The above sentence structures were once common, but seem to have gone out of favor, replaced by capitalized conjunctions. Is this indicative of a "sound bite" mentality, the spread of attention deficit disorder, or simply a stylistic change?

The above sentence structures were once common, but seem to have gone out of favor, replaced by capitalized conjunctions.

The answer, for me, is that it is stylistic, because I do not count punctuation and orthography as part grammar. For others, it is probably just one of the signs indicating that the end-times of the English language are nigh.

But, seriously, if you're looking for an informed answer, you'll need to provide some statistics gathered from a large corpus showing that your assertion is correct.

Hoooo, boy, that's a major research project. I'll see if I can dig up some old magazine and newspaper articles for stylistic comparisons.

I, for one, am guilty of the capitalization for conjunctions, partly because I get annoyed at those terribly complex sentences that I see in my field. Some examples of those complex sentences I've posted about here. Look at A, B, and C. I think that shorter and simpler sentences make more impact because many times people read over those complex sentences and words. I do agree with z, though, that it's all a matter of style.

Most newspaper publishers seem to agree that shorter sentences make for greater intelligibility - although I feel that this can sometimes be at the expense of elegance.

Compare the writing of The Sun - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ho...rgaard-attacked.html with that of The Times - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...e/article6973706.ece

From the point of view of popularity, The Sun wins hands down, being by far the most widely-read newspaper in the UK (circulation over 3 million - around double that of its nearest rival, The Daily Mirror), and I suspect this has as much to do with its writing style as it has to do with its page 3.

The Times, although regarded by many as the most important and authoritative UK newspaper (and certainly the one most likely to be read by those in positions of influence), has nothing like the Sun's circulation (only around half a million). Although The Times's higher cover price will have something to do with this, I suspect it is the writing style that limits its appeal to more literate readers.

quote:

I suspect it is the writing style that limits its appeal to more literate readers

I think it's because one group is more interested in the lurid details of the attack than of learning the reasons behind the assault.

Am I the only one who finds it humorous that, on one hand, folks claim it admirable to eschew a writing style above the 7th grade (a la Flesch–Kincaid readability test), or whatever it's supposed to be, and then turn around and express exasperation at the alleged disappearance of complex sentences?

[The F-K readability grade of this post excluding this statistic is 27.62.]

Depends on the humour in question, Z. I, for one, advocate black bile, thus eschew the seventh grade standard.

quote:

Am I the only one who finds it humorous that, on one hand, folks claim it admirable to eschew a writing style above the 7th grade (a la Flesch–Kincaid readability test),

and

quote:

Most newspaper publishers seem to agree that shorter sentences make for greater intelligibility - although I feel that this can sometimes be at the expense of elegance.

There is a difference. No, I don't think sentences need to be short, choppy, with verbiage at the 7th grade level, and yes I like eloquence. However, I've just seen too many complex sentences with flowery language that are entirely non-eloquent and quite hazy on a comprehensibility scale. Let's face it, you can have a long, complex sentence with words that are sound "smart" but really don't do the trick. That's what I mean. I do not think all writing should be at the 7th grade level or that the Sun is better than the Times or that one should only use shorter or simple words. I agree that every writer should strive for eloquence...but not by chaining together multiple thoughts or using your thesaurus to find the most obscure word possible.

One thing that one should never forget is that an author is writing for a particular kind of reader and should try to make his or her writing appropriate for that readership group.

The Sun does its job very well by writing for a group whose reading age is around 12 to 14 years; The Times aims its writing at those with a reading age of around 18 years. To write at too low or too high a level for your readership is a guaranteed way of causing communication breakdown.

The readers of this board are all, I feel quite sure, of a higher level of literacy than the average reader in the UK or the USA, and it is likely that we will prefer to read The Times to The Sun (I am not sure of the US equivalents but would imagine that the more erudite newspaper would be something like the New York Times and there is surely a transatlantic equivalent of The Sun).

But as Kalleh implies, it is quite possible to write something that is deliberately complex and arcane; my own belief is that such authors are often using this kind of writing as a device to confuse their readers and thus, they hope, to impress them with their own recondite learning. I had a boss like that once; he would sometimes come to me to ask for a Latin phrase that he could include in one of his papers to the main board - which was included therein simply to show off his learning. That the main board members thought he was a pompous twit was not something that he ever found out!

There is a difference.

So, I think we agree that there's more to "good" prose than some wacky grading algorithm. A complex sentence that is composed of two simplex sentences conjoined by a conjunction, such as and or but, is "easier" to understand than one chock full of parenthetical asides, dependent qualifying clauses, and the like. Also, the readership that a text (in this case a newspaper) acquires over time probably is a function of its readership's mental age, but the Sun would have acquired a more mature readership if they'd started out with a higher readership age. Mind you, there's more of a difference than just mental age between the readers of say the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. The paper's editorial stance, the subject of an article, and so on.

quote:

The readers of this board are all, I feel quite sure, of a higher level of literacy than the average reader in the UK or the USA

I know I are.

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

quote:

The readers of this board are all, I feel quite sure, of a higher level of literacy than the average reader in the UK or the USA

I know I are.

Come on. That should be "I know I is."
You don't know nothing, isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:

quote:

The readers of this board are all, I feel quite sure, of a higher level of literacy than the average reader in the UK or the USA

I know I are.

How do you know you am?

One iz noane bi the cumpiny he keaps.

I amn't shur ebut tht

quote:

Mind you, there's more of a difference than just mental age between the readers of say the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. The paper's editorial stance, the subject of an article, and so on.

Yes, I agree. This is really a different subject, so perhaps doesn't belong here. However, I force myself to read political/editorial stances that I don't agree with just so that I can understand the other side. Sometimes, however, I have to hold my nose in order to do so.