Grammar that makes you cringe

[Cudzoziemiec]

It's one of those things which is wrong when you think about it, but is understood automatically. I've never heard of Shameless or Chloë Sevigny, but it's obvious that the sentence refers to a new film or TV series in which she stars. The question is whether your readers will care about the grammar.

[citoyen]

Perhaps oddly, I don't find myself concerned by that at all.

I suspect most readers wouldn't be bothered by it, but it makes me cringe, hence posting about it here.

It's one of those things which is wrong when you think about it, but is understood automatically ... it's obvious that the sentence refers to a new film or TV series in which she stars.

Which is it - a film or a TV series? What's it called? The key information is missing. It's shoddy journalism.

FML. Misplace an apostrophe and you'll get an army of boring pedants on your back who think that because they've read Lynne Truss, they're grammar experts. Write some nonsense that doesn't actually mean anything in English and most people won't even notice.

d.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I assumed the title of the film or whatever would be in the previous sentence, or in a big headline splashed across the top of the page. In other words, that the context was already set. If there is no context, then sure, it might as well be written in Albanian.

What does FML stand for?

[citoyen]

That's the problem - you can only understand the sentence if you make an assumption about the missing subject. Good writing never leaves the reader having to guess like that. Writers who can't manage complex sentence structure shouldn't attempt "style", they should just keep it simple.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fml

Sorry, I'm in a bit of a grumpy mood because many things are being sent to try me today.

d.

[Andrew]

Write some nonsense that doesn't actually mean anything in English and most people won't even notice.

Is it nonsense though? The reference might be unresolved and whilst I appreciate that it may be poor journalism, I don't consider it unintelligible. A reference is inferred. For my part (and perhaps like Cudzoziemiec), that reference could have been explicitly resolved and I'd still be non the wiser! So, for me at least, "the brains behind Shameless" is sufficient.

That said, I can understand it might be annoying for an editor etc. 

[citoyen]

Is it nonsense though?

Grammatically, yes.

I don't consider it unintelligible.

That's because you've made an assumption about what the writer means. Which is fine. But it shouldn't be your job as a reader to have to make such an assumption.

d.

[Ian H]

That's because you've made an assumption about what the writer means. Which is fine. But it shouldn't be your job as a reader to have to make such an assumption.

d.

Unless you're reading poetry.

[Gareth Rees]

This error is known as a dangling modifier. There's a phrase which looks as if it is supposed to modify the subject of the sentence, but actually modifies some other noun, which may not even appear in the sentence. It's almost always possible to work out what was intended from the context, so it's easy for writers (or good readers) to fail to spot that there's a problem.

Here's an example from the Economist (spotted and discussed by Geoff Pullum):

After being held for three weeks, it turned out that the American extradition request was based on a fraudster who had stolen Mr Bond's identity.

Who or what was "held for three weeks"? (It was Mr Bond, not the extradition request.)

[citoyen]

Unless you're reading poetry.

I'm not rising to your bait. 

d.

[Ian H]

Damn!

[citoyen]

All I'll say is that when it comes to poetry, I generally don't bother guessing what the writer means. My brain is far too prosaic.

d.

[Ian H]

All I'll say is that when it comes to poetry, I generally don't bother guessing what the writer means. My brain is far too prosaic.

d.

The bait's been nibbled...

[Andrew]

Here's an example from the Economist (spotted and discussed by Geoff Pullum):

After being held for three weeks, it turned out that the American extradition request was based on a fraudster who had stolen Mr Bond's identity.

Now that, imho, is poor writing!

I suspect that, as a rule, you look for the closest noun phrase to resolve the reference (at least subconsciously) so this would lead you to incorrectly believe that it was the extradition request that was delayed.

In fact, am I right in thinking that the reference is not resolved (grammatically) at all?  That is, none of the explicit options are Mr Bond himself. The possibilities are (in order); the request, a fraudster (a weak possibility), and Mr Bond's identity.

[Gareth Rees]

In fact, am I right in thinking that the reference is not resolved (grammatically) at all?  That is, none of the explicit options are Mr Bond himself. The possibilities are (in order); the request, a fraudster (a weak possibility), and Mr Bond's identity.

Yes, that's right: the reference is not resolved by any of the noun phrases in the sentence. See the "Language Log" blog for a detailed analysis by Geoff Pullum.

[Andrew]

See the "Language Log" blog for a detailed analysis by Geoff Pullum.

