Sentence fragments are often seen as among the more serious grammatical errors. Within the KISS approach, fragments are viewed as serious because, as our psycholinguistic model suggests, they can cause the reader to become confused. This document explores some of the fragments found in students' writing and suggests why the KISS approach should eventually help students avoid such errors. (Still another research project would be to count the number and nature of such errors.)

STM Overloads

     Most teachers are familiar with fragments that result from parts of sentences that are punctuated as separate sentences. In most cases, such fragments can be corrected by attaching them to the preceding or following sentence. Our psychological model suggests that these sentences simply result from the sentence being too long for the writer to process in STM. Overwhelmed, and not knowing how to handle the situation, the writer simply puts down a period and then finishes the sentence. The following are collected from passages analyzed in this research section.

(from s95pr34):
\-\Maybe he could of took notice {to [what they were wearing {on the interview.}]} \F\To Estalish [if they would be right {for the job.}]

(from s95pr59):
\-\Some would say [that sexual harassment could be defined {as mere words} relayed {from one person} {to another.}] \F\Words [that might make one person feel uncomfortable {with the offeners gesture.}]

The passage from which this is taken averages 17.4 words per main clause, which suggests that the writer has an average STM processing capacity of 17 words. In this passage, the writer trips after the eighteenth word, putting down a period and then the fragment. The passage reflects a confusion in thought which is also reflected in the spelling and vocabulary --"offender's gesture"??? Note that the fragment is an appositive for the preceding "mere words," which is seven words before it in the first main clause. Appositives are "late-blooming" constructions, and appositives based on the repetition of a word are rare. Thus the clause length, the relatively rare construction, and the confusion in ideas all probably contributed to this fragment.

Subjects in Prepositional Phrases

     In some cases, fragments appear because the subject is put in a prepositional phrase. (This is an example of what Mina Shaughnessey called a "slipped pattern.") For example (s95pr02):

One of the things that fascinates me about the KISS approach is that it has shown me that many college students do not read for meaning. If, for example, the class were to analyze this sentence on the overhead, students would usually quickly see that "shouldn't have been taken" is a verb without a subject. The KISS approach, in other words, has enabled many of the students to recognize, fairly easily, that there is an error here. If I then ask them how to fix it, I am usually met with silence. Often, I have to prompt them -- "What, according to the sentence, shouldn't have been taken as sexual harrassment?" Five seconds later, I will hear "this case." Sometimes, I need the next prompt -- "So what do I have to do to fix it?" It usually doesn't take too long before someone observes that I can simply delete the "in." This said, everyone in the class agrees. I usually follow such discussions with another reference to our psycholinguistic model. According to that model, the reader's brain will chunk "this case" to "In," thereby eliminating it as a possible subject. With the "In" deleted, the reader's brain will process "this case" as a subject.
     Students do understand this, but the first time they see it, they have to be led through it, step by step. Ideally, they will be able to apply the process on their own to correct such errors, if they make them. My sense, however, is that most students need to be led through the process three or four times. Of course, if they had been taught using the KISS approach beginning in grade school, and if they had used the approach to analyze samples of their own and their classmates writing, they could -- and probably would -- have been led through the process three or four times.
     The preceding discussion also suggests why the traditional approach to grammar does not get carried over into students' writing. Traditional approaches spend little time on prepositional phrases, have no psycholinguistic model for how language works, and rarely even suggest to students that their understanding of grammar can give them tools with which to fix weak sentences.

from s95pr09:

\-\I also think [that a persons attire should be appropreate {for their position.}] \F\Such as a secretary, [who is constantly {in contact} {with customers,}] should dress professionaly. \F\As opposed {to postal worker} [who is rarley seen.]

In the first fragment, the writer may have been equating "Such as" with "For example." The result, however, is that "secretary" becomes the object of "such as" and is no longer free to function as the subject of "should dress." The second fragment may result from the first. If we consider errors in a text to be reflections of problems in the writer's mental chunking, then the "Such as" fragment has thrown the writer off track, i.e., her STM is having problems processsing and holding the ideas. If we look for the subject of the gerundive "opposed," it too is "secretary," but "secretary," in the preceding fragment, is not where it is supposed to be -- the subject slot. My guess, in other words, is that if the first fragment had been written as "For example, a secretary ....," the second fragment might well have been avoided as well: "For example, a secretary, who is constantly in contact with customers, should dress professionaly, as opposed to postal worker who is rarley seen."