{"id":32,"date":"2016-09-21T13:39:22","date_gmt":"2016-09-21T13:39:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/writingincollege\/?post_type=chapter&p=32"},"modified":"2016-09-21T15:39:25","modified_gmt":"2016-09-21T15:39:25","slug":"getting-the-mechanics-right","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-fmcc-writing-in-college\/chapter\/getting-the-mechanics-right\/","title":{"raw":"Getting the Mechanics Right","rendered":"Getting the Mechanics Right"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

\u201cCorrectness\u201d in writing<\/h1>\r\nMany students assume\u2014or fear\u2014that college writing is judged primarily on its grammatical correctness. Ideas, evidence, and arguments matter more than the mechanics of grammar and punctuation; however, many of the rules of formal writing exist to promote clarity and precision which writers much achieve in order to effectively convey ideas, evidence, and arguments. In addition, texts that observe the rules of formal written English tend to be more persuasive by making the author appear well informed and careful. Writing replete with errors does not make a great impression<\/a>, and most educators want to help students present themselves well. Correctness, then, isn\u2019t the<\/em> most important thing, but it does matter.\r\n\r\nAnother common assumption among students is that one is either good at grammar or not good at grammar, and that such is one\u2019s immutable fate. Not true. Once you master a particular rule or practice, it becomes second nature, and then you can focus your attention on mastering another. I finally nailed down commas and semicolons in college and some finer points of grammar in graduate school. I do a lot of formal writing in the course of my career, and I still look things up in a writing handbook<\/a> from time to time. You can master the practices of formal written English, and college is a great time to use the feedback from your professors to identify your common errors and learn to correct them.\r\n\r\nIn thinking about correctness, it\u2019s important to recognize that some rules are more important than others. Joseph Williams helpfully distinguishes three kinds of rules.1<\/a><\/sup> First, there are rules that are basic to English, such as \u201cthe car\u201d not \u201ccar the.\u201d For example,\r\n
\r\n
INCORRECT: I thought whether true claims not.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: I hadn\u2019t thought about whether the claims were true.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nIf you\u2019ve gotten most of your formal education in English, you probably observe these rules routinely. If your writing has mismatches of number (singular\/plural) or tense, it might be due to haste or carelessness rather than unawareness. Similarly, capitalizing the first word of a sentence and ending with appropriate punctuation are basic rules that most people comply with automatically when writing for a professor or in other formal situations.\r\n\r\nWilliams\u2019 second category is comprised of rules that distinguish standard written English from the informal variants that people use in their day-to-day lives. Most students with middle-class and non-immigrant backgrounds use informal vernaculars that closely parallel standard written English. Students with working-class or more modest backgrounds or who are members of transnational and multi-lingual communities may use informal variants of English in their everyday lives that are quite different from standard written English. It\u2019s an unfortunate reality of social inequality that such students have to expend more effort than their middle-class English-speaking counterparts to master the standard conventions. It\u2019s not really fair, but at least the mechanics and rules of formal writing are documented and unambiguous. Learning to communicate effectively in different social contexts is part of becoming an educated person.\r\n\r\nSome examples:\r\n
\r\n
INFORMAL:We ain\u2019t got no more of them cookies.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
FORMAL: We don\u2019t have any more of those cookies.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
INFORMAL: My coat, my phone, and my keys was all lock in the car.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
FORMAL: My coat, my phone, and my keys were all locked in the car.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
INFORMAL: u shd go 2 caf\u00e9 b4 wrk bc coffee<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
FORMAL: You should go the caf\u00e9 before work to get some coffee.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nThe informal versions are clearly English, and they\u2019re widely understandable to others. The first and second examples contain choices of tense, number, and punctuation that are inappropriate in standard written English even though they don\u2019t actually impede communication<\/a>. Most students already understand that these first two categories of rules (rules fundamental to English and the rules of standard written English) are obligatory for formal writing.\r\n\r\nThere is a third category of rules that Williams notes and enthusiastically criticizes; he calls them \u201cinvented rules\u201d because they usually arise from busybody grammarians rather than enduring patterns of customary language use. Some invented rules Williams calls \u201coptions\u201d: those that your reader will notice when you observe<\/em> them and not care if you don\u2019t. Here\u2019s an example of the fabled don\u2019t-end-a-sentence-with-a-preposition rule<\/a>:\r\n
\r\n
OBSERVING THE RULE: With which concept can we analyze this problem?<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
IGNORING THE RULE: Which concept can we analyze this problem with?<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nSome grammarians would claim that only the first version is correct. However, you probably have the (accurate) impression that professional writers are much more likely to choose the second version. This rule does not reflect real-life customary practice, even in standard written English. That\u2019s why Williams calls it an \u201cinvented rule.\u201d Most of your professors are fine with the second version above, the one that ends a sentence with a preposition.\r\n\r\nSimilarly, there\u2019s this murky idea out there that one should not split infinitives<\/a>; that is, one should not have any words between \u201cto\u201d and the verb that follows. Here\u2019s an example:\r\n
\r\n
OBSERVED: to go boldly where no one has gone before<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
IGNORED: to boldly go where no one has gone before<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nAgain, while some grammarians have argued that conscientious writers should avoid splitting infinitives, most professional writers have ignored that claim. The second version, which puts the adverb (\u201cboldly\u201d) within the infinitive (that is, between \u201cto\u201d and \u201cgo\u201d) makes for a perfectly clear and pleasing phrase. The invented rule about splitting infinitives is an attempt to solve a problem that doesn\u2019t exist. If you want to give your writing more of a scholarly air, you could observe some or all of these optional rules. But, unless your professor has a particular penchant for one of these invented rules, you can safely ignore them.\r\n\r\nWilliams calls the second sub-category of invented rules \u201cfolklore.\u201d They\u2019re invented rules (like \u201coptions\u201d) in that grammarians think writers should observe them, but, in reality, no one does. Williams gleefully lists instances in which the very grammarians who propose these rules go on to unselfconsciously violate them.2<\/a><\/sup> You may have heard of these rules, but they\u2019re widely considered absurd.\r\n\r\nFor example, some grammarians are dismayed that people use \u201cthat\u201d and \u201cwhich\u201d interchangeably, and they argue that writers should use \u201cthat\u201d to indicate restrictive elements and \u201cwhich\u201d to indicate non-restrictive elements. A restrictive element is one that makes a necessary specification about something; a non-restrictive element is one that simple adds extra information. Consider these two examples:\r\n

Version 1:<\/h4>\r\n
\r\n
The party that Alex went to was shut down by the police.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n

