Sentence fragments are here. There. And everywhere.

Priene said:

I suspect you're correct, though it always reminds me. Of James. T. Kirk. On a. Mission. To an exotic. But curiously familiar. Planet full. Of lustrous. Women.

Click to expand...

Proof. This forum. Is in great need. Of a. Like button.

interesting question

I tend to use too many fragments, and yes, it annoys some people. I also agree that your example is somewhat strange in a non-fiction article. However, in fiction the example has a beat, is perfectly clear, and parses quickly and smoothly.

I think I use fragments because I'm an engineer and a computer programmer. In some programming languages, once you've told the computer a basic instruction, you can add details without repeating the high level instruction over and over. Repetition is bad, and tends to bore programmers and readers.

Converting the reference example into full sentences could be awkward. Either some mix of colons, semi-colons, and hypens, or a lot of added words. Again, for a factual article this is exactly what should be done, but for fast paced fiction, maybe not.

I would be interested in seeing how the example sentence could be rewritten into complete sentences without increasing the length significantly (which is something I'm very bad at.) Sure, you can throw in a bunch of commas, but now you have this long ugly run on list, which in my opinion is harder to parse quickly.

Soon, experts predict, drones will be used to transport air cargo. Assist with search-and-rescue. Perform police surveillance. Inspect oil pipelines and sprawling vineyards.

I use them (sparingly) in my own fiction writing. I believe that they can help define a character's voice, or make emphasis as needed. However, I don't believe they have any business being in a news article.

Sentence fragments are fine if used for effect, but if overused, they lose their punch.

There's a bit difference between writing a fragment like this:

He was angry. Really, really angry.

And one like this:

The dog ran up and down the fence. Its barking annoyingly loud.

I heard an article on npr the other day that a lot of news articles, especially on the web, are written by programs these days. Maybe someone forgot to program comma rules into the program that wrote that article.

Roxxsmom said:

Sentence fragments are fine if used for effect, but if overused, they lose their punch.

There's a bit difference between writing a fragment like this:

He was angry. Really, really angry.

And one like this:

The dog ran up and down the fence. Its barking annoyingly loud.

I heard an article on npr the other day that a lot of news articles, especially on the web, are written by programs these days. Maybe someone forgot to program comma rules into the program that wrote that article.

Click to expand...

Yeahp. In fiction, sentence fragments can be hard cool if it fits the style of the piece. And not overused. Or, informal writing. Such as what we're doing here.

They have no place in news narratives, anywhere.

Wow, Roxx. News stories now are being written by programs? Insanity. We are dissipating the soul of humanity in our mad dash to "let the machines do everything for us so we can sit back and enjoy life, brah!" Enjoy what about life? Eating bacon-flecked tater chips whilst scratching our bellies on a broken down couch? Hey wait, that sounds good...

In most writing, fragments are like comma splices and run-ons. Lots of them brand the writer as less than competent with sentence structure.

As others have said, in creative writing, short fragments can be effective when not overdone. However, long fragments exampled by this one being completely ineffective as can be.

I think it adds a certain effect. I also overuse them, and so I prune them a lot on revision.

Their popularity in news stories might be down to general guidance to journalists to use short sentences where possible. Some people don't know the difference between a short sentence and a fragment, or where either should be used.

One J-School teacher of mine told a story about an editor at the local city paper who would welcome interns and new hires into the newsroom by printing an 8.5x11" piece of paper filled with nothing but periods and saying, "Here, take as many as you want and there's loads more where they came from."

benbradley said:

The pattern is to have one or more sentence fragments following a complete sentence where they would be grammatically correct as a single sentence. Like this. And like in the title.

Does this annoy anyone else as much as it does me?

I've seen these in news stories, but I just came across this quite egregious example:

Soon, experts predict, drones will be used to transport air cargo. Assist with search-and-rescue. Perform police surveillance. Inspect oil pipelines and sprawling vineyards. Follow and photograph tabloid targets such as Lindsay Lohan.

Click to expand...

There it is, FOUR sentence fragments as "follow-ons" to an actual sentence.

Is there some strange, sudden change in modern English that makes this acceptable?

I wasn't sure where to post this. It might fit in Grammar and Syntax, but it might also fit in Politics and Current Events, as it does seem to be a "current event."

