Zombie Rules: The Myths of English Class Part 3

We've finally reached the third and last week about zombie rules. We have covered a lot of ground over the last several weeks. So far, we have discussed why it is perfectly grammatical to use starting conjunctions, ending prepositions, split infinitives, and a passive voice. This week, we will be discussing two more zombie rules that are not quite as black and white. These rules are about contractions and using the word "that."

Everyone at some point has been told not to use contractions in their writing. If we’re talking about "ain't" I would probably agree. But contractions are not grammatically wrong. As I have mentioned before, I enjoy dabbling in other languages. Contractions are a universal construction in language. They are necessary for more than just a shortcut in speech. Contractions aid the smooth flow of sentences and influence the tone of a written piece. Read these next two sentences and compare how they sound. We don't need it anymore. We do not need it anymore. Now, both are correct and would be acceptable to use. The difference comes in how they sound. The sound of "don't need" versus "do not need" is vast. The former has the flow of natural speech and has a personal tone. The latter example has a jarring sound and adds stiffness to the sentence not to mention that it can place a greater emphasis on the “not.”

Don't misunderstand me here. I am not saying that contractions should always be used. As with any grammatical construction, there are certain appropriate uses for it. I only mean to point out that they can create a smoother flow in a sentence and can give a different tone. Contractions don't always informalize sentences either. For example, there are contractions like "'tis" and "shan't" which add a peculiarly classy or literary sound to a sentence. 

Therefore, it is all about what one is trying to say. Contractions are meant to be your friend; a tool to help you better communicate your thoughts. In formal English, the occasional contraction is acceptable if it doesn't disrupt the tone of your document. Informal English benefits exponentially from contractions because of how they give a conversational sound to written English. Moderation is important, but don't be afraid to use contractions in your writing.

The final zombie rule we must cover is using "that" in place of a "who." In English class, students are taught that a "who" is a person and a "that" is an object, animal, or idea. However, how many times have you referred to someone as a "that" lately? You know, the coffeehouse person that hands you your coffee every morning. In that example, the "that" refers to the person who works at the coffeehouse. Is there a difference?

It turns out the answer is both yes and no. The idea that "who" is for people and "that" is for everything else is an oversimplification of a long-standing grammar rule. Truthfully, "who" is reserved for people (most of the time), "which" is reserved for inanimate objects, and "that" is for both people and inanimate objects. Keeping this in mind, the argument over "who" versus "that" becomes more about writing style and preference.

Once we enter the world of writing style, the differences become more apparent. Using "that" for a person is not a problem in most instances, but it can sometimes have a decidedly negative connotation[1]. A writer needs to know exactly what he wants to convey and ascertain that his words do so. On the other hand, "who" can sometimes refer to others beyond people[2]. "Who" is often used to refer to animals, especially dogs and cats[3]. People think of their pets as companions and that is reflected in speech. The best rule of thumb is to use "who" for people and either "that" or "which" for everything else. However, you don't have to worry about slipping because "that" is perfectly acceptable.

We have reached the end of our zombie rule discussion. I hope everyone has learned a lot about writing and the beauty of English. Researching for these posts has certainly taught me much about grammar that I was not necessarily aware of. In the future, use the flexibility of English to communicate better with people and share your ideas with the world. These flexibilities make it easier for an author's voice and personality to come through in his writing. So, go write to your heart’s content and don’t let zombie rules crush your confidence as a writer!

---

[1] Mignon Fogarty, 2006, “Who versus That,” Quick and Dirty Tips, Retrieved October 11, 2019, https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/who-versus-that?page=1.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

Zombie Rules: The Myths of English Class Part 2

Last week, we explored the world of zombie rules. I think this topic is interesting because people have such varied opinions about it. These rules can be a sore spot because of pet peeves and perceived grammar rules. They can also be fun and liberating for writers to discuss once they learn that these rules are dead (or never existed). I am hoping you fall into the second category because today we are going to be talking about two more zombie rules.

We've already discussed rules concerning the beginning and end of sentences. Today's rules are focused on the inner construction and voice of the sentence. The first zombie rule is about splitting infinitives. This can be a tricky rule because some people find it to be especially irritating in writing. Spoken English is another matter but, I suppose people think less about words if they can't see them. If you're like me, you become easily distracted by unique words or unusual phrases. My inner grammar researcher can't resist. But I'm getting off-topic here.