Version 2:<\/h4>\r\n
\r\n
The party which Alex went to was shut down by the police.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nFor almost all readers, versions 1 and 2 are saying the exact same thing. For the persnickety grammarian, version 1 is specifying the party that Alex<\/em> went to, and not the party that, say, Jordan went to, while version 2 is simply inserting extra information about Alex\u2019s attendance at the party. According to these grammarians, \u201cthat Alex went to\u201d adds critically needed information (restrictive) while \u201cwhich Alex went to\u201d adds bonus information (non-restrictive).\r\n\r\nAs Williams and some others explain: it\u2019s bullshit<\/a>. Professional writers use commas and carefully chosen words to do the job of distinguishing restrictive and non-restrictive elements, and they choose whichever relative pronoun (\u201cthat\u201d or \u201cwhich\u201d) sounds better in context. You could observe the distinction between that and which if you like, but no one would notice. More importantly, observing this invented rule wouldn\u2019t necessarily make your writing any clearer, more concise, or more graceful.\r\n\r\nThere is one rule that Williams calls \u201cfolklore\u201d that you probably have to observe in college papers nonetheless: that is, the rule that you can\u2019t start sentences with But, And, So, For, or Yet (or other coordinating conjunctions)<\/a>. I\u2019m sure you could browse through assigned readings and articles published in major newspapers and magazines that violate this so-called rule. Here are two examples that took me about 10 minutes to find:\r\n
\r\n
From the front page of the New York Times<\/span> January 7, 2014<\/a>:3<\/a><\/sup> \u201cBut since the financial crisis, JPMorgan has become so large and profitable that it has been able to weather the government\u2019s legal blitz, which has touched many parts of the bank\u2019s sprawling operations.\u201d And a little further down we see, \u201cYet JPMorgan\u2019s shares are up 28 percent over the last 12 months.\u201d<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
From a news article in Science<\/span>, December 21, 2007<\/a>:4<\/a><\/sup> \u201cAltered winds blew in more warm air from the subtropics only in models in which mid-latitude oceans warmed as observed; apparently, the warmer oceans altered the circulation. And that ocean warming is widely viewed as being driven by the strengthening greenhouse.\u201d<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nIf you\u2019re writing a paper for my class, feel free to begin sentences with conjunctions. As the above examples show, it\u2019s a concise way to support clarity and effective flow. However, I suspect most instructors still hold to the old rule. Thus, you shouldn\u2019t start sentences with \u201cAnd,\u201d \u201cBut\u201d or other coordinating conjunctions unless you\u2019ve been specifically invited to.\r\n\r\nThere are countless other rules that I don\u2019t discuss here. The point of these examples is to show that you don\u2019t have to observe every little rule you\u2019ve ever heard of. There are some elements of mechanics that you have to master; I summarize some common ones below. These practices will gradually become second nature. It\u2019s sometimes hard to know at the outset which rules are standard, which are options, and which are folklore. With the help of a good handbook and your instructors, you\u2019ll learn them over time. The larger point I want to make here is that that observing rules isn\u2019t about traversing a minefield of potential errors; it\u2019s just about learning and adopting the practices appropriate to your audience, which is one of the first rules of writing well.\r\n

Elements of punctuation and language you must master<\/h1>\r\nIf you\u2019ve gotten most or all of your formal education in English, you\u2019ve mastered the vast majority of the real rules of grammar. Most of the students I work with just have to nail down a few additional practices to produce appropriate academic writing. There isn\u2019t any great secret to learning them; they\u2019re learned through repeated practice and feedback.\r\n

1. Comma usage<\/h2>\r\nI didn\u2019t really master correct comma usage until my college years. There was a year or so in which I constantly checked my work against a style guide, but since then I haven\u2019t often had to think about commas. Here\u2019s a brief run-down of the rules of comma usage that I see many students violating. For a more complete explanation, and an invaluable set of online exercises, see the website of handbook author Diana Hacker<\/a>.\r\n

A. Use a comma to join two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction:<\/h4>\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: Her misdeed was significant, but the punishment was excessive.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
ALSO CORRECT: Her misdeed was significant but justified by the circumstances.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nIn the first example, the comma is telling the reader that one clause (her misdeed was significant) is ending and another (the punishment was excessive) beginning. The second example does not use a comma, because the words that follow \u201cbut\u201d (justified by the circumstances) do not add up to an independent clause; they make a dependent clause that could not stand alone as a sentence.\r\n\r\nNote: \u201cBecause\u201d is NOT a coordinating conjunction. It\u2019s a subordinating conjunction. Therefore, it does not use a comma:\r\n
\r\n
INCORRECT: Conspiracy theories can be compelling, because many people distrust the government.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: Conspiracy theories can be compelling because many people distrust the government.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n\u201cBecause,\u201d like other subordinating conjunctions (such as \u201calthough,\u201d \u201cunless,\u201d or \u201cuntil\u201d), is meant to knit together one indivisible thought; hence, no comma. Including a comma weakens the connection in the mind of your reader.\r\n

B. Use a comma to mark the end of an introductory element<\/h4>\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: While we were eating, the baby crawled out of the room.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: Alongside the road, we found the perpetrator\u2019s gun.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: Because many distrust the government, conspiracy theories can be compelling.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nThe first example would be comically confusing without the comma. The second example shows how the comma helps your reader separate the introductory element from the part that followed. The third example might be confusing. The sentence from part A, above, beginning with \u201cConspiracy theories\u201d does not use a comma, but in this example, a dependent clause is serving as as an introductory element.\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n

Learn these rules, and if you hate them, learn to love them. In college, writing stops being about \u201chow well did you understand fill-in-the-blank\u201d and becomes \u201chow professionally and strongly do you argue your point.\u201d Professionalism, I have found, is the key to the real world, and college is, in part, preparing you for it. If you do not learn how to write in a way that projects professionalism (i.e. these rules), then expect to get, at best, Cs on your papers.<\/p>\r\n

Kaethe Leonard<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

C. Use a comma to set off non-essential information (so-called non-restrictive elements)<\/h4>\r\nBoth of these sentences are correct, but they convey different ideas:\r\n
\r\n
EXAMPLE 1: Gathering places vital to their communities are worth the investment.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
EXAMPLE 2: Gathering places, vital to their communities, are worth the investment.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nThe first says that only<\/em> those gathering places that are vital to their communities are worth the investment (implying that some are not vital and therefore not worth investing in). In that first example, \u201cvital to their communities\u201d is a restrictive element. In the second example \u201cvital to their communities\u201d is extra information. The sentence implies that gathering places in general<\/em> are worth the investment (ostensibly because they\u2019re vital to their communities). The commas mark the phrase as non-essential information, which is a non-restrictive element. In writing the second sentence, you might enclose the non-essential information in parentheses instead.\r\n

