Convince a student this is sub-optimal

[Toby Frost]

Surely it's wrong because it elides two phrases to imply that they have the same subject. Since no alternative subject is given than "the trees", it has to be the trees that are the subject of the walking. More broadly, it's wrong because it's unclear. Obviously the trees walking is unlikely ("heavy plant crossing"), but what if it was another person? "Walking down the street, Tony was wearing a baseball cap". So who's doing the walking?

The reason I'd discourage it is because it serves no greater effect than to confuse (which is why I'd never use the French style of quotation marks so beloved of "literary" writers). If it confuses the writing more than it enhances it, I'd say that it needs changing.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Obviously the trees walking is unlikely ("heavy plant crossing"), but what if it was another person? "Walking down the street, Tony was wearing a baseball cap". So who's doing the walking?

And that, precisely, is how you explain the problem and why there's a stumble there.

 

[EJDeBrun]

Clarity. That would be my reasoning for a change. It's unclear, specifically the phrase "Walking down the street" Who exactly is doing the walking? The grammatical lack of a concrete subject for this phrase (clause? My grammar teacher would kill me for not knowing this) is what leads to the issue.

Words and sentences are about clarity. How well does a sequence of words communicate to the reader. If there is any shadow of confusion that is not intended, then more work needs to be put in order to add to clarity.

And in response to the student asking what is the problem, this student is demonstrating a certain level of assumption in regards to the reader. What if the reader is not a native English speaker? Or is just learning to read? Is it clear for them? As a child of immigrants where English is a second language, I can tell you that what's considered the most obvious thing to a native speaker confuses the daylights out of them, especially in text. If the writer's aim is to be all inclusive for readers of every type and background, then the writing must be unequivocal about its meaning.

That would be my explanation. And then I would tell this student to read The Elements of Style which has a section devoted specifically to this kind of issue.

 

[Paul Meccano]

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?

Walking down the street
the tree's were out in leaf
I couldn't tell which one it was
with this I had a beef!!
never one to poke or prod
and never one to tell
op-in-ion in any case is very hard to sell
were I walking down the street, the trees were all in leaf
or were the trees a walking with the leaf's a down the street
not knowing write from wrong in case
leaf's me sourly to conclude
leave it up to them, for they are writing very gooowd

 

[tinkerdan]

I would suggest writing it this way:
Walking down the street, trees out in leaf.
:: And muddy up the whole issue.
If they are going to use poetic license they should use it all the way.

 

[tinkerdan]

Walking down the street, the trees were all out in leaf.
The problem is that this is a participle without a noun to modify .

Placement: In order to prevent confusion, a participial phrase must be placed as close to the noun it modifies as possible, and the noun must be clearly stated.

One way to show that is that it could read.

1)Walking down the street, the trees were all out in leaf.
or
2)Walking down the street, he noticed the trees were all out in leaf.



In the first sentence there is no clear indication of who or what is performing the action expressed walking. Certainly trees can't function in that way. This is an example of a dangling modifier error since the modifier (the participial phrase) is not modifying any specific noun in the sentence and is thus left "dangling." Since a person must be doing the walking for the sentence to make sense, a noun or pronoun that refers to a person must be in the place immediately after the participial phrase, as in the second sentence.

I also ended up adding noticed so perhaps his original dangling modifier should look like this.

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

 

[CTRandall]

For a student who has no time for rules, I would say the harder you make it for a reader, the less likey that reader will enjoy your work or, to be blunt, pay you for it. Yes, I understand what the student meant but I have to spend extra effort to do so. It doesn't matter how miniscule that effort is. What matters is that it was uneccesary and next time, I'll choose an author who let's me indulge my natural laziness.

 

[Joshua Jones]

It seems to me that a great many crimes against the language are permitted in the name of being "voicey". In some contexts, this is permissible, as your character is, in fact, butchering the Queen's English. I think what catches me on this phrase is that is sounds like a third person narration. If that is the case, and the narrator isn't characterized, it is simply poor grammar being used by someone who should know better.

 

[farntfar]

Despite not being able to object very strongly, I dislike the sentence on 2 counts.

Firstly it just felt wrong as I read it, and for the reason you originally gave,
but mainly because it encourages a certain type of person to make disparaging remarks about people from Basingstoke.
Grrrr!

 

[Onyx]

The student's use of a comma sets up the expectation that the two phrases have a logical connection within the sentence. But they could have used a period after a minor rework of the first phrase, indicating they are not really connected. And that illogical connection makes the writer sound like the reader shouldn't trust them with the business of writing, like a painter using dirty brushes.

"He walked the street. The trees were all out in leaf."


The sentence could be reworked to keep the interesting voice with a more descriptive verb in the first phrase that connects to the observation in the second:

"Stalking the streets, the trees were all out in leaf. "

 

[Guillermo Stitch]

I think sometimes it's a question of advocating for precision. Rather than identify the (grammatical) error as such, try to help someone see how exponentially more powerful, authoritative and potentially moving language can be when deployed with precision.

It's like "Yeah, I see what you mean, there's no immediate problem, but you've given me cause to withhold my confidence in you as a narrator. Subconsciously, I no longer feel in absolutely safe hands".

It's like the taxi driver very probably isn't going to kill you. I mean, what are the odds? But she sure is grinding those gears...