MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH

If you are a new user, click here to
read the Overview to this section

When footloose modifiers wreak havoc on news and feature stories

What are footloose modifiers?

In my book The 10 Most Annoying English Grammar Errors, I coined the term “footloose modifiers” as a catch-all for misplaced modifiers, dangling modifiers, and squinting modifiers, those telltale signs of a writer’s inadequate mastery of English grammar. To this troika I should now add the nested modifiers, which are words or phrases that modify other modifiers in the same phrase or clause. These four can wreak havoc on journalistic English because they make sentences semantically and logically flawed, making it difficult for readers to figure out precisely what’s intended to be said.

Over the last weekend, I found three very serious and instructive specimens of these footloose modifiers in news and feature stories of a major Metro Manila broadsheet and a foreign news service agency:

(1) Manila Bulletin: Misplaced modifier

In the lead sentence above, the phrase “due to failure to remit monthly contributions, the Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag- IBIG)-Cebu” is obviously a misplaced modifier. This is because in that frontline position, that phrase wrongly modifies the proper noun “Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag- IBIG)-Cebu” instead of its true subject, the noun phrase “23 companies in this city.” In other words, it’s not the “the Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag- IBIG)-Cebu” that failed to remit the monthly contributions but the “23 companies in the city” instead.

There are two quick fixes to misplaced modifiers of this kind:

1. Position the troublesome  modifying phrase at the tail end of the sentence instead, as follows:
   
   “CEBU CITY, Philippines –The Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag- IBIG)-Cebu has filed raps against 23 companies in this city due to their failure to remit monthly contributions.”

2. Render the main clause of the problematic sentence into its passive-voice form so its subject can be brought closer to the modifying phrase, as follows:
   
   “CEBU CITY, Philippines – Due to failure to remit monthly contributions, 23 companies in this city have been charged in court by the Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag- IBIG)-Cebu.”

(2) Manila Bulletin: Dangling modifying phrase

The lead sentence above has a very annoying and confusing footloose modifier—the dangling modifying phrase “bursting with flavors, colors, interesting history, stunning mountain views and cool weather.” That phrase dangles because in that sentence, it can’t find a logical subject to modify. By inspection, of course, the true subject of that modifying phrase is the noun “Baguio,” but the expletive “it”* in the clause “it is easy to be swept off your feet by Baguio” has yanked out “Baguio” from that grammatical role.  

Nothing less than a total rewrite—one that can bring the subject “Baguio” much closer to the modifying phrase—can rid that sentence of its dangling modifier. I propose the rewrite below to get the modifying phrase out of harm’s way and put it where it belongs and where can do its job properly:

“MANILA, Philippines—Bursting with flavors, colors, interesting history, stunning mountain views and cool weather, Baguio—the summer capital of the Philippines and also known as one of the industrialized cities in the North—can easily sweep you off your feet.”

Note that in this revised version, the appositive phrase “the summer capital of the Philippines and also known as one of the industrialized cities in the North” became a parenthetical phrase, an optional sentence element that can do its modifying job without creating any trouble for the sentence.  

(3) Associated Press: Problematic nested modifier

Every once in a while, even the well-established foreign news agencies bungle their English. Read that lead sentence above very carefully and answer this question: Who was “yanked from an airplane moments before it was to depart for Paris”—the hotel maid or her alleged sexual attacker? Grammatically and by virtue of its proximity to that prepositional phrase, the “hotel maid” appears to have been the one “yanked from an airplane” and arrested by police. In truth, of course, it was her alleged sexual attacker who was arrested, but this idea is obscured by the grammatically flawed construction of that prepositional phrase.

What we have here, in fact, is this troublesome nested modifier, “after being yanked from an airplane moments before it was to depart for Paris.” It “nests” in the longer modifying phrase “in the violent sexual assault of a hotel maid after being yanked from an airplane moments before it was to depart for Paris.” Absurdly, this faulty phrase construction makes it appear that the hotel maid, not her alleged sexual attacker,” was the one who was yanked out from that plane.”

There’s a very quick and effective solution to this nested-modifier problem—use a pronoun to clearly identify the subject of that nested modifying phrase. That pronoun will obviously be “he” because its antecedent subject is male. That semantically beleaguered sentence can then be effectively cured as follows:

“NEW YORK – The head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and a possible candidate for president of France was arrested here yesterday in the violent sexual assault of a hotel maid after he was yanked from an airplane moments before it was to depart for Paris, police said.”

A WORD OF ADVICE. Professional writers and editors need not end up with ignominious footloose modifiers like these in their English. All they have to do is to judiciously apply this general rule for dealing with them—position the modifying word or phrase as close as possible to the noun or subject it modifies. It’s really that simple.

--------------
*The Merriam-Webster’s 11th Colleciate Dictionary defines an “expletive” as follows: “a word (as “it” in “make it clear which you prefer”) that occupies the position of the subject or object of a verb in normal English word order and anticipates a subsequent word or phrase that supplies the needed meaningful content.”

SHORT TAKES IN MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH:

(1) Philippine Daily Inquirer: Subject-verb disagreement

The subject-verb disagreement in the lead sentence above is to be found in the phrase “the price of minerals such as gold and silver were soaring in the world market.” The subject in that phrase is, of course, the singular noun “price,” but the operative verb “were soaring” is grammatically incorrect because it’s in the plural form. Evidently, the reporter or the editor mistakenly thought that the subject of that verb is the plural noun “minerals” or the compound noun “gold and silver”—thus the subject-verb disagreement error.

Here’s that grammatically flawed sentence as corrected:

“The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) said it would impose more charges on the mining industry to maximize government revenues at a time when the price of minerals such as gold and silver was soaring in the world market.

