How important is a good understanding of English

[Lex E. Darion]

English is my native language and, as such, I have a poor understanding of its construction. I know when I learnt French, we were taught about the basics of sentence construction and the various components thereof but I can't remember that in English (maybe I was too young? Not sure).

A couple of recent threads have highlighted my woeful lack of knowledge about the various aspects of verbs/tenses/etc and their use in sentence construction and the affect that sentences have on the reader. It made me wonder how essential it is to know these things to be a good fiction writer. Is it imperative that we know how to form the perfect sentence or is it enough to 'just know it's wrong/right'? Surely we need to know the basics so we can identify what is/isn't working in a sentence and need the tools to fix it if required?

There's mixed opinions on whether having formal education on these matters is useful or not, I'd be interested in what others have to say on this. I read some posts on threads and it's like they've been written in a foreign language! I try to read up on things I don't know but even a basic tuition can be over my head!

 

[Jo Zebedee]

English is my native language and, as such, I have a poor understanding of its construction. I know when I learnt French, we were taught about the basics of sentence construction and the various components thereof but I can't remember that in English (maybe I was too young? Not sure).

A couple of recent threads have highlighted my woeful lack of knowledge about the various aspects of verbs/tenses/etc and their use in sentence construction and the affect that sentences have on the reader. It made me wonder how essential it is to know these things to be a good fiction writer. Is it imperative that we know how to form the perfect sentence or is it enough to 'just know it's wrong/right'? Surely we need to know the basics so we can identify what is/isn't working in a sentence and need the tools to fix it if required?

There's mixed opinions on whether having formal education on these matters is useful or not, I'd be interested in what others have to say on this. I read some posts on threads and it's like they've been written in a foreign language! I try to read up on things I don't know but even a basic tuition can be over my head!

I usually come last in the Chrons grammar threads. I think there was one recently where my 11 year old beat me in it (I'm good at spelling, though.) I know the basics and mostly manage something that isn't total gobblygook but I don't always know why something feels right, just that it is. And I think that might be the key. Your grammar seems fine to me. It's not about knowing what the present participle is, necessarily, but knowing when it's off in something you write.

But get some critiques, and see if common problems come up.

 

[Lex E. Darion]

I usually come last in the Chrons grammar threads. I think there was one recently where my 11 year old beat me in it (I'm good at spelling, though.) I know the basics and mostly manage something that isn't total gobblygook but I don't always know why something feels right, just that it is. And I think that might be the key. Your grammar seems fine to me. It's not about knowing what the present participle is, necessarily, but knowing when it's off in something you write.

But get some critiques, and see if common problems come up.

Thanks Good to know that I'm not the only one. I wasn't really asking about my writing, it was more a general query. When people are being critiqued and the responses they get are technical based, I wonder if it can put people off. Obviously those in the know should impart their expertise, in no way am I saying otherwise, and I realise that a thick skin is essential, as is that there will always be something else to learn, I suppose I wonder if a lack of knowledge in the building blocks of the English language would stop someone from writing as they think they don't know enough to do it - if that makes sense(?)

 

[Ursa major]

The main thing, I would argue, is that writes in such a way that the readers understand your words in the way you want** them to. Really, the fundamental purpose of grammar is clarity in whatever the writer (or speaker) wants to put across.


** - I put it this way, because there's a difference between clarity of prose and being completely open about the meaning and implications of what the prose is (trying to) say.

 

[The Ace]

It's vital - the best story in the world is no use if people can't understand it.

Personally, I think that anyone who writes, "Should of," (unless he's quoting an idiot), confuses, "There/Their/They're," "You're/Your," or, "To/Too/Two," should be made to take a remedial class before being allowed to pick up a pen.

 

[Lex E. Darion]

Really, the fundamental purpose of grammar is clarity in whatever the writer (or speaker) wants to put across.

This is a good point. One of my betas picked up a sentence and read it in the opposite way to what I had meant it!! It must have been ambiguous but it didn't occur to me that it could have been read any other way than how I meant it!

It's vital - the best story in the world is no use if people can't understand it.

Personally, I think that anyone who writes, "Should of," (unless he's quoting an idiot), confuses, "There/Their/They're," "You're/Your," or, "To/Too/Two," should be made to take a remedial class before being allowed to pick up a pen.

