Convince a student this is sub-optimal

[HareBrain]

A friend was telling me about a student in her creative writing degree class, who had written something like:

Walking down the street, the trees were all out in leaf.

She pointed out that this sentence construction was grammatically less than excellent, but the student's reply was that it was clear what it meant (in this case, confusion is unlikely since no one would interpret it as the trees walking), so what was the problem? And we were wondering what the best argument would be to convince the student, without resorting to rules of grammar just because they are rules (about which the student clearly cares nothing).

Any ideas?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

1. Why convince them? Presumably these are adult learners. It's not the same as teaching young learners new skills. If the student has had things explained and don't want to change - that's up to them. All your friend can do is advise - it's up to the adult learner what they do with that.

2. Voice. I quite like the sentence. It's voicey and feels like someone might have said. Interfere with the voice at your peril as a tutor. What if you stifle them, change their style and then find yourself accused of ruining their writing style.

In short - I wouldn't do anything about it. And that's after almost 20 years of just these sort of conversations on a range of subjects. Advise and challenge. Then let them run with it.

 

[Cathbad]

Although not exactly grammatically correct, I would think nothing wrong with the sentence, were I to see it in a novel. Were it a grammar course textbook, yes - there'd be a problem.

In a creative writing course, I might want to tell the student to be careful of clarity, but in the end, the meaning here is clear, and like Jo said, it sounds like something someone would actually say. We don't always, after all, speak with perfect grammar in everyday life.

 

[mosaix]

It could be confusing if there were ents in the story...

 

[HareBrain]

True. What I was wondering, though, is if there's an inevitable (or near-inevitable) effect on a reader that the student might not have considered. To me, it reads as clumsy -- not severely so, but it causes a little internal twitch. But is that merely because I tend to like rules, or is there something fundamental about it? (The fact that both of you say it's not a problem suggests the former.)

 

[Cathbad]

True. What I was wondering, though, is if there's an inevitable (or near-inevitable) effect on a reader that the student might not have considered. To me, it reads as clumsy -- not severely so, but it causes a little internal twitch. But is that merely because I tend to like rules, or is there something fundamental about it? (The fact that both of you say it's not a problem suggests the former.)

Frankly, I find novels were everyone speaks with perfect grammar at all times very strange, and it puts me off. The characters don't sound real.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

True. What I was wondering, though, is if there's an inevitable (or near-inevitable) effect on a reader that the student might not have considered. To me, it reads as clumsy -- not severely so, but it causes a little internal twitch. But is that merely because I tend to like rules, or is there something fundamental about it? (The fact that both of you say it's not a problem suggests the former.)

Personally I feel your whiskers are twitching but I play fast and loose with grammar anyhow.

 

[Cat's Cradle]

I agree with you, HareBrain (no disrespect meant to those who don't mind the sentence's construction). This kind of makes me cringe.

I think the issue isn't necessarily with this one sentence, but with what it might portend: if a writer is willing to let this one get by (and perhaps they never would have noticed that it was - technically - grammatically incorrect, if it hadn't been pointed out), what happens when they construct other sentences in their work in a similar fashion, that do cause ambiguity? This seems sloppy to me, and I would bet there's a fair chance that a read-through of any longish work by this writer would reveal other, more severe examples of this type of error.

But I do see the voice point, too, Jo. How could this be written so that it retains voice, but is also grammatically correct? That might be the way to approach things, with this writer.

Okay, not a writer here myself, but just my thoughts, as a reader.

edit: I would hope the muscle-memory argument - where the person runs the risk of casually repeating this incorrect sentence structure, whenever they have a similar set of points to present to the reader - could possibly work, too. They might start doing it wrong every time, if they are not properly conscientious about the issue now.

 

[HareBrain]

I'll try to make my point a bit clearer.

Say you have two paintings of a person. One is by an amateur artist from Basingstoke, the other is by Picasso. In both cases it's obvious what the painting is of, and in both cases the proportions are "out".

To me, now, the first one would appear jarring, the second one not. But it might be that to some people (and myself when a lot younger) it might be the reverse, and to some both might be jarring, or neither. Why do people's reactions differ? What does it depend on? Does it matter?

I'm not, by the way, arguing for perfect grammar. One of my favourite pieces of writing is Riddley Walker, whose near-complete lack of grammar (by traditional standards) is so exciting it makes my blood fizz. Partly I'm wondering how we arrived at the grammar we have, and whether the reasons we arrived at it still apply beneath the surface at an instinctive "the proportions are wrong" level, even if they're hard to express except as dry-sounding and inflexible "rules". That might be rather ambitious as a topic.

 

[Biskit]

To me, it reads as clumsy -- not severely so, but it causes a little internal twitch.

Like Jo, I'm a bit casual with grammar at times (which drives the Biskitetta nuts), and this (slightly clunky) sentence as it stands doesn't bother me, BUT what is the context? If it's just one fast-and-loose which feels right in context, and perhaps has implicit hints as to who is doing the walking in a previous sentence, then fine. If it's part of a pattern of muddled writing, then I would be more concerned.

 

[The Big Peat]

I am more on the side of this is fine. It is clear and it has voice. Sometimes a teacher has to accept that a student has an aesthetic taste that drives them wild.

