax must be consistent throughout all functions; and (4) its logic must not trap users in loops but should lead them straight to their goals.

Abstract In their writings about one of the most important cornerstones in the edifice of psychoanalysis, Freud's interpretation of his Irma Dream, Freud and Erikson act as apologists for the modern patriarchy. Using the rhetorical persona of the progressive, scientific hero, Freud and Erikson cast themselves as protagonists in the drama of modernization. Their rhetorical structures, syntax, and diction reveal their sexism. The strategy of their discourses invites their audience to believe that the audience is witnessing scientific discoveries in the making; the rhetoric of Freud and Erikson suggests that their discourse is not patriarchal rationalization, but rational analysis, the drama of the scientific method applied for progress. Their interpretation of Freud's Irma Dream disassociates Freud from women, assigning separate behaviors for rational, progressive males and irrational, traditional females. But the truth of the Irma Dream is that it associates Freud with females and reveals the irresponsibility of both his pharmacological and psychological prescriptions.

This paper describes current problems with data-entry forms used in offices and discusses a method, called the syntax method, through which some of the problems can be eliminated. In particular, the technique used in this method for identifying duplicate names and improving the names of the elements is described. Results from a test of the method on three Dept. of Defense Contractor Cost Performance Forms are provided.

Common errors of word usage and grammar are described and corrected with examples. The errors came from similar sounding words, non-interchangeable words, and inappropriate, redundant, and otherwise misused words.

In Fall Semester, 1981, randomly selected students taking freshman composition at Colorado State University wrote essays using word-processing equipment and a computer programmed with DICTION, SUGGEST, STYLE, and SPELL, programs developed by Bell Laboratories. Studies at Bell Laboratories have shown that technical writers using these programs not only edit more thoroughly but also learn to edit on their own. This study tests for similar improvement in college writing and editing skills and also measures effects of computer assistance on attitudes toward writing. Our tests suggest that textual analysis with computers intrigues college writers and speeds learning of editing skills by offering immediate, reliable, and consistent attention to surface features of their prose. Most freshmen writers have had little practice editing their own written work so little that wordy expressions, faulty diction, and spelling errors increasingly mar even their most careful composition. Bedeviled by these and other problems of young writers, we began exploring ways of using word-processing technology and computers to help students analyze and edit their own writing before handing it in for marking. While we were preparing a computerized diction list, reports reached us about Bell Laboratories' extraordinary editing software Writer's Workbench (Macdonald, 1980; Cherry, 1981, 1982; Cherry & Vesterman, 1981; Frase, et al., 1981; Macdonald, et al., 1982). Discovering our parallel interests, Colorado State University and Bell Laboratories began discussions leading to a research exchange permitting CSU to test and adapt Writer's Workbench for teaching composition. During these negotiations, CSU leased the three Workbench programs then available. In Fall Semester, 1981, randomly selected students taking freshman composition wrote essays using word-processing equipment and a computer programmed with DICTION, SUGGEST, and STYLE. Also included in the test was SPELL, Bell Laboratories' spelling checker distributed with the computer we used for the experiment. Studies at Bell Laboratories (Gingrich, et al., 1981) have shown that technical writers using Writer's Workbench not only edit more thoroughly but also learn to edit on their own. What might the effect be on college writers? Few would doubt the value of students correcting their own spellResearch in the Teaching of English, Vol. 17, No. 3, October 1983

Preview this article: Syntactic Complexity and Readers' Perception of an Author's Credibility, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/17/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15716-1.gif

Preview this article: Segmentation and Punctuation: Developmental Data from Young Writers in a Bilingual Program, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/17/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15714-1.gif

Preview this article: Teaching Error, Nurturing Confusion: Grammar Texts, Tests, and Teachers in the Developmental English Class, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/45/4/collegeenglish13635-1.gif

Preview this article: Sexist Grammar Revisited, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/45/4/collegeenglish13629-1.gif

Making sense is the hallmark of purposeful writing, yet too few people take the time necessary to revise what they have written. No one should be satisfied with a first draft. Writing is a process and, as such, requires taking whatever time is necessary to produce worthwhile writing. Included are seven tips to consider in the revision process: (1) keep subjects, verbs, objects, and complements close together; (2) maintain an average sentence length of less than 20 words; (3) prefer the active voice; (4) eliminate the indefinite “this” (5) simplify verb tenses; (6) ensure that all paragraphs have clear topic sentences; and (7) avoid “this is” and “there are” constructions.

When reviewing someone else's document, the reviewer is supposed to help the writer achieve the major objective of the paper, i.e., to communicate effectively with the reader. This paper provides guidelines that enable a reviewer to make a positive contribution by raising questions that lead the author. Most of the paper is concerned with measuring readability and style with minor emphasis on grammar.

Tables and figures arc an integral part of the medium of communication of science and technology. An analysis of tables and figures, relying heavily on Euclidean terms (point, line and plane) explains something of their power–their ability to display with clarity large amounts of data, complex data relationships, and intricate three-dimensional configurations. Analysis also clarifies the mutual dependence of tables and figures and their accompanying texts. Additionally, analysis makes clear the semantic gap between tables and graphs, on the one hand, and illustrations, on the other. All are equally vital strategies in scientific and technical discourse. However, tables and graphs are paralinguistic extensions of scientific and technical dialects; illustrations, on the other hand, are a nonlinguistic supplement to these dialects. Finally, analysis provides clues for the teaching of proper graphic choice, good graphic ‘grammar,’ and the appropriate contextualization of graphs.

