Sentence. Fragments drive. The reader mad.
Reading text composed of sentence fragments is like being in the passenger seat with a start-and-stop driver; they’ll race away from the green light, travel a very short distance, then slam on the brakes, causing grammatical whiplash.
Sentence fragments also make the writer sound as if they’ve been hit with a tranquilizer dart — squeaking out small bursts of lucidity between blackout spells.
Here’s an example of writing from a friend’s blog, transmogrified into sentence fragments, with comma splices for good measure:
Clearly. The cat was suffering. There was nothing we could do. But we couldn’t just leave him there either, we had a little bit of water left. So I cut the bottom out of the bottle to make a small bowl. And we set the water down next to the poor creature.
The cat looked at the water. And then stood up. He gave us a contemptuous look. And walked away. With the swagger, of an old arthritic sailor.
It’s hard to resist the urge to say that out loud in a “caveman” voice, isn’t it? What scares me is that some people write like this (all together now…) all the time!
Sentence fragment errors occur when a writer isn’t aware of proper sentence construction. Sentences at their simplest need both subjects and predicates, and contain a complete thought; this is also called an independent clause.
By contrast, a dependent clause is missing one of these elements, and depends on another clause to complete its sentence structure.
For example, in the sentence:
Robert’s car rolled into the ditch, the brakes squealing.
“Robert’s car rolled into the ditch” is a complete independent clause, with a subject (Robert’s car) and a predicate verb (rolled) and even an object (the ditch). You can put a period at the end of it and it still works as a sentence; in fact, you could theoretically put a period after rolled, if you were feeling particularly Hemingwayesque.
However, the phrase “the brakes squealing” is dependent on the first half of the sentence, as this is a phrase without a predicate verb and it’s an incomplete thought, merely adding description to what’s going on in the first clause.
Comma splices occur when you try to join two independent clauses with a comma instead of a conjunction:
We rode up the hill to Cortona, we were staying in a B&B.
Here’s the same sentence corrected with a subordinating conjunction:
We rode up the hill to Cortona, where we were staying in a B&B.
When you have two independent clauses that share a continuous thought, consider using a semicolon to join them:
The car had 100,000 miles on it. It showed scars from being driven long distances.
The car had 100,000 miles on it; it showed scars from being driven long distances.
When you have an independent clause that’s followed by another that explains the first, but doesn’t form part of a continuous thought, then you should use a colon. Note that the phrase after the colon is properly capitalized, like a new sentence:
The car had 3,000,000 miles on it. It was time to buy a new one.
The car had 3,000,000 miles on it: It was time to buy a new one.
When you take care to avoid sentence fragments and comma splices, your writing flows much more naturally, without interruption. Using the concept that each sentence is a single thought also helps to order your writing, making it easier for the reader to follow. I find it a useful tool to also cut down on clutter and jargon, and condense your copy into lean, economical and memorable turns of phrase - which is the ultimate goal of business writing, isn’t it?
Once again, I’m indebted to Lori Mortimer’s article at Blogcritics.org for the links.
June 12, 2006 11:42 AM
Comments
I wouldn’t do that to people I know! What kind of…monster…do you think I am here???
a fuzzy monster from jim henson’s creature workshop, but that’s besides the point.
wrote AJ Kandy on June 14, 2006 5:08 PM
Geez. I think I’m flattered. I suppose that’s better than taking my prose and making it better. I think.
;-)
wrote blork on June 14, 2006 10:28 AM