Granted I'm not talking about a complete lack of knowledge though, clearly a lack of basic understanding will be a hindrance and prevent you getting anywhere. I suppose I'm talking about a medium lack of knowledge -you understand the differences between your homophones but have never heard of a continuous participle.

 

[millymollymo]

I'm learning a lot from my ten year old with regards to what label that phrase in a sentence has. I'm still (and won't stop) learning how to better construct paragraphs. The town I grew up in has it's very own version of mashed up grammar to go with it's topsy-turvy not North or South folklore. But.
You pick a lot up from reading, you naturally construct in the same manner. The more you wave words about and wrangle them down on the page, the more you realise it don't quite work right like that.

Make the story flow, make the words work for you. Editing tense and such can come after, hell if you must, you can pay others to do it. Getting the excitment, nailing the tension, breathing life into your characters? These things can only come from you and your passion for your story.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Really, the fundamental purpose of grammar is clarity in whatever the writer (or speaker) wants to put across.

Or occasionally DELIBERATELY making it ambiguous. Which isn't the same as a double entendre usually.

 

[Ursa major]

That's what I meant by 'whatever the writer (or speaker) wants to put across'.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Granted I'm not talking about a complete lack of knowledge though, clearly a lack of basic understanding will be a hindrance and prevent you getting anywhere. I suppose I'm talking about a medium lack of knowledge -you understand the differences between your homophones but have never heard of a continuous participle.

I couldn't tell you what a continuous participle is, and I'm a copy editor. It's not precisely necessary to remember all the nomenclature, as long as you know what's right or wrong when you see it. And right and wrong can be slippery in many cases. A good grounding in sentence structure is useful -- they don't seem to be teaching sentence diagramming anymore, and that's a shame. But fiction can call for usages that aren't precisely correct according to "the book", of which there are several that cheerfully conflict.

 

[The Judge]

I went to an English grammar school, and of all the things I remember being taught there, English grammar wasn't one of them.

As I've remarked elsewhere recently, though, as native speakers we imbibe a lot of the rules of grammar without knowing that there actually are rules, let alone what they are called. The more widely we read in good literature -- in this context, most likely something written some while ago -- the more we subconsciously take the rules on board. For instance, I knew about subjunctives -- eg "I wouldn't do that if I were you", not "if I was you" -- long before I knew what they were called and why they are as they are (actually I still don't know why), and the same with gerunds eg "My being here is no accident" rather than "Me being here".

I don't think it is necessary to know the technical names for these things -- which is just as well, as I know precious few of them. I do think it is necessary to have sufficient basic grasp to feel when a sentence is right or wrong, and to have sufficient drive then to find out more. However, while it isn't imperative to know everything unless you want to be an editor (and not even then if the sub-editing in the paper I read is any guide) the more you know, the more you can use that knowledge in your writing.

For instance, I have characters who know about subjunctives and gerunds, at least enough to know when they should be used. As a result, I can easily distinguish their dialogue from that of characters who wouldn't know a gerund if it bit them on the behind. A character answering the phone with "To whom am I speaking?" rather than "Who am I speaking to?" gives an immediate suggestion of age, education and class -- characterisation in short hand. Conversely having a character say "I was stood there, waiting" for me conjures up dialect and/or a poor education. *knows she's on thin ice here since several people on Chrons do it, and she's had to beat the habit out of a university-educated Chronner in her writing group. Quite how good a university is a different matter, of course... *

So the more you know, the better able you are to write characters from different spheres of life. Which to my mind is A Good Thing.

Basically, keep learning and don't let it stop you writing! And when you're worried, put up a thread and ask. (But make sure it's "effect" not "affect" when you put something up in Critiques. )

 

[Lex E. Darion]

they don't seem to be teaching sentence diagramming anymore, and that's a shame

I had never heard of sentence diagramming until recently and wondered if it was how children were taught in 'the olden days'. I asked my mum and she said she hadn't been taught that way (she's 74). I did a bit of research and it seems it was only an American thing. I downloaded a very basic teaching PDF and tried it. Have to say, I quite enjoyed it and found it informative - until it got to more complicated sentences!

I don't think it is necessary to know the technical names for these things -- which is just as well, as I know precious few of them. I do think it is necessary to have sufficient basic grasp to feel when a sentence is right or wrong, and to have sufficient drive then to find out more.