2. Use punctuation and coordinating conjunctions to avoid sentence fragments<\/h2>\r\nAt some point, you were probably instructed that all sentences must have a subject (which includes a noun) and a predicate (which includes a verb) and that they must be written to stand alone. Consider this example of a sentence fragment<\/a>:\r\n
\r\n
INCORRECT: When you go to the supermarket. You don\u2019t often think about the work behind the scenes.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nIt has a subject (you) and predicate (go to the supermarket), but the \u201cwhen\u201d indicates that the sentence is incomplete. When people write sentence fragments, they usually have the missing elements in the preceding or following sentences, so it\u2019s really a punctuation error.\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: When you go to the supermarket, you don\u2019t often think about the work behind the scenes.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
ALSO CORRECT: You don\u2019t often think about the work behind the scenes when you go to the supermarket.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nIn the first version the dependent clause (the part that couldn\u2019t stand alone) comes first, necessitating a comma. In the second, the main clause (the part that could stand alone) comes first, so no comma is used.\r\n

3. Use punctuation and coordinating conjunctions to avoid run-on sentences and comma splices<\/a><\/h2>\r\nA run-on sentence (one that smooshes two sentences together) may be incorrectly connected with a comma, which is then called a comma splice. This error is easily corrected with punctuation and some coordinating words.\r\n
\r\n
INCORRECT (run-on): The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest literary works it had a major influence on Mesopotamian culture.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
INCORRECT (comma splice): The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest literary works, it had a major influence on Mesopotamian culture.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nClearly, the writer wants the reader to see these two sentences as connected. He or she has three options to show their reader how the sentences relate.\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT OPTION 1 (semi-colon): The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest literary works; it had a major influence on Mesopotamian culture.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nThe semi-colon is an elegant and underutilized option. By joining two sentences with a semi-colon, the writer can subtly tell the reader that the epic\u2019s earliness and influence, together, make it important.\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT OPTION 2 (comma and coordinating conjunction): The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest literary works, and it had a major influence on Mesopotamian culture.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nThe use of \u201cand\u201d in this option also tells the reader to put the two claims together. A more specific conjunction\u2014such as \u201cbut,\u201d \u201cso\u201d, or \u201cyet\u201d\u2014is usually a better choice than \u201cand\u201d or a semi-colon because it would provide more information about how the two claims relate.\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT OPTION 3 (separate sentences): The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest literary works. It had a major influence on Mesopotamian culture.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nIf you don\u2019t want your reader to consider the two sentences closely related, you can convey that by choosing separate sentences. With the Gilgamesh example, you might choose this option if the paragraph is mostly about the influence of the epic on Mesopotamian culture but you have a good reason to include a sentence about how early it is. These two sentences would function well as the first two sentences of an introductory paragraph.\r\n

4. Use colons correctly for lists, quotations, and explanatory information<\/h2>\r\n
\r\n
INCORRECT: We packed: clothes, camping equipment, and a first-aid kit.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: We packed the essentials: clothes, camping equipment, and a first-aid kit.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nFor lists, use a colon when the part before the colon can stand alone as a sentence. Otherwise, leave the colon out (\u201cWe packed clothes, camping equipment, and a first-aid kit\u201d).\r\n
\r\n
INCORRECT: Mitchell explains that: \u201cPart of the fascination of Gilgamesh<\/em> is that, like any great work of literature, it has much to tell us about ourselves.\u201d5<\/a><\/sup><\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: Mitchell explains the power of the epic: \u201cPart of the fascination of Gilgamesh<\/em> is that, like any great work of literature, it has much to tell us about ourselves.\u201d6<\/a><\/sup><\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nYou can use a colon to introduce a quote if the parts before and after the colon can stand as complete sentences. A comma is an option here as well. Introducing a quote with your own complete sentence and a colon is another underutilized trick in student writing. Recall from Chapter 5<\/a> that you have to use source material within your own analytical thread. Introducing a quote with your own complete sentence can make it immediately clear why the quote you choose is important to your argument.\r\n

5. Use modifiers clearly and precisely<\/h2>\r\nModifiers are words and phrases that add information to a sentence. They specify the meaning of (that is, they modify) a noun or verb. Sometimes the modifier is misplaced, ambiguous, or not clearly pertaining to a noun or verb (a so-called dangling modifier). These problems can lead the reader to wonder what exactly you\u2019re claiming.\r\n
\r\n
MISPLACED: The ski-jumper looked sleek in his new suit weighing only 140 pounds.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: The ski-jumper looked sleek wearing a new suit and weighing only 140 pounds.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nThe suit didn\u2019t weigh 140 pounds (one hopes); the ski-jumper did.\r\n
\r\n
AMBIGUOUS: When formal rules and day-to-day practices differ, they should be changed.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
CLEAR: Formal rules should be changed to match day-to-day practices.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
CLEAR: Day-to-day practices should be changed to match the formal rules.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nIn the first version, it\u2019s not clear what should be changed. The two clear versions make it obvious what the author is arguing.\r\n
\r\n
DANGLING: Walking down the street, the houses glowed pink in the sunset.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: Walking down the street, she saw houses glowing pink in the sunset.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nThe first version suggests that the houses were walking down the street. The pronoun to which that first phrase refers (\u201cshe\u201d) is missing. The second version corrects that by bringing in the needed pronoun.\r\n

6. Choose correct words<\/h2>\r\nMany wrong-word errors<\/a> that I see seem to be artifacts of the spell-checkers built into word-processing programs. For example, I often see \u201ccostumers\u201d where students meant \u201ccustomers,\u201d \u201cdefiantly\u201d instead of \u201cdefinitely\u201d and, somewhat comically, \u201cmartial\u201d instead of \u201cmarital.\u201d\r\n\r\nOther wrong-word errors come from homonyms, two or more words that sound the same, such as the there\/their\/they\u2019re or your\/you\u2019re errors. In college writing, another common one is the misuse of effect\/affect. Use \u201ceffect\u201d if you\u2019re talking about the result of a cause as a noun, and \u201caffect\u201d if you mean influence or talking about emotion in psychology (in which case it\u2019s pronounced AF-fect).\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: The effects of the conflict have been long-lasting.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: The conflict has affected everyday life throughout the country.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: Research shows that the presence of living plants impact both cognition and affect.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\n\u201cEffect\u201d can also be a verb, in which case it means to bring about:\r\n
\r\n
CORRECT: The conflict effected major international policy changes.<\/div><\/blockquote>\r\nThat sentence is saying that the conflict brought about<\/em> policy changes. If you wanted to say that the conflict influenced (but did not itself cause) policy changes, you would write that the conflict affected policy changes.\r\n

