Tense

Grammar

Grammar matters. A lack of good grammar is a serious threat to your credibility as an author. Some people subscribe to the idea that, as long as the reader can understand what you mean, it shouldn't matter how you say it. That's like saying it shouldn't matter if you wear sweat pants to your job interview because you're not being hired for your fashion sense: In both cases you hurt yourself by acting as though what "should" be the case is actually true. Appearances count, so you may as well use that fact to your advantage rather than rebelling against it. Good grammar won't save a deeply flawed argument but bad grammar will undercut even the best ideas.

 

G1: MISSPELLING

Though it should go without saying, I will say it: Take the time to make sure that things are spelled correctly, especially the names of the authors you are citing. Frequently, Word will underline things with a red squiggle that it thinks are misspelled. Sometimes it is right, and sometimes it is not. We have a lot of jargon in this field that Word and other programs will not recognize as legitimate terms (e.g., "aboutness" and "satisfice") and that means that you can ignore the red squiggle in those cases. You should check every instance of a red squiggle, though, to see if Word has a valid objection. Ignoring feedback is not usually the best course of action. If Word has flagged it and you ignored it, why should I flag it again? What assurance do I have that you won't just ignore me as well?

 

G2: TYPOS

Details matter. Make sure that your paper is formatted properly (see APA) and that you have no errant punctuation, widows, orphans or spaces (spaces are particularly important in the references list). Also, watch out for homophones. Microsoft Word will not tell you that you should use "they're" instead of "their," so be vigilant about words that may be confused. Even when you know the difference between "affect" and "effect," your fingers and your brain may be moving too fast as you type and you may inadvertently use the wrong word. It happens. Proofreading should also happen so that these errors are fixed.

 

G3: INAPT WORDS

English is a fantastic language with an amazingly rich lexicon, and that means there is often a choice of near-synonyms with slightly different shades of meaning. Embarrassed, chagrined, mortified, discomfited and abashed each carry different connotations, all closely related to a central concept. That allows us to more precisely describe someone's sense of discomfort at having been observed committing an obvious error. Great. Choosing the best among these words, though, requires a knowledge of exactly what each means. The bigger problem is choosing one of these words when none is semantically appropriate: Saying, "Driving on the icy roads, I was mortified that I would get into an accident" is a misuse of this word. One can only be mortified about something that has occurred. Here, it seems to indicate something more like "terrified" or "anxious," and the reader may be able to piece that together, but the fact remains that the word chosen does not make sense, strictly speaking.

The moral of this story is to use only words that you are 100% sure of in terms of their meaning. If there is the slightest doubt about a word, look it up and be sure you are using it correctly. Here is a list of commonly confused words.

 

G4: S/V AGREEMENT

According to Classics professor Mark Damen, "If grammar is physics, then subject-verb agreement is Newton's First Law," meaning that it is fundamental to the entire enterprise. This is another aspect of grammar that I'm sure you've been taught but which I find myself frequently correcting, nonetheless. Here's the basic idea: Verbs are conjugated to reflect both the subject (the "doer") and the tense (i.e., time-frame) of the statement. We'll deal with tense later. There are certain conjugations for single subjects and different conjugations for plural subjects. Generally speaking, native speakers of English do this automatically. I'm sure none of you would write "I needs to go the store," or "She talk too much." In my experience, however, students sometimes struggle with compound subjects and cases in which it is harder to know if the subject is plural or singular. Consider the following:

This year's group of teachers and students are trying to redesign the biology module.

This is not correct. "Group" is the subject and it is a singular noun, despite the fact that it indicates a collective comprised of multiple entities. This should be

This year's group of teachers and students is trying to redesign the biology module.

Likewise, "none" is often singular (it is a contraction of "not one"). So

Of the six people here, none are going to Paris.

is not correct. It should be

Of the six people here, none is going to Paris.

In fact, if you mean "not one," APA prefers that you just use that phrase, in which case the agreement is easier to get right:

     Of the six people here, not one is going to Paris.

Other singular nouns to watch out for include each, every and news, as well as number and amount when used in phrases like "The number of reasons is growing," or "The amount of books is staggering."

Also note that data is technically the plural of datum and should take a plural verb: "The data are clear," not "The data is clear."

 

G5: SENTENCE FRAGMENTS

A sentence should be a complete thought. At a minimum, it needs a subject and a verb that are part of an independent clause. (In more casual writing it is possible to have a sentence that is only one word, but not in a research article.) An independent clause can stand on its own as a complete statement.

    Miller's (2008) study has been overlooked.

Once you have an independent clause, you can add one or more dependent clauses to it.

    Despite its rigor and promising results, Miller's (2008) study has been overlooked.

   Despite its rigor and promising results, Miller's (2008) study has been overlooked, as evidenced by a lack of citations.

