Although, by night, I may pose as a mild-mannered blogger and amateur scriptwriter, by day I work as copywriter and online editor for Netregistry. Therefore, I was a little surprised to receive the following comment on a recent promotional piece I wrote to launch the new web copy service.
May I respectfully suggest you sack your copywriters, or whomever drafted the page advertising the service. It contains dozens of basic grammatical errors.
After I got over the inevitable sense of hurt pride, I reread the 'offending' page and satisfied myself that the grammar is entirely respectable within the context of web marketing copy. There were a couple of phrases I would enjoy redrafting for stylistic reasons, forcing me to remember the crunch day of deadlines, but nothing that I would change grammatically. Copywriting is often about letting go of a piece once the deadline arrives. Any professional writer would always prefer to give their work one last polish and rewrite before handing it over. Sadly, the pressures of daily copywriting mean articles are lucky if they receive more than a single reread and edit before publishing. Yet, stylistic quibbles aside, and there were some that did make me cringe, the grammar was not an issue for me.
A quick MS Word check unleashed absolutely no green squiggles. Don't worry. I'm the first to caution people against relying on MS Word to inform their grammatical decisions, but it can still be a quick tool to identify obvious errors. A more detailed check only alerted me to a comma that was probably better swapped for a dash, to appropriately bookend a parenthetical phrase. This was a grammatical decision, but certainly not a binding rule worthy of a request for my sacking.
Could the objection have been prompted by my construction of the penultimate paragraph? "Each additional 100 words per page is charged at $50". Yes, the use of 'is' instead of 'are' may cause some people to feel a basic grammatical law has been stomped on from a great height. But look closer. As the sentence begins with 'each', it is established that we are talking about singular items. The phrase 'additional 100 words' may seem plural, but is singular in the same way as 'group of people' is singular. As the sentence is applying the verb 'charged' to a singular group of words, and not to a number of single words, 'are' would be incorrect.
I'm the first to admit that it is not the prettiest of sentences, and should probably have been recast to avoid the issue altogether, but it is not grammatically incorrect.
Grammarians and Writers - Two Separate Breeds
This comment set me thinking about the debates that still rage about grammar. Some grammarians, my commenter most likely included, believe in a rigid adherence to grammatical rules. Other writers understand grammar's place in the scheme of producing readable prose.
I have a number of reference books on my desk that are regularly consulted when writing to inform my grammatical and stylistic decisions. Not all of them agree on many contentious issues of grammar, highlighting how the topic is not always a defined and clear-cut art. Strunk & White's "The Elements of Style" is still the most popular handbook for students and writers alike, but even this paragon of grammatical usage is often questioned by modern analysts of the language.
There will always be certain rules of grammar that should never be broken and are never contested. For example, most punctuation conventions are essential to provide the necessary road map to the reader. Nothing annoys me more than a missing full stop or misplaced apostrophe.
Yet there are many grammatical conventions that are more a question of style than an unbreakable rule. For example; although sentence fragments are considered grammatical no-nos, they serve a real purpose in creating emphasis and rhythm when used sparingly.
One possible objection a strict grammarian may have with my writing is the stylistic tendency to open sentences with a conjunction; 'yet', 'because', 'and' or 'but', for example. Starting a sentence with a conjunction - something I have already done a number of times in this post - can set some grammarians' teeth on edge. Nevertheless, there is no real basis for this belief beyond the archaic tenets spouted by some teachers.
Bill Bryson had this to say when discussing the other common conjunction - 'and'.
The belief that and should not be used to begin a sentence is without foundation. And that's all there is to it."
Bill Bryson - 'Troublesome Words'
Why should I take my cue from Bryson? As one of the foremost writers on English usage, as well as on the origins and evolution of the language, he would know. Having developed a deep fondness for words and grammar in his time as a journalist for The Times and The Independent, he is a distinct authority on modern usage with a clear understanding of how these sometimes arbitrary rules formed.
