Steven Pinker: These Are the Grammar Rules You Don't Need to Follow

William Haskins · Oct 8, 2014

an interesting interview with cognitive scientist steven pinker on his book, the sense of style: the thinking person's guide to writing in the 21st century and writing styles in general.

a couple of excerpts:

JS: How much of that tendency comes from postmodern and poststructuralist fields where academics have very different ideas of what knowledge is and what can be proven? Do you think that some of those fields have done damage to academic writing?

SP: Oh absolutely, yeah. Unquestionably. Because by far the worst writing in academia comes from postmodernist scholars, notoriously so. When Denis Dutton ran his bad academic writing contest in the late 1990s, it was postmodernists and other similar literary scholars who won the award year after year.

Postmodernism is an extreme exaggeration of a stance which all academics have to some extent: we don’t open our eyes and just see the world as it is. We understand the world through our theories and constructs. We are constantly in danger of being misled by our own unconscious biases and assumptions. Gaining knowledge about the world is extremely difficult, so all of those qualifications are certainly true, and even scientists who believe in an objective reality acknowledge the fragility and difficulty of obtaining knowledge.

But postmodernism takes that to the lunatic extreme of denying that there is such a thing as objective, as the real world or objective reality or truth or knowledge at all. The problem is that one can be fully aware of all these epistemological issues, how hard it is to gain knowledge, but not let it cloud up one’s writing. That is, in writing one can for the purpose of exposition adopt a fiction that there is an objective world that you can know just by looking at it even if one is not committed to that as as an actual statement. So it is an indispensable fiction even if it is a fiction.

JS: You’re not a fan of the “Gotcha gang,” as you call them—folks who take a narrow view of usage that often relies on questionable rules. You write, “In their zeal to purify usage and safeguard the language, they have made it difficult to think clearly about felicity and expression and have muddied the task of explaining the art of writing.” Can you expand on that a little?

SP: Absolutely. Many purists have remarkably little curiosity about the history of the language or the scholarly tradition of examining issues and usage. So a stickler insists that we never let a participle dangle, that you can’t say, “Turning the corner, a beautiful view awaited me,” for example. They never stopped to ask, “Where did that rule come from and what is its basis?” It was simply taught to them and so they reiterate it.

But if you look either at the history of great writing and language as it’s been used by its exemplary stylists, you find that they use dangling modifiers all the time. And if you look at the grammar of English you find that there is no rule that prohibits a dangling modifier. If you look at the history of scholars who have examined the dangling modifier rule, you find that it was pretty much pulled out of thin air by one usage guide a century ago and copied into every one since, And you also find that lots of sentences read much better if you leave the modifier dangling.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119687/steven-pinker-language-interview-jesse-singal

ironmikezero · Oct 8, 2014

It's not as much fun to break the laws/rules of grammar if one does not know them.

Kylabelle · Oct 8, 2014

Oh good, we get to argue about dangling modifiers.

I'd love some examples of dangling modifiers that improve the sentence. Because maybe he's right. There are plenty of rules I enjoy breaking, but that one has always seemed pretty sturdy and useful to me. But I'd love to add to my collection.

Liosse de Velishaf · Oct 8, 2014

I don't find that dangling modifier example to be very good English. I'm generally opposed to dangling modifiers.

There are tons of other prescriptivist rules I despise, though, such as the insistence that we can't split infinitives or end sentences with a preposition, both of which are borrowed over from Latin and have no real foundation in English.

I also think it's amusing that he argues for the "ugliness" of words. Like, it's a word, isn't it? Stop being such a fatuous ass just because you don't like z followed by a syllabic n. It reminds me of how Tolkien disliked the word "sky". To me, that's a beautiful word. It's ironic to me that Pinker tries to impose some aesthetic value on a word that has no basis in grammar or linguistic theory after accusing other people of the same prescriptivism.

Xelebes · Oct 8, 2014

I thought science, in the broader sense that includes philosophy, the socials and such, require specificity just as much as your hard physics books and thus require the qualifiers. Maybe there is a better way to structure the qualifiers such that they do not throw sentences and paragraphs apart, but the qualifiers need to be there in some shape or form.

Kylabelle · Oct 8, 2014

At least he more or less called himself on it early on (referring to his imputing intrinsic value to his esthetic opinion-- I cross-posted with Xelebes) when he pointed out that academics see the world through the lenses of their own precious ideas and theories, and worse, can't drop it to have a simple conversation.

