...And it was a preview of one possible future - a glimpse of our children's fate if the climate keeps changing faster than our efforts to address it. Submerged countries. Abandoned cities. Fields that no longer grow. Political disruptions that trigger new conflict, and even more floods of desperate people seking the sanctuary of nations not their own.
This was a passage from a speech given by Barack Obama. I want to describe the form of the bolded sentences and their rhetorical functions. Are they called short, truncated, or telegraphic sentences?
I have found descriptions such as:
1) Short sentences - just short ("I like reading");
2) Truncated sentences - missing something ("I like reading more than Ann [does]");
3) Telegraphic sentences - less than 5 words and missing articles, words like do, have etc., without needless qualification ("Leave on doorstep").
Another possibility is that they are fragments. But I suppose, fragments are something negative, grammatically incorrect. Are they not?
Short, truncated, and telegraphic sentences are so composed to serve a purpose, but fragments are composed only by people who do not know grammar well enough. Is that right? I'm looking for answers about rhetorical function, not whether they are grammatical or not.
As I found (http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/fragments.htm), fragments can be sentences with no subject-verb relationship. I understand that my sentences are grammatically incorrect, but that is for the purpose of rhetoric. If I analyze the rhetoric, can I analyze fragments? Or are the sentences, for example, truncated as well (feature I can analyze)?