four sentences that are not holding hands

Kolln’s discussion of the new-known contract succeeded in giving me a concrete reason to work on transitions and topic sentences. I often neglect them in my writing, largely because being told “do this because this is how we do it” seldom makes a dent in my perversity. Duly chastised, I revisited a paper I wrote for a Linguistics class last fall. In this section, I have written four sentences that just happen to be standing next to each other.

Unraveling the meaning behind terms specific to SA took longer, as they’re unlikely to turn up in a dictionary or even in Wikipedia. Any term or phrase used with regularity on the forums is defined in the SAclopedia, usually by a host of goons. What appeals to me most about this style of reference material is that the words are not simply assigned an agreed-upon, neutral definition; users adding to the entries bring their own impressions about the history, usage, connotations, and politics of words to the discussion, making definition more about how words mean than what they mean.

I’d already talked about finding some terms in online dictionaries and Wikipedia much earlier in the paper, so that had to go. But, more importantly, while you can’t tell from the snippet I’ve posted, this paragraph follows one explaining some more-or-less universal terms used in internet forums. There’s no transition to speak of, and this first sentence makes it sound like I want to talk about how I went about gathering data, which doesn’t help me lead into talking about how I see the terms operating. So it becomes the last sentence of the preceding paragraph, which lets me carry over talking about forum users in general, and narrow in specifically on *these* forum users. It’s also often unclear what I’m referencing. This section still feels clumsy to me, in part because it’s hard to get the context around it out of my head, but I tried to keep both the new-known contract and end focus in mind when playing with it.

…Terms like these, while undoubtedly familiar to some Internet users, and common to most forum communities, represent only some of the vocabulary used in the SA forums.

What establishes the language used on SA as a dialect is not the presence of terms used by most forum users, but language defined and used specifically by goons to communicate with other goons. Terms and phrases used regularly on the forums are defined in the SAclopedia, usually by multiple goons, who are able to comment on, extend, correct, or affirm one another’s definitions. What appeals to me most about this collaborative reference material is that the words are not simply assigned agreed-upon, neutral definitions; users adding to an entry bring their own impressions of the word’s history, usage, connotations, and politics to bear on the work of defining it. Definition becomes more about how words mean than about what they mean.

Kolln Ch. 4-5

Applying the Kolln principles
Ch. 4 illustrates cohesion via repetition (or lexical cohesion), the know-new contract, metadiscourse, and parallelism.

Original opening sentence, part II of critical paper:
“Ferdinand de Saussure introduced the dyad of the signifier and the signified in one of his general linguistics courses around 1911. This theory was later used scholars such as…”

New opening sentence, part II:
(All of the following is preceded by my introductory paragraphs, which attempt to explain the theories that support all the upcoming conjectures I’m about to make)
“Let’s get back to the relationship between the cover and the original [Repetition]. We’ve established that the cover song is the love child of artistic influence, and that bringing new meaning to preexisting material is accomplished via distinct individual experience (and therefore interpretation) [Know-New Contract/Parallelism]. In order to further dissect this concept, language as a structure of experience must be applied to the rhetorical situation of the cover song [New part of Know-new contract]. Therefore we must look at one of the inherent qualities of language: that of the signifier and signified, which can be scrutinized in terms of the cover song [Metadiscourse].

Ferdinand de Saussure introduced the dyad of the signifier and the signified in one of his general linguistics courses around 1911. This theory was later used scholars such as…”[This was the sentence that I originally had in the paper stood with no transition, I tried to add something less shocking to the reader than just shoving the theory in their face]

Ch. 5
I liked this chapter. Since I’ve been listening to a slew of various “Hallelujah”s for this paper, I completely understand the profound effect slight changes in intonation pattern, wording, end focus, various modes of placing emphasis, etc. can have on a piece—cover songs are distinct from their originals because of these elements.

One of the reasons Jeff Buckley’s version of Hallelujah received so much acclaim was because of its changes in intonation, “It was Buckley's version on his 1994 album Grace that took the song into the canon. It was arguably the highlight of the album. Injecting the emotion of his trembling multi-octave vocals, the build-up to the line ‘Love is not a victory march/ It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah’ is devastating” (Bray, The Independent). This is interesting because while Kolln examines where the focus is by rearranging words (91-2), we can look at the cover song as rearranging focus through emphasis (since the words don’t change much, and the end focus does not switch as a result of wording).

A Reading from the Book of John

Since I am going to revisit my intro to theory (and then revisit it again) to, among other things, bring in more of Fielding, I've decided to focus this revision on my introduction.  I originally wrote:

Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones is subdivided into eighteen books.  The first chapter of each book does not move the plot forwards but consists instead of the author addressing the reader directly, cheerfully discussing recent happenings in the novel, making cutting remarks about potential critics of his work and so forth.  By the last book, the reader may very well feel as though he or she and Fielding have indeed been “Fellow-Travelers in a Stage-Coach, who have passed several Days in the Company of each other” (Fielding 706-707), with Fielding acting as an unusually chatty traveling companion, irritating at times and charming at other times.  