Preview this article: Sentence Structure in Academic Prose and Its Implications for College Writing Teachers, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/16/3/researchintheteachingofenglish15734-1.gif

Instructors of technical writing can teach Japanese specialists more effectively by being aware of some basic linguistic differences. One of the difficulties with traditional instruction is that it is prepared from the native speaker's point of view. Instruction should be prepared to meet the foreign students' needs. Japanese students experience difficulty in three areas: First, they have trouble with technical terms, often relying too literally on a dictionary to offer a synonym. The consequence is their selecting imprecise terms which in turn produces an awkward expression. Second, Japanese students have trouble with English grammar — in particular with articles, prepositions, tenses, auxiliary verbs, and the subjunctive mood. Finally, they are challenged by rhetoric, that is, choosing and arranging words effectively. Examples of each problem are offered with suggestions on how to make the students more aware of the principles involved.

Preview this article: Computers in English Class: Finally Beyond Grammar and Spelling Drills, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/44/5/collegeenglish13701-1.gif

The practicing technical editor quickly realizes that regardless of author or subject, the same grammatical errors occur repeatedly in manuscripts. This can probably be blamed on a fundamental weakness in the training of technical writers, rather than on any lack of individual or collective ability on the writer's part. With this in mind, ten errors commonly found in technical manuscripts are collected and presented. It is hoped that the list will be helpful to teachers of technical writing and to technical writers who wish to improve their craft.

Preview this article: The Effects of "Consciousness of Correctness" on Amount, Fluency, and Syntax of Adolescents' Speech, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/16/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15745-1.gif

Preview this article: Grammar Hotline, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/44/4/collegeenglish13716-1.gif

A readable style is created by proper handling of ideas, words, phrases, clauses, logic, syntax, and personality. Every word should be written for somebody. These rules tell how to create readable writing: (1) Read some great writing every day; (2) use genuinely familiar words; (3) break sentences into clearly defined units; (4) use signals in sentences (because, so, but); (5) make the subjects and verbs absolutely clear; (6) balance sentences with parallel structures; (7) use nouns sparingly, especially as modifiers; (8) make sentences answer Who does what?; (9) surprise the reader with variety; and (10) do not hesitate to break a rule or create a new one.

An important prelude to job-seeking is preparing the résumé. The author identifies the elements of a useful résumé and suggests how to package those elements to emphasize your assets. Other recommendations include (1)being truthful, (2) using factual and concise language, (3) making no mechanical errors (typos, spelling, or punctuation), (4) not using carbon paper, and (5) having someone else read your résumé before drafting the final copy.

Having students read selected portions of Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography provides unique and effective material for supplementing instruction in style and control of tone. Franklin's writing exemplifies the major style characteristics taught in technical writing: active voice, conciseness, common words, concrete language, sentences structured by clauses rather than phrases. The work clearly shows that good “technical” style is not an isolated type of writing, but a powerful means of controlling tone and meaning. Students can be shown that by skillfully using syntax and diction and by carefully selecting content, Franklin shrewdly and effectively achieved his goal in writing the Autobiography — a precisely drawn image of himself for posterity.

Teachers who are trained in a fiveweek intensive writing project can improve students' composition skills better than teachers who are not trained to teach writing. That is the finding of an evaluation of the Gateway Writing Project, an inservice program involving eight suburban school districts in St. Louis County, Missouri, and funded by ESEA IV-G The program focuses on training secondary English, language arts, and elementary teachers, identified by their districts, in a five-week summer institute to improve students' composition skills. These trained teachers return to their school districts to teach other teachers the following school year. An evaluation of the project's impact on junior high and middle school students measured students' growth in writing and changes in teacher attitudes. The evaluation revealed the program had a significant impact on changing teachers' attitudes toward writing and on the writing performance of junior high and middle school students. By the completion of the five-week institute, participants demonstrated increased knowledge about research in the teaching of writing, about various approaches to the teaching of writing, and about the evaluation of writing. Each participant read selections by Moffett, Macrorie, Elbow, Britton, Cooper, O'Hare, Diederich, and Shaughnessy from a bibliography prepared for the institute. All participants kept a reading journal of their reactions to these authors and their ideas. Each participant also wrote several papers, then selected one paper for publication. All participants belonged to an editing group which met at least twice a week to read rough drafts of writing assignments. Two methods of evaluation of writing were taught: an holistic scoring approach and an error analysis technique. Approximately one-third of the summer institute was used for the participants to take a turn in presenting an effective teaching of writing approach which was supported either by research or review of the literature and developed through an appropriate writing assignment with printed materials suitable for the junior high/middle school students.

To understand a scientific or technical article written in English by Japanese specialists, readers should understand in what areas of English grammar the Japanese tend to make mistakes. Most common are mistakes in the use of articles, subjunctive mood, prepositions, and auxiliary verbs. Also a problem is the use of unsuitable words, often due to the use of bilingual dictionaries. A further complication arises from the absence of the perfect tenses in Japanese.

Titis monograph explores the conflicts in attitudes toward language that occur and-in which English teachers may be asked to uphold forms and conventions oftraditional grammar standards while they have linguistic training and knowledge that support a sore flexible language usage. Chapters deal with conflicts in attitudes toward lan'guage, language attitudes and the change process, changing language kttitudes within the profession, and changing language attittdes in the community. An appendix includs questionnaires and rating smiles concerning language usage and attitudes. A selected bibliography contains sections on dialectical differences, linguistics for the layperson, dialectiteaching material, attitudes toward usage, and the change process. (NKM) *********************************************************************** * heproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * ***********************************************************************