Christensen’s Generative Rhetoric and the Cumulative Sentence 2

Applying the Principles to our Writing Curriculum

When I read Christensen’s work for the first time my mind was instantly racing this way and that because I knew that his generative rhetoric would sit beautifully alongside the imitation exercises and “sentence level” focus in our weekly compositions.

The fact that it also seemed to illuminate something about the operation of literary syntax meant that it might also be productively applied to helping students become sharper critics of prose style. Take this sentence from 1984 for example:

“It depicted simply an enormous face, more than a metre wide: the face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black moustache and ruggedly handsome features.” (George Orwell, 1984)

Orwell, rightly or wrongly, and by his own admission, is often upheld as one of the supreme examples of the stripped down “plain” style – the kind of writer who eschews gaudy, baroque verbosity for a more clinically precise prose. The above quote seems to confirm this with its unambiguous, straightforward choice of adjectives “enormous”, “heavy black”, “handsome”. However, the syntax, viewed through Christensen’s teachings, is much more interesting. Orwell begins with his main clause and then sharpens his image with a series of noun phrases ending with “ruggedly handsome”. If the diction is “simple” and spare, then the choice of syntax is arguably not. What is the significance of ending this cumulative sentence with “ruggedly handsome”? (One to ask the class!)

Bearing all of the above in mind, the applications of Christensen’s work on both the teaching of writing and the teaching of reading, the question that remained was: how could our department best utilise his methods?

The notion that Christensen was promoting a rhetoric that was generative was particularly appealing and instructive. Here’s Landon again describing the process we just tracked through Orwell’s sentence:

“The cumulative syntax is a generative syntax in the sense that it encourages writers to add information to their sentences, relying on free modifying phrases after the base clause, each new phrase a step forward for the sentence, each new phrase sharpening the sentence by adding new details or offering clarification or explanation for propositions advanced in the base clause or preceding modifying phrase.” (Landon, 2008)

Landon, I urge you to read his brilliant book, also makes the telling point that Christensen saw his rhetoric and its governing principles as a heuristic:

“Christensen stressed that his methods of modification were intended as a heuristic, as a prompt to the writer to inspire more effective writing, rather than as rules for writing that was utilitarian and error free. In this way he saw his approach as a generative rhetoric, a means of spurring on and producing better sentences.” (Landon, 2008)

So, to return to the question this post began with:HOW could our English department go about teaching Christensen’s generative rhetoric?

Here’s a short answer that will need some colouring in:

  1. Make sure students know what a main/base clause is.
  2. Teach them a range of modifying phrases.
  3. Use direct instruction to help them secure the knowledge.
  4. Give them plenty of opportunities to write (free writing, drills, compositions) using the forms – creativity within constraints.
  5. Devise a plan/curriculum that teaches them the knowledge necessary in order to succeed at all of the above.

Dealing with number 5 brings in the issue of devising a model of progression – always tricky for writing as much of the knowledge needed to be a really successful writer is cumulative rather than substantive.

However, a model of progression for teaching Christensen’s methods (at secondary school) might look something like this:

1. Main/base clauses

2 Modifying phrases (ten different free modifiers distributed over time)

3. Parallelism (using imitation exercises from the literary greats in our inventory)

4. Mixed modifiers (again, using examples from professional writers)

What about grammar? How much will students need to know? What will we need to include? What can be left out?

Christensen makes a lovely point about the importance of grammar using the apt phrase “grammar in action”:

“As students become adept with the sentence patterns of contemporary narrative prose, they come to see the need for punctuation. …by teaching the sentence one can integrate sentence, diction, and punctuation…this is an ideal demonstration of grammar in action.”

It stands to reason that in order to become adept at using cumulative sentences students will need to learn the appropriate grammar. Students will need a secure knowledge of subject, noun, verb, main clause before they begin to look at the phrases which come with their own grammatical designations.

What modifying phrases should we teach?

Again, we have made a selection. There may be more but these are the ten phrases we want our students to master over time:


1. Noun appositives

2. Present participles

3. Adverbial phrases

4. Prepositional phrases

5. Absolute phrases

6. Past participle phrases

7. Possessive pronoun phrases

8. Speculative adverb phrases

9. Comparative phrases (simile/metaphor)

10. Infinitive phrases

In the early stages of teaching we will use a direct instruction method in order to introduce the phrases to the students and develop their ability to use them. Release the visualisers! By far the best writer I have encountered on applying direct instruction to English teaching is Tom Needham. See his important blog for further details.

 I shouldn’t need to defend this D.I derived approach but, just in case…

  • Using this highly structured method of teaching will not hinder creativity, stifle a love of writing.
  • It will nurture it.
  • Christensen did not intend his generative rhetoric to systematise the creative act. (As we have seen above.)
  • Free, exploratory, group work opportunities are built in. You can have it all if you take the time to plan properly.

So this is how we are applying the work of Francis Christensen in our department!