Overview
When we speak of “grammar” we are actually talking about two things. The first is the adherence to various “rules” of the English language. The second thing we are talking about is syntactical maturity. This refers to the complexity of sentences and the ability to put more information into smaller spaces (efficiency and economy of language).
Syntactical maturity is something that is very similar to learning a second language and generally comes with time and practice.
However, grammar as the adherence to a set of rules poses a problem for many writers. This is because English, when written, relies upon various conventions that are not present when speaking. For example, no one speaking will actually say “comma” and “question mark.” These attributes are inferred from many other factors present in any speech act. Because of this, even native speakers of English who can speak and communicate just fine are often not aware of various rules that apply to the written language. In short, the “rules” of grammar in regard to written communication are artificial. They are not features inherent to language itself, but social conventions maintained through traditions, education, and other social dynamics. Any historical study of written language will demonstrate that these conventions have and continue to change over time.
This is further complicated by the fact that as students attempt to increase their syntactical maturity through increasingly complex sentence structure, they often times mis-apply basic grammatical conventions that are needed to make the jump from speech to written communication.
EVEN MORE FRUSTRATING is this: the research we have indicates that mastering the grammatical conventions needed to support highly complex syntactical structures is learned the same way as syntactical maturity: it happens over time, with use, and while immersed in an environment in which such features are present.
This is why memorization of parts of speech, technical terms for linguistic units, and the like does not consistently transfer to the ability to produce “good writing.”
The good news
While there are an infinite amount of ways any writer can screw up, there are actually very few that seem to matter. This is probably because there are few people in this world who possess an encyclopedic knowledge of every single rule and convention in the English language. (If you really looked closely, you’d no doubt find a few “errors” even in this document)
Researchers have actually inquired in to what “mistakes” are perceived by others as markers of a “bad writer.” For example, in the early 1980s, researchers sent a survey to thousands of people in various positions of power, asking them which errors in writing would indicate that a person is unqualified or would mark them as a person of lesser intelligence.
What we found out is that the list of unforgivable errors is relatively small. What follows are the five most unforgivable errors (plus one concerning spelling). If you can make sure you have none of these errors in your writing, you will almost always be “good to go.”
#1 and #2: Errors concerning commas
Commas are everyone’s frustration. They are frustrating precisely because they are not used in spoken communication, but rather are solely a feature of written communication. This is why they are so difficult to learn: we intuit meaning in vocal speech, but to understand comma usage in written language requires a basic understanding of parts of speech. The top two errors most frequently cited as being a “problem” deal with commas.
These top two errors both relate to comma usage and compound sentences. As you may remember, a compound sentence is formed when there are two independent clauses inside the same sentence. You may also remember that independent clauses are capable of being their own sentence.
The first error deals with the use of a coordinating conjunction without a comma. IF the two independent clauses have a coordinating conjunction between them, THEN you should always place a comma before the coordinating conjunction. What are these coordinating conjunctions? These are our familiar For And Nor But Or Yet So, or “FANBOYS.”
COPY-EDITING STRATEGY: While copy-editing, a quick scan of any usage of these words can easily pin point areas where a comma is likely required.
The second error is everyone’s favorite (and the one we all love to hate), the comma splice. Like the first error, comma splices also deal with compound sentences. A comma splice occurs when two independent clauses are joined in a sentence, separated by a comma, but do not use a coordinating conjunction.
COPY-EDITING STRATEGY:Fortunately, comma splices are easy to fix and easy to locate. Simply look for ANY sentence in which you have used a comma. IF (AND ONLY IF) there are indeed TWO independent clauses (that is, the parts on either side of the sentence could work on its own), and there is NO coordinating conjunction, do one of the following:
- IF IT RETAINS YOUR DESIRED MEANING, add a coordinating conjunction (For And Nor But Or Yet So)
- IF ADDING A FANBOY CANNOT MAKE THE SENTENCE MEAN WHAT YOU WANT, then simply split the sentence in two by EITHER adding an end punctuation (a period, question mark, exclamation point, or an interrobang) OR by using a semi-colon.