The dilemma of gendered language in English<\/h1>\r\nWhat to do about gender with an unspecified subject? In the past, the consensus was to always use \u201che\u201d and readers were supposed to understand that the subject might be female. As you know, that\u2019s no longer accepted<\/a>. The culture of formal academic writing hasn\u2019t settled on a widely supported solution yet, which creates a pervasive problem for the student writer.\r\n\r\nInformally, using \u201cthey\/their\u201d as the neutral singular is becoming a common practice. For example, if a Facebook friend hasn\u2019t specified a gender, Facebook used to exhort you to \u201cwrite on their timeline\u201d for \u201ctheir birthday.\u201d I hear this more and more in spoken language as well. For example, most people who hear this sentence spoken wouldn\u2019t note a glaring problem: \u201cA doctor who makes a mistake is often too scared to admit their slip-up.\u201d However, in an academic paper, that sentence would be considered a pronoun-antecedent error because \u201cdoctor\u201d is singular and \u201ctheir\u201d is still considered plural. Most of your professors still don\u2019t accept they\/their as a gender-neutral singular possessive. Hopefully in coming years, academic writing will come to accept this perfectly reasonable solution to the gendered language problem, but we\u2019re not there yet.\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n

My first semester in college, it was my standard practice to rotate back and forth between the male and female pronouns. I did not want to appear sexist and was unsure how to avoid doing so. Referring to the same hypothetical person in one of my papers I wrote, \u201cWhen one is confronted by new information that does not fit tidily onto her personal map\u2026\u201d Later in the paragraph I referred to the same individual by saying, \u201cThis new information demands that he forsake the world of the Cave in which he had been raised.\u201d Obviously, in retrospect, that was confusing and certainly not the best option. But it illustrates the point that this can be a challenging dilemma. Thankfully for you, three more appropriate solutions are provided in this chapter.<\/p>\r\n

Peter Farrell<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nSo what to do? Here are three possible solutions.\r\n

    \r\n \t
  1. Choose plurals when possible<\/em>. For example, \u201cDoctors who make mistakes are often too scared to admit their slip-ups.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Write \u201che or she\u201d or \u201chis or her\u201d if it\u2019s not too repetitive<\/em>. You don\u2019t want to have more than two or three such \u201cors\u201d in a paragraph, but a couple wouldn\u2019t be tedious for the reader. For example, one might write, \u201cA doctor who makes a mistake is often too scared to admit his or her slip-up. He or she might be forbidden from doing so by hospital attorneys.\u201d<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. Consider whether a real-life example is better than a hypothetical subject<\/em>. Long passages about hypothetical people and situations often lack argumentative force. If you\u2019re writing a paper about medical errors, you might do better to replace hypothetical claims like the above example with real-life examples of physicians who have made mistakes but were reluctant or forbidden to acknowledge them. Better yet, discuss the results of studies of medical errors and their outcomes. In addition to solving the gendered language problem, real examples are more persuasive.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nRemember, it\u2019s about precision and respect. Whatever you do, don\u2019t just write \u201che\u201d for doctors, attorneys, and construction workers and \u201cshe\u201d for nurses, social workers, and flight attendants. You also shouldn\u2019t just write \u201che\u201d or \u201chis\u201d for everything, expecting your readers to mentally fill in the \u201cor she\u201d and \u201cor her\u201d themselves. Doing so seems lazy, if not actively sexist<\/a>. Showing respect through precise language about gender makes you seem much more credible.\r\n

    Conclusion<\/h1>\r\nThis chapter does not (and could not) provide a complete run-down of formal English language usage. You would do well to bookmark a couple good reference sources to consult when questions arise. If your writing usually has a lot of errors in it, don\u2019t despair. Identify one or two practices to master and then learn them, using the feedback from your instructors as a guide. You can\u2019t become a flawless writer overnight (and no one writes flawlessly all the time). But over the course of a few semesters, you can certainly produce more precise text that presents your ideas in their best light.\r\n
    \r\n

    Exercises and other resources<\/h3>\r\n
      \r\n \t
    1. As noted above, the website associated with Diana Hacker\u2019s popular writing guides<\/a> offer excellent practice in grammar and mechanics. If you keep getting dinged in your papers for misplaced apostrophes, for example, you can review a lesson and take practice quizzes on that site until you nail it. She also provides exercises especially useful to writers learning English as a second (or third or fourth) language.<\/li>\r\n \t
    2. Most college libraries subscribe to online reference sources for their students. Go to your library\u2019s website and look for proprietary guides like the Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style<\/a>. These are often of much higher quality than the first few hits you get on Google.<\/li>\r\n \t
    3. In Andrea Lunsford\u2019s The Everyday Writer<\/em> 5th ed. (New York: Bedford-St.Martin\u2019s, 2012) she includes a list of the 20 most common errors in student writing<\/a>. This site, like Diana Hacker\u2019s, also offers free online exercises<\/em> in mechanics.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n
      \r\n\r\n
      \r\n
      \r\n

      1<\/a><\/sup> The three types of rules are explained in Williams and Bizup\u2019s Style<\/span><\/a>.<\/span> Williams first described invented rules in J.M. Williams, \u201cA Phenomenology of Error,\u201d College Composition and Communication, 32, no. 2 (1981): 152-168.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

      \r\n

      2<\/a><\/sup> J.M. Williams, Phenomenology of Error<\/em><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

      \r\n

      3<\/a><\/sup>Peter Eavis, \u201cSteep Penalties Taken in Stride by JPMorgan Chase,\u201d New York Times,<\/em> January 7, 2014, page A1<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

      \r\n

      4<\/a><\/sup>Richard A. Kerr, \u201cGlobal Warming Coming Home to Roost in the American Midwest,\u201d Science<\/em> 318, no. 5858 (2007): 1859.<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

      \r\n

      5<\/a><\/sup>Stephen Mitchell, Gilgamesh: A New English Version<\/span> (New York: Free Press, 2004)<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

      \r\n

      6<\/a><\/sup>Ibid.<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"