Where people get into trouble is in presenting a dependent clause, which does have a subject and a verb, but is not complete on its own.

    Even though she had seniority and was more well-liked.

    The students trying to compete for scholarships.

Each of these clauses has a subject and a verb, but they do not express a complete thought. Note that, if we remove "even though" from the first clause, it becomes a proper sentence because it is no longer dependent on any other information. The same is not true of the second clause. "Trying to compete for scholarships" is a participial phrase that modifies "the students" and no matter what we take away, we are not left with an independent clause.

Also, beware of stylistic and rhetorical fragments.

    Advantages of a normalized vocabulary according to Brown? There are many.

The first clause is a sentence fragment. This is fine for more casual or rhetorical kinds of writing but not for this class.

A different kind of sentence fragment can result from failing to provide an object for a verb that should have one.

    This is the best way to approach.

    We decided that we should simplify.

Approach what? Simplify what? There are times when the implication of statements like these is clear but it is better to specify the object of a verb rather than leaving it to the deductive powers of the reader. This goes back to the rule of being specific.

 

G6: RUN-ON SENTENCES

A sentence should be a complete thought and note that "a thought" is singular so, in other words, a sentence should not be more than one thought and should not ramble from one idea to the next even if those ideas are related, you should divide them up into smaller chunks so the reader can take things piece by piece and not be overwhelmed with a sort of stream of consciousness rambling that sometimes happens, since this can result in the reader losing interest or not being able to understand what you mean because there are no signposts to help differentiate one idea from another.

Periods are the obvious solution to the run-on sentence, but using conjunctions to create a proper compound sentence is also possible. The general rule is this: If you have more than two independent clauses (see Sentence Fragments, above), there should be either a period or a conjunction between them.

Run-on:

    It is often assumed that so-called millennials are tech-savvy enough not to need instruction in basic software use, this is an unfounded assumption, disproven by numerous studies.

Two sentences (fixed with period):

    It is often assumed that so-called millennials are tech-savvy enough not to need instruction in basic software use. This is an unfounded assumption, disproven by numerous studies.

Compound sentence (fixed with conjunction):

    It is often assumed that so-called millennials are tech-savvy enough not to need instruction in basic software use, but this is an unfounded assumption, disproven by numerous studies.

It is also possible to fix this run-on by making one of these clauses dependent, thus eliminating the problem of two independent clauses with no period or conjunction between them:

    Although it is often assumed that so-called millennials are tech-savvy enough not to need instruction in basic software use, this is an unfounded assumption, disproven by numerous studies.

 

G7: DANGLING PARTICIPLES

The basic problem with a dangling participle, like the vague pronouns that follow below, is that we have a term that is referring to something, but we don't know what (or whom).

This is the sort of grammar that seems not to be explicitly taught any longer but that doesn't mean we can ignore it. First, we have to understand what a participle is. For our purposes,* a participle is a verb form, usually ending in "ing" or "ed" that ends up being used like an adjective, i.e., to modify a noun.

 

    Running frantically, Judy searched the aisles for cocoa.

Here, running is a participle and running frantically is a participial phrase modifying the noun Judy. Other examples include:

    I tried to be quiet, slinking along the edges of the room.

    Exhausted and demoralized, I wandered back to my cabin.

    Suddenly, shrieking and flapping, the hawk rose from the grass.

    Basking on the beach, she put thoughts of Raphael aside.

This seems clear enough, but things can get confusing when there is more than one possible referent for a participle or participial phrase. The general rule is that the participle refers to the noun nearest to it. Breaking this rule leads to confusion.

    Mincing past the construction site, the workers whistled and hooted at Maureen.

The problem here is that "the workers" is nearest the participle in this sentence and so what is being described is a scene in which the workers are sashaying by, catcalling at Maureen. This doesn't make intuitive sense and so is confusing to the reader. This is not a dangling participle problem, however.

In the case of a dangling participle, there is no referent at all, leaving the participle to attach to whichever noun is nearest, often with comic effect.

    Digging the trench, the animals in the forest skittered around cautiously.

Here, the writer is most likely the intended referent of the participial phrase digging the trench but since she is not mentioned, the only thing for this phrase to modify is the animals. The error may seem obvious in this case, but the way this problem creeps into research writing is usually something more like:

    Analyzing the data, the problem became clear.

This implies that the problem was doing the data analysis and revealed itself in the process. This, of course, is nonsense in the literal sense of the term. The fix here is simply to be explicit: Do not modify anything that is not explicitly mentioned in the sentence.

 

G8: VAGUE PRONOUNS

The usual definition of a pronoun is "a word that takes the place of noun." That is not a complete definition and leaves open the possibility that "car" is a pronoun because it can replace the noun "automobile." We're not talking about synonyms here, but about a class of words that are nonspecific by nature but can be made specific through context.

