Talk:Dangling modifier

Misc. old discussions

This isn't very well-written... And "linguists" tend to describe how language behaves rather than prescribe how it should behave. Jacquerie27 21:09 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

---

Perhaps it is better than not having been written at all.

Yes, it is, and I apologize for saying that. I couldn't write anything in German. Jacquerie27 06:30 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for editing it, but someone had to set the ball rolling on this. --Dieter Simon 23:04 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Are you saying that linguists have no prescriptive role whatsoever, then?

Not as linguists. I think linguists themselves often write very bad and very ugly English, but it's not their job to improve language, it's their job to describe it. I wish linguistics could give us clear and objective ways of saying some forms are better than others, but it doesn't yet. Maybe one day it will be like medicine: describing pathology and helping us to cure it. Jacquerie27 06:30 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Is it not possible they might even express a preference? How do you see the para "Description and proscription" in Wikipedia's very own article on Linguistics, which doesn't seem to make it at all clear-cut that "professional" (linguists) do not in fact "proscribe" (or prescribe for that matter). --Dieter Simon

They can (and do) express preferences as individuals, but not as linguists. I've looked at the article and it makes the same point as I have:

Narrower conceptions of "linguistics"

"Linguistics" and "linguist" may not always be meant to apply as broadly as above. In some contexts, the best definitions may be "what is studied in a typical university's department of linguistics", and "one who is a professor in such a department." Linguistics in this narrow sense usually does not refer to learning to speak foreign languages (except insofar as this helps to craft formal models of language.) It does not include literary analysis. Only sometimes does it include study of things such as metaphor. It probably does not apply to those engaged in such proscriptive efforts as found in Strunk and White's The Elements of Style; "linguists" usually seek to study what people do, not what they should do. One could probably argue for a long while about who is and who is not a "linguist". Linguistics

---

I'm not sure that "mercifully" is disputed like "hopefully". "Mercifully, the sun began to shine" = "It is a mercy that..." Jacquerie27 17:36 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

The problems with dangling modifiers aren't really grammatical; they're semantic. So it's not really worthwhile pointing to grammatical clues as to whether a sentence is valid or not. For instance, the sentence, "Hopefully, the car hit the dog.", has one possible meaning whereas the sentence, "Hopefully, the man hit the dog.", has two. Despite the fact that both are grammatically identical, it is necessary to rewrite the second but not the first. -- Derek Ross 19:11 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

and "Mercifully" is like "Hopefully". Try using it in the dog example above. A car can't be merciful but a man can. -- Derek Ross 19:21 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

A car can't, but "event of car hitting dog" can be figuratively merciful to someone being chased by a rabid dog --Random|832 03:25, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that is exactly the point: the mercifulness of the event of the car hitting the dog is the only meaning of the sentence, which is why it isn't ambiguous. --Chinasaur 07:37, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Shouldn't it be "Hopefully, the car missed the dog"? ;) Grammar can include semantics in the wider sense, but it's a good point. Jacquerie27 20:50 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

<grin>The dog was rabid.</grin> But you're right. I should have said "syntactically" rather than "grammatically" -- Derek Ross 21:22 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

It all seems a bit of a "dog's breakfast" now. The original sentence was: "Arriving late, I was able to catch the train after all", which could have meant that both I and the train were late, and I was therefore able to catch it. Or it could have meant either I or the train were late? Make what you like of this, I leave it to you both to get yourselves out of this. --Dieter Simon 23:04 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi Jacquerie

I really should like to come back to the descriptive or proscriptive role of linguists. I said it isn't all that clearcut that linguists never prescribe or proscribe. You were saying that the Wikipedia article agrees with you that the role of linguists is descriptive. But does it not also mention "that there are professionals who also proscribe or condemn particular aspects of language, perhaps holding a particular linguistic standard out for all to emulate"? I'd say that that descriptiveness is far from clearcut. Or are these professionals not linguists? --Dieter

