The noted linguist Steven Pinker in his new book The Sense of Style is quoted on the internet as objecting to those grammatical purists who insist on correcting dangling modifiers, as when a sentence opens with a verb phrase that has no modifier: "Driving down the road, the cat escaped." Who is driving? The cat?
He asks, where did that rule prohibiting such modifiers come from, and what is its basis?
Although I don't think of myself as a purist or a stickler for "rules," I am the co-author of a textbook of grammar, The Practical Handbook for Writers (7th ed.), which advises writers to avoid the practice of having modifiers "dangle." Of course, in spoken English, or in writing that is meant to sound colloquial, the convention (or "rule") can easily be overlooked.
Pinker says that fine stylists "use dangling modifiers all the time." In Britain, perhaps many do, but not in American usage. If they are fiction writers, or journalists trying to capture someone's speech, perhaps they can get by with a dangler; but in this country, a good editor of any respectable journal or book publisher should suggest that the following danglers be re-worded:
To become a nurse, at least four years of study work are required. (To become a nurse, you need/one needs to study at least four years.) Why put the main clause in the passive voice, which prompts the dangling modifier?
Turning the corner, a beautiful view awaited me (Pinker's example) which should be: "As I turned the corner/Turning the corner, I saw/encountered a beautiful view." Or, if he wants to use the passive voice, "As I turned the corner, a beautiful view awaited me." Someone has to do the turning!
Or, to edit the cat example above: "While we were driving down the road, the cat escaped."
Pinker wonders why anyone would make such a change, asserting that "there is no rule prohibiting a dangling modifier." There is, I respectfully suggest, a logical reason--something better than an artificial rule--since the "driving" or other verbal has to modify a human subject who is doing the driving or turning or whatever. The issue is one of logic, the basis of the American convention. The Brits don't seem to worry about this problem.
It's true that there are several old-fashioned "rules" inherited from Latin practice in the 19th century that no longer apply in written English, such as "never end a sentence with a preposition" or "never split an infinitive." Prinker has every right to question such usage in the 21st century.
But I hope editors and writers do not apply Pinker's rejection of the dangling "rule" to everything they write. I would re-word any dangling modifier to make it less jarring, more logical and therefore more grammatical in anything I write for publication--unless I wanted to sound casual or colloquial. But then, I am a hopelessly American purist.
Showing posts with label grammar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label grammar. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Who(m) do you trust?
To keep my mind off last night's sprightly debate, and the coming election, I am focusing on grammar today. Or rather usage.
"Whom is not a real word," a 4-year-old told her mother when she had used "whom" correctly in a sentence. Kids are sharp; they know that language has to sound idiomatic. (This comes from a piece in The Economist.)
Years ago, when Johnny Carson was getting started on TV, he hosted a show called, "Who Do You Trust?" There was a mild uproar in the media, with grammarians complaining shrilly that who should be whom (the direct object of the verb), as most of us over 35 were taught. Just recently, when VP Joe Biden asked, in his debate with Mr. Ryan, "Who do you trust?" nobody, as far as I know, paid any attention to the normal/informal usage.
WHOM has mostly disappeared, except in formal usage. Most users of English, says Geoffrey Pullum, using Normal English, steer clear of WHOM. Kids are rarely exposed to Formal English (found in books and highbrow journals) and so have never heard the word. "Whom did you invite?" sounds stuffy; so today WHO is a standard way to start certain sentences, as in "Who are you talking about?" (or to introduce a relative clause: "Marge is the neighbor who rings my doorbell each afternoon").
The former example involving WHO is an interesting example of language change, of the way usage alters grammar. It takes place slowly.
We live in a culture that prizes spontaneity and ordinary, everyday talk, over the polished and old-fashioned. Who can blame them? The problem is that, when people write, they carry over the highly informal style of speech they are accustomed to into their academic work, making it sound awkward, immature, or trivial. "History is not much of a turn on," one of my students wrote.
