The rule has largely gone the way of many grade-school language rules: it survives as a useful teaching device, but few modern linguists, writers, editors, or teachers would defend it as an absolute principle.
The historical reason for the rule is easy to see. Children often write in fragments because they have not yet mastered how clauses fit together. A teacher who says "Always write in complete sentences" is giving a simple, memorable rule that pushes students toward grammatical competence. It is easier to teach than "Write complete sentences unless you have a good rhetorical reason not to."
Once you move beyond elementary writing, however, fragments become perfectly acceptable. Newspapers use them constantly. So do novels, essays, advertisements, academic articles, and ordinary conversation.
For example:
The results were disappointing. Especially in rural areas.
The second "sentence" is technically a fragment, yet most readers find it clear and effective.
Or:
Why did it fail? Poor planning.
Again, the answer is not a complete sentence, but it communicates efficiently.
In speech, complete sentences are actually the exception rather than the rule. A conversation might go:
"Coffee?"
"Yes, please."
"Milk?"
"No thanks."
Almost nothing there is a complete sentence, yet the communication is flawless.
Modern linguistics generally treats sentence fragments not as errors in themselves but as structures whose appropriateness depends on context. What would be marked wrong in a fifth-grade grammar exercise might be entirely acceptable in a novel, a business memo, a text message, or even a scholarly work.
The surviving distinction is not "complete sentences good, fragments bad." It is more nearly this:
-
In formal expository writing, make sure your prose is clear and grammatically controlled.
-
Use fragments deliberately, not accidentally.
-
Avoid fragments that leave readers confused about the relationship of ideas.
A skilled writer can break the old rule whenever doing so improves emphasis, rhythm, or clarity.
Indeed.
That last word is a fragment. It would have earned a red mark in many grade-school classrooms. Yet it serves its purpose rather well.
I agree with your reaction to those examples. They are examples of accepted fragments, but not necessarily examples of good writing.
"The results were disappointing, especially in rural areas" is what many editors would prefer. The fragment version creates a pause and emphasis that may or may not be warranted. Journalists and magazine writers often use such fragments for dramatic effect, sometimes more often than the prose really benefits from.
Likewise, "Why did it fail? Poor planning." is perfectly idiomatic, but "It failed because of poor planning" would often be the more straightforward choice.
What is interesting is that your own example, "Same with the second," illustrates why the old school rule could never really work as a description of English. English speakers constantly use fragments that are understood as elliptical forms of longer sentences. Your fragment implicitly means something like "The same is true of the second example." Nobody needs the full version because the context supplies the missing material.
In fact, much of ordinary conversation consists of such ellipsis:
"Coming?"
"Probably."
"When?"
"After lunch."
Trying to convert these into complete sentences would make them sound unnatural:
"Are you coming?"
"I am probably coming."
"When will you come?"
"I will come after lunch."
The school rule was really aimed at a particular skill: teaching children to write sustained prose. A child who writes entirely in fragments cannot yet reliably express complex relationships among ideas. But once that skill is mastered, fragments become one more tool in the box.
I suspect that if you looked back at your own professional writing, especially memos and technical discussions, you would find many fragments. Not because you were breaking rules, but because fragments are often the most efficient way to convey information. Technical people are particularly fond of them.
"Program tested successfully. No discrepancies found."
Strictly speaking, the second sentence is a fragment. Yet it is exactly what most readers would want to see. Concise. Unambiguous. No wasted motion.
That may be one reason the grade-school rule feels a bit artificial to adults: we spend years learning to write complete sentences, and then much of our real-world writing consists of knowing when a complete sentence is unnecessary.
I think many good writers would agree with you. The old prohibition on contractions in formal writing was another pedagogical rule that was often taught as if it were absolute.
There is a subtle difference between "were not" and "weren't." The uncontracted form carries a little more weight and deliberateness. In your sentence:
In college in formal papers we were not allowed to use contractions.
the phrase "were not allowed" sounds measured and factual. It has a slightly institutional flavor, as though you are describing a rule.
If you write:
In college in formal papers we weren't allowed to use contractions.
it becomes a bit more conversational and personal. Not wrong, just different.