      \n

      \u201cCorrectness\u201d in writing<\/h1>\n

      Many students assume\u2014or fear\u2014that college writing is judged primarily on its grammatical correctness. Ideas, evidence, and arguments matter more than the mechanics of grammar and punctuation; however, many of the rules of formal writing exist to promote clarity and precision which writers much achieve in order to effectively convey ideas, evidence, and arguments. In addition, texts that observe the rules of formal written English tend to be more persuasive by making the author appear well informed and careful. Writing replete with errors does not make a great impression<\/a>, and most educators want to help students present themselves well. Correctness, then, isn\u2019t the<\/em> most important thing, but it does matter.<\/p>\n

      Another common assumption among students is that one is either good at grammar or not good at grammar, and that such is one\u2019s immutable fate. Not true. Once you master a particular rule or practice, it becomes second nature, and then you can focus your attention on mastering another. I finally nailed down commas and semicolons in college and some finer points of grammar in graduate school. I do a lot of formal writing in the course of my career, and I still look things up in a writing handbook<\/a> from time to time. You can master the practices of formal written English, and college is a great time to use the feedback from your professors to identify your common errors and learn to correct them.<\/p>\n

      In thinking about correctness, it\u2019s important to recognize that some rules are more important than others. Joseph Williams helpfully distinguishes three kinds of rules.1<\/a><\/sup> First, there are rules that are basic to English, such as \u201cthe car\u201d not \u201ccar the.\u201d For example,<\/p>\n

      \n
      INCORRECT: I thought whether true claims not.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      CORRECT: I hadn\u2019t thought about whether the claims were true.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      If you\u2019ve gotten most of your formal education in English, you probably observe these rules routinely. If your writing has mismatches of number (singular\/plural) or tense, it might be due to haste or carelessness rather than unawareness. Similarly, capitalizing the first word of a sentence and ending with appropriate punctuation are basic rules that most people comply with automatically when writing for a professor or in other formal situations.<\/p>\n

      Williams\u2019 second category is comprised of rules that distinguish standard written English from the informal variants that people use in their day-to-day lives. Most students with middle-class and non-immigrant backgrounds use informal vernaculars that closely parallel standard written English. Students with working-class or more modest backgrounds or who are members of transnational and multi-lingual communities may use informal variants of English in their everyday lives that are quite different from standard written English. It\u2019s an unfortunate reality of social inequality that such students have to expend more effort than their middle-class English-speaking counterparts to master the standard conventions. It\u2019s not really fair, but at least the mechanics and rules of formal writing are documented and unambiguous. Learning to communicate effectively in different social contexts is part of becoming an educated person.<\/p>\n

      Some examples:<\/p>\n

      \n
      INFORMAL:We ain\u2019t got no more of them cookies.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      FORMAL: We don\u2019t have any more of those cookies.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      INFORMAL: My coat, my phone, and my keys was all lock in the car.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      FORMAL: My coat, my phone, and my keys were all locked in the car.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      INFORMAL: u shd go 2 caf\u00e9 b4 wrk bc coffee<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      FORMAL: You should go the caf\u00e9 before work to get some coffee.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      The informal versions are clearly English, and they\u2019re widely understandable to others. The first and second examples contain choices of tense, number, and punctuation that are inappropriate in standard written English even though they don\u2019t actually impede communication<\/a>. Most students already understand that these first two categories of rules (rules fundamental to English and the rules of standard written English) are obligatory for formal writing.<\/p>\n

      There is a third category of rules that Williams notes and enthusiastically criticizes; he calls them \u201cinvented rules\u201d because they usually arise from busybody grammarians rather than enduring patterns of customary language use. Some invented rules Williams calls \u201coptions\u201d: those that your reader will notice when you observe<\/em> them and not care if you don\u2019t. Here\u2019s an example of the fabled don\u2019t-end-a-sentence-with-a-preposition rule<\/a>:<\/p>\n

      \n
      OBSERVING THE RULE: With which concept can we analyze this problem?<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      IGNORING THE RULE: Which concept can we analyze this problem with?<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      Some grammarians would claim that only the first version is correct. However, you probably have the (accurate) impression that professional writers are much more likely to choose the second version. This rule does not reflect real-life customary practice, even in standard written English. That\u2019s why Williams calls it an \u201cinvented rule.\u201d Most of your professors are fine with the second version above, the one that ends a sentence with a preposition.<\/p>\n

      Similarly, there\u2019s this murky idea out there that one should not split infinitives<\/a>; that is, one should not have any words between \u201cto\u201d and the verb that follows. Here\u2019s an example:<\/p>\n

      \n
      OBSERVED: to go boldly where no one has gone before<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      IGNORED: to boldly go where no one has gone before<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      Again, while some grammarians have argued that conscientious writers should avoid splitting infinitives, most professional writers have ignored that claim. The second version, which puts the adverb (\u201cboldly\u201d) within the infinitive (that is, between \u201cto\u201d and \u201cgo\u201d) makes for a perfectly clear and pleasing phrase. The invented rule about splitting infinitives is an attempt to solve a problem that doesn\u2019t exist. If you want to give your writing more of a scholarly air, you could observe some or all of these optional rules. But, unless your professor has a particular penchant for one of these invented rules, you can safely ignore them.<\/p>\n

      Williams calls the second sub-category of invented rules \u201cfolklore.\u201d They\u2019re invented rules (like \u201coptions\u201d) in that grammarians think writers should observe them, but, in reality, no one does. Williams gleefully lists instances in which the very grammarians who propose these rules go on to unselfconsciously violate them.2<\/a><\/sup> You may have heard of these rules, but they\u2019re widely considered absurd.<\/p>\n

      For example, some grammarians are dismayed that people use \u201cthat\u201d and \u201cwhich\u201d interchangeably, and they argue that writers should use \u201cthat\u201d to indicate restrictive elements and \u201cwhich\u201d to indicate non-restrictive elements. A restrictive element is one that makes a necessary specification about something; a non-restrictive element is one that simple adds extra information. Consider these two examples:<\/p>\n

      Version 1:<\/h4>\n
      \n
      The party that Alex went to was shut down by the police.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      Version 2:<\/h4>\n
      \n
      The party which Alex went to was shut down by the police.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      For almost all readers, versions 1 and 2 are saying the exact same thing. For the persnickety grammarian, version 1 is specifying the party that Alex<\/em> went to, and not the party that, say, Jordan went to, while version 2 is simply inserting extra information about Alex\u2019s attendance at the party. According to these grammarians, \u201cthat Alex went to\u201d adds critically needed information (restrictive) while \u201cwhich Alex went to\u201d adds bonus information (non-restrictive).<\/p>\n