I don't think they are linguists. Linguistics is a science or tries to be, and science is concerned with describing and explaining what is, not with deciding what ought to be, partly because it's much harder to decide what ought to be than to describe what actually is. If these forms exist in English, linguists (in their professional role) will describe them and leave it up to others to say whether or not they should be condemned or avoided. Someone like Fowler wasn't a linguist in the modern sense. Jacquerie27 17:47 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with your point below that the norms are often arbitrary. Nevertheless, a cognitive linguist would argue that an important part of linguistics (as a descriptive science) is understanding which forms are inherently easier to understand due to biological predisposition. This is not quite the same as being proscriptive, and certainly not the same as what style guides etc. try to accomplish. But when you can begin to make assertions like "well they're both technically grammatical by rules X and Y, but one is inherently more clear (to a human observer with standard physiology)" then I'd say there's an obvious, scientific basis for preference. I realize that this "standard physiology" part could get squirrely or biggoted, but some things are universal, among humans at least (but not including computer language parsers, for example).

Hmmm, maybe I should see if this is addressed in the linguistics article, but I don't think I really want to get involved... --Chinasaur 12:09, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

It's fine to include this sort of thing so long as you say that such-and-such is what some cognitive linguists have to say, rather than saying that something is bad style. --Cadr

---

Yes, I do understand your points. Sorry, if I gave the wrong impression. Of course, linguists should not impose rules on a language. Nobody could do that anyway, neither individuals nor agencies, be they linguists, other experts or governments. I was merely referring to the article 'Linguistics'.

There are, however, some rules - call them natural laws - which nobody in their right mind would flout if they want to be understood, those reflected in the speech of the exemplary ideal native speaker, whose speech has certain elements (subject and possibly object, verb and maybe predicate in a certain order; the reversal of this order in questions; deliberate ellipses of words for 'dramatic effect'; sentence substitutes, etc., etc.

You yourself substituted more suitable words for my, admittely, raw versions in 'Dangling modifier', for which I am grateful. There are elements in language which inherently sound better, are more appropriate by the convention of the specialised subjects its practitioners observe - once again all part of the norms to be adhered to.

But sometimes the norms are arbitrary or just based on familiarity. Not pronouncing the "h" in English words like "hand" or "house" is usually thought of as ignorant and ill-educated, but then so is actually pronouncing the "h" in words like "honor" or "honest". Jacquerie27 07:04 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

But why am I telling you this, you know this so much better than I do. It may be that I got carried away with this 'Descriptivism and Prescriptivism' controversy. So, what more can I say, thanks --Dieter Simon 23:49 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm a prescriptivist myself. See pleonasm, logorrhoea, Politics and the English Language. But it's harder to be objective when prescribing than when describing. Jacquerie27 07:04 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

---

Cadr has suggested that I avoid wishy-washiness, so I've asserted that a misplaced modifier is still bad style even if it is unambiguous. Every style guide I know agrees on this point. It's also true from a cognitive linguistics standpoint that many dangling modifiers remain confusing to read even if they are syntactically unambiguous (because written and spoken word are processed directionally). So the judgement of the style guides makes practical sense to me. I don't think it's worth getting into that in the article though.

--Chinasaur 11:29, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Your statements about style guides and cognitive linguistics are facts (so long as they're attributed), but to say directly that a dangling modifier is bad style is POV. I also have to say I disagree with it. To me, there is nothing very confusing or difficult about the sentence "Being ill in bed, the telephone startled me when it rang." It should also be noted that style guides are in the business of declaring a significant number of grammatical patterns to be "bad style"; a serious linguist would merely note that certain uses of "dangling modifiers" can cause ambiguity, and I think Wikipedia articles on aspects of language should be more along these lines. The article already notes that dangling modifiers are often a bad idea because they are liable to cause ambiguity, but it seems a little dogmatic to say that they are always bad style (whatever exactly that is). --Cadr

I agree that saying "a dangling modifier is bad" would be POV. I tried to make it clear in the latest edit that I'm talking about something more specific: bad style. That's not POV as long as it's understood that style in this formal sense is just something you read in a style guide and is decided by the style guide author. I believe this is the standard meaning of style in this context, and agrees with the style disambiguation page (which just leads to style guide). A linguistics person might not put much value in the style guide opinion, but it still exists and should be recognized.