I follow the known-new contract pretty well in this, but I think that there were some issues with levels of generality here.  The first sentence is clearly a level 1, with the second sentence consisting of level 2 (the first half) and level 3 (the details on how Fielding addresses the audience.  The third sentence I quote here seems to be somewhere between 3 (describing the chapters) and 4 (describing my reaction to Fielding).  I've therefore rewritten it as follows:

Each of Tom Jones’ eighteen books is introduced by a chapter where instead of continuing his story, Fielding addresses his readers directly.  By the end, the reader may indeed feel as though he or she and Fielding have been “Fellow-Travelers in a Stage-Coach, who have passed several Days in the Company of each other” (Fielding 706-707).  As a traveling companion, Fielding is irritating at times and charming at others as he cheerfully interrupts his novel to comment on recent plot twists, to mock literary critics and to discourse at length about the act of reading as he understands it. 

The first sentence is a level 1 sentence, as before.  I've moved that final sentence up into the second position, however, establishing it as a level 2 sentence.  The new last sentence has become a level 2 sentence as well – it provides further detail on the first sentence with reference to the metaphor introduced in the second sentence.

I think examining the generality levels of my sentences was useful since it made me stop and work out just what each sentence was about, specifically.  The paragraph flows better now (at least, I think it does) because it has been rearranged to allow for a clearer relationship between the ideas advanced in each sentence.

Reader Expectations

BEFORE: Madness was a hot topic in nineteenth-century America. Social perceptions were a mish-mosh of superstitions left over from the Dark Ages, religious fears of demonic possession, Enlightenment views of man as a biological machine, and innovative approaches from—and twisted interpretations of—the Moral Treatment Movement just then crossing the ocean from Europe. Terminology changed. Science advanced then broke into brittle facades of prejudice and cruelty. Cures—despite rigorous treatments—were rare.

AFTER: Madness was a hot topic in nineteenth-century America. At that time, whispered conversations were a mish-mosh of competing factors: superstitions left over from the Dark Ages, religious fears of demonic possession, and Enlightenment views of man as a biological machine. In addition, the Moral Treatment Movement was just then crossing the ocean from Europe to challenge perceptions from the past. New ideas, along with new terminology and treatments competed for dominance, but often broke into brittle facades of prejudice and cruelty. In the midst of this perceptual muddle, actual cures were rare.

Kolln’s explanation of reader expectations put a nebulous idea into words for me. In the Before paragraph, I considered cohesive flow to be achieved through a, more or less, instinctual process. Kolln very simply proved me wrong. In considering how the previous sentence logically sets up expectations for the next sentence, I believe my paragraph is easier to read and comprehend. For instance, in the Before paragraph, even though I use the term “hot topic,” my second sentence fails to connect by mentioning conversations, discourse, reports, or other examples of people talking to each other. The second sentence in the After paragraph flows more cohesively by mentioning “whispered conversations,” which not only connects to the first sentence, but uses power words to allude to the pervasive attitude that mental illness is shameful or scary and should not be spoken of.

I thought I knew how to start paragraphs...

Before: I will of course need to define what I mean by yoga, and what I mean by yoga use in the classroom. Skeptical readers will undoubtedly bring some important concerns to this piece about the applicability of yoga in the actual classroom; logistics, student resistance, administrative misgivings, cultural conceptions (and misconceptions) of yoga all present problems to a yoga-based writing pedagogy. This paper will address a few of these concerns and problems, although admittedly I will not be able to answer all of them.

After: Skeptical readers will undoubtedly bring some important concerns to this piece about the applicability of yoga in the actual classroom. Logistics, student resistance, administrative misgivings, and the cultural conceptions (and misconceptions) of yoga all present strong oppositions to a yoga-based writing pedagogy. This paper will address a few of these concerns and problems, although admittedly I will not be able to answer all of them.

Commentary: Like the student I helped with paragraphs yesterday, I am including too much in this paragraph, and in the wrong order. This original was an awkward spot, where I confuse my poor reader’s expectations. I jump from talking about how I will need to define yoga to an anticipation of my reader’s skepticism. What I have here is a level 1/2 sentence, then a confusing level 1 sentence which uses a subordinate clause as a level 2 sentence, then I have a sentence that tries to get me back to level 1 before I move onto the real meaty level 3, 4 and 5 sentences in which I begin describing theory in the remainder of the paragraph (I didn't work with them here, for the sake of brevity). I took out the sentence about defining yoga; my reader will be able to read this early in the next section. I also worked with the rhythm of the sentences by breaking up the first long sentence and let an adverbial of emphasis (all) take over the rhythm reins of the second level 2 sentence. My third sentence is an attempt at some meta-discourse to guide my reader back to the problem at hand; it tells my reader that I am aware of where they want me to go, and I will do my best to get us there. The rest of the paragraph gives them the game plan for approaching and arguing within that skepticism (ie. with sound theory to back up these assertions).

