I was doing a news roundup this morning and ran into a brief column by former Congressman Lee Hamilton, who was questioning the value of presidential debates. Near the beginning of the column appeared these two sentences:
"There's no question debates have value. Structured properly, they make a candidate put forth ideas and give us a glimpse of how they behave under pressure."
The second sentence is highly problematic. When Hamilton writes "they make a candidate put forth ideas," he is using "they" to refer to debates. But Hamilton proceeds in the same clause to say that the debates "give us a glimpse of how they behave under pressure." Who is "they" this time? The only plural antecedents are debates and ideas, but Hamilton isn't referring to either of them. He is referring to the candidate. So not only has he switched the meaning of "they" midstream, but he also has misapplied it to a singular antecedent.
Sloppy language of that kind sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me, but that exact kind of language infests all formal writing today. If Lee simply had used the plural "candidates," the sentence would improve greatly, though it would still suffer from the abrupt switch of "they" to signify a different antecedent. Here is the best method for Lee to have expressed himself:
"Structured properly, they make a candidate put forth ideas and give us a glimpse of how he behaves under pressure."
The sentence is now grammatically perfect, albeit politically incorrect. Politics seep into every nook and cranny of modern life, and even language cannot escape their noxious influence.
"There's no question debates have value. Structured properly, they make a candidate put forth ideas and give us a glimpse of how they behave under pressure."
The second sentence is highly problematic. When Hamilton writes "they make a candidate put forth ideas," he is using "they" to refer to debates. But Hamilton proceeds in the same clause to say that the debates "give us a glimpse of how they behave under pressure." Who is "they" this time? The only plural antecedents are debates and ideas, but Hamilton isn't referring to either of them. He is referring to the candidate. So not only has he switched the meaning of "they" midstream, but he also has misapplied it to a singular antecedent.
Sloppy language of that kind sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me, but that exact kind of language infests all formal writing today. If Lee simply had used the plural "candidates," the sentence would improve greatly, though it would still suffer from the abrupt switch of "they" to signify a different antecedent. Here is the best method for Lee to have expressed himself:
"Structured properly, they make a candidate put forth ideas and give us a glimpse of how he behaves under pressure."
The sentence is now grammatically perfect, albeit politically incorrect. Politics seep into every nook and cranny of modern life, and even language cannot escape their noxious influence.
No comments:
Post a Comment