Further, however, I tried to make the argument that in this particular case I see a good cognitive linguistics reason for following the style guide convention: it's inherently (biologically) more clear to place the thing that's modified adjacent to the modifier because language is processed linearly (by humans). A misplaced modifier is parsable as English syntax, but it's still (NPOV?) bad usage.

I agree that the example sentence isn't really very hard to get. But it's still easier to read if you move the modified thing next to the modifier. Take the garden path sentence example (yes I was just reading that article...). It's the same issue: the sentences are syntactically correct, but they are confusing because language is processed linearly. And again, you can argue that some of the garden path sentences are not really that hard to get (I made that argument on Talk:Garden path sentence). But my point here (and I think the point of a well thought out style guide) is that in most cases a misplaced modifier is easy to fix, and the fixed version is just as good as the original by other measures (brevity for example). Why leave in something confusing if it's so easy and harmless to fix? That's what makes misplaced modifiers bad style (universally in my opinion). Although you don't have trouble with the "telephone" example sentence, I still argue that it is discernably less clear (to a human observer) than the rearranged version. Based on an amateur understanding of cog linguistics, I believe this could be proven experimentally, (I'll await funding offers => ).

Isn't misplaced modifier at least as much (probably more so) a style issue as a linguistics one? I'll give 5 to 1 odds that someone looking this up in an encyclopedia will be interested to learn what the style maven consensus is, whether they adhere to it or discount it. I can work on making it more clear what I mean when I say "bad style" in the article. But I have to play martyr here a little: seems to me that an okay way to alert people to the style issue without overstating the authority of style guides would have been to use my original wording: "generally considered bad style". In the context of an encyclopedia I don't really understand why that wording is so inappropriate. You're right that it should be cited; do you think linking to style guide is citation enough? Citing Strunk and White or whatever seems overkill for this short article. --Chinasaur 13:18, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

How about "Dangling modifiers have been criticized by many style guides". I admit this is close to your original "generally considered" wording and your "bad style" wording, but I think it is a little less weasley and much more NPOV. Can we settle on that wording? I do completely agree with you when you say "That's not POV as long as it's understood that style in this formal sense is just something you read in a style guide and is decided by the style guide author", and this is what I hope the wording I've just suggested makes clear. --Cadr

No complaints after the last edit. --Cadr

Chinasaur, I'm on your side in this debate. Dangling modifiers are always bad style. I do have a question, though. Does your sentence, "In the context of an encyclopedia[,] I don't really understand why that wording is so inappropriate." include a dangling modifier? It might be less awkward as: "I don't really understand why that wording is so inappropriate for an encyclopedia." --Matteo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.132.130 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope this gets on the Wicki page where I intend (after the September 2007) last comment in the first section of the discussion)

I have been reading this argument with great interest. Matteo's question; or comment

both examples are completely confusing. If the sentence is clear; even if it violates rules; its ok; (even if it has bad style) Revolutions probably begin because bad style works sometimes. (works better) But both of those sentences are impossibly confusing on quick reading and can't be rescued swiftly enough.

my comment may not be in accordance with the rules of this; which is to say the purpose; but anyhow less awkward is still awkward; its either right or not; and that is clearly wrong because just what the expressor means can't be easily understood 71.196.20.68 (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Quickly: This discussion—and really, the article that it is connected to, is problematic precisely because it conflates and confuses "grammar" and "linguistics."

Linguists are concerned with how language works; grammar is concerned with standardization of language, within large groups of people as well as within smaller groups. Linguistics is the realm of specialists; but while someone can certainly specialize in grammar, grammar in and of itself will always be a function of the people who use and engage in it. This is why linguists are almost always more flexible than most people who consider themselves grammarians—linguists know that the language they study is not up to them, but grammarians (often with very little knowledge or scholarship to back up their posturing) actually believe that the language (really, the "proper" way of using it) IS in fact up to them.

