What follows deals primarily with levels in writing. However, understanding the levels<\/em> in writing opens the door to understanding the levels in outlines. In short, you will learn both.<\/p>\n The Four Levels of Discourse<\/em><\/strong> model is also called the Four Units of Discourse<\/em><\/strong>. Both terms deal with the same material. Just as we can view light as both a particle and a wave (wave-particle duality), we can also view units of discourse<\/em><\/strong> as levels of discourse<\/strong><\/em> and vice-versa.<\/p>\n When we teach writing or analyze literature, viewing pieces of writing as a hierarchy of ideas is helpful. In fact, it is the main reason why outlines are such an important tool. However, students also need to understand that when we construct a piece of writing, we take a collection of lower-level parts (units) and put them together to create a whole. Each sentence is a building block for a paragraph, and each paragraph\u2019s mission is to fit together with other paragraphs to form a whole composition. Once again, both terms are important and valuable.<\/p>\n To gain a better understanding of these levels or units of discourse, let\u2019s take a look at two rather old quotes about units of discourse:<\/p>\n The division of discourse next higher than the sentence is the Paragraph: which is a collection of sentences with unity of purpose. Like every division of discourse, a paragraph handles and exhausts a distinct topic. \u2013 English Composition and Rhetoric (1866) by Alexander Bain<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Work of this kind presupposes a unit of discourse. Of these units, there are three: the sentence, the paragraph, and the essay or whole composition. \u2013 Paragraph Writing: A Rhetoric for Colleges (1909) by Fred Newton Scott and Joseph Villiers Denny<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n When Bain says, \u201cnext higher than the sentence,\u201d he indicates that these units of discourse are a hierarchy. A hierarchy, by definition, has levels. Every level in a piece of writing contains all of the building blocks for the level above it. Such is the nature of writing.<\/p>\n As you can see, I use four levels, not three. This model adds another level to the three units of discourse. This model better reflects what students see both in outlines and in paragraphs.<\/p>\n If you analyze a long paragraph (8-12 sentences), you will see that the paragraph is composed of two or more groups of related sentences. If you are to outline that long paragraph, you will find chunks of connected sentences. Would you agree that students need to be able to see how ideas connect within a paragraph? I hope so! The concept of chunks<\/em> opens the door for that conversation.<\/p>\n Now, let\u2019s take a look at the Four Levels of Discourse.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”1″ _builder_version=”4.25.1″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”14px|16px|14px|16px|true|true” border_radii=”on|9px|9px|9px|9px” border_width_all=”8px” border_color_all=”#1258b2″ global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Students are required to become proficient in Six Main Types of Whole Compositions: 1) essays, 2) reports, 3) research papers, 4) stories, 5) letters, and 6) articles.<\/strong> Each whole composition will be PRIMARILY one of these Four Modes of Discourse: 1) expository, 2) narrative, 3) descriptive, or 4) argument<\/strong>.<\/p>\n One composition theorist (I forget who) argued that there is no larger unit of discourse than the whole composition. He argued that books are a connected series of whole compositions. I agree. Standard advice and common sense tell writers that the first step in writing a book is to create a basic list of necessary chapters\u2014i.e., a list of essential whole compositions.<\/p>\n I used to tell students that if you can write a paragraph, you can write a book. I don\u2019t tell them that anymore. A paragraph has only one level of beginning, middle, and ending. One level of beginning, middle, and ending has little use in the real world. Writing excellent isolated paragraphs is no guarantee that students will be able to write effective whole compositions, which have two or more levels of beginning, middle, and ending. Put simply, a series of whole compositions can be arranged into an acceptable book, while a series of paragraphs cannot.<\/p>\n Be sure to check out Pattern Based Writing: Quick & Easy Essay<\/a><\/strong><\/span> on the homepage! The program is the hierarchy of ideas<\/em><\/strong> in a complete system and methodology that students easily understand, internalize, and apply. Pattern Based Writing: Quick & Easy Essay<\/a><\/strong><\/span> teaches how to get ideas and organize ideas quickly and easily. Stop explaining and start creating organized and natural paragraph and multi-paragraph writers today! Your students will soon be saying, \u201cI get it! I finally get it!