      As Williams and some others explain: it\u2019s bullshit<\/a>. Professional writers use commas and carefully chosen words to do the job of distinguishing restrictive and non-restrictive elements, and they choose whichever relative pronoun (\u201cthat\u201d or \u201cwhich\u201d) sounds better in context. You could observe the distinction between that and which if you like, but no one would notice. More importantly, observing this invented rule wouldn\u2019t necessarily make your writing any clearer, more concise, or more graceful.<\/p>\n

      There is one rule that Williams calls \u201cfolklore\u201d that you probably have to observe in college papers nonetheless: that is, the rule that you can\u2019t start sentences with But, And, So, For, or Yet (or other coordinating conjunctions)<\/a>. I\u2019m sure you could browse through assigned readings and articles published in major newspapers and magazines that violate this so-called rule. Here are two examples that took me about 10 minutes to find:<\/p>\n

      \n
      From the front page of the New York Times<\/span> January 7, 2014<\/a>:3<\/a><\/sup> \u201cBut since the financial crisis, JPMorgan has become so large and profitable that it has been able to weather the government\u2019s legal blitz, which has touched many parts of the bank\u2019s sprawling operations.\u201d And a little further down we see, \u201cYet JPMorgan\u2019s shares are up 28 percent over the last 12 months.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      From a news article in Science<\/span>, December 21, 2007<\/a>:4<\/a><\/sup> \u201cAltered winds blew in more warm air from the subtropics only in models in which mid-latitude oceans warmed as observed; apparently, the warmer oceans altered the circulation. And that ocean warming is widely viewed as being driven by the strengthening greenhouse.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      If you\u2019re writing a paper for my class, feel free to begin sentences with conjunctions. As the above examples show, it\u2019s a concise way to support clarity and effective flow. However, I suspect most instructors still hold to the old rule. Thus, you shouldn\u2019t start sentences with \u201cAnd,\u201d \u201cBut\u201d or other coordinating conjunctions unless you\u2019ve been specifically invited to.<\/p>\n

      There are countless other rules that I don\u2019t discuss here. The point of these examples is to show that you don\u2019t have to observe every little rule you\u2019ve ever heard of. There are some elements of mechanics that you have to master; I summarize some common ones below. These practices will gradually become second nature. It\u2019s sometimes hard to know at the outset which rules are standard, which are options, and which are folklore. With the help of a good handbook and your instructors, you\u2019ll learn them over time. The larger point I want to make here is that that observing rules isn\u2019t about traversing a minefield of potential errors; it\u2019s just about learning and adopting the practices appropriate to your audience, which is one of the first rules of writing well.<\/p>\n

      Elements of punctuation and language you must master<\/h1>\n

      If you\u2019ve gotten most or all of your formal education in English, you\u2019ve mastered the vast majority of the real rules of grammar. Most of the students I work with just have to nail down a few additional practices to produce appropriate academic writing. There isn\u2019t any great secret to learning them; they\u2019re learned through repeated practice and feedback.<\/p>\n

      1. Comma usage<\/h2>\n

      I didn\u2019t really master correct comma usage until my college years. There was a year or so in which I constantly checked my work against a style guide, but since then I haven\u2019t often had to think about commas. Here\u2019s a brief run-down of the rules of comma usage that I see many students violating. For a more complete explanation, and an invaluable set of online exercises, see the website of handbook author Diana Hacker<\/a>.<\/p>\n

      A. Use a comma to join two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction:<\/h4>\n
      \n
      CORRECT: Her misdeed was significant, but the punishment was excessive.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      ALSO CORRECT: Her misdeed was significant but justified by the circumstances.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      In the first example, the comma is telling the reader that one clause (her misdeed was significant) is ending and another (the punishment was excessive) beginning. The second example does not use a comma, because the words that follow \u201cbut\u201d (justified by the circumstances) do not add up to an independent clause; they make a dependent clause that could not stand alone as a sentence.<\/p>\n

      Note: \u201cBecause\u201d is NOT a coordinating conjunction. It\u2019s a subordinating conjunction. Therefore, it does not use a comma:<\/p>\n

      \n
      INCORRECT: Conspiracy theories can be compelling, because many people distrust the government.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      CORRECT: Conspiracy theories can be compelling because many people distrust the government.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      \u201cBecause,\u201d like other subordinating conjunctions (such as \u201calthough,\u201d \u201cunless,\u201d or \u201cuntil\u201d), is meant to knit together one indivisible thought; hence, no comma. Including a comma weakens the connection in the mind of your reader.<\/p>\n

      B. Use a comma to mark the end of an introductory element<\/h4>\n
      \n
      CORRECT: While we were eating, the baby crawled out of the room.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      CORRECT: Alongside the road, we found the perpetrator\u2019s gun.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      CORRECT: Because many distrust the government, conspiracy theories can be compelling.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      The first example would be comically confusing without the comma. The second example shows how the comma helps your reader separate the introductory element from the part that followed. The third example might be confusing. The sentence from part A, above, beginning with \u201cConspiracy theories\u201d does not use a comma, but in this example, a dependent clause is serving as as an introductory element.<\/p>\n

      \n
      \n
      \n

      Learn these rules, and if you hate them, learn to love them. In college, writing stops being about \u201chow well did you understand fill-in-the-blank\u201d and becomes \u201chow professionally and strongly do you argue your point.\u201d Professionalism, I have found, is the key to the real world, and college is, in part, preparing you for it. If you do not learn how to write in a way that projects professionalism (i.e. these rules), then expect to get, at best, Cs on your papers.<\/p>\n

      Kaethe Leonard<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      C. Use a comma to set off non-essential information (so-called non-restrictive elements)<\/h4>\n

      Both of these sentences are correct, but they convey different ideas:<\/p>\n

      \n
      EXAMPLE 1: Gathering places vital to their communities are worth the investment.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      EXAMPLE 2: Gathering places, vital to their communities, are worth the investment.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      The first says that only<\/em> those gathering places that are vital to their communities are worth the investment (implying that some are not vital and therefore not worth investing in). In that first example, \u201cvital to their communities\u201d is a restrictive element. In the second example \u201cvital to their communities\u201d is extra information. The sentence implies that gathering places in general<\/em> are worth the investment (ostensibly because they\u2019re vital to their communities). The commas mark the phrase as non-essential information, which is a non-restrictive element. In writing the second sentence, you might enclose the non-essential information in parentheses instead.<\/p>\n