One fundamental concern of grammar is clarity. Now, there are prescriptive and non-prescriptive grammarians; there are those who see rigid rules, and there are those who understand the rules well and deeply enough to know that those rules have never really been as rigid as advertised. Those two types of grammarians often disagree ... but I have never seen them disagree on this point, that a fundamental concern of grammar is clarity. To describe the confusion that often and generally results from dangling modifiers as something only "prescriptive grammarians" would condemn is shallow and uninformed at best—and dismissive at worst.

Last point: I have a B.A. in English, and three graduate degrees in English, including a doctorate. There are few things worse than encountering a "grammar Nazi" who really and truly believes that it is their responsibility to police the grammar of others. If this applies to you, then do yourself and the rest of the world a favor and stop—just stop. In my experience, the advice that you grammar Nazis dish out is usually wrong anyway ...

Regards, Tikitavi7 (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Semantic disambiguation

Consider the following sentence:

Being asleep, the computer startled me when it beeped.

Twenty years or so ago, this sentence would have been unambiguous, since a computer could not have been asleep. Today, however, some computers have power saving modes, and some people say a computer in such a mode is ‘asleep.’ Further, a computer in that mode would be more likely to startle someone if it beeped, since they would expect it to sit idle and be quiet. My conclusion, then, is that this sort of ambiguity cannot be counted on in the long term, if the subject of the sentence is something whose nature might change. NeonMerlin 23:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully

I don't see how hopefully's use as a sentence adverb fits in with an article on dangling modifiers, as hopefully doesn't (necessarily) dangle in this use: it's (nearly always) put right next to the sentence it modifies. Ruakh 22:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is true in a way, Ruakh, but it is still a dangling modifier, even if its original usage, that of a modifying adverb is also valid. Dangling, in that it misleads into a modification which (at least when it first came into use) was totally unexpected (as it was then). Mind you, someone ought to create an article about "Sentence adverb", though. I am waiting for a copy of Bill Bryson's "Troublesome Words" from Amazon, so I can cite a ref. Dieter Simon 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know — it certainly doesn't match the definition given in the article. If we're going to include it, then the definition in the article needs to be changed to cover it. (Granted, the explanation in the article is wrong, anyway. The problem with "Being in a dilapidated condition, I was able to buy the house very cheap" isn't that it's ambiguous, but that it doesn't sound like what the speaker meant. "Being in a dilapidated condition, the house was very cheap for me to buy" is equally ambiguous, but the intended meaning is the same as what it sounds like. The term "dangling modifier" is used in the former case because the modifier is separated from its intended subject; the second sentence does not have that problem. "Hopefully he'll come", even if someone misunderstood it, does not have a dangling modifier, because the modifier isn't dangling — it's perfectly adjacent.) Ruakh 04:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ruakh, many thanks for re-editing the "references", for bringing it up-to-date. I entered it at least two years ago, since then the whole method of entering references has improved. Above all, the "dangling modifier" section reads well now, thanks.

But I have my doubts about the "sentence adverb" section now. Having checked on the various sources and having digested the whole caboodle, I too now think it should be under a separate article "sentence adverb", as it is called by most sources I have consulted. The problem is that, yes, it too is a modifier but it modifies elements within the sentence only indirectly, while a dangling modifier does so directly by inappropriately modifying subject or object within a sentence; a sentence adverb modifies the whole sentence, according to the attitude or mental disposition of the speaker. By all means, it should be mentioned under "dangling ..." in passing, perhaps as a link, but should have its own article. I think I'll move the "hopefully" section to a new article. Dieter Simon 23:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Over my head

It feels like this page was written for linguists by linguists not for regular people. It is hard to understand.

Border669 00:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Dan

Well, Border, I feel you may really have to do a bit of close reading here. A dangling modifier is a pretty complex concept that really can't be much more simplified in describing it. Modifier, etc. is being explained as the article goes along, we really can't make the article much easier otherwise it will lose some of its complexities which are part of its essence, sorry about that. It is part of grammar and as such is being discussed in grammatical terms. Trying to use non-grammatical language in describing grammatical terms would not make sense.Dieter Simon 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Dieter Simon 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah, I hope I'm not the first person to appreciate such a poorly written respsonse to this point! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.64.122 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC).

