Full Download Writing Analytically (8th Edition) David Rosenwasser PDF

Full download test bank at ebookmeta.
com
Writing Analytically (8th Edition) David

Rosenwasser
For dowload this book click LINK or Button below
https://ebookmeta.com/product/writing-
analytically-8th-edition-david-rosenwasser/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWLOAD EBOOK
Download More ebooks from https://ebookmeta.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Writing Analytically (8th Edition) David Rosenwasser
https://ebookmeta.com/product/writing-analytically-8th-edition-
david-rosenwasser/
Public Policy Writing That Matters 2nd Edition David

Chrisinger
https://ebookmeta.com/product/public-policy-writing-that-
matters-2nd-edition-david-chrisinger/
Creative Writing Four Genres in Brief 3rd Edition David

Starkey
https://ebookmeta.com/product/creative-writing-four-genres-in-
brief-3rd-edition-david-starkey/
Grammar for IELTS Writing a handbook 1st Edition David

S. Wills
https://ebookmeta.com/product/grammar-for-ielts-writing-a-
handbook-1st-edition-david-s-wills/
Academic Writing Now A Brief Guide for Busy Students
Second Edition David Starkey
https://ebookmeta.com/product/academic-writing-now-a-brief-guide-
for-busy-students-second-edition-david-starkey/
29 Single and Nigerian INCOMPLETE First Edition

Naijasinglegirl
https://ebookmeta.com/product/29-single-and-nigerian-incomplete-
first-edition-naijasinglegirl/
Clarity and Coherence in Academic Writing : Using

Language as a Resource 1st Edition David Nunan
https://ebookmeta.com/product/clarity-and-coherence-in-academic-
writing-using-language-as-a-resource-1st-edition-david-nunan/
Journal 29 Revelation Interactive Book Game Dimitris

Chassapakis
https://ebookmeta.com/product/journal-29-revelation-interactive-
book-game-dimitris-chassapakis/
Smolder Anita Blake Vampire Hunter 29 Laurell K

Hamilton
https://ebookmeta.com/product/smolder-anita-blake-vampire-
hunter-29-laurell-k-hamilton/
Fit your coursework
into your hectic life.
Make the most of your time by learning
your way. Access the resources you need to
succeed wherever, whenever.
Study with digital flashcards, listen to audio

textbooks, and take quizzes.
Review your current course grade and compare

your progress with your peers.
Get the free MindTap Mobile App and learn

wherever you are.
Break Limitations. Create your

own potential, and be unstoppable
with MindTap.
MINDTAP. POWERED BY YOU.
cengage.com/mindtap
Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
WRITING
ANALYTICALLY
EIGHTH EDITION
DAVID ROSENWASSER
Muhlenberg College
JILL STEPHEN
Muhlenberg College
Australia ● Brazil ● Mexico ● Singapore ● United Kingdom ● United States
This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions,
some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed
content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. The publisher reserves the right
to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For
valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate
formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for
materials in your areas of interest.
Important Notice: Media content referenced within the product description or the product
text may not be available in the eBook version.
Writing Analytically 8e © 2019, 2017, 2012 Cengage Learning, Inc.
David Rosenwasser and Jill WCN: 02-300
Stephen Unless otherwise noted, all content is © Cengage
Product Manager: Laura Ross ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by
the copyright herein may be reproduced or distributed
Content Developer: Elinor Gregory in any form or by any means, except as permitted by
U.S. copyright law, without the prior written permission
Product Assistant: Shelby of the copyright owner.
Nathanson
Marketing Manager: Kina Lara For product information and technology assistance,
Senior Content Project Manager: contact us at Cengage Customer & Sales Support,
Aimee Bear 1-800-354-9706.
Senior Art Director: Marissa Falco For permission to use material from this
text or product, submit all requests online at
IP Analyst: Ann Hoffman
www.cengage.com/permissions.
IP Project Manager: Betsy Further permissions questions can be emailed to
Hathaway [email protected].
Manufacturing Planner: Betsy

Donaghey Library of Congress Control Number: 2017954666
Production Service: MPS Limited Student Edition:

ISBN: 978-1-337-55946-1
Compositor: MPS Limited
Text Designer: MPS Limited Loose-leaf Edition:

ISBN: 978-1-337-55947-8
Cover Designer: Marissa Falco
Cengage
Cover Image: Jorg Greuel/ 20 Channel Center Street
DigitalVision/Getty Images Boston, MA 02210
USA
Cengage is a leading provider of customized learning

solutions with employees residing in nearly 40 different
countries and sales in more than 125 countries around
the world. Find your local representative at:
www.cengage.com.
Cengage products are represented in Canada by

Nelson Education, Ltd.
To learn more about Cengage platforms and services,

visit www.cengage.com.
Purchase any of our products at your local college

store or at our preferred online store
www.cengagebrain.com.
Printed in the United States of America

Print Number: 01 Print Year: 2017
BRIEF CONTENTS
Preface xvii
UNIT I The Analytical Frame of Mind 1

1 The Five Analytical Moves 2
2 Reading Analytically 38
3 Interpretation: Moving from Observation to Implication 70
4 Responding to Traditional Writing Assignments More Analytically 98
5 Thinking Like a Writer 116
UNIT II Writing the Analytical Paper 147

6 Reasoning from Evidence to Claims 148
7 Finding and Evolving a Thesis 178
8 Conversing with Sources:
Writing the Researched Paper 213
9 Finding, Evaluating, and Citing Sources 242
UNIT III Matters of Form 265

10 From Paragraphs to Papers: Forms and Formats Across the Curriculum 266
11 Style: Choosing Words, Shaping Sentences 299
12 Nine Basic Writing Errors (BWEs) and How to Fix Them 341
APPENDIX 369
INDEX 376
iii
CONTENTS
Preface xvii
UNIT I The Analytical Frame of Mind 1

CHAPTER 1 2
The Five Analytical Moves 2
Writing as a Tool of Thought 2
Why Faculty Want Analysis 3
Analysis Is a Search for Meaning 3
Analysis Does More than Break a Subject into Its Parts 4
Distinguishing Analysis from Summary, Expressive Writing, and Argument 5
Analysis and Summary 6
Analysis and Expressive Writing 7
Analysis and Argument 7
Counterproductive Habits of Mind 10
Habit: The Judgment Reflex 10
Cures for the Judgment Reflex 11
TRY THIS 1.1: Experiment with Adjectives and Adverbs 11
Habit: Naturalizing Our Assumptions (Overpersonalizing) 11
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Arguments vs. Opinions:
A Political Scientist Speaks12
Habit: Generalizing 12
Cures for the Problem of Generalizing 13
TRY THIS 1.2: Distinguishing Abstract from Concrete Words 13
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Habits of Mind
in Psychology: A Psychologist Speaks13
Get Comfortable with Uncertainty 14
Habit: The Slot-Filler Mentality (Five-Paragraph Form) 14
Learn to Notice 15
The Five Analytical Moves 16
Move 1: Suspend Judgment 16
Move 2: Define Significant Parts and How They Are Related 16
Notice & Focus (Ranking) 17
“Interesting,” “Revealing,” “Strange” 18
TRY THIS 1.3: Notice & Focus Fieldwork 18
Noticing and Rhetorical Analysis 18
TRY THIS 1.4: Doing Notice & Focus with a Room 19
Doing Exploratory Writing in the Observation Stage: Freewriting 19
Move 3: Make the Implicit Explicit. Push Observations to
Implications by Asking “So What?” 21
Asking “So What?”23
Asking “So What?” in a Chain 23
TRY THIS 1.5: Track the “So What?” Question 24
TRY THIS 1.6: Inferring Implications from Observations 25
Move 4: Look for Patterns of Repetition and Contrast and for Anomalies (The Method)25
The Steps of The Method26
Two Examples of The Method Generating Ideas 27
Doing The Method on a Poem 29
TRY THIS 1.7: Doing The Method on a Poem 31
Troubleshooting The Method31
TRY THIS 1.8: Do The Method on a Visual Image 32
TRY THIS 1.9: Do The Method on a Reading 32
Move 5: Keep Reformulating Questions and Explanations 32
Summing Up: Analyzing Whistler’s Mother 33
Analysis and Personal Associations 35
Becoming a Detective 36
Assignments: The Five Analytical Moves 36
CHAPTER 2 38
Reading Analytically 38
Becoming Conversant Instead of Reading for the Gist 38
Beyond the Banking Model of Education 39
Rejecting the Transparent Theory of Language 39
Seek to Understand the Reading Fairly on Its Own Terms 40
How to Write a Critique 41
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: What Do We Mean
by Critical Reading? A Music Professor Speaks 43
Focus on Individual Sentences 43
Pointing44
Using Quotation 44
Paraphrase 3 345
TRY THIS 2.1: Experiment with Paraphrase 3 347
TRY THIS 2.2: Paraphrase and Implication 47
Passage-Based Focused Freewriting47
TRY THIS 2.3: Do Passage-Based Focused Freewriting52
TRY THIS 2.4: Writing and Reading with Others: A Sequence of Activities 52
Keep a Commonplace Book 53
Situate the Reading Rhetorically 53
Find The Pitch, The Complaint, and The Moment54
TRY THIS 2.5: Locating The Pitch and The Complaint56
vi Contents
Focus on the Structure of Thinking in a Reading 56
Uncovering Assumptions 56
TRY THIS 2.6: Uncovering Assumptions Implied by a Statement 57
TRY THIS 2.7: Uncovering Assumptions: Fieldwork 58
Tracking Binaries in a Reading 58
Reformulating Binaries 60
TRY THIS 2.8: Reformulating Binaries: Fieldwork 62
TRY THIS 2.9: Practice Tracking Reformulated Binaries in a Reading 63
Apply a Reading as a Lens63
Assignments: Reading Analytically 68
CHAPTER 3 70
Interpretation: Moving from Observation to Implication 70
The Big Picture 70
Making Interpretations Plausible: Interpretive Contexts 71
Context and the Making of Meaning 72
Specifying an Interpretive Context: A Brief Example 73
Intention as an Interpretive Context 74
What Is and Isn’t “Meant” to Be Analyzed 76
Avoiding the Extremes: Neither “Fortune Cookie” nor “Anything Goes” 77
The Fortune Cookie School of Interpretation 77
The Anything Goes School of Interpretation 77
Implications Versus Hidden Meanings 78
Figurative Logic: Reasoning with Metaphors 79
TRY THIS 3.1: Uncovering the Logic of Figurative Language 81
TRY THIS 3.2: Analyzing the Figurative Language of Politics 81
Seems to Be About X, But Could Also Be (Or Is “Really”) About Y82
Seems To Be About X . . .: An Example 83
TRY THIS 3.3: Apply the Formula Seems to Be About X,
But Could Also Be (Or Is “Really”) About Y84
Making an Interpretation: The Example of a New Yorker Cover 84
Description of a New Yorker Cover, Dated October 9, 2000 84
Using The Method to Identify Patterns of Repetition and Contrast 86
Pushing Observations to Conclusions: Selecting an Interpretive Context 87
Arriving at an Interpretive Conclusion: Making Choices 88
Making the Interpretation Plausible 89
Making Interpretations Plausible Across the Curriculum 89
Interpreting Statistical Data 90
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM:
Interpreting the Numbers: A Psychology Professor Speaks92
A Brief Glossary of Common Logical Fallacies 93
Assignments: Interpretation: Moving from Observation to Implication 97
Contents vii
CHAPTER 4 98
Responding to Traditional Writing Assignments More Analytically 98
Interpreting Writing Assignments 98
Find the Analytical Potential: Locate an Area of Uncertainty 99
Six Rules of Thumb for Responding to Assignments More Analytically 100
Rule 1: Reduce Scope 100
Rule 2: Study the Wording of Topics for Unstated Questions 100
Rule 3: Suspect Your First Responses 101
Rule 4: Begin with Questions, Not Answers 101
Rule 5: Expect to Become Interested 101
Rule 6: Write All of the Time About What You Are Studying 102
Summary103
Strategies for Making Summaries More Analytical 103
Personal Response: The Reaction Paper 105
Strategies for Making Personal Responses More Analytical 106
Agree/Disagree107
Comparison/Contrast108
Strategies for Making Comparison/Contrast More Analytical,
Including Difference within Similarity109
Definition111
Strategies for Making Definition More Analytical 112
Assignments: Responding to Traditional Writing Assignments More Analytically 113
CHAPTER 5 116
Thinking Like a Writer 116
Process and Product 116
A Review of Some Strategies from Writing Analytically
for Making Writing Happen 117
Making Writing Happen 118
Freewriting Revisited 119
TRY THIS 5.1: Freewriting on a Single Word or Phrase 120
Observation Exercises: The Value of Close Description 120
TRY THIS 5.2: Three Descriptive Freewrites 121
TRY THIS 5.3: Hemingway’s Five-Finger Exercise 121
Alternative Models of Revision: New Starts and the Back Burner 122
Closing Your Eyes as You Speak 123
When Class Members Become Audience: What Did You Hear? 124
Writing on Computers vs. Writing on Paper 124
On Keeping a Writer’s Notebook: Things to Try 126
Collecting Possible Starting Points for Writing 126
Collecting Words, Similes, and Metaphors: Not Just for Poets 128
viii Contents
“Three Minutes”: An Ongoing, Essay-Writing Prompt 130
TRY THIS 5.4: Three Minutes on Attention and Distraction 131
Writing from Life: The Personal Essay 132
TRY THIS 5.5: Something You Know How to Do 133
TRY THIS 5.6: Writing the Self 134
TRY THIS 5.7: Reconstruct and Reflect 134
TRY THIS 5.8: A Childhood Experience that Changed, Somehow,
Your View of the World 135
Reading Like a Writer: Text Marking and Listing 135
Beyond Critique: Alternative Ways for Writers to Respond to Other Writers 136
Procedures for Description-Based, Small-Group Peer Review 137
Procedures for One-on-One Peer Review: The Writing Center Model 138
A Word on Google Docs and Interactive Blogging 140
Writing with Other Writers 141
Writing Marathons: Taking Writing on the Road 141
Writers’ Boot Camp 142
How to Assess Your Own Writing: Some Rubrics for Self-Evaluation 143
Short List of Things That Go Wrong 144
Some Do’s and Don’ts of Good Writing 144
Some Useful Mantras for Writers 146
Assignment: Thinking Like a Writer 146
Write a Literacy Narrative 146
UNIT II Writing the Analytical Paper 147