      2. Use punctuation and coordinating conjunctions to avoid sentence fragments<\/h2>\n

      At some point, you were probably instructed that all sentences must have a subject (which includes a noun) and a predicate (which includes a verb) and that they must be written to stand alone. Consider this example of a sentence fragment<\/a>:<\/p>\n

      \n
      INCORRECT: When you go to the supermarket. You don\u2019t often think about the work behind the scenes.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      It has a subject (you) and predicate (go to the supermarket), but the \u201cwhen\u201d indicates that the sentence is incomplete. When people write sentence fragments, they usually have the missing elements in the preceding or following sentences, so it\u2019s really a punctuation error.<\/p>\n

      \n
      CORRECT: When you go to the supermarket, you don\u2019t often think about the work behind the scenes.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      ALSO CORRECT: You don\u2019t often think about the work behind the scenes when you go to the supermarket.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      In the first version the dependent clause (the part that couldn\u2019t stand alone) comes first, necessitating a comma. In the second, the main clause (the part that could stand alone) comes first, so no comma is used.<\/p>\n

      3. Use punctuation and coordinating conjunctions to avoid run-on sentences and comma splices<\/a><\/h2>\n

      A run-on sentence (one that smooshes two sentences together) may be incorrectly connected with a comma, which is then called a comma splice. This error is easily corrected with punctuation and some coordinating words.<\/p>\n

      \n
      INCORRECT (run-on): The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest literary works it had a major influence on Mesopotamian culture.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      INCORRECT (comma splice): The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest literary works, it had a major influence on Mesopotamian culture.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      Clearly, the writer wants the reader to see these two sentences as connected. He or she has three options to show their reader how the sentences relate.<\/p>\n

      \n
      CORRECT OPTION 1 (semi-colon): The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest literary works; it had a major influence on Mesopotamian culture.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      The semi-colon is an elegant and underutilized option. By joining two sentences with a semi-colon, the writer can subtly tell the reader that the epic\u2019s earliness and influence, together, make it important.<\/p>\n

      \n
      CORRECT OPTION 2 (comma and coordinating conjunction): The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest literary works, and it had a major influence on Mesopotamian culture.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      The use of \u201cand\u201d in this option also tells the reader to put the two claims together. A more specific conjunction\u2014such as \u201cbut,\u201d \u201cso\u201d, or \u201cyet\u201d\u2014is usually a better choice than \u201cand\u201d or a semi-colon because it would provide more information about how the two claims relate.<\/p>\n

      \n
      CORRECT OPTION 3 (separate sentences): The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the earliest literary works. It had a major influence on Mesopotamian culture.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      If you don\u2019t want your reader to consider the two sentences closely related, you can convey that by choosing separate sentences. With the Gilgamesh example, you might choose this option if the paragraph is mostly about the influence of the epic on Mesopotamian culture but you have a good reason to include a sentence about how early it is. These two sentences would function well as the first two sentences of an introductory paragraph.<\/p>\n

      4. Use colons correctly for lists, quotations, and explanatory information<\/h2>\n
      \n
      INCORRECT: We packed: clothes, camping equipment, and a first-aid kit.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      CORRECT: We packed the essentials: clothes, camping equipment, and a first-aid kit.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      For lists, use a colon when the part before the colon can stand alone as a sentence. Otherwise, leave the colon out (\u201cWe packed clothes, camping equipment, and a first-aid kit\u201d).<\/p>\n

      \n
      INCORRECT: Mitchell explains that: \u201cPart of the fascination of Gilgamesh<\/em> is that, like any great work of literature, it has much to tell us about ourselves.\u201d5<\/a><\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      CORRECT: Mitchell explains the power of the epic: \u201cPart of the fascination of Gilgamesh<\/em> is that, like any great work of literature, it has much to tell us about ourselves.\u201d6<\/a><\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      You can use a colon to introduce a quote if the parts before and after the colon can stand as complete sentences. A comma is an option here as well. Introducing a quote with your own complete sentence and a colon is another underutilized trick in student writing. Recall from Chapter 5<\/a> that you have to use source material within your own analytical thread. Introducing a quote with your own complete sentence can make it immediately clear why the quote you choose is important to your argument.<\/p>\n

      5. Use modifiers clearly and precisely<\/h2>\n

      Modifiers are words and phrases that add information to a sentence. They specify the meaning of (that is, they modify) a noun or verb. Sometimes the modifier is misplaced, ambiguous, or not clearly pertaining to a noun or verb (a so-called dangling modifier). These problems can lead the reader to wonder what exactly you\u2019re claiming.<\/p>\n

      \n
      MISPLACED: The ski-jumper looked sleek in his new suit weighing only 140 pounds.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      CORRECT: The ski-jumper looked sleek wearing a new suit and weighing only 140 pounds.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      The suit didn\u2019t weigh 140 pounds (one hopes); the ski-jumper did.<\/p>\n

      \n
      AMBIGUOUS: When formal rules and day-to-day practices differ, they should be changed.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      CLEAR: Formal rules should be changed to match day-to-day practices.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      CLEAR: Day-to-day practices should be changed to match the formal rules.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      In the first version, it\u2019s not clear what should be changed. The two clear versions make it obvious what the author is arguing.<\/p>\n

      \n
      DANGLING: Walking down the street, the houses glowed pink in the sunset.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      CORRECT: Walking down the street, she saw houses glowing pink in the sunset.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      The first version suggests that the houses were walking down the street. The pronoun to which that first phrase refers (\u201cshe\u201d) is missing. The second version corrects that by bringing in the needed pronoun.<\/p>\n

      6. Choose correct words<\/h2>\n

      Many wrong-word errors<\/a> that I see seem to be artifacts of the spell-checkers built into word-processing programs. For example, I often see \u201ccostumers\u201d where students meant \u201ccustomers,\u201d \u201cdefiantly\u201d instead of \u201cdefinitely\u201d and, somewhat comically, \u201cmartial\u201d instead of \u201cmarital.\u201d<\/p>\n

      Other wrong-word errors come from homonyms, two or more words that sound the same, such as the there\/their\/they\u2019re or your\/you\u2019re errors. In college writing, another common one is the misuse of effect\/affect. Use \u201ceffect\u201d if you\u2019re talking about the result of a cause as a noun, and \u201caffect\u201d if you mean influence or talking about emotion in psychology (in which case it\u2019s pronounced AF-fect).<\/p>\n