Pronouns come in sets for reasons we will not go into here:

 he/him/his

 she/her/hers

they/them/theirs

it/its

we//us/ours

I/me/my

These all need a clear referent, with the exception of the last group. I, me and my are usually clear because they can't refer to anyone but the speaker. Be extra careful with we, us and ours: We know the referent is some group that includes the speaker, but it's good to make sure that the other member of "us" are made explicit somewhere.

Suppose we have a statement like this:

   I don't know him.

"Who," we have to ask, because him refers to someone not mentioned more specifically.

   That's Alexander. I don't know him.

That's better. Now him has a clear referent and we're not left with nagging questions. The advantage of pronouns is that we don't have to use the noun repeatedly, a practice which sounds stilted:

   That's Alexander. I don't know Alexander but I have seen Alexander around a lot. I think that Alexander is a Biology major but I also know that Alexander takes some classes in Statistics because Alexander's sister mentioned it to me.

Compare that to:

   That's Alexander. I don't know him but I have seen him around a lot. I think that he is a Biology major but I also know that he takes some classes in Statistics because his sister mentioned it to me.

The second version saves time and space and sounds better to most people. It only works, however, when we are clear on what (or whom, in this case) he, him and his refer to.

Pronoun problems arise in research papers for three primary reasons:

• 1. Ambiguous referents

   The students rebelled violently against the teachers and they ran outside, screaming.

This is similar to the participle problem mentioned above where we are uncertain which of two possible candidates are being replaced by the term in question. Did the teachers or the students run outside? While there is a rule that a participle refers to the nearest elgible noun, no such rule exists here and so we cannot be certain of the writer's intent. The fix is simple: Make sure every pronoun has a clear referent. If there is any possibility of confusion, either do not use a pronoun or rephrase to add information that makes the reference clear:

   The students rebelled violently against the teachers and the beleaguered faculty ran outside, screaming.

   The students rebelled violently against the teachers and they ran outside, screaming as they fled their pint-sized attackers.

• 2. The phantom "we"

If you are the sole author, do not refer to yourself as we or us. The only people allowed to refer to their singular selves in the plural are royalty. Unless you have a pedigree of which I am unaware, stick with the traditional I, me and my when describing yourself in relation to your research.

• 3. The rhetorical "we"

This occurs when the author co-opts the reader into a group to form an "us." We see this crop up in phrases like these:

   We can see from the data that the instruction had a significant effect.

   We should not be fooled by the seeming simplicity of this model.

Phrasing like this is pedantic and APA doesn't like it, so there are two good reasons to avoid it.

 

G9: TENSE

Tense is a built in feature of language that lets us place the actions and events of a statement in relative time. At its most basic level, it helps us know whether something is happening now, happened before now or will happen in the future. This guide will not go into detail about tense but will simply provide an overview of the tenses used most frequently in an ILS research article.

APA does have preferences when it come to tense and they may take some getting used to.

When talking about your own procedure, use past tense: "We carried out iterative content analysis on 500 advertisements."

When talking about someone else's procedure (as you would in a literature review), use past tense: "Henderson (2011) carried out iterative content analysis on 500 advertisements" OR perfect tense: "Henderson (2011) has carried out iterative content analysis on 500 advertisements"

When talking about findings or conclusions, use present tense: "We conclude that one-shot library instruction is not effective in increasing students' use of scholarly materials" OR "Henderson (2011) finds that librarians who eat breakfast conduct more thorough reference interviews."

More information will appear here shortly, so stay tuned for more information on tenses. 

 

G10: INCOHERENCE

This comes in two brands: Babble and nonsense.

• Babble is what we usually mean when we use the term incoherent colloquially. Babble, essentially, is some goup of words that have been grouped into something that looks like a sentence but from which no meaning can be constructed. In other words, the reader cannot possibly understand what you mean.
• Nonsense is incoherence in the sense of logical argumentation. This kind of incoherence is a failure of your argument to stand up to scrutiny: what you're saying does not make logical sense.

 

G11: NUMBERS

In general, it is acceptable in APA to use numerals (e.g., 50) instead of words (e.g., fifty) to express quantities, especially when referring to data. There are caveats, however:

• Use words for numbers 10 and less.
• If there is a possibility of confusion because of adjacent numbers, clarify by making one a numeral and one a word.
  • Incorrect:
    The questionnaire consisted of 8 7 point Likert-type items.
  • Correct:
  • The questionnaire consisted of eight 7 point Likert-type items.
• Never start a sentence with a numeral.
  • Incorrect:
    76% of the students were Freshmen or Sophomores.
  • Correct:
    Seventy-six percent of the students were Freshmen or Sophomores.