CHAPTER 6 148
Reasoning from Evidence to Claims 148
Linking Evidence and Claims 148
The Functions of Evidence 149
“Because I Say So”: Unsubstantiated Claims 149
Distinguishing Evidence from Claims 150
TRY THIS 6.1: Distinguishing Evidence from Claims 151
Giving Evidence a Point: Making Details Speak 151
More than Just “the Facts”: What Counts as Evidence? 153
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Questions of Relevance
and Methodology: A Political Science Professor Speaks154
The Rules of Argument 155
Syllogism and Enthymeme 156
Toulmin’s Alternative Model of the Syllogism 157
Rogerian Argument and Practical Reasoning 159
Deduction and Induction: Two Ways of Linking Evidence and Claims 160
1 on 10 and 10 on 1 162
Doing 10 on 1 162
Contents ix
Organizing Papers Using 1 on 10 164
A Potential Problem with 1 on 10: Mere Demonstration 164
Doing 10 on 1: Saying More About Less 164
A Potential Problem with 10 on 1: Not Demonstrating the
Representativeness of Your Example 165
TRY THIS 6.2: Doing 10 on 1 with Newspaper Visuals 167
TRY THIS 6.3: Doing 10 on 1 with a Reading 167
10 on 1 and Disciplinary Conventions 168
Larger Organizational Schemes: Writing Papers Based on 1 on 10 and 10 on 1 168
The Problem of Five-Paragraph Form: A Reductive Version of 1 on 10 168
Rehabilitating Five-Paragraph Form 171
Outline for a Viable Version of Five-Paragraph Form 171
Pan, Track, and Zoom: “Directing” Your Paper 172
A Template for Organizing Papers Using 10 on 1 173
Doing 10 on 1 to Find an Organizing Claim: A Student Paper 174
TRY THIS 6.4: Marking Claims, Evidence, and Complications in a Draft 175
Assignments: Reasoning from Evidence to Claims176
CHAPTER 7 178
Finding and Evolving a Thesis 178
The Big Picture 179
What a Good Thesis Is and Does 180
Potential Problems with Thesis-Driven Writing 182
Making a Thesis Evolve 182
Developing a Thesis Is More than Repeating an Idea 182
The Thesis as Camera Lens: The Reciprocal Relationship
Between Thesis and Evidence 183
Induction and Deduction: Two Paths a Thesis May Take 184
Making a Thesis Evolve: A Brief, Inductive Example 185
Making a Thesis Evolve: A Brief, Deductive Example 186
The Evolving Thesis as Hypothesis and Conclusion
in the Natural and Social Sciences 187
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: The Hypothesis
in the Natural and Social Sciences: Three Professors Speak 187
Evolving a Working Thesis in an Exploratory Draft: The Example of Las Meninas188
From Details to Ideas: Arriving at a Working Thesis in an Exploratory Draft 191
Six Steps for Finding and Evolving a Thesis in an Exploratory Draft 192
Knowing When to Stop: How Much Revising Is Enough? 198
Practice Tracking Thesis Statements in Finished Drafts 199
Tracking the Thesis in a Final Draft: The Example of In Bruges 199
Introductions, Conclusions, and the Thesis 202
Setting Up the Thesis: Two Tasks 202
Making the Thesis Matter: Providing an Interpretive Context 203
How Much of the Thesis Belongs in the Introduction? 204
x Contents
The Conclusion: Returning the Thesis to the Larger Conversation 204
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Recognizing Your
Thesis: A History Professor Speaks 205
How to Word Thesis Statements 205
Put X in Tension with Y 205
TRY THIS 7.1: Spotting the Tension in Good Thesis Statements 206
Is It Okay to Phrase a Thesis as a Question? 207
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Getting Beyond
the All-Purpose Thesis: A Dance Professor Speaks 207
Recognizing and Fixing Weak Thesis Statements 207
Weak Thesis Type 1: The Thesis Makes No Claim 208
Weak Thesis Type 2: The Thesis Is Obviously True or Is a Statement of Fact 209
Weak Thesis Type 3: The Thesis Restates Conventional Wisdom 209
Weak Thesis Type 4: The Thesis Bases Its Claim on Personal Conviction 210
Weak Thesis Type 5: The Thesis Makes an Overly Broad Claim 211
Assignment: Finding and Evolving a Thesis212
CHAPTER 8 213
Conversing with Sources: Writing the Researched Paper 213
The Big Picture 213
Using Sources Analytically 214
“Source Anxiety” and What to Do About It 215
The Conversation Analogy 216
Conversing with a Source: A Brief Example 217
Ways to Use a Source as a Point of Departure 218
Six Strategies for Analyzing Sources 219
Strategy 1: Make Your Sources Speak 219
Strategy 2: Attend Carefully to the Language of Your Sources by
Quoting or Paraphrasing 220
Strategy 3: Supply Ongoing Analysis of Sources (Don’t Wait Until the End) 221
Bringing Sources Together: A Psychology Professor Speaks 222
Strategy 4: Use Your Sources to Ask Questions, Not Just Provide Answers 222
Strategy 5: Put Your Sources Into Conversation with One Another 225
Strategy 6: Find Your Own Role in the Conversation 227
Engaging Sources in the Sciences: A Biology Professor Speaks230
Using Sources Analytically: An Example 230
Integrating Quotations Into Your Paper 231
Preparing an Abstract 234
What Does Plagiarism Do to the Conversation? 235
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS) about Plagiarism 236
Assignments: Conversing with Sources: Writing the Researched Paper 238
Contents xi
CHAPTER 9 242
Finding, Evaluating, and Citing Sources 242
Three Rules of Thumb for Getting Started with Research 242
Start with Scholarly Indexes, Abstracts, and Bibliographies 243
Specialized Dictionaries and Encyclopedias 244
Finding Your Sources: Articles and Books 244
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Finding
Quality Sources: Two Professors Speak 245
Finding Quality on the Web 246
Understanding Domain Names 246
Print Corollaries 247
Web-Published Gems 247
Wikipedia, Google, and Blogs 248
Asking the Right Questions 249
Subscriber-Only Databases 250
TRY THIS 9.1: Tuning in to Your Research Environment: Four Exercises 251
Eight Tips for Locating and Evaluating Electronic Sources 251
Tip #1: Backspacing 251
Tip #2: Using WHOIS 251
Tip #3: Beware of the ~ in a Web Address 251
Tip #4: Phrase Searching 252
Tip #5: Title Searching 252
Tip #6: Wikipedia Talk Tab 252
Tip #7: Full Text from Library Databases 252
Tip #8: Archives of Older Published Periodicals 252
Four Steps Toward Productive Research Across the Disciplines 253
The Four Documentation Styles: Similarities and Differences 255
APA Style, 6th Edition 257
Chicago Style, 16th Edition 258
CSE Style Employing Name-Year (Author-Date) System, 8th Edition 260
CSE Style Employing Citation Sequence System, 8th Edition 261
MLA Style, 8th Edition 262
Guidelines for Finding, Evaluating, and Citing Sources 263
UNIT III Matters of Form 265

CHAPTER 10 266
From Paragraphs to Papers: Forms and Formats Across the Curriculum 266
The Two Functions of Formats 266
Using Formats Heuristically: An Example 267
xii Contents
The Common Structure of Most Academic Writing 268
Science Format Compared with Other Kinds of Writing 268
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Writing in the Sciences:
A Biochemistry Professor Speaks269
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: How to
Write—and Read—Scientific Formats: Two Professors Speak270
Three Organizing Strategies 271
Climactic Order: Saving the Best for Last 271
Comparison/Contrast: Two Formats 271
Concessions and Refutations: Giving and Taking Away 272
TRY THIS 10.1: Locating Concessions and Refutations 273
What Introductions Do: “Why What I’m Saying Matters” 273
How Much to Introduce Up Front: Typical Problems 274
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Avoiding Strong
Claims in the Introduction: An Economics Professor Speaks276
Some Good Ways to Begin a Paper 276
What Conclusions Do: The Final “so what?” 278
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Beyond
Restatement: A Business and a Political Science Professor Speak279
Solving Typical Problems in Conclusions 279
Introductions and Conclusions Across the Curriculum 281
Introductory Paragraphs in the Humanities 281
Using Procedural Openings: Introductions and Conclusions
in the Social Sciences 282
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Using Procedural
Openings: A Political Science Professor Speaks283
Putting an Issue or Question in Context 283
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Providing an
Introductory Context: A Political Science Professor Speaks283
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Framing Research
Questions and Hypotheses: A Political Science Professor Speaks284
Writing Introductions in the Sciences 284
Introductions in the Sciences: Three Professors Speak284
Integration of Citations in a Literature Review: A Brief Example 286
Introductions in Scientific Papers: A Brief Example 286
Writing Conclusions in the Sciences: The Discussion Section 286
Writing Conclusions in the Sciences: Two Professors Speak287
Conclusions in Scientific Papers: A Brief Example 288
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Ethos and
Style in Scientific Writing: A Biochemistry Professor Speaks288
The Idea of the Paragraph 288
Contents xiii
How Long?: Paragraphs, Readers, and Writers 289
Linking the Sentences in Paragraphs: Minding the Gaps 290
What a Paragraph Does: The Paragraph as Movement of Mind 291
TRY THIS 10.2: Label the Function of the Sentences in a Paragraph 292
TRY THIS 10.3: Identify the Structure of a Paragraph 294
The Shaping Force of Transitions 295
TRY THIS 10.4: Tracking Transitions 297
Assignments: From Paragraphs to Papers: Forms and Formats
Across the Curriculum 297
CHAPTER 11 299

Style: Choosing Words, Shaping Sentences 299
Seeing Style as Inseparable From Meaning 299
About Prescriptive Style Manuals: A Word of Warning 300
Sentence Logic: Seeing How the Parts of a Sentence Are Related 301
Finding the Spine of a Sentence: Subjects and Predicates 302
Kinds of Verbs: Transitive, Intransitive, and Linking 303
Verbals: Verb Forms that Function as Other Parts of Speech 304
Sentence Combining: Coordination 305
Sentence Combining: Subordination 307
TRY THIS 11.1: Identify Clauses and Conjunctions 309
Seeing the Shape of Sentences: Why Commas Matter 310
TRY THIS 11.2: Find and Explain Commas in a Piece of Writing 311
What Punctuation Marks Say: A Quick-Hit Guide 312
Emphasis and the Order of Clauses: The Importance of What Comes Last 313
TRY THIS 11.3: Order Clauses in a Sentence for Emphasis 314
Embedding Modifiers: Relative Clauses, Words, and Phrases 314
Periodic and Cumulative Styles: Two Ways of Locating Closure 316
The Periodic Sentence: Delay Closure to Achieve Emphasis 317
The Cumulative Sentence: Start Fast to Build Momentum 318
TRY THIS 11.4: Write Periodic and Cumulative Sentences 319
Symmetry and Sense: Balance, Antithesis, and Parallelism 320
Parallel Structure: Put Parallel Information into Parallel Form 320
TRY THIS 11.5: Correct Errors in Parallelism 321
Two Powerful Forms of Parallelism: Antithesis and Chiasmus 321
“Official Style” 322
Finding the Action in a Sentence: “To Be” Or Not “To Be” 322
TRY THIS 11.6: Find Active Verbs in Your Sentences 324
Active and Passive Voice: Emphasizing the Doer or the Action 324
TRY THIS 11.7: Analyze the Effect of Passive Voice 325
TRY THIS 11.8: Write Passive and Active Voice Sentences 325
Expletives: Beginning with “It Is” or “There Is” 326
xiv Contents
Concrete vs. Evaluative Adjectives and Intensifiers:
What’s Bad About “Good” and “Bad” 326
Concrete and Abstract Diction 327
Latinate Diction 328
Etymology: Finding a Word’s Physical History 329
TRY THIS 11.9: Tracing Word Histories 329
“Right” and “Wrong” Words: Shades of Meaning 330
Tone 331
TRY THIS 11.10: Analyze Tone-Deaf Prose 332
TRY THIS 11.11: Analyze Effective Tone 332
The Politics of Language 332
Ethos, Audience, and Levels of Style 333
Transparent vs. Opaque Styles: Knowing When to Be Visible 333
The Person Question: When and When Not to Use “I” 334
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Using the First-Person “I”:
Two Professors Speak 335
VOICES FROM ACROSS THE CURRICULUM: Sentence Style in Science
Writing: A Biochemistry Professor Speaks 335
Formal vs. Colloquial Styles 336
The Problem of Inflated Diction 337
Jargon: When to Use Insider Language 337
Style Analysis: A Summary of Things to Look For 338
Assignments: Style: Choosing Words, Shaping Sentences 339
CHAPTER 12 341