The interesting thing is that modern academic writing has largely abandoned the blanket ban on contractions. Many style guides now permit them when they sound natural. Yet scholars still often avoid them, not because a rule requires it, but because the rhythm of formal exposition frequently favors the uncontracted form.
For example:
The evidence does not support that conclusion.
sounds slightly more formal than
The evidence doesn't support that conclusion.
Both are grammatical. The choice is one of tone.
What strikes me is that your preference for "were not" is probably not a relic of being taught the rule. It is a matter of ear. You have spent a lifetime reading formal prose, and your ear has learned that certain statements sound better with the full forms. Good writers often make such choices instinctively.
Indeed, sometimes contractions can sound oddly casual when discussing serious matters:
The defendant didn't comply with the court order.
versus
The defendant did not comply with the court order.
The second has a gravity that many legal writers would prefer.
So the modern view is much like the modern view of sentence fragments. The old rule "never use contractions" is no longer widely accepted as a universal rule. But the underlying observation—that contractions affect tone—is absolutely correct. The best writers choose between "didn't" and "did not" the same way a musician chooses between two notes: by listening to what fits the passage.
There is certainly a connection, but I would draw it a bit more narrowly than "society has become less rule-bound, therefore language has become less rule-bound."
Part of what happened was a change in how language itself was understood. Earlier generations of teachers often treated grammar as something akin to etiquette: there was a correct way to speak and write, and educated people were expected to follow it. During the twentieth century, linguists increasingly adopted a descriptive approach. Instead of asking, "What should educated people say?" they asked, "What do educated people actually say?" That shift alone undermined many traditional rules.
Some of those rules were never particularly well-founded. The prohibition against ending a sentence with a preposition is a famous example. English has been ending sentences with prepositions for centuries. The rule arose partly from attempts to make English resemble Latin. Once linguists pointed that out, the rule lost much of its authority.
On the other hand, I think you are right that broader cultural changes played a role. Many institutions became less formal after the mid-twentieth century. Business letters became less ceremonious. Universities became less hierarchical. Dress codes relaxed. Titles were used less frequently. It would be surprising if writing style remained untouched while everything else became more informal.
There is also a democratic impulse involved. Earlier standards of "correct" English often functioned as markers of class and education. A movement toward greater inclusiveness naturally led some people to question whether every traditional rule deserved enforcement.
That said, I would distinguish between the relaxation of arbitrary rules and the relaxation of standards. They are not the same thing.
A good editor today may happily allow contractions, sentence fragments, and prepositions at the ends of sentences. Yet that same editor may be ruthless about clarity, ambiguity, logical structure, unsupported claims, jargon, and sloppy reasoning. Some old rules have weakened while other standards have become stronger.
In fact, one could argue that modern writing instruction is often more demanding in certain respects. A nineteenth-century student might have been criticized for ending a sentence with "of." A modern student is more likely to be criticized for writing something that is vague, poorly organized, or unsupported by evidence.
So I would say that language has experienced both liberalization and rationalization. Some conventions survived because they genuinely aid communication. Others survived mainly because they were inherited. The latter have had a harder time defending themselves over the past century.
Your observation does fit a larger pattern, though. Whether one looks at clothing, forms of address, workplace etiquette, religious observance, or writing style, many Western societies have shifted from "follow the rule because it is the rule" toward "follow the rule if there is a good reason for it." The debate, then and now, is usually about what counts as a good reason.
That is another rule that has weakened considerably, though it was never as universal as some of the others.
Many older teachers objected to sentences such as:
Don't forget to lock the door.
or
It's important to understand the distinction.
The preference was often to write:
Do not forget to lock the door.
It is important to understand the distinction.
Part of the objection was simply the general suspicion of contractions in formal prose. Part was a feeling that beginning a sentence with a contraction looked inelegant or abrupt.
Today, however, it is entirely normal to begin sentences with contractions, even in fairly formal writing. Most readers scarcely notice.
What is interesting is that the objection may have had less to do with grammar than with rhythm. The beginning of a sentence is a position of emphasis. Starting with "Do not" or "It is" gives a sentence a more deliberate opening than "Don't" or "It's."
Compare:
Do not assume that correlation implies causation.
with
Don't assume that correlation implies causation.
The first sounds like a textbook or lecture. The second sounds like advice from a colleague.