The key is in using using examples to illustrate the relevant points, and I think the current version of this article succeeds in that respect. In addition to the benefit of humour in mental images such as trees walking down the street or an elephant wearing a man's pyjamas, the examples used in the article enable the reader to grasp concepts which can be difficult to understand if explained in purely theoretical terms. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of definition of modifier from lead

Following edit summary by ILike2BeAnonymous: "This is totally unnecessary; that's what Wiki-links are for. Perhaps moving the link closer to the front might help", the reference was to an interim definition of various terms in the article. I know, we are going back a bit here, but some people are of a different opinion here. Do you really think that linking the various concepts will, make any difference? I hope you are right. Dieter Simon 00:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Types of dangling modifiers

Excuse me, but I have noticed that this article addresses only dangling participles, and not other types of modifiers. I would have filled this in and said nothing about it, but I was using the article for research on these modifiers and so do not have sufficient information. I would appreciate it if somebody who does would fix this gap. 76.107.107.215 (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Belatedly as this reply may come, not all examples given at this stage are dangling participles. Some of the examples are dangling modifiers, such as the sentence "as president of the kennel club, my poodle must be well-groomed", and the whole section on "Usage of hopefully". I am in the process of editing the whole article at the moment and shall try to explain the differences. What is most important is that clauses should be attached to the subject and not the object of a sentence. Watch this space in the article. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Again "hopefully"

Someone inserted "when", as to when "hopefully" was used as a dangling modifier, bearing in mind, it was stated "in the last forty years or so". This is taking the quest for exactitude too far, and although we are exhorted to cite sources wherever possible, we should remember that this is a trend stretching over many years, not a sudden happening which might have been sourceable. How many speakers (and writers) might have been using the adverb in this way? Who indeed would have been the first to have used it? This kind of fact would have almost certainly wafted away with the sands of time. Be reasonable, Wikipedians! Dieter Simon (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I've added citation needed tags to two sentences in the article. There are (at least) three possible sources of evidence for linguistic articles like this one:

1. The opinion of language pundits, based on aesthetics (with perhaps post-hoc empirical or logical justifications). This should be reported as opinion, albeit in many cases opinion of people with lots of influence on the perception of language and acceptable usage patterns.
2. The intuition of individual editors about language. This is a valuable and personal source of information for many people, and I don't mean to demean its importance. However, it is totally WP:OR. What's more, people can and do differ on these questions because of idiosyncratic or dialectal differences. This data is to be avoided on Wikipedia.
3. Empirical studies of language usage. These need to come from the academic literature, and all the usual strictures of WP:RS apply.

The two sentences I've tagged fall more-or-less squarely under item 3, but they are not sourced. I think this article could use a retooling; in a few weeks when I have more time I'll be happy to pitch in. Pending article improvement/proper sourcing, the empirical claims need to be tagged as citation needed. — æk^T_C 08:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely about citing sources for general grammatical or linguistic statements and thus citing what authorities have been saying about them, but would you have us cite sources about actual given examples, such as the 'president's poodle'? That surely borders on the absurd? Surely, you must be able to create a sample sentence to illustrate a grammatical point you are making, which may be substantiated fully elsewhere in the article. Are you saying that illustrative sentences which may well be created here, must be sourced? Surely language is creative in itself in order to illustrate the points you are making? Sentences such as this are one in a million which may equally be created to make a point?

Original sample sentences are not "original research". When you have understood the grammar or even the linguistic niceties, you surely can create your own sentences in your mind, and if they are understood by anyone reading them they speak for themselves, or are you prescribing language? Dieter Simon (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is no unique way to "understand the grammar." Sometimes (most of the time) English speakers agree about the grammaticality and interpretation of a sentence, but other times they do not, for a variety of reasons. In the concrete case of the poodle example, it is claimed that a particular ambiguous interpretation arises. Since the statement is not qualified in any way, it seems to be about generic English speakers. In the case of this specific sentence, though, my intuition is if one were to do a little survey asking people to interpret that sentence, many people would not notice the ambiguity until prompted. In other words, the sentence does not universally "give the impression" it is claimed to give.