(Important note: if you have a sentence in which you used a comma, but the sentence does NOT contain two independent clauses, you are probably okay. Check with someone with grammatical knowledge if you are uncertain and in situations in which it really matters)
# 3: Run-on Sentences (Fused sentence)
Like the above errors, fused sentences are what occur when two independent clauses are present in the same sentence. However, unlike the first two errors, run on sentences occur when no coordinating conjunctions are used AND a comma is NOT present. Run-on sentences have nothing to do with length! You can create a run-on sentence with a minimum of 4 words. For example, “I ate Britney spears.” is a run-on sentence (and a pretty good example of how run-on sentences can make things go horribly wrong). “I ate” and “Britney spears” are both independent clauses, and can work on their own as a sentence.
COPY-EDITING STRATEGY: While run on sentences are easy to fix, they are unfortunately sometimes difficult to find. This is because they are caused by an absence of an element that should be there (a comma, a coordinating conjunction, a semi-colon, etc). Simply looking for a comma or a FANBOY will not help.
Thankfully, there is a simple test that makes run-on sentences easier to find. To do this, all you have to do is turn a sentence into a yes/no question. You can do this in one of two ways:
- By adding something like “Is” or “Did” to the beginning of the sentence to make it a yes/no question.
- By adding a short phrase like “isn’t it?” to the end of the question.
(If one doesn’t work at all, try the other). If the sentence makes sense, then it is okay. If the sentence all the sudden seems incredibly weird, bizarre, or painful to read aloud, then it is very likely you have located a run-on.
Here is an example: Coffee is a wonderful drink it is very good at waking me up.
By simply adding “Is” to the start of this sentence, we can turn it into a yes/no question: Is coffee a wonderful drink it is very good at waking me up?
If you read this out loud, it should violate every sense you have of the English language. Go ahead and try it. For native speakers, it will be very difficult to even read this out loud. This indicates that we actually have two independent clauses in the sentence. For example, we can turn both of these independent clauses into yes/no questions that make a lot of sense on their own:
- Is coffee a wonderful drink?
- It is very good at waking me up, isn’t it?
To fix a run-on, you can:
- either turn both independent clause into their own sentence: Coffee is a wonderful drink. It is very good at waking me up.
- apply semi-colon magic: Coffee is a wonderful drink; it is very good at waking me up.
- Utilize a coordinating conjunction: Coffee is a wonderful drink, and it is very good at waking me up.
- Utilize a subordinating conjunction: Coffee is a wonderful drink because it is very good at waking me up. (note, the usage of the subordinating conjunction fixes this by actually converting one of the independent clauses to a dependent clause)
# 4: Sentence Fragments
Officially speaking, a sentence fragment is lacking a subject, a verb, or both. Usually, though, the real problem with sentence fragments occur with the usage of a dependent clause, which has both a subject and a verb. If a dependent clause exists as its own sentence, it is a fragment. Why? A dependent clause can only have full meaning when attached to an independent clause.
Fortunately, this means that sentence fragments, especially ones made of a dependent clause, are easy to fix and easy to locate.
This is because dependent clauses exist because of a subordinating conjunction. Locating subordinating conjunctions can often locate dependent clauses. If a dependent clause is not connected to an independent clause, then you have just located a sentence fragment.
COPY-EDITING STRATEGY: Since most native speakers of English rarely fail to include a subject or a verb (simply because it would sound “wrong” to their ears), your chief task is to track down these dependent clauses. To do this, you should look for subordinating conjunctions. A subordinating conjunction makes an idea dependent on another idea (hence “dependent clause”). They often times express a logical relationship between two ideas. Here is a list of common subordinating conjunctions and the relationships they create:
- Cause / Effect: because, since, so that
- Comparison / Contrast: although, even though, though, whereas, while
- Place & Manner: how, however, where, wherever
- Possibility / Conditions: if, whether, unless
- Relation: that, which, who
- Time: after, as, before, since, when, whenever, while, until
Any time you use one of these words, your first question is to ask: does this sentence, on its own, tell me everything I need to know? A dependent clause will never fully explain the meaning of the sentence, and as such is a fragment.
