Talk:Dangling modifier

Misc. old discussions

This isn't very well-written... And "linguists" tend to describe how language behaves rather than prescribe how it should behave. Jacquerie27 21:09 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it is better than not having been written at all.

Yes, it is, and I apologize for saying that. I couldn't write anything in German. Jacquerie27 06:30 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for editing it, but someone had to set the ball rolling on this. --Dieter Simon 23:04 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Are you saying that linguists have no prescriptive role whatsoever, then?

Not as linguists. I think linguists themselves often write very bad and very ugly English, but it's not their job to improve language, it's their job to describe it. I wish linguistics could give us clear and objective ways of saying some forms are better than others, but it doesn't yet. Maybe one day it will be like medicine: describing pathology and helping us to cure it. Jacquerie27 06:30 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Is it not possible they might even express a preference? How do you see the para "Description and proscription" in Wikipedia's very own article on Linguistics, which doesn't seem to make it at all clear-cut that "professional" (linguists) do not in fact "proscribe" (or prescribe for that matter). --Dieter Simon

They can (and do) express preferences as individuals, but not as linguists. I've looked at the article and it makes the same point as I have:

Narrower conceptions of "linguistics"

"Linguistics" and "linguist" may not always be meant to apply as broadly as above. In some contexts, the best definitions may be "what is studied in a typical university's department of linguistics", and "one who is a professor in such a department." Linguistics in this narrow sense usually does not refer to learning to speak foreign languages (except insofar as this helps to craft formal models of language.) It does not include literary analysis. Only sometimes does it include study of things such as metaphor. It probably does not apply to those engaged in such proscriptive efforts as found in Strunk and White's The Elements of Style; "linguists" usually seek to study what people do, not what they should do. One could probably argue for a long while about who is and who is not a "linguist". Linguistics

I'm not sure that "mercifully" is disputed like "hopefully". "Mercifully, the sun began to shine" = "It is a mercy that..." Jacquerie27 17:36 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

The problems with dangling modifiers aren't really grammatical; they're semantic. So it's not really worthwhile pointing to grammatical clues as to whether a sentence is valid or not. For instance, the sentence, "Hopefully, the car hit the dog.", has one possible meaning whereas the sentence, "Hopefully, the man hit the dog.", has two. Despite the fact that both are grammatically identical, it is necessary to rewrite the second but not the first. -- Derek Ross 19:11 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

and "Mercifully" is like "Hopefully". Try using it in the dog example above. A car can't be merciful but a man can. -- Derek Ross 19:21 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

A car can't, but "event of car hitting dog" can be figuratively merciful to someone being chased by a rabid dog --Random|832 03:25, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that is exactly the point: the mercifulness of the event of the car hitting the dog is the only meaning of the sentence, which is why it isn't ambiguous. --Chinasaur 07:37, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Hopefully, the car missed the dog"? ;) Grammar can include semantics in the wider sense, but it's a good point. Jacquerie27 20:50 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

<grin>The dog was rabid.</grin> But you're right. I should have said "syntactically" rather than "grammatically" -- Derek Ross 21:22 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

It all seems a bit of a "dog's breakfast" now. The original sentence was: "Arriving late, I was able to catch the train after all", which could have meant that both I and the train were late, and I was therefore able to catch it. Or it could have meant either I or the train were late? Make what you like of this, I leave it to you both to get yourselves out of this. --Dieter Simon 23:04 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Jacquerie

I really should like to come back to the descriptive or proscriptive role of linguists. I said it isn't all that clearcut that linguists never prescribe or proscribe. You were saying that the Wikipedia article agrees with you that the role of linguists is descriptive. But does it not also mention "that there are professionals who also proscribe or condemn particular aspects of language, perhaps holding a particular linguistic standard out for all to emulate"? I'd say that that descriptiveness is far from clearcut. Or are these professionals not linguists? --Dieter

I don't think they are linguists. Linguistics is a science or tries to be, and science is concerned with describing and explaining what is, not with deciding what ought to be, partly because it's much harder to decide what ought to be than to describe what actually is. If these forms exist in English, linguists (in their professional role) will describe them and leave it up to others to say whether or not they should be condemned or avoided. Someone like Fowler wasn't a linguist in the modern sense. Jacquerie27 17:47 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with your point below that the norms are often arbitrary. Nevertheless, a cognitive linguist would argue that an important part of linguistics (as a descriptive science) is understanding which forms are inherently easier to understand due to biological predisposition. This is not quite the same as being proscriptive, and certainly not the same as what style guides etc. try to accomplish. But when you can begin to make assertions like "well they're both technically grammatical by rules X and Y, but one is inherently more clear (to a human observer with standard physiology)" then I'd say there's an obvious, scientific basis for preference. I realize that this "standard physiology" part could get squirrely or biggoted, but some things are universal, among humans at least (but not including computer language parsers, for example).