An infinitive is a basic structure of "to" and a verb. If you are involved with language learning at all, you know that courses will often teach the infinitives of verbs followed by how they conjugate in different situations. This zombie rule states that "to" cannot be separated from its verb, e.g., He is beginning to heal fully. In this example, "to heal" is the infinitive and "fully" is the adverb. The infinitive is whole with the adverb on the end. It could read like this: He is beginning to fully heal. Now the infinitive has been split by the adverb. Do you notice something different when you read it? Try rereading both sentences and see what stands out to you. The placement of the adverb slightly changes the meaning of the sentence by putting emphasis either on the verb or the adverb.

Why do so many have a problem with split infinitives? This pet peeve can be traced back to the well-meaning grammarians of the 1700s. Much like last week with the ending prepositions, grammarians from this period desired to make English more like its root language, Latin [1]. In Latin, it is wrong to split infinitives. It would be more accurate to say impossible because Latin infinitives are not formed like English ones [2]. Latin rules cannot always apply to English because English has developed into a separate language. It has its own formations and rules that need to be followed. The best solution then is to go ahead and split that infinitive if it emphasizes accurately and sounds natural.

The second rule is one that has long pervaded the writing territory. People have become increasingly busy. We've somehow managed to become more efficient and have less time. Our language reflects this change in society. English is an evolving language and an active language deserves an active voice, right? Generations of English writers have been admonished for using the passive voice. I am here to tell you that passive voice is necessary and should be used.

A sentence can either be in the active or passive voice. In the active voice, a sentence follows this construction: a subject doing something, an active verb, and an object receiving the action. For example: I write articles. It is simple, straightforward, and emphasizes the doer of the action. On the other hand, the passive voice uses this construction: a subject receiving the action, a passive verb formed by a "to be" verb plus a past participle, and sometimes an object doing the action. For example: The articles are written by me. The sentence is a little longer now and it places emphasis on the object of the action. The problem that grammarians and writers have with the passive voice is its more complex structure and its allowance for vagueness.

Avoiding the passive voice is a zombie rule because it is not a true grammar rule. It is actually a writer's preference and writing style. Using a passive voice can be beneficial. The passive voice is essential when the doer is unknown. You don't always know who stole the neighbor's car. In that case, the passive voice makes it possible to tell someone that the car was stolen without having to come up with a perpetrator.

A passive voice can also be useful for certain types of writing. More technical writings such as scientific or medical manuscripts need a passive voice to explain processes and formulas. In other writings, emphasis on the receiver is important to make a point. If I want to emphasize the type of writing I do, I would use a passive voice, e.g., The articles were written by me. The noticeable part is "the articles." I want people to know that those articles are my style rather than biographies. That being said, it is important to note that the passive voice should not be abused. By this, I mean purposely using a passive voice to hide information and be vague. A classic example is a politician who says, "Mistakes were made." It sounds like an admission of guilt but is refusing to take responsibility.

Writers have a great deal of flexibility in English. To get your point across, it is perfectly acceptable to use both split infinitives and a passive voice. Although, you might want to introduce one at a time. There's no point in provoking so-called grammar enthusiasts. Clarity, consistency, and accuracy are the triple crown of writing. If breaking a zombie rule or two helps you achieve these goals, then I say start smashing.

[1] Erin Brenner, 2013, "Killing the Zombies: Split Infinitives, ‘Hopefully,' and Singular ‘They'," Visual Thesaurus, Accessed October 4, 2019, https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wc/killing-the-zombies-split-infinitives-hopefully-and-singular-they/.

[2] Ibid.

Zombie Rules: The Myths of English Class Part 1

Last week, I wrote about using the singular they. Some editors and grammarians believe that avoiding singular they is a zombie rule. Zombie rules have nothing to do with actual zombies, but rather outdated grammar rules. A more accurate way of describing them is as non-rules. The term was coined by a professor, Arnold Zwicky, in 2005 for grammar "rules" that authors, editors, and elementary schools insist on following even though these rules don't exist and have no grammatical basis [1]. The term took off as demonstrated by John McIntyre's article that described an entire list of them [2]. Over the next few weeks, I'm going to be describing some of these zombie rules and why writers should allow them to permanently die out.