Nine Basic Writing Errors (BWEs) and How to Fix Them 341
The Concept of Basic Writing Errors (BWEs) 341
Nine Basic Writing Errors 342
BWE 1: Sentence Fragments 343
Noun Clause (No Predicate) as a Fragment 343
Verbal as a Fragment 343
Subordinate Clause as a Fragment 344
Using Dashes and Colons to Correct Fragments 344
BWE 2: Comma Splices and Fused (or Run-On) Sentences 345
Comma Splice 345
Comma Splice 345
Cures for the Perpetual Comma Splicer 346
Fused (or Run-on) Sentence 346
Comma Splices with Conjunctive Adverbs 347
BWE 3: Errors in Subject–Verb Agreement 348
Agreement Problem: Plural Subject, Singular Verb 348
Agreement Problem: Singular Subject, Plural Verb 348
Contents xv
Agreement Problem: “Each” Must Take Singular Verb 349
A Note on Dialects and Standard Written English 349
BWE 4: Shifts in Sentence Structure (Faulty Predication) 350
Faulty Predication 350
Faulty Predication 350
BWE 5: Errors in Pronoun Reference 351
Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement 351
Pronoun Error: Plural Pronoun with Singular Antecedent 351
Gender-Neutral “They” and Pronoun Usage 351
Pronoun Error: Ambiguous Reference 352
Pronoun Error: Broad Reference 353
BWE 6: Misplaced Modifiers and Dangling Participles 354
Misplaced Modifier: Modifier Appears to Modify Wrong Word 354
Misplaced Modifier: Modifier Appears to Modify Wrong Word 354
Dangling Participle: Subject That Participle Modifies Does
Not Appear in the Sentence 354
BWE 7: Errors in Using Possessive Apostrophes 355
Apostrophe Error 355
Apostrophe Error 355
BWE 8: Comma Errors 356
Comma Error: Comma Missing After Introductory Phrase 356
Comma Error: Comma Missing After Introductory Phrase 356
Comma Error: Two Commas Needed Around Parenthetical Element 356
A Note on Restrictive versus Nonrestrictive Elements 357
Comma Error: Two Commas Needed Around Parenthetical Element 357
Comma Error: Restrictive Elements Should Not Be Enclosed Within Commas 357
BWE 9: Spelling/Diction Errors That Interfere with Meaning 358
Spelling/Diction Error: “It’s” versus “Its” 358
Spelling/Diction Error: “Their” versus “There” versus “They’re” 359
Spelling/Diction Error: “Then” versus “Than” 359
Spelling/Diction Error: “Effect” vs. “Affect” 359
Correctness vs. Usage: Grammar Rules and Social Convention 360
Usage: How Language Customs Change 360
Usage: Examples of Right and Wrong vs. Etiquette 361
When Usage Begins to Change Grammar 362
Usage as Cultural Marker 363
TRY THIS 12.1: Discover the Rationale for Usage Choices 364
Glossary of Grammatical Terms 364
Assignments: Nine Basic Writing Errors (BWEs) and How to Fix Them 368
APPENDIX 369
INDEX 376
xvi Contents
PREFACE
Nearly three decades ago, we started writing the book that would become Writ-
ing Analytically. It is, as far as we know, still the only book-length text available
focused on analytical writing. Analysis is not the only form of writing that
students need to learn, but it is the one they will most often be called on to do
in college and beyond. We continue to believe in the goal of helping students
adopt analytical habits of mind, because we see this as the best way to help
students become adults who are capable of sustained acts of reflection in a
culture that doesn’t sufficiently promote this goal.
Our aim in this book has been to evolve a common language for talking about
writing, one that can move beyond the specialized vocabularies of different
academic disciplines. We have worked to isolate and define the specific, writing-
based cognitive skills that effective writers have at their disposal, skills that many
students lack or simply don’t recognize in their own thinking. These skills have
become “the heuristics”—the moves and strategies—at the heart of the book.
Writing Analytically was something of an accident for us, one of those things
you think will be a short detour in life that turns out to be a main road. The
college at which we had just arrived was in the process of developing a Writing
Across the Curriculum (WAC) program in which all faculty, not just English
department faculty, would be teaching writing-intensive courses. Since we
were the only ones on campus with training in writing pedagogy, we were
asked to offer a week-long seminar for faculty on how to teach writing.
During the early years offering the seminar, we asked faculty to read the
usual essays about writing that graduate students in English, Rhetoric, and
Composition normally read. We asked our colleagues to freewrite about these
materials and to keep a journal of their responses to the reading and to seminar
discussion—and, if they were willing, to share these with us. And share they
did. Their responses were filled with insecurity and self-doubt (“You want me
to immerse myself in the welter of confusion that my students are experiencing
as they try to learn?”) and sometimes with anger (“So you want my students
to sit in a circle and share their feelings about DNA?”). Prompted by this kind
of honest talk across disciplinary lines, we started out on our project of study-
ing what faculty wanted from student writing, and what students might not
readily understand about the kinds of writing they were being asked to do in
their college courses—something that our lives inside an English department
might not have inspired us to do.
The clearest consensus we have found among college faculty is, in fact, on
the kind of writing they say they want from their students: not issue-based
argument, not personal reflection (the “reaction” paper), not passive summary,
xvii
but analysis, with its patient and methodical inquiry into the meaning of infor-
mation. Here, in brief, is what we have learned about what faculty want:
■■ Analysis rather than passive summary

■■ Analysis before argument: understanding in depth before taking a stand
■■ Alternatives to agree-disagree & like-dislike responses
■■ Tolerance of uncertainty
■■ Respect for complexity
■■ Ability to apply theories from reading, using them as lenses
■■ Ability to use secondary sources in ways other than plugging them in as
“answers.”
We also discovered that there was no common language out there for talk-
ing about analysis with students and faculty beyond the simple definition of
dividing a subject into its parts. Books on writing tended to devote a chapter at
most to the subject, and sometimes as little as a couple of paragraphs in a chap-
ter on rhetorical modes. Brief guides on writing in particular subject areas (for
example, writing about economics, writing about film) tended to do a better job
of explaining analytical habits of mind. As useful as they are, however, these
books don’t easily help students recognize common methods and values, as
they move from course to course and department to department.
Here, in brief, are some definitions of analysis that we have derived from
our work with faculty across the curriculum:
■■ Analysis seeks to discover what something means. An analytical argu-

ment makes claims for how something might be best understood, and
in what context.
■■ Analysis deliberately delays evaluation and judgment.
■■ Analysis begins in and values uncertainty rather than starting from
settled convictions.
■■ Analytical arguments are usually pluralistic; they tend to try on more
than one way of thinking about how something might be best understood.
But these definitions alone are not enough. We thought, and still do, that
the key to improving students’ writing is helping them to become more aware
of their own habits of mind. We thought, and still do, that this was a matter of
attitude, not just of skills and knowledge of rules about writing. We believed,
and still do, that process-oriented pedagogy need not be implicitly Romantic
in theory and practice, but could instead—in keeping with the ideas of John
Dewey—be methodical, consisting of teachable mental activities that students
could consciously develop and practice, both individually and together.
Going into its eighth edition, Writing Analytically has been through
many changes, but it is still what we hoped it would be in the beginning: a
xviii Preface
process-oriented guide to analytical writing that can serve students’ needs at
different stages in their college careers and in different disciplines. We hope this
new edition will continue to provide a basis for conversation—between faculty
and students, between students and students, and, especially, between writ-
ers and their own writing. When students and teachers can share the means
of idea production, class discussion and writing become better connected, and
students can more easily learn to see that good ideas don’t just happen—they’re
made.
New to This Edition

■■ The biggest change in this edition is a new chapter called “Thinking
Like a Writer” (Chapter 5). The chapter’s aim is to help writers become
more confident about and more engaged with their own writing. After
a brief review of the heuristics in the book’s first four chapters, the
chapter offers a variety of writing prompts including description-based
observation exercises, ways of keeping a Writer’s Notebook, and experi-
ments with personal writing as a means of learning to use writing as
a mode of inquiry. The emphasis throughout the chapter is on making
the writing classroom a collaborative space. Toward that end, the chap-
ter suggests alternatives to the usual ways of prompting revision and of
working in groups with other writers.
■■ We have located the book’s chapters in three units in order to bet-
ter distinguish different phases of the writing process and different
levels of concern. Unit One contains the book’s primary observation
heuristics along with definition of the aims and methods of analysis.
Unit Two addresses issues relevant to writing analytical papers such
as finding and developing a thesis, finding and evaluating sources, and
putting sources into conversation in research-based writing. Unit Three
explains forms and formats across the curriculum, basic writing errors
and how to fix them, and ways of becoming more adept at seeing sen-
tence shapes and understanding the impact of various style choices.
■■ We have relocated the “Interpretation” chapter (now Chapter 3) so that it
comes immediately after and is better connected with the book’s opening
two chapters, “The Five Analytical Moves” and “Reading Analytically.”
■■ We have rearranged the thesis chapter to better foreground its primary
heuristic—the six steps for making a thesis evolve.
■■ We have extensively rewritten the chapter on research-based writing
(“Conversing with Sources”), adding new and more accessible examples
of effective student writing about sources.
■■ The chapter on finding, evaluating, and citing sources (including
online sources) has been revised and updated by its author, a reference
librarian.
Preface xix
■■ The table of contents more clearly flags each chapter’s heuristics, “Try
This” exercises, and “Voices from Across the Curriculum.”
■■ There is now a two-page chart of many of the book’s heuristics located
inside the back cover.
■■ We have done what we could to correct infelicities of style and to make
the book’s explanations more concise—while still respecting students’
need for rationale in support of our advice on how to become smarter,
more observant, and more independent thinkers and writers.
How to Use This Book

For a quick introduction to the ideas and activities that the book offers, read
the “Overview” paragraphs at the beginning of each chapter.
For a compact guide to the book’s heuristics, see the two-page chart inside
the back cover. Writing Analytically is activity-based; it offers a variety of ways
to make writing happen in the classroom and to help students function col-
laboratively as learning communities.
To sample the kind of writing-to-learn assignments the book suggests,
browse the “Try This” exercises dispersed throughout the book’s chapters.
These can be used to generate class discussion and as prompts for short writ-
ing assignments to be done in class or as homework.
There is also an extensive Instructor’s Manual for Writing Analytically that
is available to teachers of the book. It contains a wealth of materials on writing
pedagogy as well as detailed discussions of how to work with each chapter in
the book. If you are teaching the book, contact your Cengage representative to
get access to a copy.
Although we assume that users of this book will most often wish to pro-
vide their own writing assignments and readings, we have provided writing
assignments at the end of each chapter that can be adapted to various kinds
of course content and various levels of student readiness for college writing.
(Writing Analytically with Readings, 3rd edition, contains a series of analytical
readings arranged into five thematic units.)
The following features of Writing Analytically should eliminate, in most
cases, the need for an additional handbook:
■■ A concise but thorough guide to finding, evaluating, and citing

sources—both print and digital (Chapter 9)
■■ A chapter with exercises, a punctuation guide, and a compact glossary
of grammatical terms that teaches students how to recognize, under-
stand, and correct nine basic writing errors (Chapter 12)
■■ A chapter on syntax and word choice that teaches students how to dis-
cern different sentence shapes and understand them not in terms of a
single one-size-fits-all set of rules but as a range of options with differ-
ent rhetorical effects (Chapter 11)
xx Preface
■■ A chapter on conversing with sources in research-based writing
(Chapter 8)
■■ Extended discussion of various organizational schemes and discipline-
specific formats across the curriculum (Chapters 6, 7, and 10).
Using Unit One: The Analytical Frame of Mind
Spend as much time as you can afford to spend on Chapter 1 (“The Five Analytical
Moves”) and Chapter 2 (“Reading Analytically”), giving students the necessary
practice to make these chapters’ observation heuristics habitual before moving
on to the more paper-oriented focus of Unit Two. The rest of the book rests on
the assumption that students have learned to apply these heuristics informally
to everything they are asked to read and think about.
The primary goal of the heuristics is to habituate students to being more
observant, less quick to move to judgments, and more able to move from
observations to implications—which is not the same thing as selecting pieces
of evidence solely for the purpose of supporting some single claim. These goals
require hands-on practice. Students are asked to recognize that observation is
not natural, but learned.
When students are first learning to do The Method (looking for patterns
of repetition and contrast), we often ask them to produce the lists and the
single analytical paragraph that the exercise calls for as a regular homework
assignment. In this way, they get repeated, low-stakes practice in thinking and
writing analytically before being asked to present the results of their thinking
in a more formal, thesis-driven or disciplinary format-driven mode.
For those instructors who need to assign papers from an early point in the
semester, the writing prompts that are part of the heuristics called The Method
and Notice & Focus in Chapter 1 can easily generate a series of short papers.
The heuristics in Chapter 2, form a sequence that students can use with
reading that they are asked to prepare for class: Commonplace Book, Pointing,
Paraphrase 3 3, Passage-Based Focused Freewriting, Finding the Pitch and the Complaint,
Uncovering Assumptions, Reformulating Binaries.
As these practices become habitual, students become increasingly com-
fortable doing the work for themselves, rather than expecting teachers to
explain the readings and other course materials for them. The chapter’s heu-
ristics, like others in the book, help students learn to find their own starting
points for writing and discussion, which we think is an important skill for them
to learn as part of learning to write.
Chapter 3, “Interpretation,” follows from and further develops the move from
observation to implication stressed in Chapters 1 and 2. The chapter answers
two questions: What makes some interpretations better than others? and What
makes interpretation more than a matter of opinion? The chapter’s primary
concept is that interpretation always takes place within some context that a con-
scientious writer takes care to specify along with his or her reasons for choosing it.
Preface xxi
Chapter 4, “Responding to Traditional Writing Assignments More Analyti-
cally,” shows students how to achieve greater analytical depth on traditional
kinds of college writing topics, such as summary, comparison/contrast, and
personal response. See, for example, the heuristic we call Difference within
Similarity for sharpening the focus of comparing and contrasting.
Chapter 5, “Thinking Like a Writer” (new to this edition) offers a variety of
writing assignments and exercises designed to encourage students to use the
writing process as a source of ideas and personal growth. The chapter contains
projects, such as keeping a Writer’s Notebook (not the same thing as a diary or
a journal) and doing descriptive (observational) freewriting. The assignment
at the end of this chapter, “Writing a Literacy Narrative,” is one that many
writing courses start with. This chapter also contains rubrics for students’ self-
evaluation and offers two formats for conducting small group peer review that
rely on description rather than critique.
Using Unit Two: Writing the Analytical Paper
Early in a writing course, while students are learning to use the heuristics in
Unit One, you might have students read about and try in Chapter 6 (“Reasoning
from Evidence to Claims”) the practice we call 10 on 1 (saying 10 things about
a single, representative example) as an alternative to 1 on 10—attaching the
same, usually overly general claim to a series of examples. The chapter offers
alternatives to rigidly deductive formats (such as five-paragraph form) that
inhibit analyzing evidence in depth. The chapter explains the problem with
mustering evidence only in order to prove that “I am right.”
Chapter 7, “Finding and Developing a Thesis,” confronts the idea that a
thesis is an unchanging (static) claim and shows students how to use com-
plicating evidence to make a thesis evolve. The chapter emphasizes the
importance of qualifying claims. This orientation toward thesis-driven writing
is challenging for students, and so we usually delay teaching it until students
have learned in Unit One how to use writing in order to arrive at ideas. A good
way to ease students into the methods prescribed in this chapter (under “Six
Ways of Making a Thesis Evolve”) is to have them track the evolution of a thesis
in things they are reading.
Chapter 8, “Conversing with Sources,” offers alternatives to agreeing or
disagreeing with sources and to plugging them in as answers. It shows stu-
dents how to do more than simply assemble sources in support of (or against)
some point of view. A good place to start is to ask them to choose a single
sentence from source A and a single sentence from source B and use these
to determine what each author would say to the point of view implicit in
the other’s statement.
Chapter 9, “Finding, Evaluating and Citing Sources,” was written by a college
reference librarian, Kelly Cannon. It takes students on a tour of the research
process, introducing them to useful indexes and bibliographies, showing
xxii Preface
them how to evaluate the relative value of both print and online sources,
and explaining the logic of standard citation methods. Students can use this
chapter just as they would use a handbook in order to cite sources according
to the most recent citation guidelines in MLA, AP, Chicago, and CSE Styles. The
chapter aims to make sense of the increasingly complex world of information
in which students find themselves.
Using Unit Three: Matters of Form
Chapter 10, “From Paragraphs to Papers: Forms and Formats Across the Curric-
ulum,” helps students see both the logic and the heuristic value of disciplinary
formats such as IMRAD (the report format required in the natural and social sci-
ences). The chapter emphasizes common denominators among the methods
of organization prescribed in disciplines across the curriculum. The chap-
ter also offers practical help with introductions, conclusions, and paragraph
development.
Chapter 11, “Style: Choosing Words, Shaping Sentences,” teaches students
how to look at sentences as the shapes that thought takes. The chapter gives
students the vocabulary they need in order to analyze sentences and begin to
think about what makes a sentence good. Rather than prescribing one set of
style rules, the chapter shows students how to think in terms of the effects
of various stylistic choices. The chapter explains, for example, that whatever
comes at the end of a sentence tends to get the most emphasis, which offers
a useful revision guideline.
Chapter 12, “Nine Basic Writing Errors (BWEs) and How to Fix Them,” offers
students a self-help guide to finding and correcting errors in grammar and
punctuation. The chapter offers proofreading advice based on Mina Shaugh-
nessy’s concepts of hierarchy of error, pattern of error, and logic of error.
About the Authors