      \n
      CORRECT: The effects of the conflict have been long-lasting.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      CORRECT: The conflict has affected everyday life throughout the country.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      \n
      CORRECT: Research shows that the presence of living plants impact both cognition and affect.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      \u201cEffect\u201d can also be a verb, in which case it means to bring about:<\/p>\n

      \n
      CORRECT: The conflict effected major international policy changes.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      That sentence is saying that the conflict brought about<\/em> policy changes. If you wanted to say that the conflict influenced (but did not itself cause) policy changes, you would write that the conflict affected policy changes.<\/p>\n

      The dilemma of gendered language in English<\/h1>\n

      What to do about gender with an unspecified subject? In the past, the consensus was to always use \u201che\u201d and readers were supposed to understand that the subject might be female. As you know, that\u2019s no longer accepted<\/a>. The culture of formal academic writing hasn\u2019t settled on a widely supported solution yet, which creates a pervasive problem for the student writer.<\/p>\n

      Informally, using \u201cthey\/their\u201d as the neutral singular is becoming a common practice. For example, if a Facebook friend hasn\u2019t specified a gender, Facebook used to exhort you to \u201cwrite on their timeline\u201d for \u201ctheir birthday.\u201d I hear this more and more in spoken language as well. For example, most people who hear this sentence spoken wouldn\u2019t note a glaring problem: \u201cA doctor who makes a mistake is often too scared to admit their slip-up.\u201d However, in an academic paper, that sentence would be considered a pronoun-antecedent error because \u201cdoctor\u201d is singular and \u201ctheir\u201d is still considered plural. Most of your professors still don\u2019t accept they\/their as a gender-neutral singular possessive. Hopefully in coming years, academic writing will come to accept this perfectly reasonable solution to the gendered language problem, but we\u2019re not there yet.<\/p>\n

      \n
      \n
      \n

      My first semester in college, it was my standard practice to rotate back and forth between the male and female pronouns. I did not want to appear sexist and was unsure how to avoid doing so. Referring to the same hypothetical person in one of my papers I wrote, \u201cWhen one is confronted by new information that does not fit tidily onto her personal map\u2026\u201d Later in the paragraph I referred to the same individual by saying, \u201cThis new information demands that he forsake the world of the Cave in which he had been raised.\u201d Obviously, in retrospect, that was confusing and certainly not the best option. But it illustrates the point that this can be a challenging dilemma. Thankfully for you, three more appropriate solutions are provided in this chapter.<\/p>\n

      Peter Farrell<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

      So what to do? Here are three possible solutions.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Choose plurals when possible<\/em>. For example, \u201cDoctors who make mistakes are often too scared to admit their slip-ups.\u201d<\/li>\n
      2. Write \u201che or she\u201d or \u201chis or her\u201d if it\u2019s not too repetitive<\/em>. You don\u2019t want to have more than two or three such \u201cors\u201d in a paragraph, but a couple wouldn\u2019t be tedious for the reader. For example, one might write, \u201cA doctor who makes a mistake is often too scared to admit his or her slip-up. He or she might be forbidden from doing so by hospital attorneys.\u201d<\/li>\n
      3. Consider whether a real-life example is better than a hypothetical subject<\/em>. Long passages about hypothetical people and situations often lack argumentative force. If you\u2019re writing a paper about medical errors, you might do better to replace hypothetical claims like the above example with real-life examples of physicians who have made mistakes but were reluctant or forbidden to acknowledge them. Better yet, discuss the results of studies of medical errors and their outcomes. In addition to solving the gendered language problem, real examples are more persuasive.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Remember, it\u2019s about precision and respect. Whatever you do, don\u2019t just write \u201che\u201d for doctors, attorneys, and construction workers and \u201cshe\u201d for nurses, social workers, and flight attendants. You also shouldn\u2019t just write \u201che\u201d or \u201chis\u201d for everything, expecting your readers to mentally fill in the \u201cor she\u201d and \u201cor her\u201d themselves. Doing so seems lazy, if not actively sexist<\/a>. Showing respect through precise language about gender makes you seem much more credible.<\/p>\n

        Conclusion<\/h1>\n

        This chapter does not (and could not) provide a complete run-down of formal English language usage. You would do well to bookmark a couple good reference sources to consult when questions arise. If your writing usually has a lot of errors in it, don\u2019t despair. Identify one or two practices to master and then learn them, using the feedback from your instructors as a guide. You can\u2019t become a flawless writer overnight (and no one writes flawlessly all the time). But over the course of a few semesters, you can certainly produce more precise text that presents your ideas in their best light.<\/p>\n

        \n

        Exercises and other resources<\/h3>\n
          \n
        1. As noted above, the website associated with Diana Hacker\u2019s popular writing guides<\/a> offer excellent practice in grammar and mechanics. If you keep getting dinged in your papers for misplaced apostrophes, for example, you can review a lesson and take practice quizzes on that site until you nail it. She also provides exercises especially useful to writers learning English as a second (or third or fourth) language.<\/li>\n
        2. Most college libraries subscribe to online reference sources for their students. Go to your library\u2019s website and look for proprietary guides like the Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style<\/a>. These are often of much higher quality than the first few hits you get on Google.<\/li>\n
        3. In Andrea Lunsford\u2019s The Everyday Writer<\/em> 5th ed. (New York: Bedford-St.Martin\u2019s, 2012) she includes a list of the 20 most common errors in student writing<\/a>. This site, like Diana Hacker\u2019s, also offers free online exercises<\/em> in mechanics.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n
          \n
          \n
          \n

          1<\/a><\/sup> The three types of rules are explained in Williams and Bizup\u2019s Style<\/span><\/a>.<\/span> Williams first described invented rules in J.M. Williams, \u201cA Phenomenology of Error,\u201d College Composition and Communication, 32, no. 2 (1981): 152-168.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          2<\/a><\/sup> J.M. Williams, Phenomenology of Error<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          3<\/a><\/sup>Peter Eavis, \u201cSteep Penalties Taken in Stride by JPMorgan Chase,\u201d New York Times,<\/em> January 7, 2014, page A1<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          4<\/a><\/sup>Richard A. Kerr, \u201cGlobal Warming Coming Home to Roost in the American Midwest,\u201d Science<\/em> 318, no. 5858 (2007): 1859.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          5<\/a><\/sup>Stephen Mitchell, Gilgamesh: A New English Version<\/span> (New York: Free Press, 2004)<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

          \n

          6<\/a><\/sup>Ibid.<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t

          \n\t\t\t

          Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t\t
          \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
          CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div>