Your ear for "were not" rather than "weren't" is probably the same phenomenon. Certain contexts seem to call for the fuller form.
There are still a few contractions that some writers avoid at the beginning of sentences because they can look awkward. For example:
There's a problem with this argument.
is perfectly acceptable, but some formal writers prefer:
There is a problem with this argument.
Not because "There's" is wrong, but because the expanded form sounds more stately.
The older I get, the more I suspect that many of these "rules" were really attempts to teach style through prohibition. Teachers knew that young writers tended toward casual speech on paper. By forbidding contractions, fragments, sentence-initial conjunctions, and the like, they pushed students toward a more formal register. The rules were not always literally true, but they often produced the desired result.
Once a writer develops a reliable ear, the strict rule becomes less necessary. Then the question is no longer "May I begin a sentence with a contraction?" but "Does the contraction sound right here?" That is a stylistic judgment rather than a grammatical one. And reasonable writers can differ.
Indeed, they often do. Notice what I just did there. "Indeed" standing alone as a sentence would once have alarmed a schoolteacher; now most editors would let it pass without a second thought.
Ah! Yes, that old chestnut.
The prohibition against beginning a sentence with and, but, or or is probably one of the most successful myths ever taught in English classrooms.
In reality, good writers have been doing it for centuries. The translators of the King James Version began sentences with conjunctions constantly:
And God said...
But the Lord said...
If it was good enough for the King James translators, it is hard to argue that it is ungrammatical.
The rule seems to have originated as a teaching device. Young students often write strings of loosely connected clauses:
I got up and I ate breakfast and I went to school and I saw my friend...
Teachers discouraged sentence-initial conjunctions as a way of encouraging more varied sentence structure. Somewhere along the way, the classroom advice hardened into a supposed rule of grammar.
Yet beginning with a conjunction is often the clearest way to indicate the relationship between sentences.
The experiment was carefully designed. But the results were inconclusive.
The but immediately tells the reader that a contrast is coming.
Likewise:
The proposal was expensive. And it offered few advantages.
or:
Several explanations have been suggested. Or perhaps no explanation is needed.
In each case the conjunction performs useful work.
Your "Or beginning a sentence with a conjunction" was especially apt because it demonstrates the point in miniature. The or signals that you are adding another example to the discussion. It would be awkward to rewrite it into some supposedly more correct form.
In fact, many of the old school rules seem to have a common pattern. They began as practical advice for novices:
-
Avoid fragments.
-
Avoid contractions.
-
Avoid starting sentences with conjunctions.
-
Avoid ending sentences with prepositions.
Then they were remembered as absolute rules. Later, students encountered competent adult writers violating them constantly and concluded that either the teachers were wrong or the writers were careless.
The truth is usually more mundane. The advice was intended to prevent common beginner mistakes, not to describe the actual practice of skilled writers.
Or so it seems to me.
I think your observation is broadly correct, though the pattern is more complicated than "fewer rules."
Over your lifetime, many rules governing private behavior have indeed been relaxed or abandoned. Restrictions on divorce, cohabitation, interracial marriage, homosexuality, gambling, dress, speech, and social etiquette have generally weakened in much of the West. A young man taking a young woman out unchaperoned would scarcely attract notice today, whereas it could provoke real concern in some communities when you were young.
At the same time, many rules have become stricter where behavior affects others. Smoking is an excellent example. When you were young, smoking was permitted in airplanes, hospitals, offices, restaurants, and even schools. Today, in many places, lighting a cigarette indoors would be regarded as extraordinarily inconsiderate.
The same pattern appears elsewhere. Drunk driving was once treated with surprising leniency. Seat belts were often optional. Workplace safety standards were looser. Sexual harassment was less regulated. Environmental pollution received less scrutiny.
One way of looking at it is that society has shifted from rules intended to preserve traditional morality toward rules intended to prevent harm, protect rights, or manage externalities. That is not a perfect description, but it captures part of the trend.
There is also a paradox that many people notice: societies that become more permissive in some areas often become more regulatory in others. The person who rejects formal dress codes may support detailed workplace conduct policies. The person who opposes restrictions on gambling may support restrictions on smoking. The underlying principle is not necessarily "fewer rules" but rather "different rules."