David Rosenwasser and Jill Stephen are professors of English at Muhlenberg
College in Allentown, Pennsylvania. They teach writing, rhetoric, and litera-
ture and have co-directed Muhlenberg’s Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC)
Program and Writing Center for many years. David started teaching as a gradu-
ate student at the University of Virginia and then at the College of William
and Mary. Jill started teaching as a graduate student at New York University
and then at Hunter College (CUNY). They have offered seminars on writing and
writing instruction to faculty and graduate students across the country, and
they regularly teach a semester-long training course to undergraduates pre-
paring to serve as peer tutors in their college’s Writing Center and as Writing
Assistants embedded in first-year seminars.
Acknowledgments
We owe much to the conversations about writing we have had over the years
with colleagues and to their ongoing support of us and our book. Without
Preface xxiii
Christine Farris’s early support, we might not have gotten through the long pro-
cess of turning our ideas into a book. Without Christine’s adoption of the book
for the first-year writing program she directed at Indiana University, Writing
Analytically might not have lasted beyond its first edition. Thanks also to John
Schilb and Ted Leahey at Indiana and to the teachers across the state of Indiana
who use our book for the dual credit writing course they offer in high schools.
Colleagues in the Writing Program at The Ohio State University offered
us many learning opportunities during the years our book has served the uni-
versity’s first-year writing course. Thanks especially to Scott DeWitt, Wendy
Hesford, and Eddie and Lynn Singleton, whom we count as both colleagues
and friends.
In recent years, we have benefitted from and greatly enjoyed our col-
laborations with Noreen Groover Lape and Sarah Kersh at Dickinson College,
where Noreen is Director of the Writing Program and Writing Center, and with
Janet Carl, Director of the Writing Lab at Grinnell College, and her colleague in
the English Department, Tim Arner. They are inspired and inspiring program
directors and teachers.
We thank the faculty members at Dickinson, Grinnell, Kenyon (especially
Jeanne Griggs, who brought us there to present to the Center for Innovative
Pedagogy), Ramapo (with special thanks to Todd Barnes for inviting us to
speak at the college), Indiana University, Ohio State, and at our own college,
Muhlenberg, who have participated in our writing workshops over the years.
They asked the questions we needed to hear.
We appreciate Jill Gladstein, who directs the Writing Associates Program
at Swarthmore College, for her friendship and support and for her invention
and nurturing of the Small Liberal Arts College-Writing Program Administra-
tors consortium (SLAC), where we have had the opportunity to learn from
colleagues who direct writing programs at small liberal arts colleges across
the country.
We owe special thanks to present and past members of the Writing Pro-
gram Committee at Muhlenberg College, including Chris Borick, Keri Colabroy,
Ted Conner, Jessica Cooperman, Amy Corbin, Will Gyrc, Brian Mello, Pearl
Rosenberg, Jordanna Sprayberry, and Lynda Yankaskas. Thanks as well to Pro-
vost Kathleen Harring for her continued support of the Writing Program, and to
Dean Bruce Anderson for his generous support of travel grants for our tutors.
The cross-curricular dimension of this book would be sadly impoverished
without the interest and support of our faculty colleagues who participate in
the writing cohort at our college, many of whom are included in the Voices
from Across the Curriculum boxes in the book. These colleagues (along with
those on the Writing Program Committee) have shared with us examples of
good student and professional writing in their fields, writing assignments from
their writing-intensive classes, examples of their own writing, and responses
to our question on what constitutes an analytical question. These colleagues
xxiv Preface
include James Bloom, Susan Clemens-Bruder, Karen Dearborn, Daniel Doviak,
Laura Edelman, Joseph Elliott, Chuck French, Jack Gambino, Barri Gold, William
Gruen, Kimberley Heiman, Daniel Leisawitz, Dawn Lonsinger, John Malsberger,
Eileen McEwan, Linda McGuire, Holmes Miller, Matt Moore, Marcia Morgan,
Richard Niesenbaum, Dustin Nash, Jim Peck, Jefferson Pooley, Tad Robinson,
Danielle Sanchez, Grant Scott, Beth Schachter, Jeremy Teissere, Alan Tjeltveit,
Kevin Tuttle, and Bruce Wightman. We are also grateful to Katherine Kibblinger
Gottschalk of Cornell University for permission to quote her paper on the cor-
respondence of E. B. White.
For significant contributions to our book we offer much thanks to Kelly
Cannon, reference librarian at Muhlenberg, for his chapter on finding, evalu-
ating, and citing sources; to Keri Colabroy, for her contributions on writing in
the natural sciences to our chapter on forms and formats across the curricu-
lum, and for her amazing distillation of our book’s heuristics into a two-page
chart; to Chris Borick, for helping us clarify our thinking on thesis evolution
in deductive writing and for writing an entertaining and informative guide to
political labels for our essay anthology, Writing Analytically with Readings; to
Sarah Kersh, for her writing and drawing, for her excellent work on the Instruc-
tor’s Manual for Writing Analytically, and for her research on analytical essays
for Writing Analytically with Readings (along with Robert Saenz di Viteri); and to
the many faculty colleagues who have contributed their thinking on writing
for the Voices Across the Curriculum pieces in the book.
We are grateful to our students, especially those who serve as peer tutors
in Muhlenberg’s Writing Center and in first-year seminars and upper-level
writing courses at the college. We appreciate their enthusiasm, their integ-
rity, and their dedication to writers and writing, and we admire the excellent
research a number of them have done and presented at the International
Writing Center Association’s annual conferences. Special thanks go to stu-
dents and former students who have recently contributed their writing to our
book: Emily Casey, Kate O’Donoghue, James Patefield, Patrick C. Smith, Steven
Poirier, Anna Whiston.
We benefitted much from the guidance of many people at Cengage. For
this edition, we wish to thank Laura Ross, Leslie Taggart, Alison Duncan, Lynn
Huddon, Aimee Bear, Mary Stone, and especially Elinor Gregory. Thanks as
well to past editors who contributed much to previous editions: Karl Yambert,
Dickson Musslewhite, Margaret Leslie, Michael Rosenberg, Aron Keesbury, John
Meyers, Michell Phifer, and Karen R. Smith.
We cannot forget our longtime friends and inspiring colleagues from
whom we have learned so much: Richard Louth, Dean Ward, Kenny Marotta,
and Emily Stockton-Brown.
Over the past seven years, we could not have managed without the
intelligence, resourcefulness, tact, and good humor of Brian Borosky, who
served as Writing Assistant in each of our first-year seminars while he was an
Preface xxv
undergraduate, and who served for three years after graduation as Assistant
Director of the Writing Center, in which role he essentially co-directed the
Muhlenberg writing program with us—mentoring and managing our staff of
fifty peer tutors, directing student research, soliciting and directing the review
process for first-year seminars, assigning tutors to faculty members, arranging
students’ participation at national conferences, and more. We wish him all the
best in graduate school and in wherever that and his many talents lead him.
We wish to dedicate this edition of the book to the memory of our friend
and colleague, Linda Bips, who, as Professor of Psychology and Writing Pro-
gram Liaison for Student Development, tirelessly supported us and our tutors,
helping them to shape their research on tutoring practices and keeping them
calm in the face of the inevitable pressures of working closely with faculty and
students on writing. Linda always knew the right thing to say. We will never
forget her mantra for working collaboratively with others: silence is the sound
of people thinking.
Special thanks to our families: Elizabeth Rosenwasser, and Lesley and
Sarah Stephen.
We would also like to thank the colleagues who reviewed the book; we are
grateful for their insights:
Jared Abraham, Weatherford College

Diann Ainsworth, Weatherford College
Todd Barnes, Ramapo College of New Jersey
Darla Branda, Stephens College
Lisa Johnson, Casper College
Gary Leising, Utica College
Steven Plunkett, Brandeis University
Erika Sutherland, Muhlenberg College
Geoffrey Trumbo, Louisiana State University
Afton Wilky, Louisiana State University
Online Resources
MindTap® English for Rosenwasser/Stephen, Writing Analytically, 8th Edition, is
the digital learning solution that powers students from memorization to mas-
tery. It gives you complete control of your course—to provide engaging content,
and to challenge every individual and build his or her confidence. Empower
students to accelerate their progress with MindTap. MindTap: Powered by You.
MindTap gives you complete ownership of your content and learning experi-
ence. Customize the interactive assignments, emphasize the most important
topics, and add your own material or notes in the eBook.
■■ Interactive activities on grammar and mechanics promote application

to student writing.
■■ An easy-to-use paper management system helps prevent plagiarism
and allows for electronic submission, grading, and peer review.
xxvi Preface
■■ A vast database of scholarly sources with video tutorials and examples
supports every step of the research process.
■■ A collection of vetted, curated student writing samples in various
modes and documentation styles to use as flexible instructional tools.
■■ Professional tutoring guides students from rough drafts to polished
writing.
■■ Visual analytics track student progress and engagement.
■■ Seamless integration into your campus learning management system
keeps all your course materials in one place.
■■ Additional thematic readings with questions for analysis.
■■ Downloadable worksheets for in-class activities or homework.
MindTap® English comes equipped with the diagnostic-guided JUST IN TIME
PLUS learning module for foundational concepts and embedded course sup-
port. The module features scaffolded video tutorials, instructional text content,
and auto-graded activities designed to address each student’s specific needs
for practice and support to succeed in college-level composition courses.
The Resources for Teaching folder provides support materials to facilitate
an efficient course setup process focused around your instructional goals: the
MindTap Planning Guide offers an inventory of MindTap activities correlated
to common planning objectives, so that you can quickly determine what you
need. The MindTap Syllabus offers an example of how these activities could be
incorporated into a 16-week course schedule. The Instructor’s Manual provides
suggestions for additional activities and assignments.
Preface xxvii
UNIT 1
The Analytical Frame of Mind
CHAPTER 1
The Five Analytical Moves
Overview In this chapter, we define analysis and explain why it is the kind of
writing you will most often be asked to do in college and beyond. We explain
the characteristics that college teachers look for in student writing and the
changes in orientation this kind of writing requires: the analytical frame of
mind. The chapter identifies the counterproductive habits of mind most likely
to block good writing and offers in their place the book’s first set of strategies
for becoming a more observant and more confident writer: Notice & Focus, free-
writing, Asking “So What?,” and The Method. These strategies are embedded in
a discussion of what we call the Five Analytical Moves.
Writing as a Tool of Thought