Here is an example from the previous error: Because coffee wakes me up in the morning.
In this example, we know this is a dependent clause from the subordinating conjunction “because.” However, on its own, this question does not answer what happens because coffee wakes me up. In other words, we are left with a cliff-hanger.
#5: Subject-Verb agreement
Errors stemming from subject-verb disagreement are the only class of errors that are not directly related to punctuation. A subject-verb error generally results when there is a plural subject paired with a singular verb (or vice versa). Remember, a subject and a verb constitutes the most basic building block of any sentence (more officially known as a “T-unit”). Because of this, a subject and a verb will be present in any sentence. As such, the subject and the verb must always be “in sync” with each other.
Subject-verb errors are important simply because of all the errors, these errors are most commonly referred to as “class-marking” errors. That is, disagreements between a subject and a verb are perceived by others as marking someone of a “lower” or “uneducated” class, even though subject-verb disagreements do not always indicate grammatical incoherence (that is, you can mix a plural subject with a singular verb and still be understood by others). While it may not be fair, this is why attention to these sorts of errors can often be important in writing, especially in situations where there may be sharp and consequential class divisions.
For example: “We was going to the store.” (plural subject “we” paired with single verb “was”).
For most native speakers of English, subject-verb agreements are rarely an issue when the subject and the verb are right next to each other. This is because we “hear” the disagreement as being wrong, simply because we’ve probably had so many adults continually correct us when we said “we was” as a child.
The real problem comes when subjects and verbs are not next to each other. The distance between the subject and verb, then, becomes an increased amount of space in which confusion can occur. For example: The possession of guns and swords are strictly prohibited. In this example, the subject “The possession” (a singular subject) is inappropriately matched with the verb “are” (a plural verb). The correct version of this sentence should read: The possession of guns and swords is strictly prohibited.
COPY-EDITING STRATEGY: As your sentences become more complex, varied, and dense (all of which are good things), the distance between subjects and verbs often increases. This makes it increasingly difficult to keep track of what verb goes with what subject, even more so when compound subjects are used. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to make sure subjects and verbs agree other than being able to identify the actual subject of a sentence and the verb it is paired with.
This is the dreaded exercise of circling the subject and underlining the verb. Since it is often impractical to do this with every sentence in a text that is longer than a few pages, you can usually safely ignore simple sentences, since subjects and verbs are often next to each other and as such are rarely mismatched by native speakers of English. Instead, focus your efforts on longer sentences and sentences with compound subjects, as these are usually the sorts of sentences in which subject-verb disagreements occur.
One more: Spelling and errors from heterographic homophones
Spelling isn’t necessarily a “grammar” issue, but with certain words can have profound grammatical consequences. In particular, heterographic homophones are a challenge in writing. A heterographic homophone is a word that is pronounced in the same way as another word, but has a different meaning AND a different spelling. Because it is spelled differently, the wrong spelling of the word means something different than what the writer intends.
Here is a list of common heterographic homophones that occur frequently in writing:
there / their / they’re
its / it’s (especially common)
two / too / to
your / you’re
Native speakers of English can often recognize inappropriately spelled versions of these words once isolated, especially with words that are contractions (e.g., they’re = they are, it’s = it is, you’re = you are). Non-native speakers of English unfortunately have to simply memorize these words and to be extra careful when they are used.
COPY-EDITING STRATEGY: Any time one of these words is used, go back and ensure it is expressing the correct idea. Any time a contraction is used, un-do the contraction to ensure the sentence still makes sense and means what you want it to. Notes: this is especially useful in figuring out its / it’s. “It’s” ONLY ever means “it is” and NEVER implies possession. This is why its/it’s is particularly confusing, as it is an exception to the rule on apostrophes and possession.
For Further Reading
These two books, while aging, have aged incredibly well. I would suggest any teacher of writing (and students interested in teaching writing) to check them out:
Noguchi, Rei R. Grammar and the Teaching of Writing: Limits and Possiblilities. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1991.
Weaver, Constance. Teaching Grammar in Context. Portsmouth NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1996.