So how fanatical should modern writers be when it comes to grammar? Should we ignore those green, squiggly lines in MS Word? Should we obsess over semi-colons and predicated verbs?
To a certain extent, grammar is worth fighting for. I can't describe the creeping horror I experience every time I see a misplaced apostrophe or a misused word. But grammar has to serve the writing.
Good writing is about clarity. Therefore, there are certain grammatical rules that you break at your peril. Moving an apostrophe just one letter to the right can dramatically change the meaning of a sentence. Forgetting to place a comma, where one is required, can cause the reader to confuse two related ideas. Mistakes in grammar can seriously impact your ability to concisely and effectively get your message across. If a person has to read a sentence twice, or concentrate on deciphering the structure to glean meaning, the writer has failed. The foundations of good writing should be invisible to the reader. If a reader begins pondering your choice of words rather than the words themselves, your message is diluted. Hence my belief I should have recast the sentence I used as an example.
Sometimes grammar can get in the way of this goal of clear writing. Some archaic and arbitrary grammatical beliefs serve to merely complicate a sentence or confuse the writer. The belief that a writer cannot start a sentence with a conjunction is one such rule.
The written word is often enshrined in a higher level of formality than speech, which goes some way to explaining this phenomenon. Yet it is the spoken word that informs the way we process language. If it is common for people to start sentences with a conjunction in conversation, why do some frown upon it on paper?
This is why there is often no consensus on certain grammatical conventions. With the clarity of the message no more obvious one way or the other, it becomes a debate about style and tone. A leaflet aimed at teenagers and a detailed legal contract will take different decisions on these stylistic conventions. Neither can be said to encapsulate better grammar.
Grammar for Every Occasion
The application of grammar also differs from genre to genre. In writing a novel, a writer may choose to adhere to different grammatical conventions than when producing copy for a one page advertisement. In copywriting, a few extra characters in a sentence can be enough to sink a project, so grammar often takes a back-seat to brevity. Every piece of ink has to fight for space on the page. If the only justification for inclusion is a dusty text book from the '60s, it is best left out.
Web copywriting has also developed its own grammar. Some of the rules adhered to offline are avoided on the web, as people read online content very differently.
Online content has to allow for the quick scan. Eye studies have shown that over 80% of online readers merely scan online copy, placing particularly unique demands on the writer. Certain grammatical constructions - although theoretically correct - can actually interfere with the reading process, jolting the reader out of their flow. Web copy thrives on shorter, punchier sentences and paragraphs. Sentence fragments are legion, one word paragraphs the norm.
In producing copy for business websites, I have become acutely aware of how the internet is influencing the evolution of the language. As internet continues to spiral upwards as a primary source of information and communication, the written word will adapt and change to this new environment. Unlike the influence of the mobile phone - which bred a new form of abbreviation and abhorrent slang to condense ideas into fewer characters - the internet promises to shift writers towards clear, unambiguous and brief prose.
In his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language, George Orwell outlined six rules for clear writing.
- (i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
- (ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
- (iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
- (iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
- (v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
- (vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
I cannot, hand on heart, claim I am always innocent of these crimes, but then neither can any professional writer. The key is in the aspiration to improve and to continually learn.
So, should I be concerned about the original comment that sparked this rant on grammar? I have only one thing to say:
It would be more correct to say - "whoever drafted the page" rather than "whomever". When deciding on whether it is right to use 'who' or 'whom', it is useful to recast the sentence in a 'he/him' format. Just as it would be incorrect to say "him drafted the page", "whom" is equally inappropriate. Just so you know.
UPDATE: The sequels are here!
Grammar Wars II: The Editor Strikes Back
Grammar Wars III: Return of Newspeak.
Further reading and listening | |
Eats, Shoots and Leaves | Lynne Truss |
| The King's English | Kingsley Amis |
| Bryson's Dictionary for Writers and Editors | Bill Bryson |
| Troublesome Words | Bill Bryson |
| The Elements of Style | Strunk & White |
| Grammar Girl podcast | Mignon Fogarty |