Of all the skills you acquire as a writer and thinker, analysis is likely to have
the greatest impact on the way you learn. This is so because the more that you
write analytically, the more actively and patiently you will think. The patience
comes from recognizing that ideas and understanding are a product not just
of sudden flashes of insight but of specific mental skills. Thinking is a process,
an activity. Ideas don’t just happen; they are made.
This book will make you much more aware of your own acts of thinking
and will show you how to experiment more deliberately with ways of arriving at
ideas—for example, by sampling kinds of informal and exploratory writing
that will enhance your ability to learn. As the next few chapters will show, the
analytical process consists of a fairly limited set of basic moves. People who
think well have these moves at their disposal, whether they are aware of using
them or not. Writing Analytically describes and gives names to these moves,
which are activities you can practice and use systematically in order to become
a more confident, more resourceful, and more independent thinker and writer.
Learning to write well means more than learning to organize information
in appropriate forms and to construct clear and correct sentences. Learning
to write well means learning ways of using writing in order to think well. This
means that writing can make you smarter. But first, you have to learn to feel
comfortable with the activity. Since so much writing instruction concentrates
on what writers do wrong, it is difficult for many people to find the necessary
2 UNIT 1 The Analytical Frame of Mind
level of comfort and trust to make writing happen. Clearly, rules governing
matters of form are important, and we will have much to say about these in
the third part of this book, but rules governing such things as paper organiza-
tion and style don’t easily translate into the ability to get words onto the page
in the first place—the stage of writing that classical rhetoric called “invention.”
In classical rhetoric, procedures and forms that served as aids to discov-
ery were called “heuristics.” The term comes from the Greek word heuriskein,
which means “to find out” or “to discover.” This book’s analytical methods,
such as the ones you will find in this chapter, are heuristics. These offer
alternatives to what might be called the light bulb theory of inspiration,
wherein ideas simply come to people, like a light bulb turning on in their
heads. Writers do, of course, sometimes have ideas in this way—suddenly
and unexpectedly and seemingly with little conscious effort. But, as we hope
to show, this is more often the exception than the rule.
Why Faculty Want Analysis

For over two decades, we’ve co-directed a Writing Across the Curriculum pro-
gram in which writing is taught by our colleagues from all the other disciplines.
They have helped us to see why analysis is what they expect from student
writing. They want analysis because of the attitudes toward learning that
come along with it—the way it teaches learners to cultivate curiosity, to toler-
ate uncertainty, to respect complexity, and to seek to understand a subject
before they attempt to make arguments about it.
Overall, what faculty want is for students to learn to do things with
course material beyond merely reporting it on the one hand, and just react-
ing to it (often through like-dislike, agree-disagree responses) on the other
(see Figure 1.1). This is the issue that Writing Analytically addresses: how to
locate a middle ground between passive summary and personal response.
That middle ground is occupied by analysis.
HAVING IDEAS
(doing something with the material)
versus
RELATING REPORTING
(personal experience (information
matters, but . . .) matters, but . . .)
FIGURE 1.1
What Faculty Want from Student Writing
Analysis Is a Search for Meaning

To analyze something is to ask what that something means. It is to ask
how something does what it does or why it is as it is. Analysis is a form of
detective work. It typically pursues something puzzling, something you are
CHAPTER 1 The Five Analytical Moves 3
seeking to understand rather than something you believe you already have
the answers to. Analysis finds questions where there seemed not to be any,
and it makes connections that might not have been evident at first. Analy-
sis is, then, more than just a set of skills: it is a frame of mind, an attitude
toward experience.
Analysis is the kind of thinking you’ll most often be asked to do in col-
lege, the mainstay of serious thought. Yet it’s also among the most common
of our mental activities. The fact is that most people already analyze all of the
time, but they often don’t realize that this is what they’re doing.
If, for example, you find yourself being followed by a large dog, your first
response—other than breaking into a cold sweat—will be to analyze the situ-
ation. What does being followed by a large dog mean for me, here, now? Does
it mean the dog is vicious and about to attack? Does it mean the dog is curi-
ous and wants to play? Similarly, if you are losing at a game of tennis, have
just left a job interview, or are looking at a large painting of a woman with
three noses, you will begin to analyze. How can I play differently to increase
my chances of winning? Am I likely to get the job, and why or why not? Why
did the artist give the woman three noses?
Analysis Does More than Break a Subject into Its Parts

Whether you are analyzing an awkward social situation, an economic problem,
a painting, a substance in a chemistry lab, or your chances of succeeding in a
job interview, the process of analysis is the same:
■■ Divide the subject into its defining parts, its main elements or
ingredients.
■■ Consider how these parts are related, both to each other and to the
subject as a whole.
In the case of the large dog, for example, you might notice that he’s drag-
ging a leash, has a ball in his mouth, and is wearing a bright red scarf around
his neck. Having broken your larger subject into these defining parts, you
would try to see the connection among them and determine what they mean,
what they allow you to decide about the nature of the dog: possibly some-
body’s lost pet, playful, probably not hostile, unlikely to bite me.
Analysis of the painting of the woman with three noses, a subject more
like the kind you might be asked to write about in a college course, would
proceed in the same way. Your end result—ideas about the nature of the
painting—would be determined, as with the dog, not only by noticing its vari-
ous parts, but by your familiarity with the subject. If you knew little about
painting, scrutiny of its parts would not tell you, for instance, that it is an
example of the movement called “cubism.” You would, however, still be able
to draw some analytical conclusions—ideas about the meaning and nature of
the subject. You might conclude, for example, that the artist is interested in
perspective or in the way we see, as opposed to being interested in realistic
depictions of the world.
One common denominator of all effective analytical writing is that it
pays close attention to detail. We analyze because our global responses,
say, to a play or a speech or a social problem are too general. If you try, for
example, to comment on an entire football game, you’ll find yourself saying
things like “great game,” which is a generic response, something you could
say about almost anything. This “one-size-fits-all” comment doesn’t tell us
very much except that you probably liked the game.
In order to say more, you would necessarily become more analytical—
shifting your attention to the significance of some important piece of the
game as a whole—such as “they won because the offensive line was giv-
ing the quarterback all day to find his receivers” or “they lost because they
couldn’t defend against the safety blitz.” This move from generalization to
analysis, from the larger subject to its key components, is a characteristic of
the way we think. In order to understand a subject, we need to discover what
it is “made of,” the particulars that contribute most strongly to the character
of the whole.
If all analysis did was take subjects apart, leaving them broken and scat-
tered, the activity would not be worth very much. The student who presents
a draft to his or her professor with the encouraging words, “Go ahead, rip it
apart,” reveals a disabling misconception about analysis—that, like dissect-
ing a frog in a biology lab, analysis takes the life out of its subjects.
Analysis means more than breaking a subject into its parts. When you
analyze a subject, you ask not just “What is it made of?” but also “How do
these parts help me to understand the meaning of the subject as a whole?”
A good analysis seeks to locate the life of its subject, the aims and ideas that
energize it.
Distinguishing Analysis from Summary, Expressive

Writing, and Argument
How does analysis differ from other kinds of thinking and writing? A common
way of answering this question is to think of communication as having three
possible centers of emphasis: the writer, the subject, and the audience.
Communication, of course, involves all three of these components, but some
kinds of writing concentrate more on one than on the others (see Figure 1.2).
Autobiographical writing, for example, such as diaries or memoirs or stories
about personal experience, centers on the writer and his or her desire for
self-expression. Argument, in which the writer takes a stand on an issue,
advocating or arguing for or against a policy or attitude, is reader-centered;
its goal is to bring about a change in its readers’ actions and beliefs. Analytical
writing is more concerned with arriving at an understanding of a subject than
it is with either self-expression or changing readers’ views.
writer-centered
(expressive writing)
communication
subject-centered reader-centered
(summary and analysis) (argument)
FIGURE 1.2
The Communication Triangle
These three categories of writing are not mutually exclusive. For exam-
ple, expressive (writer-centered) writing is also analytical in its attempts to
define and explain a writer’s feelings, reactions, and experiences. Analysis
is a form of self-expression because it inevitably reflects the ways a
writer’s experiences have taught him or her to think about the world.
Similarly, analysis is a close cousin of argument in its emphasis on logic and
the dispassionate scrutiny of ideas (“What do I think about what I think?”).
But as we shall see, analysis and argument are not the same.
Analysis and Summary

One of the most common kinds of writing you’ll be asked to do in college, in
addition to analysis, is summary. Summary differs from analysis, because
the aim of summary is to recount in reduced form someone else’s ideas. But
summary and analysis are also clearly related and usually operate together.
Summary is important to analysis, because you can’t analyze a subject without
laying out its significant parts for your reader. Similarly, analysis is important
to summary, because summarizing is more than just shortening someone
else’s writing. To write an accurate summary, ask analytical questions such as:
■■ Which of the ideas in the reading are most significant? Why?

■■ How do these ideas fit together? What do the key passages in the
reading mean?
Like an analysis, an effective summary doesn’t assume that the subject

matter can speak for itself: the writer needs to play an active role. A good
summary provides perspective on the subject as a whole by explaining, as an
analysis does, the meaning and function of each of that subject’s parts. So,
summary, like analysis, is a tool of understanding and not just a mechani-
cal task. But a summary stops short of analysis because summary typically
makes much smaller interpretive leaps.
Laying out the data is key to any kind of analysis, not simply because it
keeps the analysis accurate but also because, crucially, it is in the act of care-
fully describing a subject that analytical writers often have their best ideas. The
writer who can offer a careful description of a subject’s key features is likely
to arrive at conclusions about possible meanings that others would share.
Here are two guidelines to be drawn from this discussion of analysis and
summary:
1. Describe with care. The words you choose to summarize your data will
contain the germs of your ideas about what the subject means.
2. In moving from summary to analysis, scrutinize your language, asking
“Why did I choose this word?” and “What ideas are implicit in the lan-
guage I have chosen?”
Analysis and Expressive Writing

At their extremes, analysis and expressive writing differ significantly in
method and aim. The extreme version of expressive writing focuses on the
self, with other subjects serving only to evoke greater self-understanding. The
extreme version of analytical writing banishes the “I” and, although its insights
may derive from personal experience, it foregrounds the writer’s reasoning,
not his or her experiences.
In practice, though, the best versions of analysis and expressive writing
can overlap a lot. Although most analytical writing done in the academic disci-
plines is about a subject other than the self, all writing is, in a sense, personal,
because there is an “I” doing the thinking and selecting the details to consider.
Virtually all forms of description are implicitly analytical. When you
choose what you take to be the three most telling details about your subject,
you have selected significant parts and used them as a means of getting at
what you take to be the character of the whole. This is what analysis does: it
goes after an understanding of what something means, its nature, by zeroing
in on the function of significant detail.
Analysis and Argument

Analysis and argument proceed in the same way. They offer evidence, make
claims about it, and supply reasons that explain and justify the claims. In other
words, in both analysis and argument you respond to the questions “What have
you got to go on?” (evidence) and “How did you get there?” (the principles and
reasons that caused you to conclude what you did about the evidence).
Although analysis and argument proceed in essentially the same way,
they differ in the kinds of questions they try to answer. Argument, at its most
dispassionate, asks, “What can be said with truth about x or y?” In common
practice, though, the kinds of questions that argument more often answers
are more committed and directive, such as “Which is better, x or y?”; “How
can we best achieve x or y?”; and “Why should we stop doing x or y?”
Analysis, by contrast, asks, “What does x or y mean?” In analysis, the
evidence (your data) is something you wish to understand, and the claims
are assertions about what that evidence means. The claim that an analysis
makes is usually a tentative answer to a what, how, or why question; it seeks
to explain why people watch professional wrestling, or what a rising number
of sexual harassment cases might mean, or how certain features of govern-
ment health care policy are designed to allay the fears of the middle class.
The claim that an argument makes, however, is often an answer to a
should question. For example, readers should or shouldn’t vote for bans on
smoking in public buildings, or they should or shouldn’t believe that gays
can function effectively in the military. The writer of an analysis is more
concerned with discovering how each of these complex subjects might be
defined and explained than with convincing readers to approve or disap-
prove of them.
Analysis versus Debate-Style Argument Many of you may have been

introduced to writing arguments through the debate model—arguing for or
against a given position, with the aim of defeating an imagined opponent
and convincing your audience of the rightness of your position. The agree/
disagree mode of writing and thinking that you often see in editorials, hear
on radio or television, and even practice sometimes in school may incline
you to focus all your energy on the bottom line—aggressively advancing a
claim for or against some view—without first engaging in the exploratory
interpretation of evidence that is so necessary to arriving at thoughtful argu-
ments. But as the American College Dictionary says, “to argue implies reasoning
or trying to understand; it does not necessarily imply opposition.” It is this
more exploratory, tentative, and dispassionate mode of argument that this
book encourages you to practice. It sounds more civil, more open-minded,
and more educated—and it usually is.
Adhering to the more restrictive, debate-style definition of argument can
create problems for careful analytical writers:
1. By requiring writers to be oppositional, it inclines them to discount or

dismiss problems on the side or position they have chosen; they cling to
the same static position rather than testing it as a way of allowing it to
evolve.
2. It inclines writers toward either/or thinking rather than encouraging
them to formulate more qualified (carefully limited, acknowledg-
ing exceptions, etc.) positions that integrate apparently opposing
viewpoints.
3. It overvalues convincing someone else at the expense of developing
understanding.
If you approach an argument with the primary goals of convincing others

that you are right and defeating your opponents, you may neglect the more
important goal of arriving at a fair and accurate assessment of your subject.
In fact, you will be able to argue much more effectively from evidence if you
first take the time to really consider what that evidence means and, thereby,
to find valid positions to argue about it.
Ethos and Analysis Analysis, as we have been arguing, is interested in how

we come to know things, how we make meaning. This focus privileges not
just conclusions about a subject, but also sharing with readers the thought
process that led to those conclusions. Rather than telling other people what
to think, the best analytical writers encourage readers to think collabora-
tively with them. This is true of the best writers in the civic forum as well as
in colleges and universities.
It follows that the character of the speaker (ethos) in an analysis will serve
to create a more collaborative and collegial relationship with readers than
might be the case in other kinds of writing.
Classical rhetoric thought of the impact that writers/speakers had on
audiences in terms of three categories: logos, pathos, and ethos. The word logos
(from Greek) refers to the logical component of a piece of writing or speak-
ing. Pathos refers to the emotional component in writing—the ways that it
appeals to feelings in an audience. Ethos may be familiar to you as a term
because of its relation to the word “ethics.” In classical rhetoric, ethos is the
character of the speaker, which is important in determining an audience’s
acceptance or rejection of his or her arguments.
Much of this book is concerned with the logos of academic writing,
with ways of deriving and arguing ideas in colleges, universities, and the
world of educated discourse. Ethos matters too. The thinking you do is dif-
ficult to separate from the sense the audience has of the person doing the
thinking. In fact, the personae (versions of ourselves) we assume when we
write have a formative impact on what we think and say. Ethos is not just
a mask we assume in order to appeal to a particular audience. The stylistic
and thinking moves prescribed by the ethos of particular groups become,
with practice, part of who we are and thus of how we think and interact
with others.
Eventually, college writers need to learn how to adopt different self-
representations for different academic disciplines. So the acceptable ethos
of a chemistry lab report differs in significant ways from the one you might
adopt in a political science or English paper. Nevertheless, in most academic
disciplines, ethos is characterized by the following traits:
■■ nonadversarial tone—not looking for a fight