Your grammar example actually fits that pattern rather nicely. The old language rules often emphasized conformity to established convention. Modern writing instruction tends to emphasize clarity and effectiveness. We abandoned some rules, but not because we decided that anything goes. We changed the criteria by which we judge writing.
A historian looking back over the last century might say that the center of gravity moved from authority and tradition toward individual choice on the one hand, and toward prevention of harm on the other.
Whether that has been a net gain is where people begin to disagree. Some see a welcome increase in freedom and tolerance. Others see a loss of shared standards and social cohesion. Most people, if pressed, probably hold both views simultaneously: pleased that some old restrictions disappeared, while wishing that certain older norms had survived.
Your smoking example is particularly revealing because almost everyone, regardless of political inclination, can think of some rule that they are glad was relaxed and some rule that they are glad was tightened. That suggests the real argument is rarely about rules versus no rules. It is about which rules are worth keeping and why.
Yes, that is a good way to put it.
A great many rules once justified by tradition, authority, propriety, or morality are now expected to defend themselves in practical terms. People increasingly ask, "What problem does this solve?" or "Who is harmed if we do not enforce it?"
Take your smoking example. The modern justification is largely pragmatic: secondhand smoke harms others, increases health costs, and makes shared spaces unpleasant for many people. Whether or not smoking is a moral failing is almost beside the point.
By contrast, many older social rules were often justified because they were considered proper, respectable, or in accordance with tradition. If asked why an unmarried couple should not live together, or why a man should wear a hat in certain circumstances, the answer might ultimately come down to custom, religious teaching, or social expectations rather than a demonstrable practical harm.
The grammar examples fit surprisingly well. "Do not begin a sentence with and" used to be taught because it was a rule. Today, a writer may reasonably ask, "Does beginning with and make the sentence clearer or less clear?" If it improves the prose, the old rule has little force.
One thing worth noting, though, is that the older mindset did not necessarily see itself as irrational. Traditionalists often argued that customs embodied the accumulated wisdom of generations. A rule might exist for reasons that were no longer obvious. In that view, demanding an immediate pragmatic justification for every rule risks discarding valuable practices whose benefits are subtle or long-term.
That is one of the enduring tensions between traditional and modern ways of thinking. The traditionalist asks, "Why are you so eager to abandon a rule that has served society for centuries?" The modernist asks, "Why should I obey a rule if no one can explain what good it does?"
Neither question is foolish. In fact, they serve as useful checks on each other. Blind obedience can preserve bad rules indefinitely. Constant demands for proof can sweep away customs that were quietly doing useful work.
Looking over the sweep of your lifetime, I suspect you have seen examples of both. Some discarded rules seem obviously better gone. Others, even if few people would want to enforce them again, may have provided a kind of social structure whose disappearance brought consequences that were not fully anticipated.
That may be why discussions of social change so often become complicated. We are not merely comparing freedom to restriction. We are comparing two different ways of deciding which rules deserve our allegiance: inherited wisdom versus demonstrated utility. Most societies end up relying on a mixture of both.
It certainly does.
"That is not going to happen" is grammatically impeccable, but it sounds clinical and leaves room for interpretation. "That ain't gonna happen" conveys not merely the prediction but the speaker's confidence, impatience, skepticism, or finality.
English often uses nonstandard forms for expressive force. The literal meaning may be the same, but the emotional coloring is different.
Compare:
That proposal is unlikely to succeed.
That proposal won't succeed.
That proposal ain't gonna happen.
All three communicate a negative assessment. The first sounds analytical. The second sounds conversational. The third sounds emphatic, perhaps even dismissive.
The interesting thing is that "ain't" has been stigmatized for so long that many people assume it was always considered ignorant. Historically, it is more complicated. Forms like "ain't" were used by educated speakers in earlier centuries. Its fall from respectability had more to do with changing social standards than with grammar itself.
There is a broader lesson here. Language is not only about conveying information. It is also about signaling attitude, relationship, confidence, formality, regional identity, and social context. Sometimes the most "correct" wording is not the most effective wording.
If a judge writes:
The motion is denied.
that has exactly the right tone for a court order.
