Grammar for Real People, Part 4-1: Clarity Rule 1: Modifier Confusion · 8:24pm Mar 3rd, 2016
Part 1: Magic and Science
Part 2: Sentences, Phrases, and Clauses
Part 3: Phrase Functions and Parse
Part 4-1: You Are Here!
Part 4-2: Specifier Logic
Part 4-3: Heavy Complements
Part 4-4: Positive/Negative Unity (The Truth Behind “Double-Negatives")
Part 4-5: Scripts and Sleepy Phrases (The Truth Behind “Passive Voice”)
Part 4-6: Script Details (Coming Soon)
TL;DR at the bottom, as always.
Okay! Now we finally have enough foundation to talk about something useful! Let's take a look at all the ways your text can be unclear.
I don't know why linguists love this sort of thing so much, but there are seven of these, too, one for each phrase function. Some of the matches between phrase function and clarity rule are kind of a stretch, but I guess the parallelism was too important to pass up for a silly thing like not actually being parallel.
Rule 1: Modifier Confusion
The actual name of this rule is the "Modifier Direction Principle," but that's completely unhelpful. So I'll be giving them more fitting names that actually tell you something about them.
This one is kind of hard to make examples for. Another thing about modifiers that I haven't really talked about is that they're all directed at the head of the phrase they're in. So a sentence modifier modifies the sentence head, but a modifier inside a complement only modifies the complement head.
What this rule is about is when a modifier is placed so that it's not clear what it's attached to.
"The computers purchased recently crashed."
"We painted those walls with cracks."
"After cooking the food sat out too long."
See the problems? Something about these sentences is really confusing, and that thing is the modifier.
When a sentence has this problem, sometimes it takes you a while to figure out just what it's trying to say, and sometimes it's impossible because it could mean multiple different things.
I'll use a simple detail parse to show you exactly what's going on here.
<The computers {purchased recently} > DID (crash).
<The computers {purchased} > DID ( {recently} crash).
For this example, the attachment of the modifier(s) is unclear because of its placement around the invisible head. That means you don't know if "recently" is supposed to apply to "purchased" or "crashed," and that's a major problem.
Anyone can tell from the sentence that it's not quite right, but it takes being able to parse it like this to see why. Again, you don't have to actually parse it (because that takes practice and more instruction to do right), but knowing how parsing works and knowing how to identify different parts of a sentence will help you spot problems like this.
And once you've found the problem, you'll know how to fix it. In this case, the modifier was placed awkwardly between two possible heads, so let's move it, since that's a thing modifiers can do.
"The recently-purchased computers crashed."
<The ( {recently-purchased} computers) > DID (crash).
"The purchased computers crashed recently."
<The ( {purchased} computers) > DID (crash {recently} ).
Of course, there are other ways a sentence like this could be fixed. I just picked these ones. Notice that the meaning changes subtly depending on the word order. If you don't like how fixing a problem changes your sentence's meaning, try starting over with a completely different phrasing, maybe change what is said in each sentence in the passage. Different combinations of ideas and connections between ideas are often better than others that accomplish the same thing.
On to example number two.
<We> DID (paint (those (walls {with cracks} ) ) ).
<We> DID (paint those walls) {with cracks}.
Here, again, we're not sure what the modifier "with cracks" is attached to, but this time it's a question of how deep the recursion goes. Is it attached to "walls," or "paint?" If you're the writer, you should know! If not, ask them, because they should know. Then it's one of three two easy fixes:
"We painted those cracked walls."
<We> DID (paint (those ( {cracked} walls) ).
Option one: move the modifier, just like last time. This only works cleanly for this intended meaning, because otherwise we either have to split up the sentence head and complement (NO!), or we end up with this (option three):
"With cracks, we painted those walls."
And that's just awkward all around. (Actually, the reason this one is bad (Yoda-speak is usually bad) is that this "modifier" is just as justifiable as a second complement to "paint," according to the double-complement thing I mentioned last blog. We painted those walls, and we painted with cracks. Two complements pushed into one. And again, we wouldn't want to let any complement be separated from its head.)
"We painted those walls, with cracks."
<We> DID (paint those walls) ,{with cracks}.
The other option is to separate the modifier with a comma to let us know it's not in the same phrase as "walls." Commas can fix most modifier problems (though not the previous one about crashing computers; give it a try), and we'll talk much more about them in the next blog.
Example three:
{After cooking} <the food> DID (sit out too long).
{After cooking the food} <I/HE/YOU/.etc> DID (sit out too long).
(One of these readings is much more likely than the other, especially in written text. But both are still possible, and we would be better off making it more clear which one was meant, instead of relying completely on surrounding context to do it for us.)
Here, we're not entirely sure where the modifier ends and the specifier begins. This can happen for the compliment as well, or even another modifier. In this case, the only good fix (aside from total rewriting) is a simple comma to mark the boundary.
"After cooking, the food sat out too long."
"After cooking the food, sat out too long."
(The parses here are exactly the same, just with the comma included.)
Like I said, commas fix most modifier problems. But it's up to you to decide when they do, and if a comma isn't needed, it really shouldn't be included.
TL;DR
Sentences can be confusing if a modifier is placed confusingly so you can't tell what head it's supposed to attach to, in which case it needs to be moved.
Our breathingheavilycontributed to the problem.
Our heavy breathing contributed to the problem.
OR
Our breathing contributed heavily to the problem.
Sometimes a modifier needs to be marked with a comma to be clearly separated from another function.
As he said for charity.
VS.
As he said, for charity.
From my experience writing and editing other people's stuff, comma usage is just about the hardest thing to do right consistently, especially when it comes to dealing with comma splices and run-ons. I can definitely agree with minimizing comma use where it isn't necessarily necessary.
3791116 Once these clarity rules are done, the next thing I'll cover is punctuation, starting with commas.
3791236