■■ collaborative and collegial—treats readers as colleagues worthy of
respect who share your interest
■■ carefully qualified—not making overstated claims
■■ relative impersonality in self-presentation—keeps focus primarily on
the subject, not the writer.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
VII.
Tot dezelfde familie der r o n d k r a b b e n behoort ook de
s c h a a m k r a b (Calappa granulata), in fig. 7 afgebeeld, die de
meest bekende soort van zijn geslacht in de Middellandsche zee is
en door de bevolking der kustlanden ook gegeten wordt. Het dier is
6-8 centim. lang, lichtrood van kleur, met donkerroode vlekken—een
beschermende kleur op den kiezeligen grond—, gele pooten en een
rond, sterk gewelfd kopborstpantser, dat aan de beide zijden
vleugelachtig verbreed is, zoodat de vier achterste paren pooten er
bijna geheel door bedekt zijn. Ook hier is het schild rondom de
monddeelen driehoekig toegespitst. De schaarpooten zijn ontzaglijk
vergroot en kamvormig getand, zoodat zij, als zij tegen het lichaam
aangetrokken worden, de geheele omgeving van den mond en een
groot deel van de borst volkomen bedekken en verbergen, als
schaamde het dier zich te laten zien, waarvan de naam afkomstig is.
Daar ook de overige pooten door de verbreede borstschilden bedekt
zijn en deze krab de gewoonte heeft, om zich over dag, traag en
vadzig, zoo diep in het zand op den bodem te graven, dat slechts het
voorste gedeelte van het rugschild, de zeer korte sprieten, de
langgesteelde oogen en de bovenrand van de scharen boven den
grond te voorschijn komen, is het dier daardoor even goed beschut
als een schildpad door haar schild. De scharen vormen machtige
wapens tegenover vijanden, en dienen tevens als stevige
knijptangen voor het vasthouden van den buit en als schoffels voor
het graven in het zand.
De zonderlinge snuiter van fig. 3, die naar een hoop zeewieren
kruipt, is zeker wel de meest humoristische grappenmaker van het
gansche gezelschap. Het is de d o r i p p e (Dorippe lanata), uit de
Middellandsche zee, behoorende tot de afdeeling der
r u g p o o t k r a b b e n , aldus genoemd naar de, weinig ontwikkelde
dunne en teere achterste borstpooten, die geen aandeel nemen aan
de voortbeweging en bovendien in die mate naar achteren op de
rugstreek verplaatst zijn, dat het allen schijn heeft, alsof het dier, met
zijn beenen op zijn rug, rondloopt. De schaarpooten zijn kort, doch
de beide volgende paren zijn buitengewoon lang en van klauwen
voorzien. Het dier is 4 à 5 centim. lang, groenachtig van kleur en het
kopborststuk is van voren als dwars afgesneden.
Maar welk een potsierlijke maskerade-vertooning geeft deze
wonderlijke snaak ons, daar op de plaat, ten beste? Hij laadt alle
mogelijke vreemde zaken, die hij maar meester kan worden, boven
op zijn rug: schelpen, wieren, doode visschen, enz. zoodat hij bijna
doet denken aan een wandelenden „koopman van alles” of een
uitdrager. Ons exemplaar van fig. 3 is bedekt met een oesterschelp,
waarop een menigte zeepokken zitten (fig. 2) en die het met zijn,
rugwaarts geplaatste, achterste borstpooten boven zijn rug
vasthoudt. En nu het doel van deze komieke vertooning? Vooreerst
dient die bagage op den rug als een schild ter bescherming en
verder: om het dier voor zijn vijanden onkenbaar te maken, dus
inderdaad een maskerade-vermomming.
Ook de g e w o n e w o l k r a b of s c h i l d k r a b (Dromia vulgaris),
fig. 6, is een lid van dit gilde der zich vermommende
karnevalsgasten; deze heeft zich echter, in ons geval, een geheel
dier op den rug geplaatst en wel een dier uit de klasse der
m a n t e l d i e r e n , orde der a s c i d i ë n , namelijk: Amarucium
densum (fig. 5). Meestal kiest deze krab echter, als beschuttend dak
en als maskerade-pak ter vermomming, een spons. Ontneemt men
haar, in de gevangenschap, dit beschermend dak, dan hangt zij
zichzelf een mantel om van waterplanten, wel een bewijs, hoe
onmisbaar het dier die beschutting acht.
Bovendien schijnen echter de samenlevende dieren: spons en
krab, ook inderdaad beiden voordeel te hebben van deze innige
compagnieschap en blijvende vereeniging. De krab wordt door de
spons beschermd en onder haar lichaam verborgen, en wederkeerig
heeft de spons, het aangenomen pleegkind van de krab, het
genoegen, op de schaal van deze voort te leven, zich uit te breiden
en voortreffelijk te gedijen, want de krab voert haar mede op al haar
tochten door het water en stelt haar dus, op die wijze, in staat, om
een veel ruimere keuze te doen uit de lekkernijen, die de zee
oplevert, dan het geval zou zijn, als zij aan een vaste plaats
gebonden was. Vandaar dan ook, dat de beide getrouwen, na een
gedwongen echtscheiding, steeds weer, op alle manieren, tot een
gelukkige vereeniging trachten te geraken. Wij hebben hier te doen
met een geval van de zoogenaamde „symbiose” (samenleving),
waardoor men verstaat: het samenleven van twee verschillende
wezens, tot onderlinge hulp en wederzijdsch nut, een verschijnsel in
de natuur, waarvan wij, in den loop van onze volgende
beschouwingen, nog andere merkwaardige voorbeelden zullen
ontmoeten.
De wolkrab behoort ook weer tot de familie der
r u g p o o t k r a b b e n en is verwant aan de dorippe van fig. 3. Doch
zij onderscheidt zich daardoor, dat het geheele lichaam, behalve de
punten der scharen, met wollige haren bedekt is, waarvan haar
naam afgeleid is. De kleur is bruinachtig, die der scharen licht
roodachtig, de lengte van het dier bedraagt 6-8 centim. Men vindt
het in Europa, van de Middellandsche zee tot aan het Engelsche
kanaal.
Het dier, dat op den voorgrond van onze plaat over den zeebodem
voortkruipt, is de g e w o n e s p r i n k h a a n k r e e f t (Squilla mantis),
fig. 8, die niet tot de krabben behoort, doch tot de eigenlijke
l a n g s t a a r t i g e kreeften. Op het eerste gezicht doet hij inderdaad
meer aan een soort sprinkhaan, vooral aan de biddende
vangsprinkhaan (Mantis), denken, naar welken hij genoemd is.
Deze kreeft is zeker wel één der avontuurlijkste vormen van deze
verzameling en tevens één der merkwaardigste wonderen uit de
geheele dierenwereld der Middellandsche zee. Hij is een echt
roofdier, tamelijk groot (18 centim. lang), dat uitsluitend in de warme
zeeën voorkomt. Het lichaam is lang uitgerekt, met een dik achterlijf,
dat veel langer is dan het kopborststuk, welk laatste den vorm heeft
van een bijna vierhoekige plaat. De staartvin is bijzonder groot en de
voorste deelen van het achterlijf, alsmede de drie achterste ringen
van het kopborststuk blijven vrij en zijn dus beweeglijk. De vijf eerste
paren ledematen staan bijeen rondom den mond en deze noemt
men dus m o n d p o o t e n ; het voorste paar gelijkt op voelers, het
tweede paar is eigenaardig gebogen, als bij een sprinkhaan, en
vormt een paar geweldige roofpooten voor het grijpen van den buit.
Het voorste lid van deze pooten is kamvormig getand en de kreeft
bedient zich daarvan tevens, om het lichaam te reinigen. De
binnenste sprieten bestaan uit 3 leden en eindigen in 3
zweepdraden, de buitenste sprieten hebben aan haar voet een lange
schub. De oogen staan tamelijk ver naar voren, op steeltjes
geplaatst. Men zegt, dat het vleesch van dezen kreeft zeer goed
smaakt.
Kon geen der voorgaande dieren op het bezit van uiterlijke
bekoorlijkheden bogen, zoo is er toch één lid van dit wonderlijke
gezelschap, in fig. 4 voorgesteld, dat werkelijk, in haar soort, een
schoonheid mag heeten en dat dan ook genoemd is naar de
schoone Galatea in de Grieksche fabelleer, een zeenimf, dochter
van Nereus en Doris, voor welke de éénoogige reus, de cycloop
Polyphemus, een ongelukkige liefde had opgevat. Het is de
G a l a t e a of p o r s e l e i n k r a b (Galatea strigosa), een dier van de
grootte van een rivierkreeft, dat in de Middellandsche en Noordzee
leeft en daar nog op aanzienlijke diepten aangetroffen wordt, want
men heeft reeds exemplaren opgehaald van diepten van meer dan
4000 meters.
Het is een fraai dier, roodachtig van kleur en met blauwe lijnen
geteekend, een schoonheid, die echter niet volkomen tot haar recht
komt, daar deze zeenimf, in tegenstelling van haar blanke
naamgenoote uit de fabelleer, over het geheele lichaam sterk
behaard is en daartusschen steeds vuil achterblijft. Deze kreeft heeft
buitengewoon groote voorste schaarpooten, terwijl het laatste paar
pooten juist zeer klein is. De buitenste sprieten zijn buitengewoon
lang en dun. Het kopborststuk is langwerpig eirond en vertoont
sterke dwarse groeven. Het achterlijf kan daaronder omgeslagen
worden, waardoor dit dier nadert tot de krabben, waar zulks blijvend
het geval is en waarmede wij nu kennis zullen maken.
VIII.
PLAAT VIII.
KRABBELENDE STRANDVONDERS
EN HUPPELENDE GYMNASTEN.
Aan onze noorderstranden krabbelt een eigenaardig volkje van
„strandvonders” rond, die, om aan den kost te komen, hun buit
grootendeels aan de kust, soms ook in de diepere zee, verzamelen.
Voor een deel zijn het groote en logge gevaarten, die deftig, met
afgemeten passen, over het strand voortkrabbelen, deels ook kleine,
doch koene springers en zwemmers, die de wereld meer van den
vroolijken kant opvatten en het leven lustig doorhuppelen, al wordt
ook menig hunner meedoogenloos door den voet van den mensch
vertrapt. Beiden behooren weer tot de tienpootige schaaldieren,
zijn dus wel verwant aan de kreeften, maar hebben toch een geheel
anderen lichaamsbouw en levenswijze.
Van eerstgenoemden: de krabben, zijn aan onze kusten een paar
soorten welbekend en, als smakelijke spijs, gezocht, hoewel het
aroma van haar vleesch niet halen kan bij dat van de kreeften. Ook
uiterlijk wijken zij van dezen aanzienlijk af en zooals wij uit de fig. 10
en 11 zien, is haar lichaam veel lomper van bouw dan dat van de,
dikwijls zoo fraaie en sierlijke kreeften, die wij tot nogtoe ontmoet
hebben. Bij andere soorten, zooals die van fig. 2, 4 en 5, is de vorm
bovendien zoo fantastisch gewijzigd, dat men er geen kreeftachtige
dieren meer uit zou herkennen en zij ons meer aan, afzichtelijke
gepantserde, reuzenspinnen doen denken.
Bij alle krabben is het lichaam kort en breed, doch wat wij er van
zien, is eigenlijk alleen het ronde, vierhoekige of driehoekige
kopborstschild, want het achterlijf is van boven onzichtbaar, daar het
slechts zeer kort en onontwikkeld is, doch bovendien naar beneden
omgeslagen is, in een groeve onder het borstschild. Daarom noemt
men de krabben ook: kortstaartige kreeften. Bij het wijfje is dit
korte achterlijf wel breed, doch zonder staartvin en van vier
draadvormige pooten voorzien voor het vasthechten der eieren; bij
het mannetje is het achterlijf nog minder ontwikkeld. Bij het
zwemmen kan hier het achterlijf dus ook geen dienst doen, zooals bij
de kreeften, doch hier geschiedt het alleen met de breede
voorpooten. In de edele zwemsport zijn deze dieren echter niet zeer
ervaren, des te beter echter zijn zij bedreven in de loopen
wandelsport. Meestal loopen zij op het strand en wel in den regel
zijwaarts of in schuine richting.
De vruchtbaarheid van de krabben is buitengewoon groot;
Leeuwenhoek vond indertijd reeds, door een gedeeltelijke telling, dat
het wijfje van de strandkrab meer dan 2 millioen eieren legt. Na een
paar maanden komen de larven reeds uit, die nog niets op het
volwassen dier gelijken, doch een dubbele gedaanteverwisseling
ondergaan. De kieuwen zijn goed ontwikkeld, bladachtig vertakt en
de kieuwholten zijn van onderen en van achteren bijna geheel door
het borstbeeld afgesloten, zoodat alleen aan de voorzijde water kan
toetreden. Daardoor drogen de kieuwen niet zoo spoedig uit en dit is
de reden, dat de krabben dagen lang op het droge in leven kunnen
blijven en dat zij bij ebbetijd ook meestal op het strand vertoeven.
Men meent zelfs, dat zij eenigen tijd ook lucht kunnen inademen
en er zijn dan ook bepaalde „landkrabben”, die in grooten getale, in
gaten en kuilen, in bosschen en op rotsen leven of zelfs, zooals de
Indische kikvorschkrab, wel de daken van huizen beklimmen. Toch
moeten ook deze dieren jaarlijks groote tochten naar de zee
ondernemen, om de eieren te leggen. Dergelijke landkrabben komen
ook in West-Indië veel voor en hebben daar eens tot een
vermakelijke vergissing aanleiding gegeven. Eens zijn de Franschen
aldaar, althans zoo luidt het verhaal, voor een kolonne van die
landkrabben op de vlucht geslagen, want deze dieren klepperen
soms zeer hoorbaar met hun scharen en men hield dit geluid toen
voor het paardengetrappel der Spaansche ruiterij; vandaar dat nog
telkenjare op Haïti het „krabbenfeest” gevierd wordt.
Die scharen aan het voorste paar pooten zijn bij de krabben
steeds zeer groot en sterk, zij dienen als geduchte wapens. De vier
achterste paren pooten dragen slechts klauwen en dienen tot loopen
en zwemmen.
Aan onze kusten zijn de twee volgende soorten van krabben het
meest bekend: de s t r a n d k r a b (Carcinas Moenas), die in fig. 10
afgebeeld is en de g e w o n e z e e k r a b (Cancer pagurus) van fig.
11. Beide zijn b o o g k r a b b e n , waarbij het kopborststuk breeder
dan lang en naar voren b o o g v o r m i g afgerond is. De
s t r a n d k r a b , die 3 tot 4 centimeters breed is, behoort tot de
algemeenste dieren aan alle Europeesche kusten en ook bij ons
vindt men haar in zulke menigten, dat het strand, vooral bij eb,
wemelt van de dieren, die daar, op buit belust, vol leven en
beweging rondkrabbelen en zich, bij dreigend gevaar, ijlings uit de
voeten maken. Zij verbergen zich dan onder de groote steenen van
onze zeeweringen of begraven zich behendig onder het zand. De
kleur van de schaal is lichtgrijs of groenachtig, naar voren donkerder
en de punten der scharen zijn lichter; de sprieten zijn zeer kort,
zooals bij alle krabben. De schaal van de strandkrab is van boven
glad of fijn gekorreld en heeft aan de voorzijde vijf tanden, de
voorpooten zijn eenigszins ongelijk en al de ledematen hebben een
fijnkorrelige oppervlakte. Het achterlijf van het mannetje bestaat uit
5, dat van het wijfje uit 7 leden.
De wijze, waarop de krabben zich, aan het strand of in een
aquarium, in hun doen en laten gedragen, is uiterst grappig, doch
geeft ons tevens een niet geringen dunk van haar intellectuëele
hoedanigheden, die zelfs hooger staan dan die der kreeften. Men
zou deze dieren het k o m i e k e element van onze stranden kunnen
noemen en ieder, die wel eens jacht op haar maakte, zal moeten
toegeven, dat er nauwelijks iets potsierlijkers bestaat. Terwijl zij
slecht zwemmen, kunnen zij te voet, zij het dan ook z i j w a a r t s , met
recht „beenen maken” en in het verstoppertje spelen vinden zij haars
gelijken niet. Bij de geheele vervolging spreiden zij een ongelooflijke
mate van list en geslepenheid ten toon. Wil men haar, terwijl zij,
schijnbaar onverschillig, doch steeds waakzaam, kalm op het zand
ligt, naderen, dan maakt zij zich met bliksemsnelheid uit de voeten;
loopt men haar na, dan graaft zij zich ongelooflijk snel in het zand,
zoodat alleen de sprieten, de oogen en de punten der scharen er
boven uit komen en blijft dan, met de slimme beweeglijke oogen
steeds naar alle kanten rondspiedende, stil liggen. Komt er een buit
voorbij, dan wordt deze in een oogwenk gegrepen door de scharen,
die ware handen zijn in behendigheid en die het dier in een oogwenk
uit elkaar plukken en de onderdeelen naar den mond transporteeren.
Er wordt vooral jacht gemaakt op garnalen en op de vroolijke
zandspringers, die wij in fig. 8 en 9 zien. Als voedingsmiddel voor
den mensch speelt deze krab, wegens het smakelijke vleesch, een
belangrijke rol. Hoogst merkwaardig is ook het wonderbare
h e r s t e l l i n g s v e r m o g e n der krabben, dat hier zelfs kan
ontaarden in „z e l f - a m p u t a t i e of z e l f - v e r m i n k i n g ”, dat is: het
dier zet zich zelf dikwijls zijn eigen beenen of andere
lichaamsdeelen: pooten, scharen, sprieten enz. af. Deze worden
soms om een bagatel opgeofferd, doch alleen tot een hooger doel nl:
zoo snel mogelijk aan den vijand te ontkomen. Trekt men een krab
slechts even wat onzacht aan een poot of een schaar, of prikt of
snijdt men daarin, dan wordt fluks het bedreigde lichaamsdeel
eenvoudig afgeworpen en in de handen van den vijand
achtergelaten. De krab kan zich dan snel uit de voeten maken en het
verlorene groeit toch weer aan.
De andere inheemsche soort op onze plaat is de g e w o n e
z e e k r a b (Cancer pagurus), fig. 11, die veel grooter is dan de
vorige en wel 25 centim. breed en bijna even lang kan worden. Het
schild is zacht gewelfd en min of meer korrelig van oppervlakte, en
vertoont van voren drie uitstekende punten en aan den rand, ter
weerszijden, negen inkervingen. De kleur van het schild is leerachtig