Hmmm, maybe I should see if this is addressed in the linguistics article, but I don't think I really want to get involved... --Chinasaur 12:09, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

It's fine to include this sort of thing so long as you say that such-and-such is what some cognitive linguists have to say, rather than saying that something is bad style. --Cadr

Yes, I do understand your points. Sorry, if I gave the wrong impression. Of course, linguists should not impose rules on a language. Nobody could do that anyway, neither individuals nor agencies, be they linguists, other experts or governments. I was merely referring to the article 'Linguistics'.

There are, however, some rules - call them natural laws - which nobody in their right mind would flout if they want to be understood, those reflected in the speech of the exemplary ideal native speaker, whose speech has certain elements (subject and possibly object, verb and maybe predicate in a certain order; the reversal of this order in questions; deliberate ellipses of words for 'dramatic effect'; sentence substitutes, etc., etc.

You yourself substituted more suitable words for my, admittely, raw versions in 'Dangling modifier', for which I am grateful. There are elements in language which inherently sound better, are more appropriate by the convention of the specialised subjects its practitioners observe - once again all part of the norms to be adhered to.

But sometimes the norms are arbitrary or just based on familiarity. Not pronouncing the "h" in English words like "hand" or "house" is usually thought of as ignorant and ill-educated, but then so is actually pronouncing the "h" in words like "honor" or "honest". Jacquerie27 07:04 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

But why am I telling you this, you know this so much better than I do. It may be that I got carried away with this 'Descriptivism and Prescriptivism' controversy. So, what more can I say, thanks --Dieter Simon 23:49 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm a prescriptivist myself. See pleonasm, logorrhoea, Politics and the English Language. But it's harder to be objective when prescribing than when describing. Jacquerie27 07:04 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Cadr has suggested that I avoid wishy-washiness, so I've asserted that a misplaced modifier is still bad style even if it is unambiguous. Every style guide I know agrees on this point. It's also true from a cognitive linguistics standpoint that many dangling modifiers remain confusing to read even if they are syntactically unambiguous (because written and spoken word are processed directionally). So the judgement of the style guides makes practical sense to me. I don't think it's worth getting into that in the article though.

--Chinasaur 11:29, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Your statements about style guides and cognitive linguistics are facts (so long as they're attributed), but to say directly that a dangling modifier is bad style is POV. I also have to say I disagree with it. To me, there is nothing very confusing or difficult about the sentence "Being ill in bed, the telephone startled me when it rang." It should also be noted that style guides are in the business of declaring a significant number of grammatical patterns to be "bad style"; a serious linguist would merely note that certain uses of "dangling modifiers" can cause ambiguity, and I think Wikipedia articles on aspects of language should be more along these lines. The article already notes that dangling modifiers are often a bad idea because they are liable to cause ambiguity, but it seems a little dogmatic to say that they are always bad style (whatever exactly that is). --Cadr

I agree that saying "a dangling modifier is bad" would be POV. I tried to make it clear in the latest edit that I'm talking about something more specific: bad style. That's not POV as long as it's understood that style in this formal sense is just something you read in a style guide and is decided by the style guide author. I believe this is the standard meaning of style in this context, and agrees with the style disambiguation page (which just leads to style guide). A linguistics person might not put much value in the style guide opinion, but it still exists and should be recognized.

Further, however, I tried to make the argument that in this particular case I see a good cognitive linguistics reason for following the style guide convention: it's inherently (biologically) more clear to place the thing that's modified adjacent to the modifier because language is processed linearly (by humans). A misplaced modifier is parsable as English syntax, but it's still (NPOV?) bad usage.

I agree that the example sentence isn't really very hard to get. But it's still easier to read if you move the modified thing next to the modifier. Take the garden path sentence example (yes I was just reading that article...). It's the same issue: the sentences are syntactically correct, but they are confusing because language is processed linearly. And again, you can argue that some of the garden path sentences are not really that hard to get (I made that argument on Talk:Garden path sentence). But my point here (and I think the point of a well thought out style guide) is that in most cases a misplaced modifier is easy to fix, and the fixed version is just as good as the original by other measures (brevity for example). Why leave in something confusing if it's so easy and harmless to fix? That's what makes misplaced modifiers bad style (universally in my opinion). Although you don't have trouble with the "telephone" example sentence, I still argue that it is discernably less clear (to a human observer) than the rearranged version. Based on an amateur understanding of cog linguistics, I believe this could be proven experimentally, (I'll await funding offers => ).