\u201d<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”2″ _builder_version=”4.25.1″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”14px|16px|14px|16px|true|true” border_radii=”on|9px|9px|9px|9px” border_width_all=”8px” border_color_all=”#1258b2″ global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n In 1918, William Strunk wrote this in The Elements of Style: \u201cMake the paragraph the unit of composition.\u201d To be clear, Strunk wasn\u2019t the first to say this. Basically, we plan out our whole compositions at the paragraph level. Then, we plan out the paragraphs the best we can and write our whole composition paragraph-by-paragraph, not sentence-by-sentence.<\/p>\n Here is what Strunk did not say. Strunk did not say to make the paragraph the unit of instruction. Many teachers who teach the paragraph believe in the \u201cOne Good Paragraph\u201d fallacy. They think that if their students can write one good paragraph, they can write a book. They believe the paragraph is the building block of books. It\u2019s not! Every paragraph must fit in with and support the purpose of the whole composition just like every sentence in a paragraph must support the main point of the paragraph.<\/p>\n What students typically learn about paragraphs is only partially true. Be sure to read these articles to discover the true nature of paragraphs. In the first one, you will learn about various studies on paragraphs, including the one presented in Richard Braddock\u2019s 1974 journal article \u201cThe Frequency and Placement of Topic Sentences in Expository Prose.\u201d<\/p>\n Paragraphing in the real world is part art and part style, and it is definitely genre and audience dependent. Even for expository academic paragraph writing, there is still a great debate over what is true and what is taught compared to what professional writers actually do.<\/p>\n To be clear, you want your students to be able to write well-structured paragraphs inside of well-structured whole compositions before you complicate the issue. You will achieve that goal FAST with Pattern Based Writing: Quick & Easy Essay<\/a><\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”3″ _builder_version=”4.25.1″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”14px|16px|14px|16px|true|true” border_radii=”on|9px|9px|9px|9px” border_width_all=”8px” border_color_all=”#1258b2″ global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n How can some pieces of writing average 2.5 sentences per paragraph while others average 8-12 sentences per paragraph? If you wish to understand paragraphs, you must understand what goes on inside of paragraphs\u2014both the long and the short ones.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the short version: Short paragraphs are often CHUNKS, and long paragraphs are composed of CHUNKS. You don\u2019t understand paragraphs if you can\u2019t see the chunks inside of long paragraphs. If you can\u2019t effectively write in a \u201cShort and Lively Paragraph Style,\u201d the same is true.<\/p>\n Suppose a reader-analyst wants to understand what is happening inside a paragraph. In that case, the reader-analyst must examine and analyze the chunks<\/em> of connected sentences within the paragraph. How does the writer make points? Explain things? Prove things? Make confusing concepts clear? These goals are often achieved through small groups or chunks of connected sentences.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t present chunk<\/em> as a formal academic writing term. That being said, the word chunk<\/em> has become a formal academic term, as reflected in this quote from Van Genuchten and Cheng found in Temporal Chunk Signal Reflecting Five Hierarchical Levels in Writing Sentences<\/em> (2010).<\/p>\n Chunks have a fundamental role in information processing in the human cognitive architecture. Chunks are individual pieces of information grouped into larger units that increase our information retention (Caroll, 2004).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Traditionally, there are only three levels (or units) of discourse: 1) whole composition, 2) paragraph, and 3) sentence. However, the term \u201cchunk of text\u201d has become commonplace, and I believe there is no better term for what it represents. Without a doubt, the terms chunk<\/em> and chunk of text<\/em> are quite helpful when teaching writing. Furthermore, chunks<\/em> are visible on outlines. Let\u2019s look at a paragraph outline and see the chunks for ourselves:<\/p>\n Outlines illustrate that something exists between a paragraph and a sentence; as such, the term chunk<\/em> is helpful.