geel, doch in het midden bruinachtig rood, terwijl de klauwen der
zeer groote scharen zwart van kleur zijn. De overige pooten zijn
dunner, hoekig en met korte haren bezet. Het achterlijf, de
zoogenaamde „staart”, bestaat uit zeven leden. Het voedsel van de
zeekrab bestaat hoofdzakelijk uit aas. Ook deze krab wordt veel
gevangen en levert een smakelijke spijs. Onze visschers vangen
deze dieren, vooral in Maart en April, in groote menigte en aan de
kusten van Italië en Engeland vormt de vangst een gewichtigen tak
van nijverheid.
Onder de krabben uit andere streken zijn er ook velen met een
vreemdsoortig uiterlijk en soms met zeer eigenaardige
levensgewoonten. Zoo zien wij er een in fig. 4, die in vele opzichten
aan een spin doet denken en dan ook den naam draagt van g r o o t e
z e e s p i n of s t e k e l k r a b (Maja squinado). Het dier, dat 10 à 15
centim. lang is, komt in de Middellandsche zee voor en is vooral zeer
algemeen in de buurt van Triëst en in die streken wordt het door de
onbemiddelde klassen als voedsel genuttigd. Het behoort tot de
familie der d r i e h o e k s k r a b b e n , aldus genoemd naar het
driehoekige, van achteren afgeronde, naar voren smallere,
roodachtige kopborststuk. Dit schild loopt in een soort van puntigen
snavel, met twee scherpe stekels, uit, een krachtig
verdedigingsmiddel, naar hetwelk deze krabben ook wel
„p u n t s n a v e l i g e n ” genoemd worden. Het zijn trage gezellen, met
een sterk gewelfd schild, dat aan de bovenzijde met een groot aantal
puntige bulten en stekels bezet is, waaronder vooral vijf zeer groote,
in een rij achter elkaar, aan elk der beide zijranden. De twee
voorpooten, met de scharen, zijn veel langer en grooter dan de vier
volgende paren; de laatste zijn dun en van kleine klauwen voorzien.
Voegen wij nu nog daarbij, dat het geheele lichaam, evenals de
lange, dunne pooten, sterk behaard is, terwijl het dier meestal
onbeweeglijk zit of zich langzaam en moeilijk voortbeweegt, dan zal
men zich wel kunnen voorstellen, dat het volkomen den indruk
maakt van een stekelige vogelspin, die op de loer zit. De zeespin
werd reeds in de oudheid door de Grieken „m a i a ”, dat is: wachteres
of moedertje, genoemd en dikwijls op Grieksche munten afgebeeld.
De Grieken schreven aan dit dier een hoog ontwikkeld verstand toe.
De fantastische indruk, dien deze puntsnavelige krabben maken,
wordt nu dikwijls nog verhoogd door de sterk ontwikkelde neiging,
om zich te „m a s k e e r e n ”, te „v e r m o m m e n ”, waarin zij de
Dromia en de Dorippe (zie bladz. 69 en 70) nog ver de loef afsteken.
Zij bedekken het rugschild met wieren en poliepen van allerlei soort,
om zich, als zij op de jacht gaan, voor haar prooi onkenbaar te
maken en nemen die zeewieren op haar rug te veel in groei toe,
zoodat zij bezwaar bij de voortbeweging zouden opleveren, dan
wordt het veld gemaaid of zij punten zich de plantaardige haren met
de scharen der voorpooten. Dat men hier met een opzettelijke en
weloverdachte handeling te doen heeft, blijkt daaruit, dat men
zeespinnen in het aquarium gebracht heeft met stukjes papier en dat
zij deze toen, in plaats van de ontbrekende wieren, op haar schild
plaatsten, waarbij ook de snavel goede diensten bewees, zonder er
zich echter om te bekommeren, of zij er ook werkelijk aan bleven
vasthechten. Dit moge nu geen blijk geven van een juist oordeel
omtrent de natuur van de gebezigde voorwerpen, maar het bewijst
toch, dat de dieren, bij hun zorg voor het dagelijksch brood, erover
n a d e n k e n , om het ontbrekende zeewier door iets anders te
vervangen, dat hen voor hun prooi onkenbaar maakt.
Deze maskeradekunsten worden echter nog overtroffen door die
van een andere driehoekskrab, de P i s a (Pisa tetraödon), fig. 7, een
kleinere soort, die na verwant is aan de zeespin, met een licht,
roodachtig grijs, peervormig en bultig kopborststuk, dat geheel met
dichte, korte viltachtige haren bedekt is, een langen gespleten
snavel en tamelijk korte, knobbelige pooten.
Zijn deze dieren, die in de Middellandsche zee leven, toch reeds
door hun kleur en sterke beharing moeilijk van hun omgeving te
onderscheiden, zoo wordt daarop nog de kroon gezet door hun
gewoonte, om zich den romp, den snavel, en zelfs een deel van de
pooten, geheel en al te bedekken met sponsen, mosdiertjes en
allerlei planten. Zij zijn daarmede zoo beladen, dat men het lichaam
zelf nauwelijks meer kan zien en dit meer gelijkt op een
wandelenden bloementuin of op een begroeiden steen (zie fig. 7).
Deze planten, sponsen enz. worden dikwijls door het dier uit den
bodem getrokken en door middel van den spitsen snavel op zijn rug
geplant of aan de haren en stekels vastgeprikt. Men heeft zelfs
opgemerkt, dat sommige soorten van Pisa deze zonderlinge
lichaamsbedekking, als een soort van draagbaren „moestuin”, ten
eigen bate aanwenden en van tijd tot tijd eens van den eigen
voorraad, als versnapering, snoepen of elkaar wederkeerig de
kolonies van mosdiertjes of poliepen van elkaars huid wegstelen en
opeten.
Ook de buitenmodelskrab van fig. 2, de I n a c h u s (Inachus
chiragra), behoort tot dezelfde familie als de beide vorige soorten en
bezit dus ook een driehoekig schild met een spitsen snavel, die hier
echter de bijzonderheid vertoont, dat hij bladvormige aanhangsels
heeft, die doen denken aan de „bladsprieten” van den meikever. Het
lichaam en de pooten hebben een oneffen, knobbelig en gekorreld
uiterlijk en maken den indruk, alsof hier een verminkt dier voor ons
staat. De vier achterste paren pooten zijn zeer lang en dun, het
tweede paar is zelfs buitengewoon groot en nog langer dan de
voorste schaarpooten; zij dienen dan ook niet voor het loopen, doch
worden door de krab meer als balanceerstokken gebezigd (zie fig. 2)
en zijn steeds sterk met wieren bezet. De kleur van het dier is
bruinachtig rood, de bovenzijde van het lichaam is naakt, doch de
onderzijde en de pooten zijn met afzonderlijke gele haarbundeltjes
bedekt, de klauwen alleen aan de onderzijde. Deze soort is 2 à 3
centim. lang en komt in de Middellandsche zee voor. In de
Japansche zeeën leeft een andere soort van hetzelfde geslacht: de
r e u z e n k r a b (Inachus Kämpferi), die inderdaad reusachtige
afmetingen heeft. De romp van dit dier is een halven meter lang, de
schaarpooten hebben een lengte van 1,5 meter en de dikte van een
menschendij; met uitgespreide pooten beslaat hij een lengte van
meer dan 3 meters. Dit is niet slechts de Goliath onder de krabben,
maar tevens het grootste schaaldier van de geheele wereld.
Om de rijen der krabben te sluiten, vermelden wij nog en paar
zonderlinge snuiters. Fig. 5 stelt voor de l a m b r u s (Lambrus
mediterraneus) uit de Middellandsche zee, waar zij vooral bij Nizza,
Toulon en Genua, en verder op nog bij Napels gevonden wordt. De
kleur van dit dier is roodachtig, het lichaam is iets breeder dan lang,
zeer oneffen en ruw, met vele knobbels en puntige stekels bezet,
vooral aan den rand. Buitengewoon groot en zwaar zijn de, van
scharen voorziene, binnenwaarts gebogen, ruw gekorrelde
voorpooten; zij zijn van boven en aan den binnen- en buitenrand met
puntige, vertakte stekels—aan de onderzijde met bruine knobbeltjes
bedekt. De overige pooten zijn veel kleiner en dunner en dragen
slechts enkele stekels. En in de Adriatische zee leeft de
N e p t u n u s k r a b (Neptunus Sayi) van fig. 6, die weer meer met de
gewone krabben overeenkomt, 8-9 centim. lang en 17-18 centim.
breed is. Het borstschild is breed en plat en vuil groenachtig bruin
van kleur, met witte vlekken. Het schild heeft aan weerszijden een
sterken doorn en de voorste rand is getand. Het achterste of vijfde
paar borstpooten is aan de uiteinden sterk verbreed. Dit dier zwemt
vrij rond, tusschen de Sargassum-wieren (een zeeplant) en voedt
zich ook daarmede.
En nu gaan wij de krabbelende monsters van het strand verlaten
en begeven wij ons naar de vroolijk huppelende en zwemmende
schare van onze plaat, die veel kleiner van afmetingen zijn en niet
meer tot de krabben, doch tot de lagere kreeften behooren. Daarom
hebben zij ook een goed ontwikkeld achterlijf en dus een
langwerpiger lichaam, want zij zijn verwant aan de vlookreeften, die
wij vroeger in het zoete water ontmoet hebben. Ook uiterlijk komen
zij daarmee veel overeen en evenzoo gelijken zij onderling veel op
elkaar, zooals wij uit de figuren 1, 3, 8 en 9 zien.
Deze kleine kreeftjes behooren, evenals de, vroeger besproken,
v l o o k r e e f t e n en p i s s e b e d d e n (bladz. 3 en 44), tot de orde der
vastoogige kreeften of ringkreeften, die, wat het aantal der
lichaamsringen en ledematen betreft, met de gewone kreeften
overeenkomen, doch wier b o r s t r i n g e n min of meer vrij en
beweeglijk zijn, terwijl de oogen niet op stelen staan, doch
onbeweeglijk en v a s t zijn. De beide diertjes van fig. 8 en 9
behooren tot de s t r a n d s p r i n g e r s , die gekenmerkt zijn door een
sterk zijdelings afgeplat lichaam, terwijl zij bij rust en bij het
zwemmen op de zijde liggen. De achterste sprieten zijn
buitengewoon lang, de voorste weinig ontwikkeld. De beide voorste
paren pooten zijn kort en dienen slechts tot grijpen, waartoe, bij het
voorste of bij beide paren, het eerste lid als een vinger naar binnen
omgeslagen kan worden. De twee volgende paren worden voor het
loopen gebruikt en de drie laatste paren zijn zeer groot en sterk,
ware s p r i n g p o o t e n , zooals die van de vloo. Inderdaad is het
springen hun lust en hun leven, daarin zijn zij ware meesters: het zijn
de g y m n a s t e n van het strand.
Wandelt men ’s zomers of in den herfst, vooral bij warm weer,
langs het strand, dan staat men dikwijls verbaasd over de
ontzettende menigte van kleine, blinkend witte diertjes, van
ongeveer 2 centim. lang, die om onze voeten heenspringen en
waarvan wij er, bij elken stap, talrijken vertreden, daar zij in kleur
nauwlijks van het zand zijn te onderscheiden. Dit is de
z a n d s p r i n g e r of z e e v l o o (Talitrus locusta), fig. 8, die soms, bij
millioenen tegelijk, over onze stranden huppelen en springen,
dikwijls, als ware gymnasten, wel een voet hoog, waarbij ook het
omgebogen achterlijf meewerkt, daar zij dit plotseling kunnen
uitstrekken. Hier is alleen het tweede paar pooten van een
grijpvinger voorzien. Deze diertjes komen algemeen langs alle
kusten van Europa voor en wel overal daar, waar de zee wieren op
het strand werpt, die hun tot voedsel dienen. In het water zelf komen
zij slechts zelden voor; zij volgen steeds de eb en worden dan met
den volgenden vloed, met de wieren, door de zee op het strand
aangespoeld. Met geweldige sprongen ontvluchten zij daar hun
aartsvijanden: de zeevogels en krabben, die verzot zijn op deze
kreeftjes, en alleen hun gymnastische toeren doen hen dan
menigmaal letterlijk „den dans ontspringen”. Om te rusten graven zij
zich in het zand van het strand, in den winter onder rottend zeewier.
Hun collega en metgezel van fig. 9, die veel op hen gelijkt, is de
s t r a n d s p r i n g e r of s t r a n d v l o o (Orchestia littorea); hij is
grooter, 2,5 centim. lang, wordt insgelijks in massa’s aan alle kusten
van Europa aangetroffen en komt ook overigens, zoowel in uiterlijk
als in levensgewoonten, veel met den zandspringer overeen; alleen
zijn hier de voorste sprieten wat langer en hebben de b e i d e
voorste paren pooten een grijpvinger.
Terwijl de beide vorige soorten van kreeftjes nauw verwant zijn
aan de pissebedden, zonder echter daartoe te behooren, zien wij,
bovenaan links op Plaat VIII, ook een werkelijke pissebed: de
b o o r p i s s e b e d (Limnoria terebrans), fig. 1, die veel in de
Noordzee voorkomt, bruinachtig groen van kleur en slechts 2 tot 5
centim. lang is; in uiterlijk doet zij wel eenigszins denken aan een
insektenlarve. De sprieten zijn hier zeer kort en het laatste lid van
het achterlijf vormt een breede staartplaat, met zijdelingsche
aanhangsels. Het geheele lichaam is met dichte haarborstels bezet.
Hoe klein dit diertje ook is, zoo kan het toch de grootste
verwoestingen aanrichten aan het, door het water bedekte, houtwerk
van havenhoofden, paalwerk enz., door zich daarin te boren en er in
alle richtingen gangen door te graven, zoodat het dier in
schadelijkheid den paalworm niet veel toegeeft. Bovendien
ondervindt het geen nadeel van het terugwijken van het water bij eb,
daar het in zijn gangen, ook buiten het water, dagenlang in leven
blijft.
En nu blijft ons nog het kreeftje over van fig. 3, rechts boven in
den hoek, een curieus diertje uit de Middellandsche zee, dat er
uitziet, alsof het in een luchtballon in het water opstijgt of als een
schipper, die in een schuitje vaart. Het draagt dan ook den naam van
s c h i p p e r k r e e f t (Phronima sedentaria), en behoort tot de
parasietische kreeften, dat is: het kookt niet zijn eigen pot, doch leeft
in en ten koste van een ander dier. Het diertje zelf komt in vorm en
maaksel weer grootendeels overeen met de vlookreeften en met de
zeevlooien van fig. 8 en 9, is bijna doorschijnend, met roode puntjes,
heeft een grooten ovalen kop, met kolossale oogen, die bijna den
geheelen kop beslaan, weinig ontwikkelde sprieten en een dun
achterlijf, dat van krachtige zwempooten voorzien is. Het vijfde paar
borstpooten is gewapend met geweldige grijptangen.
Man en vrouw hebben hier een volkomen verschillende
levenswijze, zelfs laat eerstgenoemde zich met zijn wederhelft niet
anders in dan voor de paring. Terwijl het mannetje verder vrij
rondzwemt, zoekt het wijfje, nadat het de eitjes in een taschje van
het kopborststuk gelegd heeft, bij een ander, en nog wel bij een
vreemde, onder dak te komen, ten einde, tijdens de ontwikkeling van
haar kroost, gratis kost en inwoning te hebben. Zij zoekt daartoe één
der fraaie, doorschijnende tonnetjes op, welke den uitwendigen,
gemeenschappelijken mantel voorstellen, waarin zich een talrijke
kolonie van v u u r l i j v e n (Pyrosoma) bevindt, welke tot de
zoogenaamde „manteldieren” behooren en die wij op de volgende
plaat nader zullen ontmoeten. De vrouwelijke schipperkreeft treedt
de, aan beide zijden open, kristalheldere woning binnen en begint
zich daar reeds dadelijk zoo gerieflijk mogelijk in te richten, door de
rechtmatige bewoners—niet buiten de deur te zetten—doch zich
daarvan te ontdoen door een veel radikaleren maatregel, en wel: ze
eenvoudig allen op te eten. En als zij dan het huis alleen heeft, dan
zwemt zij verder in die glasheldere ton, met haar geheele
nakomelingschap rond, waarbij de schuit in beweging gebracht
wordt, door de zwempooten van het achterlijf, die uit de ééne
opening naar buiten uitsteken. Somtijds verlaat zij dit glazen paleis
en zwemt dan behendig vrij rond, om een nieuw te zoeken, welks
bevolking zij opnieuw verslindt, om er dan in te vertoeven, tot haar
kroost volwassen is: inderdaad een uiterst praktische
levensopvatting!
IX.
PLAAT IX.
KLEURENWEELDE IN DEN OCEAAN.
De lagere dierenwereld der zee munt niet alleen uit door
avontuurlijke en zeldzame vormen, doch dikwijls ook door prachtige
kleuren en ongeëvenaarde schoonheid. In de onmetelijke afgronden
van den oceaan ontmoeten wij tal van dieren, bij wier
sprookjesachtige pracht zelfs de schitterende tuinen van Semiramis
in het niet verzinken. Uiterst fijne en sierlijke vormen worden ons op
deze plaat voor oogen gesteld en het geheel zou, bij oppervlakkige
beschouwing, eerder aan een onderzeeschen tuin met schitterende
bloemen, dan aan een verzameling van dieren doen denken.
En wat vooral merkwaardig is: het meerendeel van deze
gekleurde wonderen der zee behoort tot de, zoozeer geminachte,
afdeeling der wormen, waarvan men, in ons gewone leven, bijna
geen kwaad genoeg kan zeggen en die gewoonlijk gelden als het
griezeligste en afzichtelijkste, wat de natuur heeft voortgebracht.
Hoezeer men daarmede hun naaste familieleden uit den oceaan
miskent, zal blijken, als wij thans eerst eens aan de
vertegenwoordigers van die diergroep op de plaat onze aandacht
gaan wijden.
Reeds dadelijk wordt ons oog, in de fig. 7, 11 en 28, getrokken
door drie allersierlijkste wezens van prachtige kleur, welke tot die
groep der wormen behooren, welke men ringwormen noemt, daar
zij een geleed of geringd lichaam bezitten, dat hier van zijdelingsche
aanhangsels voorzien is, waarop bundels van b o r s t e l s geplaatst
zijn, waarom deze ringwormen den naam dragen van
borstelwormen. Daarvan hebben wij vroeger reeds enkele soorten
ontmoet.
De sierlijke wezens van de genoemde figuren behooren allen tot
die soorten, welke van een g r o o t a a n t a l b o r s t e l s voorzien zijn
en die tevens verblijf houden in een kokervormig omhulsel, dat zij