Many would say that the use of WHOM over WHO makes people uneasy, and so they avoid the standard form. Some misuse it when striking a formal prose, as in "He's the candidate WHOM I hope will win the election." Here the "I hope" does not make WHOM an object; the clause (modifying "candidate") is "who will win the election." The "I hope" is merely inserted, an interpolation.
WHOM will probably remain with us in print, not in speech, where it has been slowly dying. No great loss. More problematic, as in the above election example, is the over-correctness of some people, leading them to make the non-standard grammatical choice.
A friend often says, "Mom gave Judy and I a Caribbean cruise," when he means "me" (the indirect object of gave: she gave to Judy and me). Even worse are the college students who develop the habit, uncorrected at home or school, of saying (and even writing), "Me and Judy are going on a cruise."
First, as I tell them, be polite and put yourself second; then think about the subject of the sentence: I, not Me is used in the subject spot: It's "Judy and I."
Why, as Henry Higgins famously asked, don't the English learn to speak? Why are we so careless about our valuable inheritance, the rich English language? If we are to communicate effectively, we must listen carefully to the way words are used both in educated speech and in writing.
Tomorrow I am giving a talk, "Fractured English," on the many ways people can stumble in our complex language: the results are often unintentionally humorous, even hilarious.
"Whom is not a real word," a 4-year-old told her mother when she had used "whom" correctly in a sentence. Kids are sharp; they know that language has to sound idiomatic. (This comes from a piece in The Economist.)
Years ago, when Johnny Carson was getting started on TV, he hosted a show called, "Who Do You Trust?" There was a mild uproar in the media, with grammarians complaining shrilly that who should be whom (the direct object of the verb), as most of us over 35 were taught. Just recently, when VP Joe Biden asked, in his debate with Mr. Ryan, "Who do you trust?" nobody, as far as I know, paid any attention to the normal/informal usage.
WHOM has mostly disappeared, except in formal usage. Most users of English, says Geoffrey Pullum, using Normal English, steer clear of WHOM. Kids are rarely exposed to Formal English (found in books and highbrow journals) and so have never heard the word. "Whom did you invite?" sounds stuffy; so today WHO is a standard way to start certain sentences, as in "Who are you talking about?" (or to introduce a relative clause: "Marge is the neighbor who rings my doorbell each afternoon").
The former example involving WHO is an interesting example of language change, of the way usage alters grammar. It takes place slowly.
We live in a culture that prizes spontaneity and ordinary, everyday talk, over the polished and old-fashioned. Who can blame them? The problem is that, when people write, they carry over the highly informal style of speech they are accustomed to into their academic work, making it sound awkward, immature, or trivial. "History is not much of a turn on," one of my students wrote.
Many would say that the use of WHOM over WHO makes people uneasy, and so they avoid the standard form. Some misuse it when striking a formal prose, as in "He's the candidate WHOM I hope will win the election." Here the "I hope" does not make WHOM an object; the clause (modifying "candidate") is "who will win the election." The "I hope" is merely inserted, an interpolation.
WHOM will probably remain with us in print, not in speech, where it has been slowly dying. No great loss. More problematic, as in the above election example, is the over-correctness of some people, leading them to make the non-standard grammatical choice.
A friend often says, "Mom gave Judy and I a Caribbean cruise," when he means "me" (the indirect object of gave: she gave to Judy and me). Even worse are the college students who develop the habit, uncorrected at home or school, of saying (and even writing), "Me and Judy are going on a cruise."
First, as I tell them, be polite and put yourself second; then think about the subject of the sentence: I, not Me is used in the subject spot: It's "Judy and I."
Why, as Henry Higgins famously asked, don't the English learn to speak? Why are we so careless about our valuable inheritance, the rich English language? If we are to communicate effectively, we must listen carefully to the way words are used both in educated speech and in writing.
Tomorrow I am giving a talk, "Fractured English," on the many ways people can stumble in our complex language: the results are often unintentionally humorous, even hilarious.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Grammar,Etc.
Greetings!