In general, it is impossible to make the inference from "this sentence gives me (a small group of my friends, some people I polled on Wikipedia, etc.) the impression X" to "this sentence gives the impression X generally (i.e. to everyone)." In order to substantiate such a claim, we need to find an example sentence that was actually used in a WP:RS. It should be easy to find an example of an allegedly ambiguous dangling participle in some usage manual or another. Indeed, I have done so in one case and updated the article accordingly. Note that the authority for calling the new sentence ambiguous comes not from my own judgment but from the evaluation given in the cited source (available on Google Books: [1]

— æk^T_C 08:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sample sentences as given are creations to illustrate a grammatical point which has been made. No axioms are being set up, no theories created, no original work is being tackled by illustrative sentences such as these. They are merely there to show what is the point. As long as they merely depict the principle involved, they cannot be made a crucial part of original research. To make them so would be to raise them to a criterion to which they cannot aspire.

The fact that they have been created once makes the source pretty irrelevant. Had they been knowingly uttered by a comedian for example, they would still be out there, to be cited (or not). The crucial fact that they haven't been uttered by a linguist as such doesn't suddenly make them more irrelevant or less valid. So once uttered by a Wikipedian, they would almost certainly make them citable too, purely as illustrative sentences. Surely, as long as the linguistic principles have been reliably sourced and it was conducted by others who have written it up, I cannot see what the problem is with creating sample sentences illustrative of these researches conducted by others.

People will understand that they are sample sentences, to make it more easy for them to grasp the principle involved, these sentences are auxilliary to their comprehension, that is all. They are in fact an invaluable tool in the writer's hand and the reader's understanding. Dieter Simon (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The claim that a particular sentence represents a particular grammatical abstraction for all English speakers is a claim about the world. As such, it needs to be sourced. An individual editor can only be sure that the sentence instantiates the pattern in question for him/herself. — æk^T_C 08:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"For all Emglish speakers"? "A grammatical abstraction"? All I said was, illustrating a statement with an example sentence in an article is part of a Wikipedian's toolbox, in order to facilitate a reader's understanding. It is a tool which one hopes will help make the point defining something in the article. It is not necessarily part of the citation of the statement someone else has published elsewhere, it is a tool that you as an editor may use to clarify and explain. Whether an editor of Wikipedia uses umpteen words to explain something someone else has stated elsewhere or simply uses an illustrative sentence to the same effect, doesn't really matter, as long as he/she reaches the same end. The original creator of the linguistic or grammatical statement might not actually have used any illustrations at all, that doesn't mean you as an editor here can't use one to facilitate the understanding of the gist of the definition of the original writer. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Dubious? Tell us about the dubiousness

Please tell us what is dubious about the introductory section, so that we can agree or disagree with you, Csdavis. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No explanation forthcoming, so I've removed it. 86.136.199.181 (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead example

In my experience, the term "dangling" is, nine times out of ten, applied to modifiers/participles in sentences such as:

"Having been thrown in the air, the dog caught the stick."

"While driving along the avenue yesterday, a tree fell on his car."

I like the "having been thrown in the air" example because it's obvious, although also obviously a mistake, that the dog could have been thrown in the air. However, in the current example, "Turning the corner, a handsome school building appeared." it would be practically insane for a person to assume that the school building turned a corner. That sentence is wrong for other reasons than a dangling modifier--the subject turning the corner should have been identified in the sentence or a near one. The point of an example is to be an example of how something might reasonably happen, not the case in which it might certainly not happen (except when an intentionally extreme example is desired and explained to be so). It is possible that the explanation of the example could be improved instead of changing the example, but it's a disappointing paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaytea (talk • contribs) 20:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

A quick Google search suggests that this is much the most common type of example used when introducing the concept.

The lead example in our article, while cited to a good source, would therefore seem to be atypical. I propose we change it to a more typical one. 86.172.103.27 (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC).

Yes, I agree, the introductory example seems a bit too abstruse. As long as you can find sources for your examples, see WP:OR. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Please make any further adjustments you feel are necessary. 86.136.199.181 (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC).

