Tags
Bryan Garner, describers, Johnson, language, linguistics, prescribers, Steven Pinker, The Economist
When I published The Power of Six, my first collection of short stories, a reviewer said that the book had grammatical errors, albeit small ones. This shocked me, as the book had been professionally edited and proof-read. So, I reached out and asked her for an example. “You start a sentence with a gerund,” she said. “So?” I asked. “So, that’s wrong.”
I was baffled by this. Surely, that’s a matter of style, right?
This seemingly innocent question actually led me into a minefield. As The Economist points out, for half a century, language experts have fallen into two camps. Most lexicographers and academic linguists stand on one side, and traditionalist writers and editors on the other. The question that defines the to camps is deceivingly simple: should language experts describe the state of the language accurately? (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, in 1961, shocked the world by including common but disparaged “ain’t” and “irregardless”.) Or should they prescribe how the language should be used (“Irregardless ain’t a word”)? Over the decades, the two sides have traded insults: prescribers are authoritarians in denial about the real world. Describers are permissivists with no standards.
Both camps were ill-served by their respective standard-bearers. Many clueless prescribers really did push dud rules: the ban on split infinitives, the ban on ending sentences with prepositions, the notion that “since” cannot mean “because” and so many more. These were passed down from teachers to students over generations. When academic linguists began systematically investigating English by looking at texts and listening to speakers, they found that many such “rules” were anything but, and some began taunting the rule-promoters. They also sought to defend non-standard dialects, where for example double negatives (“I ain’t got no”) are ordinary, not ignorant.
Reaching a Common Ground
In the pushback against a history of prejudices, prescription represented authority and tradition, and description represented democracy and progress. But sensible writers on both sides have come to agree, however tacitly, that there is a variety, called standard English, with rules that can be found by looking at large volumes of the stuff. Two authors epitomize this new, balanced approach. Steven Pinker is a describer, a linguist and cognitive scientist. But in 2014 he published “The Sense of Style”, a guide to good writing that ended with a section of prescriptions: do this, not that. They were grounded in description, not dogma—but prescriptions they were nonetheless.
Now come two new books by Bryan Garner, a proud prescriptivist who reaches the same point from the opposite direction. Mr Garner has called himself a “descriptive prescriber”, and this is clearer than ever before in the fourth edition of his masterly usage dictionary, “Garner’s Modern English Usage”, and a new book, “The Chicago Guide to Grammar, Usage, and Punctuation”. These new books rely not on mere clippings, but on big data: millions of books scanned by Google. This lets Mr Garner compare “he pleaded guilty” with the upstart “he pled guilty” (“pled” is gaining ground, but “pleaded” is still three times as common in books). On this basis, Mr Garner prescribes: stick with “pleaded”. But he allowed Google’s data to change his mind, too: “run the gantlet”, however traditional, has long been outnumbered by examples of “run the gauntlet”, so he has accepted the newer usage.
A sensible consensus emerges on most usages. On some issues, reasonable people can disagree: The Economist’s own Johnson is one of those who will reserve “He literally exploded laughing” to refer to a bloody scene requiring a mop, even though he knows many great writers have used “literally” figuratively. And on a more personal level, I still start sentences with gerunds.
Ernesto San Giacomo said:
Hi Nick!
It is literally difficult to walk the fine line between the rule-mongers and the free-spirits. I’ll keep trying and you should too.
Yes, I’ll continue to start sentences with gerunds as well. Starting with a gerund is a great technique when a writer wants to avoid “echoing headwords.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nicholas C. Rossis said:
Thank you! My feelings exactly 🙂
LikeLike
gibsonauthor said:
Reblogged this on s a gibson.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don Massenzio said:
Reblogged this on Don Massenzio's Blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
vanderso said:
Reblogged this on Just Can't Help Writing and commented:
Reading this, I couldn’t help giving a mental high-five. Starting sentences with gerunds (and various other odd bits of language) is absolutely okay! I would caution that starting sentences with -ing forms of verbs can all too easily lead to “dangling modifiers,” for example, “Reading this, it was a really good discussion of an issue we all face.” If you’re not sure why that sentence DOES contain a sentence-structure error, look up “dangling modifiers.” Returning, however, to the question of prescriptive versus descriptive language mavens, I ask only that the parts of sentences hook up logically so that I can tell what modifies what and who’s doing what.
I have a feeling this is sliding into a rant. Check my series on “How Much Grammar Do You Need” for my largely descriptivist views.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thomas Weaver said:
The “rule” against beginning a sentence with a gerund only came about because lazy teachers/writing “gurus” found it easier to lay down the law than to explain why not every -ing word is a gerund and why SOME sentences beginning with -ing words don’t work. (“That’s a dangling modifier, NOT a gerund,” said the grumpy, grouchy old man. “Don’t wave around jargon if you don’t know what it means.”)
As for prescriptive versus descriptive, I can only say that absolutes — in any subject — are usually wrong. I don’t believe in “do what3vr u want cos grammer dont matter lol” in writing, because without common standards, we can’t communicate, but neither do I believe in “There is only one acceptable way to write, and anyone who ends a sentence with a preposition is an ignoramus deserving of eternal scorn and derision.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas C. Rossis said:
A balanced view, then, much like my own 🙂
LikeLike
Micki Peluso said:
Reblogged this on mallie1025 and commented:
Great article on proper word usage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Micki Peluso said:
I agree with Ernesto. Editing out 100 words for my grandson’s college essay was done by removing all his excessive ‘I’s’ with gerunds. I ‘actually’ and ‘absolutely’ refuse to give up adverbs but I have cut back a little. I write by ear much of the time and it if sounds right I go with it. Am I always right? No, but neither is any of the so-called experts trying to reduce out beautiful, expressive language to ‘See Dick run.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas C. Rossis said:
Lol – well put 😀
LikeLike
kimwrtr said:
Reblogged this on Kim's Author Support Blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Palessa said:
OHH, I had a reader review my book saying I needes an editor because I had used “bitterer” instead of “more bitter.” The funny thing is that I had researched that usage before i wrote it because “more bitter” sounded too much like “more better.” I found a couple of sites, one was by a linguist, that supported the superlative -est ending and by extension the -er ending as well, even though it wasn’t often used.
Honestly, English is ever changing and I kind of chuckle at people who are so hung up on not/using gerunds to start a sentence or prepositions to end a sentence because their objectives are more for ego than giving the story a chance. It’s a battle where those who “win” are losers by default. I just let them be.
LikeLike
Nicholas C. Rossis said:
Ha ha – typical! Thank you for sharing that 🙂
I was checking my spam comments, and for some bizarre reason your comment had ended up there, unbeknownst to me. I apologize for my apparent lack of response, and thank you so much for your comments and support 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Palessa said:
Oh not a problem. 😁
LikeLike