Full Download Writing Analytically (8th Edition) David Rosenwasser PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Download Writing Analytically (8th Edition) David Rosenwasser PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Download Writing Analytically (8th Edition) David Rosenwasser PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download test bank at ebookmeta.

Writing Analytically (8th Edition) David

For dowload this book click LINK or Button below

Download More ebooks from https://ebookmeta.com

Writing Analytically (8th Edition) David Rosenwasser

Public Policy Writing That Matters 2nd Edition David

Creative Writing Four Genres in Brief 3rd Edition David

Grammar for IELTS Writing a handbook 1st Edition David

29 Single and Nigerian INCOMPLETE First Edition

Clarity and Coherence in Academic Writing : Using

Journal 29 Revelation Interactive Book Game Dimitris

Smolder Anita Blake Vampire Hunter 29 Laurell K

Study with digital flashcards, listen to audio

Review your current course grade and compare

Get the free MindTap Mobile App and learn

Break Limitations. Create your

MINDTAP. POWERED BY YOU.

Australia ● Brazil ● Mexico ● Singapore ● United Kingdom ● United States

Manufacturing Planner: Betsy

Production Service: MPS Limited Student Edition:

Text Designer: MPS Limited Loose-leaf Edition:

Cengage is a leading provider of customized learning

Cengage products are represented in Canada by

To learn more about Cengage platforms and services,

Purchase any of our products at your local college

Printed in the United States of America

UNIT I The Analytical Frame of Mind 1

UNIT II Writing the Analytical Paper 147

UNIT III Matters of Form 265

UNIT I The Analytical Frame of Mind 1

UNIT II Writing the Analytical Paper 147

UNIT III Matters of Form 265

CHAPTER 11 299

CHAPTER 12 341

■■ Analysis rather than passive summary

■■ Analysis seeks to discover what something means. An analytical argu-

New to This Edition

How to Use This Book

■■ A concise but thorough guide to finding, evaluating, and citing

Using Unit Two: Writing the Analytical Paper

Using Unit Three: Matters of Form

About the Authors

Jared Abraham, Weatherford College

■■ Interactive activities on grammar and mechanics promote application

Writing as a Tool of Thought

2 UNIT 1 The Analytical Frame of Mind

Why Faculty Want Analysis

Analysis Is a Search for Meaning

CHAPTER 1 The Five Analytical Moves 3

Analysis Does More than Break a Subject into Its Parts

4 UNIT 1 The Analytical Frame of Mind

Distinguishing Analysis from Summary, Expressive

CHAPTER 1 The Five Analytical Moves 5

Analysis and Summary

■■ Which of the ideas in the reading are most significant? Why?

Like an analysis, an effective summary doesn’t assume that the subject

6 UNIT 1 The Analytical Frame of Mind

Analysis and Expressive Writing

Analysis and Argument

UNIT I The Analytical Frame of Mind 1

UNIT II Writing the Analytical Paper 147

UNIT III Matters of Form 265

UNIT I The Analytical Frame of Mind 1

UNIT II Writing the Analytical Paper 147

UNIT III Matters of Form 265

CHAPTER 11 299

CHAPTER 12 341