Click to expand...

Your first post here is from 3 years ago and we're still talking about this.

Your initial example doesn't bother me. Much. To me, those follow-ons are taking loose advantage of the "implied subject" rule usually used with imperative sentences. Ok, quite loose advantage. They're more like bullet points on a PowerPoint slide.

But I understood the sentence perfectly, which is more than can be said for some article writing. And I prefer the way it was written to having it be one long sentence separated by commas.

Sentence fragments are not the work of the Devil . They can be quite effective, and not only in fiction.

I wouldn't recommend the use of sentence fragments in scholarly writing, but I find them acceptable in journalistic writing and other kinds of nonfiction, as long as they are used intelligently.

And sparingly.

Now that I think about it, I bet the preponderance of fragments is a side-effect of the American tradition of prizing brevity and shorter sentences in literature. The goal is, of course, to pack more meaning into fewer words.

However, I bet a lot of people missed that memo and heard only "Short sentence good. Long sentence bad." In that case, the easiest way to shorten a sentence is to write a long sentence, chop it up into pieces, and slap a period after each chunk. It's like slicing up a worm to get a bunch of shorter worms (and, just like with the worm, unwittingly killing the sentence in the process).

*That's not to say there aren't times when a fragment is the best option, particularly when writing dialogue. I'm looking more at the example in the OP where it would make far more sense to use commas and write a complete sentence.

Roxxsmom said:

Sentence fragments are fine if used for effect, but if overused, they lose their punch.

There's a bit difference between writing a fragment like this:

He was angry. Really, really angry.

And one like this:

The dog ran up and down the fence. Its barking annoyingly loud.

I heard an article on npr the other day that a lot of news articles, especially on the web, are written by programs these days. Maybe someone forgot to program comma rules into the program that wrote that article.

Click to expand...

This.

This is also my problem with starting sentences with conjunctions. Used sparingly and with purpose, it can be effective. However, people don't do that; they just lazily start a good chunk of their sentences with 'and,' or 'but,' because they talk or think like that, or think they do, and proclaim that there's no 'rule,' to have one is pedantic, so it's fine. It's not fine; it's lazy, repetitive and numbing, but people don't grasp that, on the whole (not people here, I mean in a general world sense).

Tazlima said:

Now that I think about it, I bet the preponderance of fragments is a side-effect of the American tradition of prizing brevity and shorter sentences in literature. The goal is, of course, to pack more meaning into fewer words.

However, I bet a lot of people missed that memo and heard only "Short sentence good. Long sentence bad." In that case, the easiest way to shorten a sentence is to write a long sentence, chop it up into pieces, and slap a period after each chunk. It's like slicing up a worm to get a bunch of shorter worms (and, just like with the worm, unwittingly killing the sentence in the process).

*That's not to say there aren't times when a fragment is the best option, particularly when writing dialogue. I'm looking more at the example in the OP where it would make far more sense to use commas and write a complete sentence.

Click to expand...

I think you're giving people way too much credit. In my general experience, people don't even recognize fragments as such.

cornflake said:

I think you're giving people way too much credit. In my general experience, people don't even recognize fragments as such.

Click to expand...

You're right about that. Unfortunately.

Voice is objective. You know? Anyone could talk. About anything they want. And it would sound realistic because it happens in real life. As far as outside of dialogue...narrators' style? Once again the author can talk however he wants. Or she wants. Sentence fragments break the monotony of grammatically and otherwise perfectly lined up words. Mmm sentence fragments. Gotta love 'em.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

Well, I just finished a novel by a well-known writer and she totally abused fragments. Way too much. Distracting. Irritating. Cacophony from my inner reading voice.

This has become a kind of trademark with her. Her writing started out smoother, I think - this novel is the 10th in a series. Her style has evolved/devolved to this.

And it bugged me quite a bit. Several of them on every page. Often in groups of three or more. She writes with omniscient narrator, and it's the narrative that has the fragments, not dialogue. It's now a rat-a-tat gunfire style, even in quiet scenes.

That's what bugs me the most - fragments should be used as part of the rhythm, at certain points of excitement or horror or sorrow. Not just as general narrative.