<\/p>\n If you have a long paragraph and wish to divide it, you divide it between chunks<\/em>. Transitions show the movement of thought. As such, transitions are likely to identify a chunk\u2019s beginning, middle, or ending within a paragraph. Transitions show how a chunk of sentences is connected and where the divisions exist between the chunks. You are likely to find these and other similar transitions in the beginning or middle of a chunk:<\/p>\n Additionally, chunks often end with these types of transitions:<\/p>\n Please remember that we can use these transitions to begin and end paragraphs. Still, when writers place these transitions in the middle of a paragraph, they likely have something to do with a chunk of connected sentences.<\/p>\n As illustrated, chunks are visible on outlines. However, one must read closely and analytically to see the hidden chunks concealed within paragraphs. One must examine how the ideas expressed within sentences are connected. Here are a few (of many) ways in which sentences in a chunk may be connected:<\/p>\n A chunk is simply a small, connected group of sentences. Take a look at this simple example:<\/p>\n As you can see, there may be little difference between a chunk of sentences and a single sentence. In other words, when we combine sentences, we are likely combining chunks of connected sentences. When we uncombine sentences, we are likely creating chunks of sentences.<\/p>\n Please note that I don\u2019t overuse the word chunk<\/em>. I also use terms like \u201cgroup of related sentences\u201d and \u201clogical breaks\u201d\u2014and other terms. If you wish to teach or understand the logic of how sentences and ideas relate to each other, be sure to read Academic Vocabulary for Critical Thinking, Logical Arguments, and Effective Communication<\/a><\/strong><\/span>. It will transform the way you think and communicate! I guarantee it!<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”4″ _builder_version=”4.25.1″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”14px|16px|14px|16px|true|true” border_radii=”on|9px|9px|9px|9px” border_width_all=”8px” border_color_all=”#1258b2″ global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n In The Oxford Essential Guide to Writing<\/em> (2000), Thomas S. Kane says, \u201cIt\u2019s probably impossible to define a sentence to everyone\u2019s satisfaction.\u201d Jean Sherwood Rankin couldn\u2019t agree more. She wrote the following over 100 years ago:<\/p>\n Far too many of the modern grammar texts are at fault in their definitions of the sentence. I quote almost at random from a few of the recent publications:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But grammar takes no heed as to whether the thought expressed in any sentence be complete or not. Grammar merely demands that the expression of the thought be complete, if the result shall be called a sentence. That is to say, every sentence must be a grammatical whole, having at least one subject with its predicate verb. \u2013 Jean Sherwood Rankin \u2013 \u201cThe Sentence and the Verb\u201d \u2013 The Elementary School Teacher (1909)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n To my mind, anyone who calls a sentence a complete thought does not care about the truth. When we combine two sentences into one sentence, do we combine two complete thoughts to form one complete thought? How does that work? In short, some people believe we can combine nearly all our thoughts into one single thought simply by using the word \u201cand.\u201d<\/p>\n Is this how thinking and thoughts work? No.<\/p>\n Over 100 years ago, Rankin addressed the truth. Why do people persist with this ridiculousness? A sentence must have completeness of thought. If you add \u201cand\u201d to the very end of any sentence, you no longer have completeness of thought.<\/p>\n I will spare you the rest of my rant. Instead, here is my definition of a sentence.<\/p>\n Of course, this is just the beginning of sentence study. The sentence is a complete world\u2014it\u2019s the world of grammar. And how many people claim to understand grammar fully? I\u2019m not sure, but William Blake may have been referring to the world of the sentence when he wrote this:<\/p>\n To see a World in a Grain of Sand \u2013 William Blake (1757-1827) \u2013 English Poet<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”levels & outlines” _builder_version=”4.25.1″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”14px|16px|14px|16px|true|true” border_radii=”on|9px|9px|9px|9px” border_width_all=”8px” border_color_all=”#1258b2″ global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Do you remember our Four Levels of Discourse?