If I am against it, it is because the voice has the whiff of third rate poet. Lyricism for the sake of lyricism. I think the fact that (in isolation) there is no clear subject to the sentence contributes to that - that's something I associate more with books and poems.

But since it is in isolation, it is very difficult to say more than that. I think we'd need to see the paragraph at least to offer something useful. A single lyrical line in well done prose can be extremely effective or extremely jarring. Excess lyricism can be a pile of guff or beautiful. Context is king here.

 

[J Riff]

Walking trees, that's so creative; the editor will love it.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

What bothers me most is how many people aren't bothered by it. But I suppose that's why at least one of them has me.

But I don't know how to argue with someone (the student) who thinks grammar doesn't mean anything. No, it's not clear what's meant, because it says the trees are walking down the street. This is what happens when people aren't taught sentence diagramming in elementary school. Walking trees.

I don't see any particular voice to it. It's just a lousy sentence. If it were dialogue, then the "people don't speak in perfect grammar" argument would stand, but it doesn't appear to be dialogue.

I'm the person who doesn't care for either portrait with "off" proportions, and it doesn't matter to me that one was a Picasso -- I can't stand Picasso. It makes no difference to me if it's a famous writer doing awful things with the language, it still stinks just as much.

Perhaps, in the realm of how grammar rules are instinctive, and how something can put off a reader if it isn't done properly, even if they don't realize why, you might try this:

Order force: the old grammar rule we all obey without realising | Tim Dowling

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think it depends on the context. There might be an understood but unsaid "I was" or "he/she/it was" implied by the context. In which case, maybe it's OK.

But I imagine one can justify just about anything by saying "it's voicey" and that isn't an excuse I would want to hand to someone I was trying to teach to write effectively and with clarity. I could too easily see it coming back at me every single time something was pointed out as bad grammar.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Ah, my point about the it's voicey (or any other response from the student) was in relation to the teacher/adult student relationship:

If I tell a student their boss is being unfair to them and they should complain, and they do and lose their job, then I could be liable for that. And I could be sued.

If I tell a student their boss is being unfair to them, and they could complain, if they felt it was the right thing to do, and they then do do - that's up to them. Not my fault.

If a an adult student, once told and challenged, chooses not to do something that's it. That's where your responsibility - and indeed role - ends.

If I had written this sentence (I doubt I would but who knows what travesties may occur when loose with a keyboard - which is why, indeed, I have someone like Dusty onboard, so uncannily like her it's shocking ) and my editors all threw up their hands in horror it's still up to me. And things have reached publication in my books which I have been advised to change and didn't (and, yes, in retrospect for some of them I should have).

Harebrain's question wasn't 'what is wrong with this sentence' or even 'should this abomination be allowed to exist' but 'how do I convince someone to change it?'

To which my response is - you can't and, actually, you shouldn't. And if you do and something goes wrong, it's your fault. That is the nature of teaching. You can only advise. After that, you can only stand back, watch and wince

 

[HareBrain]

Yes, I think that went off-track a bit.

My question was really, to those annoyed by this, how, hypothetically, could you describe the apparent wrongness of it without merely invoking "it's bad grammar"? Can you pin-point the reason why it has a negative effect on you as the reader? Because the student (actually, ignore that it's a student) might not have considered that it might have a negative effect, given that its meaning is clear.

I'd probably say that the sentence (and whatever kind of word "walking" is -- help, please?) sets up an expectation that the implied subject in the first clause is the same as the one in the second, and when that turns out to not be the case, there's a kind of a mental stumble. Sometimes mental stumbles are useful, but not here, because it doesn't achieve anything.

 

[Abernovo]

Walking down the street, the trees were all out in leaf.

Not the world's greatest for sticking rigidly to grammar in everyday speech, but I'll chance my arm on this.
Really, you should have something between those two clauses to show that it is someone observing, as they walk down the street, that the trees surrounding them have come into leaf. However--and this is my only issue with the original post and request--there's not enough context. It's an orphaned sentence. If there was a preceding sentence which explained the context, the writer might (just) get away with it, especially if it was written in a colloquial manner, as if it was someone telling a tale, narration-style.

As it is, it's poor construction. That's not to say it is unusable. Some great writers get away with bending, even breaking, the rules; but it does help to know the rules first, so you can break them intentionally.

Alternatively, the trees may be walking. In which case, we're into different territory.

 

[The Big Peat]

I don't see any particular voice to it. It's just a lousy sentence. If it were dialogue, then the "people don't speak in perfect grammar" argument would stand, but it doesn't appear to be dialogue.

To me, the fact it is something that would normally be found in dialogue is what gives it a sense of voice. It sounds like someone is directly narrating it, with all their linguistic oddities and flaws thrown in. And the linguistic oddities give an immediate picture of the sort of person who says that, or at least it does to me.


As for explaining why its jarring - to me, its because there's no subject, and where we expect a subject there's something that appears to be one. Its the mental equivalent of lifting your foot for a step when there isn't one.

 

[Mouse]

It'd bother me, and I'd "suggest" a rewrite. Doesn't sound voicey, just sounds wrong. And I don't care too much for grammar rules either.

I wouldn't convince them, I'd just tell them they were wrong. But Mouse dudn't do no pussy-footing.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'd give them examples of work to critically analyse and then show them where their's presents the same confusion.