I still hope to see examples -- maybe only one would satisfy me -- of a sentence that is improved by its dangler. He does claim they are numerous.

Kylabelle · Oct 8, 2014

Xelebes said:
I thought science, in the broader sense that includes philosophy, the socials and such, require specificity just as much as your hard physics books and thus require the qualifiers. Maybe there is a better way to structure the qualifiers such that they do not throw sentences and paragraphs apart, but the qualifiers need to be there in some shape or form.

He is saying qualifiers are thrown in like confetti, though, and not for any specific purpose except academic CYA. I thought he clearly distinguised between that habit and the purposeful use of qualifiers and hedges.

Jamesaritchie · Oct 8, 2014

I have trouble understanding many of his sentences without reading them twice. This is not a good sign.

Kylabelle · Oct 8, 2014

I skim over those.

Xelebes · Oct 8, 2014

Kylabelle said:
He is saying qualifiers are thrown in like confetti, though, and not for any specific purpose except academic CYA. I thought he clearly distinguised between that habit and the purposeful use of qualifiers and hedges.

He can assert what he wants, but I think the whole point of the behaviour he decries is to make sure that they are specific. Being conservative is not awful, although it makes something more difficult to read.

Liosse de Velishaf · Oct 8, 2014

Debates on AW often devolve into linguistic nitpicking, so--especially for scientific and academic papers--I think there's some reason to be careful to include the proper qualifiers.

Just from the language used in the interview, I think he's playing to the lay audience a bit in coming down so hard on academics. It's true that many academics are terrible writers, but in my experience it was rarely because of the things he complains about.

Wilde_at_heart · Oct 9, 2014

My brain went on the fritz at the sight of postmodern and poststructuralist - memories of Cultural Studies classes back in the day.

I'll have to read again once I have more than half an ounce of coffee in my system.

Jamesaritchie · Oct 9, 2014

Kylabelle said:
I skim over those.

And skimming, too, is a sign the writer isn't doing it right. I have trouble taking advice from a writer I have to read twice, or a writer I have to skim.

Jamesaritchie · Oct 9, 2014

Liosse de Velishaf said:
Debates on AW often devolve into linguistic nitpicking, so--especially for scientific and academic papers--I think there's some reason to be careful to include the proper qualifiers.

Just from the language used in the interview, I think he's playing to the lay audience a bit in coming down so hard on academics. It's true that many academics are terrible writers, but in my experience it was rarely because of the things he complains about.

It's been my experience that many academics are excellent writers, but that the demands of how papers are presented, and the format required, do often make it difficult to write well.

AVS · Oct 9, 2014

Jamesaritchie said:
It's been my experience that many academics are excellent writers, but that the demands of how papers are presented, and the format required, do often make it difficult to write well.

Agreed, they often have to negotiate a terrible maze of qualifications and acknowledgments to say anything.

Liosse de Velishaf · Oct 9, 2014

Jamesaritchie said:
It's been my experience that many academics are excellent writers, but that the demands of how papers are presented, and the format required, do often make it difficult to write well.

That probably does have some effect. Perhaps I should have said that academic papers, articles, and often books are horribly written, rather than that academics are horribly writers.

RightHoJeeves · Oct 9, 2014

Jamesaritchie said:
It's been my experience that many academics are excellent writers, but that the demands of how papers are presented, and the format required, do often make it difficult to write well.

I hate academic writing, but only because my bachelor degree was in science. In science you're supposed to use the passive voice, as it is more objective. You don't want to have a report saying "I added the potassium to the sulphur", you want it saying "the potassium was added to the sulphur". After a while the passive voice just snowballs and its such a pain to read.

In post grad though I studied communications, and those guys could write very well, as you'd hope.

Layla Nahar · Oct 9, 2014

I started reading his book - the one about language & all that. I stopped before I finished the first chapter. Maybe what he has to say is interesting - no - wait - it is interesting - deep structures & all that. I just think he could have said it with way way way less words.

mayqueen · Oct 9, 2014

I really disagree with his framing of postmodernism/poststructuralism (and generalized blaming it for bad academic writing). I am a poststructuralist academic by training and practice.

Liosse de Velishaf said:
Just from the language used in the interview, I think he's playing to the lay audience a bit in coming down so hard on academics. It's true that many academics are terrible writers, but in my experience it was rarely because of the things he complains about.