Thanks, I liked that. A non-pedant appraisal.

The more you exercise your common sense rather than your syntactic sense when figuring out what a subjectless non-finite clause adjunct must mean, the less you will notice them

The thing that, for me, makes the sentence under discussion poor is not the use of the 'dangler' per se but that you are led to the wrong conclusion.

Btw, I missed "it" as a possibility but I'll cut myself some slack there and say I did the natural thing and processed it out of the list of possibles - despite it being the closest!

Btw2, I'm still looking for 'the teaser' 

[citoyen]

The thing that, for me, makes the sentence under discussion poor is not the use of the 'dangler' per se but that you are led to the wrong conclusion.

But this is precisely the reason dangling modifiers are best avoided - it's not just a case of pedantically following the rules for the rules' sake, it's about preventing such misunderstandings.

I like Geoffrey Pullum and I always enjoy reading his stuff on language log, but I disagree with that dangling modifiers are common in "otherwise excellent" writing and I'm not at all convinced that their ubiquity means they aren't grammatical errors. They usually occur when careless or overambitious writers try to vary their sentence structure to make their writing more interesting. KISS.

Maybe it's just a curse of my job that I'm trained to notice them. I spotted the teaser instantly (it's in the paragraph that begins "You can get there").

d.

[citoyen]

My favorite dangler, from among an anonymous peer reviewer's comments on a manuscript: "Although generally very clear and well written, the first sentence of the introduction is grandiose and out of place."

 

[Andrew]

Sorry, me again! 

This, from the comments...

John was shot five times during a fight. After nearly bleeding to death on the street, the suspect was charged with first-degree assault.

...made me smile.

Despite the very strong 'garden path', I can't help but be alive to the possibility of the misinterpretation. Though obviously it is exactly that ambiguity that amuses me!

Though, in all seriousness, I do wonder exactly what it is that tempts me to see the possible misinterpretation. I feel it's more than a sentence boundary.

[Andrew]

The thing that, for me, makes the sentence under discussion poor is not the use of the 'dangler' per se but that you are led to the wrong conclusion.

But this is precisely the reason dangling modifiers are best avoided - it's not just a case of pedantically following the rules for the rules' sake, it's about preventing such misunderstandings.

I agree with you.

If you are confused because I seem to be contradicting myself, I would say that the example you gave doesn't lead the reader into misinterpretation. Your example is merely unresolved. To my reading at any rate.

Edit: Ah, sorry, I think I see what you mean now; avoid danglers completely and so avoid the risk of misinterpretation. You have a point. By my own admission, one can't know exactly how any individual reader will process the sentence. I might naturally and happily leave the subject unresolved, that doesn't mean everyone else will and they might come up with an incorrect resolution.

[mattc]

From the brains behind Shameless, say hello to Mia (Chloë Sevigny) a contract killer who’s already weird life is about to get a whole lot weirder.

My first thought was that Mia is from the brains behind Shameless. (She is the first noun that we get to, and it's a factually feasible interpretation).

If I'd read it in context I might have guessed it was a TV series or a film, or whatever, which in hindsight is much more likely; but I agree it's NOT what is implied by the text.

[citoyen]

Here's another one - under the heading "Team Of The Year":

"As La Liga and Champions League winners, I have to go for Pep Guardiola's men."

The subject/object confusion leaps out at me but it doesn't offend me nearly as much as yesterday's example. In fact, I'm going to let it go. Even though I will probably wake up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night worrying about it.

d.

[mattc]

In fact, I'm going to let it go.

That's the spirit!

You can sleep soundly, knowing exactly who is the better man.

[rower40]

Sir, Sir, Please sir!!....

Many years ago, when learning to drive, my father was "instructing" me while we made our way to Cornwall down a deserted A30 at 3 am. He was fast asleep.

Dangling clause alert.  All it needed was to replace "when learning to drive" with "when I was learning to drive". We all knew what it meant, but to the pedant reader, the father is both learning, instructing and sleeping.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are aware how toxic the issue of providing funds to help the eurozone is when Britain is not a member of the euro could be.

Makes me shudder rather than cringe.

[Ian H]

Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are aware how toxic the issue of providing funds to help the eurozone is when Britain is not a member of the euro could be.

Makes me shudder rather than cringe.

It's rather like that game where you randomly re-order the words in a sentence and see if anyone can still make sense of it.