If an old rancher is asked whether a fence will survive a flood and replies:
That ain't gonna happen.
then replacing it with
That is not going to happen.
would lose something important. The first sentence carries the speaker's personality along with the prediction.
From what you have said in previous conversations, you seem to have a fairly well-developed sense that rules of language are tools rather than commandments. You are perfectly capable of writing formal prose when the occasion calls for it. But when speaking informally, you choose expressions that carry the right shade of meaning.
And "That ain't gonna happen" has a shade that "That is not going to happen" simply does not. It closes the door with a satisfying thump.
You are in distinguished company. Many excellent writers have been suspicious of the em dash.
The em dash is wonderfully versatile, which is both its strength and its weakness. It can indicate an interruption, an afterthought, an amplification, a sudden change of direction, or a parenthetical remark. Because it can do so many jobs, it is easy to overuse. Once a writer acquires the habit, the dash can become a kind of universal punctuation mark that substitutes for thinking about the precise relationship between ideas.
Consider:
The proposal failed—the cost was too high.
A colon might be better:
The proposal failed: the cost was too high.
Or perhaps a semicolon:
The proposal failed; the cost was too high.
Or perhaps two sentences:
The proposal failed. The cost was too high.
Each choice says something slightly different about the connection between the thoughts.
I have noticed that many technical and analytical writers gradually move in the direction you describe. Early on, they enjoy the freedom of the dash. Later, they begin asking themselves, "What exactly do I mean here?" and choose punctuation that answers that question more precisely.
There is also a stylistic aspect. The em dash often sounds conversational, as though the writer is speaking and inserting thoughts as they occur. Commas, colons, semicolons, and periods tend to sound more deliberate and structured.
For example:
The system was redesigned—the old approach had become unworkable.
has a spoken quality.
The system was redesigned because the old approach had become unworkable.
or
The system was redesigned. The old approach had become unworkable.
feels more orderly.
I suspect your preference is related to something else you have mentioned before: you like to stop and think. The em dash often reflects a mind moving down a path and then veering slightly. A colon or a new sentence reflects a mind that has already decided the structure before putting words on the page.
That does not make one better than the other. If I were writing a personal essay, I might reach for em dashes quite freely. If I were writing a technical memorandum, a judicial opinion, or a careful historical analysis, I would probably share your instinct and ask whether a period, colon, or comma would express the relationship more exactly.
Indeed, the em dash is sometimes the punctuation equivalent of "miscellaneous." Useful to have around. But if too many things end up in the miscellaneous drawer, it becomes harder to find what belongs where.
That preference is very consistent with a certain kind of disciplined prose style.
Using a conjunction like because or since forces you to make the logical relationship explicit rather than implied by punctuation. So:
The proposal failed because the cost was too high.
does something slightly different from:
The proposal failed: the cost was too high.
The colon leaves the relationship for the reader to interpret. The conjunction states it outright. That is why your instinct feels tighter and more controlled.
There is a useful way to think about the options here:
A period says, “These are two related facts. I am not specifying the exact relationship.”
A semicolon says, “These are closely linked, and you should see the connection.”
A colon says, “What follows explains or specifies what came before.”
A dash says, “There is a connection, and I am gesturing at it informally.”
A conjunction says, “Here is the precise logical relationship.”
So when you write:
The proposal failed because the cost was too high.
you are doing something more explicit than punctuation alone can manage. You are embedding causation directly into the grammar of the sentence rather than suggesting it structurally.
That tends to appeal to people who think in terms of analysis rather than rhythm. It reduces ambiguity. It also reduces stylistic “wobble,” because the sentence carries its own logic internally rather than relying on the reader’s inference.
Your aside about as being stilted is also telling. “As” can be elegant, but it can also blur causation and simultaneity:
As the cost was too high, the proposal failed.
That can sound slightly backward in emphasis, as though cost and failure are parallel events rather than cause and effect. “Because” avoids that ambiguity entirely.
So what I hear in your preference is not just a stylistic choice, but a methodological one: you prefer language that encodes structure directly rather than implying it through punctuation or inference. That is a very “engineering-minded” way of handling prose.
And it ties back nicely to your earlier comments about rules. Where older instruction often said “use this punctuation to show the relationship,” your instinct is “state the relationship explicitly in the grammar if it matters.”
No comments:
Post a Comment