History of the rule; other languages

I'm new to this article, and if no one else takes me up on this I'll probably write the section/s myself eventually, but do you think it would be a good idea to:

1. discuss dangling modifiers in other languages? If I remember correctly, they aren't taboo in French or Italian.

2. discuss the history of this rule? I can think of several examples in perfectly respectable texts, some of which predate the 19th-century prescriptive books and some of which antedate it.

-- Roscelese (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That would depend on whether it would fit into the English version. If it is anathema for French or Italian speakers to use dangling modifiers, can't you just mention that briefly without unnecessarily disturbing the English lay-out, because it was mainly intended for English as far as I remember.

As to the mention of rules, are we really talking about rules which were introduced at a certain period rather than the way a sentence and its clauses sounds or looks to the listener or reader? If it sounds wrong, it probably is wrong. Dieter Simon (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it actually might be better if you created another article referring to these other languages, something like "Dangling modifiers in French/Italian"? Dieter Simon (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I was actually hoping to get input from speakers of languages I don't speak - I doubt there's enough material to create an entire article, but I think a sentence or at most a section that says "in these languages, dangling modifiers are fine, in these they are not" is definitely worthwhile. (I see that this article also exists in Dutch and Japanese, so presumably there's something to say, but I don't read either of those languages.)

I mean, I think a history of the rule would be interesting because it apparently wasn't something that made a sentence sound bad until the nineteenth century. (Or so says Google Books.) Or rather, maybe "history of the rule" isn't the right way to talk about it - but something that explains that while prescriptive grammar books treat it as a rule to be used in all circumstances, here are some examples from well-known authors? Roscelese (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure you can actually go back in time to trace a point when something became right or wrong in grammar, especially usages that modify an object rather than the subject as in a dangling participle or which leaves out the subject altogether. I have a feeling it would have always sounded wrong to say something like "reaching the station, the sun came out". Well, the sun didn't reach the station, but you did as the subject. The trouble with hat sentence is, the subject was left out altogether and that is what makes it sound wrong. I can't imagine that it ever sounded right.

If, however, you are referring to the disjunct "hopefully" as it is sometimes called, as in "hopefully, the sun will be shining tomorrow", that has been dealt with in this article by citing the authors who drew attention to this controversy. That is precisely the point, it isn't so much the period when something was first noticed in a language and thereupon someone writing a grammar (rule as you call it) to deal with it, but the fact that there is a source which is citable and the important thing is that we in Wikipedia must cite that source. It is the source which needs to be cited not the history when something has evolved, probably quite gradually. Thatis what has been done, I think. By all means, if you think sources haven't been cited sufficiently, then you can help and google or yahoo for these sources.

Another thing with history is that it can be quite misleading. At what point was it noticed when something seemed amiss with that part of grammar, does that mean anything at all when someone wrote the grammar, surely the usage might have been current for quite a long time before it was written up, language evolves all the time, therefore a point in time is quite meaningless. It is the source which is important., so we can substantiate what we in Wikipedia are writing. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I didn't mean "hopefully" - as you point out, that's already in the article. And as I think I mentioned, I found a couple of sources which discuss it - but perhaps I'll get to adding them another time. Roscelese (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

this belongs at the end of the next section; but my computer won't go there and its years old anyhow; But someday someone may see this

if we are talking "poetry" the dangling modifier is fine. If we are talking prose; its not.

the DM turns prose into poetry; and the context in real life will determine if doing so will lead to a debate. The linguist constraint here seems to be that prose is what is being explained. And so, I bid you all just that. Dangles somehow; not clear what it means. Beyond that its technical; and part of the "linguist path of life as a linguist/game; which is not to criticize that. Just to say that it has meaning and relevance only to linguists. The modifier can't be clear; even if the words don't carrry a meaning; and the ellipsis clause with the left out words; though clear; is still poor style; colloquial; and poetry; not prose.

