The editor of my community newspaper met all of us local freelancers for lunch a few weeks ago. It was mostly a social event, but there were a few shop-talk items to discuss. Among them was a rule of thumb the editor asked us to keep in mind when we write: Nonspecific time elements such as "lately" or "last week" are best left to the middle or end of sentences, not the very beginning.
Yes, how the parts of a sentence are arranged is just one detail that shapes a person's signature writing style. And yes, in most cases, the placement of nonessential words (assuming they are punctuated appropriately) is only a matter of preference; such phrases can correctly fall in many places without altering a sentence's meaning. From a grammar/syntax perspective, no position is strictly right or wrong.
But as my editor pointed out, in some specific contexts, one syntax can be smarter than another. And the media world--wherein expediency is second only to accuracy--is definitely one of them.
Newspapers specialize in immediacy. Phrases that don't deliver useful information slow down a sentence. Put them in the front of a sentence, and they can discourage an impatient reader from continuing. Hold off until after the meat of the sentence, though, and the risk of losing your one-minute skimming/scanning reader decreases significantly.
And since our community newspaper is published only once weekly, immediacy takes on a whole different meaning. Vague terms like "recently" and "soon" can be especially tricky with such a lag time between when they are written and when the paper gets into readers' hands. For past events in particular, the "when" of the story is just not as important as the other facts.
Readers, this newspaper example is one situation that calls for following language rules that might seem overly restrictive in other contexts. Certainly there are many others. What is your experience with language guidelines that are context- or medium-specific? All anecdotes, questions, examples, and comments are welcome!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not sure if this fits, but I HATE it when news articles cite "anonymous" sources because "they aren't allowed to speak to the press." I feel like that is almost code for "we can make up whatever we want based on gossip and speculation."
ReplyDeleteAlso, I dislike when a statement like "phone calls to the Flaming Mountain Lodge were not immediately returned." That's just lazy reporting.
I'll give context/medium-specific guidelines a little more thought though.
Back in the '50s and early '60s when I was in National Forensics League I was told any commentary should be stated at the beginning of a statement with almost no explanation then followed-up with a highly detailed explanation at the end of the statement which would maintain reader's/listener's interest for the entire monologue.
ReplyDeleteThat coaching won me many points in various competitions and it has as much merit today as way back then in "the dark ages"; people are always intrigued by unusual or, certainly, different perspectives. Give them the interest to explore the topic then knock their socks off with logic they will very likely not even attempt to challenge. (This principal/method is purely political with no relationship to reality. People either accept it as factual or completely discount it due to their perception of realistic foundations/perceptions.
In short, the method amounts to nothing more than saying what is (perhaps) the most outstanding characteristic of the point you want to make, then describing your point of perception and, finally (make the wait...) giving them them the simplest reason(s) to believe your perception makes the most sense.
Opinion in our contemporary society is considered both unfounded and speculative. Without public opinion, however, there cannot be reason or collusion. All of us in the "free world" are required to accept some "norm" we can accept. Without free opinion there can be no normality of logic.
Those (now seemingly) ancient lessens I was taught in Forensics League have more significance than when they were freshly provided half a century ago.
Jerry
Don't overlook the Toast Master's general rule...
ReplyDelete"Tell them what they need/want to hear", "Tell them why they need to hear the message" and then "Tell them what they heard" (because most will not have listened, anyway). It's simple publicity and American's accept it without question almost immediately.
Professional publicity techniques are not "bad" but American's accept this technique far too willingly.
Jerry
Jerry, regarding your first post, in my line of work that is the distinction between deductive and inductive preaching. The goal may be the same, even the support may be the same, but how it is put together is completely different.
ReplyDeleteAnnaLisa, I'm not sure if this qualifies, but I find the following used as filler words by preachers and prayers quite often: Lord, Father God, and Jesus Christ. I'm not making fun, but I also don't think the use is intentional or meaningful when it is rambled out seemingly at random.
ReplyDeleteFor instance prayer: Lord, Father God, we know you're here with our congregation today, Jesus. God, keep us faithful, Jesus, and help us, Father God, to be the best Christians we can be, Lord.
For instance sermon: And the Lord, that's right, Jesus Christ, will be the one leading us like a shepherd. Our Father God cares about us, yes Lord, and Jesus is the one doing that caring.
Thanks for your comments, Jerry and Pastor Ben!
ReplyDelete@Jerry: Great example. There's no question the technique you learned in NFL works. In fact, we see that structure used in issue-focused speeches every single time election season comes around.
As to your second example, in teacher training, I was schooled to create lesson plans around that same "Toastmasters" rule: Introduce the concept, detail the concept, review the concept. (Lather, rinse, repeat....) Call me naive, but I prefer to think it's not so much that people don't listen but that it takes several presentations, at several depth levels, before a new idea gels.
And at the same time...
@Ben: I agree, regardless the context, it's never a good idea to repeat the word, phrase, idea, etc. so often that it begins to sound like white noise--no more than, as you put it, filler. Scary thought when you're dealing with souls!