Isn't misplaced modifier at least as much (probably more so) a style issue as a linguistics one? I'll give 5 to 1 odds that someone looking this up in an encyclopedia will be interested to learn what the style maven consensus is, whether they adhere to it or discount it. I can work on making it more clear what I mean when I say "bad style" in the article. But I have to play martyr here a little: seems to me that an okay way to alert people to the style issue without overstating the authority of style guides would have been to use my original wording: "generally considered bad style". In the context of an encyclopedia I don't really understand why that wording is so inappropriate. You're right that it should be cited; do you think linking to style guide is citation enough? Citing Strunk and White or whatever seems overkill for this short article. --Chinasaur 13:18, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

How about "Dangling modifiers have been criticized by many style guides". I admit this is close to your original "generally considered" wording and your "bad style" wording, but I think it is a little less weasley and much more NPOV. Can we settle on that wording? I do completely agree with you when you say "That's not POV as long as it's understood that style in this formal sense is just something you read in a style guide and is decided by the style guide author", and this is what I hope the wording I've just suggested makes clear. --Cadr

No complaints after the last edit. --Cadr

Chinasaur, I'm on your side in this debate. Dangling modifiers are always bad style. I do have a question, though. Does your sentence, "In the context of an encyclopedia[,] I don't really understand why that wording is so inappropriate." include a dangling modifier? It might be less awkward as: "I don't really understand why that wording is so inappropriate for an encyclopedia." --Matteo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.132.130 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic disambiguation

Consider the following sentence:

Being asleep, the computer startled me when it beeped.

Twenty years or so ago, this sentence would have been unambiguous, since a computer could not have been asleep. Today, however, some computers have power saving modes, and some people say a computer in such a mode is ‘asleep.’ Further, a computer in that mode would be more likely to startle someone if it beeped, since they would expect it to sit idle and be quiet. My conclusion, then, is that this sort of ambiguity cannot be counted on in the long term, if the subject of the sentence is something whose nature might change. Neon Merlin 23:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully

I don't see how hopefully's use as a sentence adverb fits in with an article on dangling modifiers, as hopefully doesn't (necessarily) dangle in this use: it's (nearly always) put right next to the sentence it modifies. Ruakh 22:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is true in a way, Ruakh, but it is still a dangling modifier, even if its original usage, that of a modifying adverb is also valid. Dangling, in that it misleads into a modification which (at least when it first came into use) was totally unexpected (as it was then). Mind you, someone ought to create an article about "Sentence adverb", though. I am waiting for a copy of Bill Bryson's "Troublesome Words" from Amazon, so I can cite a ref. Dieter Simon 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know — it certainly doesn't match the definition given in the article. If we're going to include it, then the definition in the article needs to be changed to cover it. (Granted, the explanation in the article is wrong, anyway. The problem with "Being in a dilapidated condition, I was able to buy the house very cheap" isn't that it's ambiguous, but that it doesn't sound like what the speaker meant. "Being in a dilapidated condition, the house was very cheap for me to buy" is equally ambiguous, but the intended meaning is the same as what it sounds like. The term "dangling modifier" is used in the former case because the modifier is separated from its intended subject; the second sentence does not have that problem. "Hopefully he'll come", even if someone misunderstood it, does not have a dangling modifier, because the modifier isn't dangling — it's perfectly adjacent.) Ruakh 04:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruakh, many thanks for re-editing the "references", for bringing it up-to-date. I entered it at least two years ago, since then the whole method of entering references has improved. Above all, the "dangling modifier" section reads well now, thanks.

But I have my doubts about the "sentence adverb" section now. Having checked on the various sources and having digested the whole caboodle, I too now think it should be under a separate article "sentence adverb", as it is called by most sources I have consulted. The problem is that, yes, it too is a modifier but it modifies elements within the sentence only indirectly, while a dangling modifier does so directly by inappropriately modifying subject or object within a sentence; a sentence adverb modifies the whole sentence, according to the attitude or mental disposition of the speaker. By all means, it should be mentioned under "dangling ..." in passing, perhaps as a link, but should have its own article. I think I'll move the "hopefully" section to a new article. Dieter Simon 23:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over my head

It feels like this page was written for linguists by linguists not for regular people. It is hard to understand.

Border669 00:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Dan[reply]

Well, Border, I feel you may really have to do a bit of close reading here. A dangling modifier is a pretty complex concept that really can't be much more simplified in describing it. Modifier, etc. is being explained as the article goes along, we really can't make the article much easier otherwise it will lose some of its complexities which are part of its essence, sorry about that. It is part of grammar and as such is being discussed in grammatical terms. Trying to use non-grammatical language in describing grammatical terms would not make sense.Dieter Simon 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Dieter Simon 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I hope I'm not the first person to appreciate such a poorly written respsonse to this point! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.64.122 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Removal of definition of modifier from lead

Following edit summary by ILike2BeAnonymous: "This is totally unnecessary; that's what Wiki-links are for. Perhaps moving the link closer to the front might help", the reference was to an interim definition of various terms in the article. I know, we are going back a bit here, but some people are of a different opinion here. Do you really think that linking the various concepts will, make any difference? I hope you are right. Dieter Simon 00:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Types of dangling modifiers

Excuse me, but I have noticed that this article addresses only dangling participles, and not other types of modifiers. I would have filled this in and said nothing about it, but I was using the article for research on these modifiers and so do not have sufficient information. I would appreciate it if somebody who does would fix this gap. 76.107.107.215 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]