Exactly.

Tirjasdyn · Oct 9, 2014

I actually kind of love this.

Dave Williams · Oct 10, 2014

When I was a kid we moved from state to state following my Dad's job. Each school system had its own line of textbooks, usually the same publisher through K-12.

This caused me some problems, at least with the English books... because those immutable laws of the English language were sometimes different depending on what textbook we were using. Later, I discovered various style guides sometimes disagreed.

When I was in the fifth grade in Florida in the late 1960s, our spelling books listed "potato" and "potatoe", and the teacher spent a couple of minutes talking about alternate spellings. (and "tomatoe" too!) Also things like different plurals, ie "fish" and "fishes."

I particularly remembered those because I'd not encountered them before, and they looked odd and archaic. So it was rather interesting to see the media piling on Dan Quayle about "potatoe"...

I've had some editors do some really strange things to some magazine articles I've sold them. I guess they had been taught some other version of the One True English. I got paid, so no worries...

Wilde_at_heart · Oct 10, 2014

mayqueen said:
I really disagree with his framing of postmodernism/poststructuralism (and generalized blaming it for bad academic writing). I am a poststructuralist academic by training and practice.

Exactly.

I admit I'm not, but with a Communications degree, I did have plenty of exposure to that sort of discourse.

And when academics are writing about issues like colonialism, power relations, neo-Marxism, etc. with a mind to possibly creating a more egalitarian society, I've long noted the irony that there is almost nothing more elitist than using terms and language that is virtually impenetrable to the general yet still reasonably-educated and intelligent reader.

I once had a room-mate who dropped out of first year undergrad International Relations at U of Toronto because he got frustrated by the reading material. When one printoff of something met with a far wall I took a look at it, and it was replete with the obfuscatory verbiage that academics are often slammed for. I'm with Orwell - if there's a simpler way to say it, then do. And in my own experience, I saw a fair amount of pseudo-intellectualism that was light on actual ideas, while the wording was denser than collapsed stars.

blacbird · Oct 11, 2014

Liosse de Velishaf said:
I don't find that dangling modifier example to be very good English. I'm generally opposed to dangling modifiers.

Yes!!!!!!! His example is just awful. And with danglers, there are far worse ones, too. Danglers nearly always violate the principle of clarity, which I gather is the major emphasis of his interview. So he just cut one of the knees out of it.

Liosse de Velishaf said:
There are tons of other prescriptivist rules I despise, though, such as the insistence that we can't split infinitives or end sentences with a preposition, both of which are borrowed over from Latin and have no real foundation in English.

Yes, again!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm pretty informal about teaching informal writing, and the two examples you give are brilliant examples of pure crap in current teaching of grammar "rules".

Liosse de Velishaf said:
It reminds me of how Tolkien disliked the word "sky". To me, that's a beautiful word. It's ironic to me that Pinker tries to impose some aesthetic value on a word that has no basis in grammar or linguistic theory after accusing other people of the same prescriptivism.

Yup. His responses in that interview are replete with hypocrisy and personal prejudices that have little basis in the reality of effective English language communication.

And Tolkien hated the word "sky"? Really? Did he ever express why? I hate the word "rejection", but at least I have plenty of reason for that.

caw

Siri Kirpal · Oct 11, 2014

Sat Nam! (Literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

"When dangling, don't use modifiers." by Safire (I think) One of my favorite how-to-do-it-wrong quotes.

On the other hand, starting with a conjunction, splitting an infinitive, ending with a preposition, using sentence fragments, using the word "ain't" are all fine by me.

I wonder where we got the idea that "It was I" is better English than "It was me." Anyone know?

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

blacbird · Oct 11, 2014

Siri Kirpal said:
I wonder where we got the idea that "It was I" is better English than "It was me." Anyone know?

It ain't.

caw

Steven Pinker: These Are the Grammar Rules You Don't Need to Follow

poet

practical experience, FTW

unaccounted for

Delerium ex Ennui

unaccounted for

unaccounted for

unaccounted for

Delerium ex Ennui

&#965;&#960;&#949;&#943;&#954;&#969;phobe

Seashell Seller

practical experience, FTW

Outline Maven

Zappa isn't frank!

&#965;&#960;&#949;&#943;&#954;&#969;phobe

Swan in Process

υπείκωphobe

υπείκωphobe