<\/p>\n Let\u2019s discover how these levels relate to outlining. Addressing all the issues involved with outlines and outlining would fill at least a book chapter. In short, here are three key ways in which outlining is critical:<\/p>\n To achieve all this, outlines travel in two directions:<\/p>\n There is usually no 1-to-1 connection, correspondence, or correlation between the Four Levels of Discourse and the Levels in Outlines. However, most student writing has a 1-to-1 correlation at the first two levels: whole composition and paragraphs. And for beginning writers, it is often wise to keep the 1-to-1 connection at all levels. However, the effect of maintaining this 1-to-1 connection is confusion over what happens with long, complex, combined sentences. How do students treat these types of sentences written by others? And are students supposed to write short, formulaic, simple sentences in their whole compositions so that their sentences match the levels in their outlines? The answer is this: After the paragraph level, outlines are supposed to focus only on ideas.<\/p>\n IMPORTANT NOTE:<\/em><\/strong> Traditionally, formal academic outlines don\u2019t count the thesis of the whole composition as a level. I suppose it\u2019s due to the old rule in outlining that you can\u2019t have a 1 if you don\u2019t have a 2. So, academic outline levels leave out the most critical level\u2014the thesis. I always call the top level \u201cLevel 0.\u201d In short, you must know what the point of your whole composition is and include it in your outline. That\u2019s Level 0.<\/p>\n Once again, formal academic outlines use the term levels<\/em>. Here is how I view things for most student writing.<\/p>\n Keep in mind that everything with levels and outlines is relative. Even a 400-page book has a Level 0. Take a look. To outline the entire book in detail would require many levels.<\/p>\n In English Composition<\/em> (1891), Barrett Wendell had this to say:<\/p>\n Wendell points out that although we can plan our ideas and how we wish to order our ideas, we cannot plan out every sentence. It\u2019s just not practical. As such, we plan out the ideas but not the sentences. Writing sentences with style, variety, and fluency occurs in the moment and then through revision. Sentences are created in the moment and then fixed after the fact. <\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”more levels” _builder_version=”4.25.1″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n The numbering in levels should always be considered somewhat fluid. One can always argue for a level existing above, below, or in between. Levels in writing are supposed to help build students\u2019 understanding of the hierarchal nature of writing. Levels in writing cannot conform to a rigid dogma. Take a look at the following. Is it complete? Is it correctly ordered? Would you do it differently? Would you add levels or remove levels?<\/p>\n Once again, if you teach paragraph or multi-paragraph writing, you owe it to yourself to check out Pattern Based Writing: Quick & Easy Essay<\/a><\/strong><\/span>. You will get twice the results in half the time. Also, check out Academic Vocabulary for Critical Thinking, Logical Arguments, and Effective Communication<\/a><\/strong><\/span>. By reading it just once, you will change the way you think and communicate forever. I guarantee it!<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Have you noticed the different sizes and colors of headings in a textbook? Have you noticed that many textbooks use text of various sizes and colors in the table of contents? Have you noticed that the table of contents usually looks like an outline? Writing is a hierarchy\u2014and all the different colors and sizes of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":1985,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":" Have you ever noticed all the different sizes and colors of headings in a textbook? Have you noticed that many textbooks use different sizes and colors of text in the table of contents? Have you noticed that the table of contents usually looks like an outline? Writing is a hierarchy\u2014and all the different colors and sizes of text tell the reader and remind the reader what LEVEL of the hierarchy the reader is on.<\/p> Levels\u00a0are a key concept in creating, understanding, and analyzing outlines. In fact, formal academic outlines formally use the term levels<\/em>: e.g., a one-level outline, two-level outline, three-level outline etc. Put simply, an outline is a visual representation of the levels that exist in an organized topic or piece of writing. And as such, a hidden outline exists within every piece of writing, and therefore, the levels also exist within every piece of writing. That being said, the levels in outlines do differ from the levels in writing in a few ways.<\/p> What follows deals primarily with levels in writing\u2014or discourse. However, understanding the levels in writing opens the door for understanding the levels in outlines. Also, towards the end I do discuss how the levels in writing differ from and connect to the levels in outlining.