(2) The Manila Times: Subject-verb disagreement

As in the case of the problematic lead sentence in Item 1 above, the lead sentence above suffers from subject-verb disagreement. In the clause “the construction of at least 180 core shelters are underway,” the subject is the singular noun “construction” but the plural-form operative verb “are underway” disagrees with. The reporter or the editor appears to have mistakenly thought that the subject of that verb is the plural noun phrase “180 core shelters,” resulting in the subject-verb disagreement error.

Here’s that problematic sentence as corrected:

“The construction of at least 180 core shelters is underway for a corresponding number of families in Jolo, Sulu province after their houses were destroyed in two flash floods caused by recent tornadoes, officials of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao said on Sunday.”

A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO AVOIDING SUBJECT-VERB DISAGREEMENT. The key to routine avoidance of subject-verb disagreement errors is a clear understanding of the concept of the nominal group in English grammar. As I explained in my critique of subject-verb disagreement errors in last week’s edition of the Forum, the nominal group consists of a noun and all the other words that modify or characterize that noun. Within a clause or phrase, a nominal group functions as though it is that noun itself, which is referred to as the head or head noun; the items that precede the head noun are called its premodifiers, and the items that come after it are its qualifiers. The important thing to remember is that in a nominal group, it is the head noun that determines whether the noun phrase is singular or plural. In other words, in a noun clause, the form of the operative verb is always determined by the number of the head noun—singular when the head noun is singular, and plural when the head noun is plural. As a rule, any other noun or pronoun found in the premodifier or in the qualifier of the head noun doesn’t determine or affect the head noun’s being singular or plural. In the first flawed phrase in question, the nominal group is “the price of minerals such as gold and silver,” the head noun is “price,” the premodifier is the article “the,” and the qualifiers are all the words that follow the head noun and characterize it—“of minerals such as gold and silver was soaring in the world market.” In the second flawed phrase in question, the nominal group is “the construction of at least 180 core shelters,” the head noun is “construction,” the premodifier is “the,” and the qualifiers are all the words that follow the head noun—“of minerals such as gold and silver .” When noun phrases are viewed this way, it becomes simplicity itself to figure out whether the subject of the phrase is singular or plural and to render the operative verb in the corresponding singular or plural form.

 

(3) The Manila Times: Wrong choice of verb

In the lead passage above, the use of the verb “killed” and the subordinating conjunction “after” make the second sentence of the second paragraph semantically defective. Read it closely: “She was killed after a bus rammed a taxi she was riding in front of the UP Ayala TechnoHub on Commonwealth Avenue.” This sentence gives the false impression that the victim was deliberately killed by someone after the taxi she was riding was rammed by the bus. Based on the facts of the incident, of course, the victim died as a direct consequence of that vehicular collision.

The semantics of that flawed sentence can be straightened out by replacing the verb “killed” with “died” and the preposition “after” with “when,” as follows:

“She died when a bus rammed a taxi she was riding in front of the UP Ayala TechnoHub on Commonwealth Avenue.”

(4) GMA News: Wrong qualifier for a modifying phrase

The wrong use of the intensifier “more than” makes the lead sentence above semantically defective. That usage gives the wrong impression that the reporter is dramatizing not the increasing frequency of the kidnappings in that area but its diminishing incidence. Replacement of “more than a month” with “just over a month” puts that statement in the correct perspective, which is that kidnappings are on the rise in that locality:

“A businesswoman was kidnapped by still unidentified men in Maguindanao on Saturday—just over a  month after a Filipino-Chinese trader was abducted in the same area, police said Sunday.   

(5) GMA News: Gauche modification of statistical figures

In the lead sentence above, the use of the word “people” to qualify the population figure “40,000” makes the statement sound sophomoric and unprofessional. It’s a widely accepted convention to routinely drop “people” from such statistical constructions, as follows:

“Camotes Island in Cebu (land area: 20,000 hectares; population: 40,000) is showing the world how communities can better prepare for disasters through the unique Filipino concept of the purok system.” 

(6) Manila Bulletin: Convoluted sentence construction

The lead sentence above is highly convoluted because it forces so many disparate grammar elements into a single sentence. Worse, the nonrestrictive relative clause “which will focus on examining the role of citizens in influencing political and socio-economic change” becomes a dangling modifier, unable to find a logical subject to modify. That subject couldn’t be the date “May 19 to 21, 2011” beside that relative clause, nor could it be “this mountain resort city.” It could only be “a three-day democracy forum,” but it’s so far removed from that relative clause that it can’t grammatically and logically link to it.

Spinning off that nonrestrictive relative clause into a separate sentence is the best fix for that faulty sentence construction:

“BAGUIO CITY, Philippines – The United States (US) Embassy will be holding a three-day democracy forum in this mountain resort city from May 19 to 21. The forum will focus on examining the role of citizens in influencing political and socio-economic change.”

(7) Philippine Star: Wrongly stating an intention as certainty

In the lead sentence above, the construction of the noun phrase “a special task force that will keep informal settlers out of 70-hectare lakeshore within its boundary” is semantically faulty. Its use of the form “that will keep” conveys the wrong sense that the mere creation of the special task force will surely and inevitably “keep informal settlers out of [the] 70-hectare lakeshore within its boundary.” This eventuality, of course, is at best only an expectation rather than a certainty, and this correct sense can be established by using the infinitive “to keep” instead, as follows:

“MANILA, Philippines – The local government of Taytay in Rizal province formed a special task force to keep informal settlers out of [the] 70-hectare lakeshore within its boundary.”

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section