The first two zombie rules I am going to discuss are very common amongst authors, overzealous editors, and elementary school classes. People consistently break both rules in speech which gives evidence that they don’t apply to the natural flow of words. Our brains appear to know a little more about grammar than we do when we allow them to take over. The first rule is to never start a sentence with a conjunction. The second insists on never ending a sentence with a preposition.

For many years, elementary students have been told that they cannot begin a sentence with a conjunction. That is not necessarily the case. A conjunction's job is to connect clauses, phrases, or words within a sentence. There are three types of conjunctions: correlating, subordinating, and coordinating. Writers use both correlating and subordinating conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence without trouble. The coordinating conjunctions are the problem. These conjunctions include the common and, but, and or. Spoken English reflects the usage of beginning conjunctions such as these.

Grammar rules and style guides have never warned against using conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence [3]. This "rule" was most likely created by teachers and carried on as a grammar rule when truly it is teachers' preference [4]. However, there is one stumbling block with beginning conjunctions that writers must watch out for.

When one uses a conjunction, it is important to ensure that the sentence is not a fragment [5]. With simple cases, one only needs to trust their instincts and what sounds the most natural. As I said previously, the brain knows much more grammar than we do. With harder cases, it can help to take the time to identify each part of the sentence to make sure everything is present that should be. 

Once one stops trying to avoid conjunctions, they find that conjunctions can be very useful. Sometimes, nothing works like a period to create a certain effect. One could use a comma and make the two sentences one. But a period adds a greater pause and gives more emphasis to the sentence that follows [6]. That emphasis produces greater clarity and magnifies the author's voice. These two benefits are key to every writer.

The second zombie rule is to avoid prepositions at the end of a sentence. The job of a preposition is to demonstrate the relationship between a noun or a pronoun and some other word in the sentence. As the one who is showing how words relate to each other, prepositions can become a part of phrasal verbs [7]. Phrasal verbs are phrases that behave like verbs, and prepositions often end up at the end of sentences that have either these phrases or interrogatives because the order makes the most sense [8].

The idea that prepositions cannot end a sentence has never been a grammar rule for English. This idea was popularized by the famed poet John Dryden and many style guides that followed him [9]. Both Dryden and an earlier culprit, grammarian Joshua Poole, wanted to keep English close to its roots [10]. In Latin, ending a sentence with a preposition is, in fact, wrong [11]. I can appreciate wanting to keep close ties between English and Latin. But Dryden, Poole, and countless others were forgetting something very important. English is not Latin. English may have its roots in Latin, but it is not the same thing. What works in one language may not in the other. For the sake of clarity, English sometimes needs a preposition at the end of the sentence. 

If it is true that conjunctions and prepositions can be used, what are authors to do? The best rule to follow is to use the conjunction or preposition unless it might cause problems. If readers are going to be riled by a "misplaced" word, they are not going to absorb your actual point and may even question your expertise. For the sake of one's message, moving the word or replacing it might be the better option.

These zombie rules may have been around for decades, but that doesn't mean they should be accepted or followed. You can make writing clearer and more natural by adding in some beginning conjunctions and ending prepositions. You'll be one less author contributing to the continued life of these "rules." Just be careful you don't create a mob by doing it. Some battles aren't worth fighting.

[1] Merrie-Ellen Wilcox, 2016, "Spooks, zombie rules, and the singular ‘they'" [blog], West Coast Editorial Associates, accessed September 27, 2019, http://westcoasteditors.com/spooks-zombie-rules-and-the-singular-they/.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Neal Whitman, 2014, "Can I Start a Sentence with a Conjunction?", Grammar Girl Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing, Accessed September 27, 2019, https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Mignon Fogarty, 2011, "Ending a Sentence with a Preposition," Grammar Girl Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing, Accessed September 27, 2019, https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition.

[8] Ibid.

[9] "Prepositions, Ending a Sentence With," Merriam-Webster, June 25, 2019, https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/prepositions-ending-a-sentence-with.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.