<\/p> The Four Levels of Discourse model is also The Four Units of Discourse model. Both terms are important to understand and both deal with the same exact material. Just as light can be viewed as both a particle and as a wave (wave\u2013particle duality), we can also view units of discourse as levels of discourse, and vice-versa. Both terms and both viewpoints help to make things clear.<\/p> As a rule, when teaching writing and when analyzing literature, viewing pieces of writing as a hierarchy of ideas is more helpful. In fact, it is the main reason why outlines are such an important writing tool. However, students also need to understand that when we construct a piece of writing, we take a collection of lower level parts (units) and put them together creating a whole. Each sentence is a building block for a paragraph, and it is each paragraph\u2019s mission to fit together with other paragraphs in order to form a whole composition. Once again, both terms are important and useful.<\/p> In order to gain a better understanding of these levels of discourse, or units of discourse, let\u2019s take a look at two rather old quotes about units of discourse:<\/p> The division of discourse next higher than the sentence is the Paragraph: which is a collection of sentences with unity of purpose. Like every division of discourse, a paragraph handles and exhausts a distinct topic.<\/p> \u2014 English Composition and Rhetoric<\/em> (1866) by Alexander Bain \u2014<\/p><\/blockquote> Work of this kind\u2026 presupposes a unit of discourse. Of these units there are three, the sentence, the paragraph, and the essay or whole composition.<\/p> \u2014 Paragraph Writing: A Rhetoric for Colleges<\/em> (1909) by Fred Newton Scott and Joseph Villiers Denny \u2014<\/p><\/blockquote> When Bain says, \u201cnext higher than the sentence,\u201d he indicates that these units of discourse are a hierarchy. And a hierarchy by definition has levels. Every level in a piece of writing contains all of the building blocks for the level above it. Such is the nature of writing.<\/p> Level 1: Whole Composition <\/strong> As you can see, I use four levels, not three. This model builds on what came before (three units of discourse), but adapts it in order to make it more useful, and also to reveal more that is true about written communication. This model better reflects what students see both in outlines and in paragraphs.<\/p> If one looks closely at a long paragraph (8-12 sentences), one will surely see that the paragraph is made up of two or more groups of connected sentences. If a person is to outline one of those long paragraphs, chunks of connected sentences will emerge. Would you agree that students need to be able to see how ideas connect together within a paragraph? I hope so! The concept of Chunks opens the door for that conversation.<\/p> Now, let\u2019s take a look at the Four Levels of Discourse.<\/p> Students are required to become proficient in Six Main Types of Whole Compositions: 1) essays 2) reports 3) research papers 4) stories 5) letters, and 6) articles.<\/strong> And each whole composition will be PRIMARILY<\/em> one of these Four Modes of Discourse: 1) expository 2) narrative 3) descriptive, or 4) argument.<\/strong><\/p> One composition theorist (I forget who) argued that there is no larger unit of discourse than the whole composition. He argued that books are a connected series of whole compositions. I agree completely. Common advice and common sense both tell writers that the first step in writing a book is to create a basic list of necessary chapters\u2014i.e., a list of necessary whole compositions.<\/p>The Four Levels or Units of Discourse<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
The Four Levels of Discourse<\/h3>\n
\n
Level 1: Whole Compositions<\/h2>\n
Level 2: Paragraph<\/h2>\n
\n
Level 3: Chunk<\/h2>\n
\n
![\"picture](\"https:\/\/patternbasedwriting.com\/elementary_writing_success\/wp-content\/uploads\/paragraph-outline-with-chunks.jpg\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Level 4: Sentence<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Sentence Definition:<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
The Four Levels of Discourse vs. Levels in Outlines: Is There a One-to-One Connection?<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
More Levels<\/h2>\n
\n
The Four Levels or Units of Discourse<\/span><\/h3>
The Four Levels of Discourse<\/span><\/h3>
Level 2: Paragraph<\/strong>
Level 3: Chunk*<\/strong>
Level 4: Sentence<\/strong><\/p>Level 1: Whole Composition<\/span><\/h3>
![\"Writing](\"http:\/\/patternbasedwriting.com\/elementary_writing_success\/wp-content\/uploads\/Writing-Outline-with-Chunks.gif\")
<\/p>