Prose I think requires the connection of ideas according to rules which help us through in difficult spots. To think up anomalous instances and present their significance; is to debunk the whole point of the linguistic mission. As if to say; well; in India people live in houses without roofs; that are none the less homes; though we might not think of them as such from our civilized bias. Since I am not saying anything though relative to the form the article should have; I will sign off. But what I say might contriute to some of the commentators who express confusion. It seems to me, I will restate it; that the DM is poetry; and can't be turned into proper prose; and what is proper and what is not, is to say what is the law and what is not; and that cannot be answered definitively. Save that gravity does seem to work a certain way; but when someone finally figures out what it more really really is; then it will seem otherwise. For the time being dangling modifires aint it. however artistic and clear they seem. they are inherently ambiguous; and the one that was offered as clear (computers don't sleep see below) in fact became unclear with time. A proper sentence never will fail that way 71.196.20.68 (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous @71.196.20.68: Your assertions and insistence would be a lot more credible if you used halfway decent spelling, grammar, capitalization, and punctuation. --Thnidu (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Anacoluthon

Isn’t a dangling modifier a sort of anacoluthon? — Ethaniel (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dangling subordinate clause

Can this article please explain what is the difference - if any - between a dangling modifier and a dangling subordinate clause? At one time, the latter phrase was used with reasonable frequency. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Confusing examples in first section

'"I saw the trailer peeking through the window." [...] More correctly, it can be written as, "Peeking through the window, I saw the trailer."'

The 'correction' provided here appears, to me at least, to be identical in structure to the examples provided in the previous paragraph of "the kind of sentence [that] is considered incorrect in standard English". Can someone explain to me the difference? Melissza (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a linguist (and sorry not to reply sooner), but I'd say the latter construction is better than the former, but still not ideal. I think it's because the constructions are familiar. The former strongly implies that it's the trailer peeking through the window, because of the sentence structure (we're used to the verb z in ""x saw y doing z" pertaining to y rather than x) At least in the latter construction, the intended subject of the sentence ("I") immediately follows the modifier ("Peeking through the window,"), which is a standard construction for such a sentence ("Doing z, x saw y"). To be strictly unambiguous, maybe you'd have to write "As I peeked through the window, I saw the trailer." (which is probably what I would write, but then again as a copy-editor I've become hyper-sensitive to this construction, perhaps pedantically so). Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a question about the example "I saw the trailer peeking through the window." I went through my copy of the 3rd edition of Strunk & White and could not find that particular example anywhere in the book. Could someone please state on what page and in what edition they found this particular example? (Maybe include ISBN, because I am stumped). Graceful1 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A Dubious "Dubious"

I removed the "dubious" annotation in the "Hopefully" section. The subsequent block quote explains the "concision" point most adequately. You may disagree, but it cannot be considered "dubious." rowley (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Which dubious? There are now two flags that both seem legit to me Ninjalectual (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Cleaning up six-year old dubious claims

I moved the following text from the "Hopefully" subsection to here because 1) the dubious claims are six years old and haven't been addressed, and 2) the subsequent paragraph seems to confirm the the removed text is in fact incorrect. Therefore it seems like a safe thing to do, but since I am wary about removing content, I moved it here, in case someone can offer proof of this supposed controversy in the next few years. The text in question:

Extended content

What has changed, however, in the controversy over "hopefully" being used for "he was hoping that ..." or "she was full of hope that ..." is that the original clause was transferred from the speaker, as a kind of shorthand to the subject itself, as though "it" had expressed the hope. ("Hopefully, the sun will be shining.") Although this still expressed the speaker's hope "that the sun will be shining", it may have caused a certain disorientation as to who was expressing what when it first appeared. As time passes, this controversy may fade as the usage becomes increasingly accepted, especially since adverbs such as "mercifully", "gratefully", and "thankfully" are similarly used.

Ninjalectual (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolute constructions

The article describes absolute constructions as differing only because they are not meant to be modifying anything in the rest of the sentence.

I think this somewhat misses the point. The given sample of an absolute construction is easily made to stand as a complete sentence, simply by replacing "being" with "is"; it already contains a noun that can act as the subject. Dangling modifiers can't stand as complete sentences just by tweaking the verb; a subject would need to be inserted. Not coincidentally, that's a somewhat plausible way of explaining what's wrong with them (if something is wrong with them). TooManyFingers (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)