How, then, is a paragraph constructed? A writer, let us suppose, wishes to make clear to his readers what a steam-engine is and how it works, and he wishes to do this in a single paragraph. He thinks he can do this most effectively by explaining what a steam-engine is in its most elementary form, and, with this purpose in mind, he puts into a single sentence the substance of what he thinks he will say: "The steam-engine in its most elementary form consists of cylinder, piston, water, and fire." This is his subject-sentence, since it contains the statement he thinks it worth while to make of his paragraph subject. Now, in one sense, this sentence contains all the writer has to say about his subject, because, if he adds anything more to this sentence, it will be merely to amplify what he has already said. But, then, it is quite essential that he should add something more, because there is so much latent meaning in the sentence that he can hardly expect his readers to understand it in its present form. He must bring this latent meaning out from its hiding-place. What sort of cylinder is meant? What kind of piston? How is the piston to work? Where is the water put? What is the fire for? These and similar matters he must make clear. He therefore decides to amplify his paragraph subject in this fashion: [Sentences used to amplify the paragraph subject.] Take a hollow cylinder, . . . the bottom closed while the top remains open, and pour in water to the height of a few inches. Next cover the water with a flat plate, or piston, which fits the interior of the cylinder perfectly; then apply heat to the water, and we shall witness the following phenomena. After the lapse of some minutes the water will begin to boil, and the steam accumulating at the upper surface will make room for itself by raising the piston slightly. As the boiling continues, more and more steam will be formed, and raise the piston higher and higher, till all the water is boiled away, and nothing but steam is left in the cylinder. [Subject-sentence.] Now this machine, consisting of cylinder, piston, water, and fire, is the steamengine in its most elementary form. [Restatement; see Section 21.] For a steam-engine may be defined as an apparatus for doing work by means of heat applied to water; and since raising such a weight as the piston is a form of doing work, this apparatus, clumsy and inconvenient though it may be, answers the definition precisely. — G. C. V. HOLMES, quoted in Lamont's Specimens of Exposition. There are of course other methods, besides the one just illustrated, for the construction of paragraphs; so many, in fact, that only the most typical will be treated in this book. The methods here treated are these: 1 1. By telling what a thing is: Definition. 2. By telling what a thing is not: Reversion. 3. By telling what a thing is like: Comparison. 4. By telling what a thing is not like: Contrast. 5. By telling about one of a number of things: 'Example. 6. By telling a thing in more than one way: Restatement. NOTE. The explanatory (expository) paragraph is made the basis of this discussion, just as the explanatory sentence is made the basis of the discussion in Chapter III. 1 I have worded these methods in a manner to admit of their being easily understood and remembered. They are intended merely as practical helps, and nicer distinctions will be drawn in the course of treatment. It is possible that a scientific division might be made on the psychological principle of the association of ideas, but I have been unable to make one that is at all helpful in learning to write. Besides, writers on psychology differ materially in this matter of the association of ideas. The laws most held to are contiguity, similarity, and contrast. Recent writers, however, have shortened even this brief list. Thus, while Sully recognizes both similarity and contiguity, Herbert Spencer reduces all three to similarity. James, Baldwin, Scripture, Dewey, and Ladd seem to settle upon the law of contiguity. SECTION 16 Construction of Paragraphs 1. BY TELLING WHAT A THING IS: DEFINITION When Mr. Holmes wrote the paragraph quoted in the last section, he constructed a paragraph by telling what a thing is he gave a definition of a steam-engine. So do you tell what a thing is, when, in your classes, you define a circle, a verb, a fern, an eclipse, equation of payments, what not; or when, in your talk, you try to explain to somebody your notion of a foul or a ruff, a muff or a tippet, a punt or a jacket. It is not very difficult to tell what some things are, because we know so well what they are. But we often blunder when we try to tell what an unfamiliar thing is. We sometimes blunder even when we try to tell what a familiar thing is. And, by the way, what is a blunder? Do you know how it differs from an error? from a mistake? from a bull? How should you set about telling what it is? Should you consult a dictionary? That might help you. A blunder is "a mistake made through precipitance or mental confusion; a gross or stupid mistake" (Century); "a heedless or stupid mistake" (Standard). But it is better to study the thing itself. Mr. Wheatley, who tells very clearly what a blunder is, seems to have done this, but the authors of the definitions just quoted, we suspect, did not, for their definitions are far from precise. Here is Mr. Wheatley's definition of a blunder: 1 "Ireland makes up for her want of practical sagacity by the wit of her writers, the readiness of her repartees, and the drollery of her bulls.”. S. S. Cox, Why We Laugh, chap. i. WHAT A BLUNDER IS The words "blunder" and "mistake" are often treated as synonyms; thus we usually call our blunders mistakes, and our friends style our mistakes blunders. In truth, the class of blunders is a subdivision of the genus mistakes. Many mistakes are very serious in their consequences, but there is almost always some sense of fun connected with a blunder, which is a mistake usually caused by some mental confusion. Lexicographers state that it is an error due to stupidity and carelessness, but blunders are often caused by a too great sharpness and quickness. Sometimes a blunder is no mistake at all, as when a man blunders on the right explanation; thus he arrives at the right goal, but by an unorthodox road. . . . Some years ago there was an article in the Saturday Review on "the knowledge necessary to make a blunder," and this title gives the clew to what a blunder really is. It is caused by a confusion of two or more things, and unless something is known of these things a blunder cannot be made. A perfectly ignorant man has not sufficient knowledge to blunder. H. B. WHEATLEY, Literary Blunders, 1–2. ... To tell what a thing is, you must first well know that thing; you must know it so well that you can fix its boundaries to the north, to the east, to the south, to the west. If you cannot tell what a thing is, and in simple and straightforward language, you may be quite sure that you do not yet know what it is. Exercise 28 What things are precisely defined in the following selections? What things are pleasantly, but not precisely, defined? Would a "dictionary definition" of these latter things be better than their present definitions? So far as you can, point out the subject-sentence of each paragraph, and indicate the sentences devoted to "telling what a thing is." THE MEANING OF PUBLIC DUTY By the words public duty I do not necessarily mean official duty, although it may include that. I mean simply that constant and active practical participation in the details of politics without which, upon the part of the most intelligent citizens, the conduct of public affairs falls under the control of selfish and ignorant, or crafty and venal men. I mean that personal attention which, as it must be incessant, is often wearisome and even repulsive, to the details of politics, attendance at meetings, service upon committees, care and trouble and expense of many kinds, patient endurance of rebuffs, chagrins, ridicules, disappointments, defeats in a word, all those duties and services which, when selfishly and meanly performed, stigmatize a man as a mere politician, but whose constant, honorable, intelligent, and vigilant performance is the gradual building, stone by stone, and layer by layer, of that great temple of self-restrained liberty which all generous souls mean that our government shall be. - George WiLLIAM CURTIS, The Public Duty of Educated Men. FROM THE SCIENCES A square OLD LINE WHIGS "I reckon St. Louis is a nest of Southern Democrats," Mr. Lincoln remarked," and not much opposition." "There are quite a few Old Line Whigs, sir," ventured Stephen, smiling. “Joe,” said Mr. Lincoln, " did you ever hear Warfield's definition of an Old Line Whig?" Mr. Medill had not. "A man who takes his toddy regularly, and votes the Democratic ticket occasionally, and who wears ruffled shirts." Both of these gentlemen laughed, and two more in the seat behind, who had an ear to the conversation.. WINSTON CHURCHILL, The Crisis, book ii, chap. iii. |