The dead hand of zombie rules
So there I was, reviewing the literature and feeling all virtuous for being several hundred words downstream on a paper that doesn't even have to be presented until November, when this sentence comes into view:
We assume that such message definitions are an integral part of the information that people use in making decisions about what messages and programs to which they will expose themselves.
I don't think people write like that deliberately, and the more time I spend watching stuff go into the machinery of academic publishing, the more I suspect the hand of a copy editor on whose too much time is had. In this case, rather than just being hyper-pedantic, it looks actually wrong. Counting on my linguist friends to step in with the real explanation, this looks like a mutating McCartney preposition -- in this case, a McCartney determiner.
"What" and "which" in the underlined clause are doing the same thing. They're question determiners that become declarative when you replace them with, say, "these":
What messages do you like?
I like these messages
To which messages do you expose yourself?
I expose myself to these messages
"Expose" here wants two objects, not one -- you can say "I expose myself" if you want, but without that other complement, it's going to be a long afternoon for you at the cop shop. Pick another verb -- "watch" -- that only needs one object, and things are easier:
... decisions about what messages and programs they watch.
Or replace the "what" with a "the":
... decisions about the messages and programs to which they will expose themselves.
Either way, you get a good clause and avoid the double-dip determiner.
It'd be great if authors -- particularly those with the rank and status to get away with it -- would start writing phrases like "the messages and programs they expose themselves to" and demanding explanations when the poor unoffending preposition is moved. I don't mean to suggest wholesale harassment of copy editors, who suffer enough as it is. I do think their job would be easier (and the writers' mission less frustrating) if its expectations didn't include the enforcement of zombie rules, particularly when those rules result in errors.
We assume that such message definitions are an integral part of the information that people use in making decisions about what messages and programs to which they will expose themselves.
I don't think people write like that deliberately, and the more time I spend watching stuff go into the machinery of academic publishing, the more I suspect the hand of a copy editor on whose too much time is had. In this case, rather than just being hyper-pedantic, it looks actually wrong. Counting on my linguist friends to step in with the real explanation, this looks like a mutating McCartney preposition -- in this case, a McCartney determiner.
"What" and "which" in the underlined clause are doing the same thing. They're question determiners that become declarative when you replace them with, say, "these":
What messages do you like?
I like these messages
To which messages do you expose yourself?
I expose myself to these messages
"Expose" here wants two objects, not one -- you can say "I expose myself" if you want, but without that other complement, it's going to be a long afternoon for you at the cop shop. Pick another verb -- "watch" -- that only needs one object, and things are easier:
... decisions about what messages and programs they watch.
Or replace the "what" with a "the":
... decisions about the messages and programs to which they will expose themselves.
Either way, you get a good clause and avoid the double-dip determiner.
It'd be great if authors -- particularly those with the rank and status to get away with it -- would start writing phrases like "the messages and programs they expose themselves to" and demanding explanations when the poor unoffending preposition is moved. I don't mean to suggest wholesale harassment of copy editors, who suffer enough as it is. I do think their job would be easier (and the writers' mission less frustrating) if its expectations didn't include the enforcement of zombie rules, particularly when those rules result in errors.
Labels: grammar, rules, War on Editing
posted by fev at 7:47 PM
1 Comments:
particularly when those rules result in errors
Hear, hear!
Post a Comment
<< Home