Hey, bud, your danglers are showing
Mar. 12th, 2004 02:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gwynWhen it comes to explaining usage misunderstandings, I find that punctuation is actually pretty easy. There are basic rules to follow, and once you get the hang of the rules, you know where you’re going. More complex ideas of usage, though, can trip up even the professionals. One of those things that gets missed even by fairly good people is the dangling modifier, often just called a dangler in the jargon. My boss once brought me a copy of Editorial Eye’s “Black Eye” column, where they collect egregious boo-boos, and asked me to tell her what was wrong with a sentence they’d included. I couldn’t figure it out for about a minute, until I realized it was a dangler.
A dangling modifier is a word, or a group of words, that don’t refer logically back to any other word in the sentence. You’ll see a group of words that suggest, but don’t actually name, an actor (no, not the folks who play the characters you like, but the subject in the sentence who is taking the action those words are suggesting), and so the reader mentally fills in the blanks, or tries to place order in the sentence by mentally rearranging the words -- and if they fail, they struggle with trying to identify just who or what is doing that thing in the first place. And these errors are surprisingly common even from the best writers. If they’re so common and easy to do (and hard to spot), then why are they a problem?
In English, when we read, we expect the subject of a clause to tell us who that actor is. When it doesn’t, we can get confused and frustrated; it’s especially dangerous in any kind of technical writing where instructions may provide information without really giving the reader an idea of who should be doing what. In fiction, obviously, it’s not going to result in someone blowing up their DVD recorder, but it does sometimes mean you’ll be a target for those folks who like to MST3K your unintentionally funny fic. Because often danglers have that effect: of making something funny even though it’s not meant to be, just because the modifying phrase is dangling out there without a referent.
Some examples:
Walking into the Oval Office, the staff greeted Jed and Leo.
(Why this is troublesome: it’s unclear who is walking into the office -- the staff, or Jed and Leo. Not earth-shattering, but for a careful reader, mildly annoying. In sex scenes, though, danglers like that can be rather high-larious.)
Upon seeing the exit sign, our Testarossa swerved violently to make the turn.
(There’s no clear idea who saw the sign -- the only info we have here is that the car saw the sign and swerved, which, you know, if you’re talking Knight Rider, maybe, but most likely? Silly.)
To celebrate Bilbo’s birthday, some fireworks were set off before his speech.
(This gives the illusion that the fireworks set themselves off to celebrate Bilbo’s big day. Not that, in Middle Earth, they couldn’t, but still.)
Though only a teenager, the Council expected Buffy to save the world 24x7.
(This implies that the Council is only a teenager; which, in light of Band Candy, could be kind of funny, but it’s still pretty hugely wrong, technically.)
I would say that about 90% of the danglers I fix are of the variety in the first sentence -- they start with what’s called a gerund or gerund phrase, which refers to words ending in -ing that can act as nouns. Anytime you see a sentence starting with an -ing word, or you write one, keep an eye out for dangling modifiers, because they’re so damn easy to miss. The other most common one is where you’re starting with something like “as” or a being word -- I can’t count how many times I’ve had to fix a sentence like “As a writer, the First Amendment is very important to me” or “Being late again, the play was well into the first act when I took my seat.” You want to get the subject as close up together with that modifying phrase as possible, and make sure you actually identify who’s who -- even for super simple, easy to parse sentences like those two. That way you’re more prepared for very complex sentences, and you won’t end up with comic effects you didn’t want.
We may be able to fill in the blanks (our minds are wonderful things, truly), or do a quick little double-step as we read and figure out who’s doing the talking or acting in those types of sentences, but why make your reader do the work? As a writer (or beta), you should be the one helping your reader along -- especially if you want to write some really complex or unusual things, and hope the reader puts all their effort into adoring your intricate and beautiful prose.
So how do you fix them, once you’ve spotted them? The most important thing is to rewrite your sentence -- bring that actor immediately up behind the introductory modifier, or turn the modifier into a group of words that will include the actor.
Upon entering the Hyperion hotel, I noticed a huge pentagram on the floorcaught my eye.
As I entered the Hyperion hotel, a huge pentagram on the floor caught my eye.
But don’t just try to rearrange your words, because you’ll most likely still end up with the same problem:
A huge pentagram on the floor caught my eye upon entering the hotel.
(This implies the pentagram walked into the hotel and caught the narrator’s eye. I know -- it could happen. But.)
So make sure you’re not afraid of the I in situations like this; you’ll save your audience the headache and ensure you won’t get laughed at as much. Always double check the sentence to be certain the actor is easily identifiable:
When Hutch openedOpening the window to lean out and fire the gun, the car nearly hit the retaining wall. (This way the car isn’t opening that window!)
After finishing Hogwarts, wizards find that theirwizards’ economic and social status often improves. (The wizards’ economic and social status doesn’t finish Hogwarts, the wizards do.)
Breaking up sentence structure is a good thing, and I definitely don’t want to discourage people from doing that by scaring them that danglers are a terrible thing -- they’re not a severe problem, but they’re a problem. Just be cautious, when you’re working with different sentence styles, not to separate what you’re describing from the actor.
A dangling modifier is a word, or a group of words, that don’t refer logically back to any other word in the sentence. You’ll see a group of words that suggest, but don’t actually name, an actor (no, not the folks who play the characters you like, but the subject in the sentence who is taking the action those words are suggesting), and so the reader mentally fills in the blanks, or tries to place order in the sentence by mentally rearranging the words -- and if they fail, they struggle with trying to identify just who or what is doing that thing in the first place. And these errors are surprisingly common even from the best writers. If they’re so common and easy to do (and hard to spot), then why are they a problem?