Although I have been writing and teaching writing for years, this is my initial foray into blogging. My aim is to help other writers either by sharing ideas that have inspired me or by offering advice on writing.
But you don't have to be a writer to read this new blog--you might just be on a spiritual journey similar to mine.
I have two immediate goals, two immediate projects to share. They seem totally unrelated, but of course they are connected. I will save the second one, the spiritual one, for a separate post.
The first is to announce an exciting new venture--a free online writers' guide. At a time when college textbooks have gotten way too pricey, I have found an outfit that makes quality books available free of charge.
My recently published textbook for writers, GRAMMAR,ETC.: THE HANDBOOK FOR WRITERS, which I have written with Donald Pharr, is now availabale as a free download. This book is the 6th edition of a textbook last published by McGraw-Hill in 1997 and now made available by Freeload Press. So if you want to download this book and have it as a handy reference to punctuation, usage, grammar, and style, read on.
Before doing so, you should know that, although this book is written with college students in mind, anyone who writes can benefit from it, and anyone can download it. The informaton is confidential, and the process takes 6-8 minutes. Here's how:
1. Go to freeloadpress.com
2. Go to Booklist
3. Select GRAMMAR, ETC. by Schiffhorst and Pharr
4. Register (as student or instructor). If you are neither of these, when asked to select the state where you attend school, scroll down to bottom of list of states and select OTHER; this will lead you to life-long learner and other non-student options.
5. Download (it comes in groups of chapters since the book is lengthy).
I would like to hear from anyone who has done this. Tell me not only if the process was OK for you but if you found the downloaded book helpful. You can also purchase a printed copy of the book from Freeload Press for $14.95. There is no advertising in the print version, as is there online: now you see how such a book can be marketed gratis.
If you're struggling with writer's block, maybe I can help. If you have questions about usage or style, send them on to me at schiffhorst@yahoo.com.
My students either call me Dr. S or Dr. J (for Jerry) since my last name is unusual.
Cheers!
Gerald Schiffhorst
Although I have been writing and teaching writing for years, this is my initial foray into blogging. My aim is to help other writers either by sharing ideas that have inspired me or by offering advice on writing.
But you don't have to be a writer to read this new blog--you might just be on a spiritual journey similar to mine.
I have two immediate goals, two immediate projects to share. They seem totally unrelated, but of course they are connected. I will save the second one, the spiritual one, for a separate post.
The first is to announce an exciting new venture--a free online writers' guide. At a time when college textbooks have gotten way too pricey, I have found an outfit that makes quality books available free of charge.
My recently published textbook for writers, GRAMMAR,ETC.: THE HANDBOOK FOR WRITERS, which I have written with Donald Pharr, is now availabale as a free download. This book is the 6th edition of a textbook last published by McGraw-Hill in 1997 and now made available by Freeload Press. So if you want to download this book and have it as a handy reference to punctuation, usage, grammar, and style, read on.
Before doing so, you should know that, although this book is written with college students in mind, anyone who writes can benefit from it, and anyone can download it. The informaton is confidential, and the process takes 6-8 minutes. Here's how:
1. Go to freeloadpress.com
2. Go to Booklist
3. Select GRAMMAR, ETC. by Schiffhorst and Pharr
4. Register (as student or instructor). If you are neither of these, when asked to select the state where you attend school, scroll down to bottom of list of states and select OTHER; this will lead you to life-long learner and other non-student options.
5. Download (it comes in groups of chapters since the book is lengthy).
I would like to hear from anyone who has done this. Tell me not only if the process was OK for you but if you found the downloaded book helpful. You can also purchase a printed copy of the book from Freeload Press for $14.95. There is no advertising in the print version, as is there online: now you see how such a book can be marketed gratis.
If you're struggling with writer's block, maybe I can help. If you have questions about usage or style, send them on to me at schiffhorst@yahoo.com.
My students either call me Dr. S or Dr. J (for Jerry) since my last name is unusual.
Cheers!
Gerald Schiffhorst
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)