Excising and Re-orienting: Ruth's Post

These sentences are from the second half of a paragraph from a paper I wrote on Haraway's cyborg and Anzaldua's mestiza.

Old:

One must be one or the Other; there is no third category where one might display a mixed identity or an identity that lies completely outside the binary. These border dwellers are identified as monstrous others, beyond the limits of social definition by those in power, as well as those who are not. Anzaldúa’s continued self-critique of Chicano culture makes it clear that she does not isolate the despotism of duality to only those cultures which are dominant; the penchant to organize socially around binaries is a cross-cultural phenomenon.

New:

One must be one or the “Other”; no third category exists. There is no space where one might display a mixed identity which lies completely beyond the binary. Border dwellers, then, become monstrous others who defy definition. The ultimate outsiders, they live in transgression of the social definitions imposed upon them, not only by those who possess power, but also by those who do not. As Anzaldúa’s continued critique of Chicano culture suggests, this despotism of duality is not isolated to those cultures which are dominant; rather, the penchant to organize around binaries is a cross-cultural, cross-racial, cross-class phenomenon.

Reflect:

I went for a mélange approach and tried to incorporate several of Kolln’s tactics. First, I tried the “there transformation.” I generally avoid these constructions, but in my second sentence it lent a really nice emphasis to the words “no space.” I like how the “there” serves as a subtle emphasis on a phrase (“no space”) that resonates with the main message of the paragraph. In the next few sentences, I experimented with rhythm modulation. I especially liked using the comma interruption in the middle of a sentence to push the emphasis back on the subject of my paragraph (border dwellers and their extreme boarder-ness). You’ll also notice I toyed with a back-to-back set up of “power words” in the second and third sentences. I think this worked well, again, as a set-up to my explanation of the excessive marginalization of these already marginalized people. Finally, I added some parallelism in the final sentence to illustrate the way in which border dwellers are oppressed both by the “oppressors” as well as the “oppressed.”

After reading Kolln, I found myself cutting lengthy sentences into smaller pieces by excising words and reorienting the sentence order. I realized I don’t generally use short sentences much in my papers. I should. These short (shorter) sentences lend more weight to their subjects and give a much needed clarity to my often over-wrought prose.

Known-New Revisited

Tessa's Post

Here are two sentences from an essay I wrote about Margaret Atwood’s story collection Wilderness Tips:

Each story in the collection involves a protagonist looking backward. A failure to stabilize the present by recollecting the past often leads Atwood’s protagonists to recede further still, clinging mercilessly to ghosts that allow them to exist in stasis.

Like Katie, I see here that I’m not following the known-new contract very well. Because the second sentence starts with “A failure to stabilize the present,” rather than referring to the “looking backward” in the first sentence, readers might be confused. I will rework the second sentence to try to get the old information “the looking backward” into the front of the sentence. Here’s the rewrite:

The stories in this collection involve protagonists looking backward. Looking backward, however, does not help them stabilize the present, so they recede further still, clinging mercilessly to ghosts that allow them to exist in stasis.

Following Kolln’s suggestion on pg. 99, I also added the word “however” and set it off with commas to change the intonation of the second sentence. This puts stronger emphasis on both “the looking backward” and on “does not,” the latter of which is absent from the first passage. I also corrected the shift from the singular use of “protagonist” in sentence one to the plural use of “protagonists” in sentence two, not something Kolln mentions in chapters 4 and 5, but something that also improves the sentence. It’s amazing what a difference a few small sentence level changes can make. Thanks, Kolln!

Known-New, Name It Sister!

After Tuesday’s workshop, I wanted to rework my introductory paragraph, placing more immediate emphasis on the creation of the term Affrilachian. After reading Kolln chapters 4 and 5, I focused most specifically on the transition between two sentences which originally looked like this:

Researchers have studied ballads and haint tales, poetry and belief statements to find conventions and trends which lead to better understandings of Appalachian culture. One genre currently circulating in the region is Affrilachian poetry, or poetry by and about the experiences of African-Americans in Appalachia.

I begin sentence two with the subject, “one genre currently circulating…” However, no where in sentence one (or in my paper so far) do I introduced the word genre. In this way, my transition disobeys Kolln’s idea of the known-new contract, where given info comes first and new info second. Her idea is particularly important to this section of my paper—the introduction—because if I am exploring Affrilachian poetry as a genre, then I must introduce this before calling it a genre. The following is my revision:

Researchers study many genres within Appalachian literary culture—from ballads and haint tales, to poetry and belief statements—to create better understandings of the region’s people. Of the many factors governing these genres, one of the most silenced has been that of race. In 1990, in fact, Webster’s dictionary defined an Appalachian as a “white resident from the mountains” (Affrilachian, “History”). In response to this narrow definition, black Appalachian poet, Frank X Walker created the term Affrilachian to refer to African- Americans of Appalachia.

By renaming the ballads and tales genres, I set-up sentence two and am able to more naturally point to a trend within these genres: the missing factor of race (i.e. the main point of my paper).