In English, when we read, we expect the subject of a clause to tell us who that actor is. When it doesn’t, we can get confused and frustrated; it’s especially dangerous in any kind of technical writing where instructions may provide information without really giving the reader an idea of who should be doing what. In fiction, obviously, it’s not going to result in someone blowing up their DVD recorder, but it does sometimes mean you’ll be a target for those folks who like to MST3K your unintentionally funny fic. Because often danglers have that effect: of making something funny even though it’s not meant to be, just because the modifying phrase is dangling out there without a referent.
Some examples:
Walking into the Oval Office, the staff greeted Jed and Leo.
(Why this is troublesome: it’s unclear who is walking into the office -- the staff, or Jed and Leo. Not earth-shattering, but for a careful reader, mildly annoying. In sex scenes, though, danglers like that can be rather high-larious.)
Upon seeing the exit sign, our Testarossa swerved violently to make the turn.
(There’s no clear idea who saw the sign -- the only info we have here is that the car saw the sign and swerved, which, you know, if you’re talking Knight Rider, maybe, but most likely? Silly.)
To celebrate Bilbo’s birthday, some fireworks were set off before his speech.
(This gives the illusion that the fireworks set themselves off to celebrate Bilbo’s big day. Not that, in Middle Earth, they couldn’t, but still.)
Though only a teenager, the Council expected Buffy to save the world 24x7.
(This implies that the Council is only a teenager; which, in light of Band Candy, could be kind of funny, but it’s still pretty hugely wrong, technically.)
I would say that about 90% of the danglers I fix are of the variety in the first sentence -- they start with what’s called a gerund or gerund phrase, which refers to words ending in -ing that can act as nouns. Anytime you see a sentence starting with an -ing word, or you write one, keep an eye out for dangling modifiers, because they’re so damn easy to miss. The other most common one is where you’re starting with something like “as” or a being word -- I can’t count how many times I’ve had to fix a sentence like “As a writer, the First Amendment is very important to me” or “Being late again, the play was well into the first act when I took my seat.” You want to get the subject as close up together with that modifying phrase as possible, and make sure you actually identify who’s who -- even for super simple, easy to parse sentences like those two. That way you’re more prepared for very complex sentences, and you won’t end up with comic effects you didn’t want.
We may be able to fill in the blanks (our minds are wonderful things, truly), or do a quick little double-step as we read and figure out who’s doing the talking or acting in those types of sentences, but why make your reader do the work? As a writer (or beta), you should be the one helping your reader along -- especially if you want to write some really complex or unusual things, and hope the reader puts all their effort into adoring your intricate and beautiful prose.
So how do you fix them, once you’ve spotted them? The most important thing is to rewrite your sentence -- bring that actor immediately up behind the introductory modifier, or turn the modifier into a group of words that will include the actor.
Upon entering the Hyperion hotel, I noticed a huge pentagram on the floor
As I entered the Hyperion hotel, a huge pentagram on the floor caught my eye.
But don’t just try to rearrange your words, because you’ll most likely still end up with the same problem:
A huge pentagram on the floor caught my eye upon entering the hotel.
(This implies the pentagram walked into the hotel and caught the narrator’s eye. I know -- it could happen. But.)
So make sure you’re not afraid of the I in situations like this; you’ll save your audience the headache and ensure you won’t get laughed at as much. Always double check the sentence to be certain the actor is easily identifiable:
When Hutch opened
After finishing Hogwarts, wizards find that their
Breaking up sentence structure is a good thing, and I definitely don’t want to discourage people from doing that by scaring them that danglers are a terrible thing -- they’re not a severe problem, but they’re a problem. Just be cautious, when you’re working with different sentence styles, not to separate what you’re describing from the actor.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-12 02:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-13 09:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-12 02:52 pm (UTC)immediately caught my eye;-)I love, love your grammar usage posts. I always learn new ways to improve my writing. Thanks again.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-13 09:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-12 03:01 pm (UTC)From a recent email to my favorite brain surgeon:
The dictation in passive voice is felt by this transcriber to be tedious (and not a little bit pedantic, in your case).
no subject
Date: 2004-03-13 09:53 am (UTC)Oh. My. God. I ::heart:: you so, so much! It's unbelievably common in tech writing, and it's almost impossible to explain to people who can barely write their own names why it's not a good, clear way to write.
I can't imagine transcribing tons of documents this way! There has to be a special place in heaven for those of us who suffer from fixing bad writing/dictation.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-12 03:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-13 09:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-12 04:23 pm (UTC)"Eliminates 99.99% of grems that cause illness in 15 seconds."
no subject
Date: 2004-03-13 09:57 am (UTC)I wonder what they do about the other germs that take 45 seconds or even minutes to cause illness. Stupid slow germs!
no subject
Date: 2004-03-12 05:32 pm (UTC)I am wondering now, whether that was never an error to me, b/c German tends to assign subject and object more clearly by declination???
I'm still embarrassed, however :-)
no subject
Date: 2004-03-13 10:00 am (UTC)At some point, maybe even next week, I might tackle the other modifier problem of misplaced modifiers, which again is a peculiary English-oriented problem. English is stupid!
no subject
Date: 2004-03-13 10:03 pm (UTC)