This is what I hoped would be the case (and thanks to the others, like Jo, who said this too, it makes me feel a lot better)

However, while it isn't imperative to know everything unless you want to be an editor (and not even then if the sub-editing in the paper I read is any guide) the more you know, the more you can use that knowledge in your writing.

This is what I was thinking - if you know why a sentence 'feels' wrong then having the knowledge to fix it would make life easier.

(But make sure it's "effect" not "affect" when you put something up in Critiques. )

Dagnamit!! I'm usually good at things like that Just shows the importance of proofreading

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I went to an English grammar school, and of all the things I remember being taught there, English grammar wasn't one of them.

That's because you probably aren't old enough. I think it was maybe before 16th C. they added Trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and Quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy) to Grammar schools. Quadrivium is the older term dating to Classical Greek era. The Mediaeval folk coined the "Trivium" term.

 

[Zoe Mackay]

I think that the "feel" - essentially, knowledge you have absorbed through observation and mimicry - can get you a long way. How far that is varies from person to person. It's a talent, but not one that should be confused with writing ability.

There comes a point - whether it's a consistent error that you're making, or an effect that you can't quite nail - where you have to start looking at the construction. This certainly doesn't mean being a grammar expert, but it does mean being at least a grammar practitioner.

There's an easy analogy with painting and music. Natural talent, and copying people whose work you admire (not literally, but trying to do some of the things they do) will get you so far. But the vast majority of painters and composers have to, at some point, study theory. How is this light achieved? Why do two notes three whole tones apart, played together, sound so horrifically awful? How have the people I admire structured their work?

It's fine to play it by ear when the writing works, but, when it doesn't, having some tools to pick it apart and figure out what's broken can be very useful.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think a good understanding of the English language is essential for writing fiction in the English language. A good understanding, not a perfect understanding. A lot of writers forget that there is a whole huge territory between "I can't be bothered to learn my native tongue, because the only thing that counts is the story*" and "You must learn every single rule of grammar -- and understand it, too!"

What you need to do is come out on the right side of midway between those two. But exactly how far to that side should you be? It depends on if you are the kind of person who finds such knowledge liberating because then you know how and when you can shove all that to the back of your mind and just wing it, or if you are the kind of person who lets that sort of knowledge strait-jacket you.

_____
*The prose is the story. You can't separate them.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I don't think writers are expected to be masters of grammar - but are expected to have a reasonable technical understanding of it.

Like you, I considered myself well educated, but grammar was dropped from the English syllabus when I reached secondary school. When I began writing, the only technical terms I could recall were "adjective" and "verb".

I tried reading books on grammar, but found it difficult to feel enthused about reading them. Instead, I looked up issues online wherever I came across them - often ending up at Grammar Girl - and read threads here.

 

[pambaddeley]

They used to teach about the parts of a sentence but that was dropped, not sure why. I mainly recall umpteen lessons on use of commas which bored me rigid at secondary school, so that we never got onto the more complicated bits. So I'm mainly self taught by reading, and know what's right, without knowing the technical terms.

 

[Cathbad]

They used to teach about the parts of a sentence but that was dropped, not sure why.

The dumbing down of society.

 

[J Riff]

The BBC Style Guide is another good place to learn how to write clearly and 'acceptably', and they run through a lot of grammar rules and cliches and so forth, in condensed form. There are great examples of all kinds mistakes, usually made live on the air.

 

[Ursa major]

The BBC Style Guide

It's a shame their journalists don't appear to follow it (or know how English works as a language).

I heard, on news bulletin after news bulletin a statement about a cricket test match (one between England and South Africa) in the form**:

When X's wicket fell, the captain declared after <something or other>.​

The declaration was not made when X was out, but later, after*** another batsmen had reached 150 (i.e. a "significant" score, though a lot fewer runs than X had scored). My understand is that the word 'when' indicates something happening immediately after something else happening, so the headline (using when and after) should have been

When Y reached 150, after X was out, the captain declared.
​

But as X's huge score was the headline of the day, they couldn't say that, but didn't seem to have the wit to say:

X was out for a magnificent 258; soon afterwards, when Y reached 150, the captain declared.​

I can understand how the original headline might have been mangled, if it had been produced on the spur of the moment, but goodness knows why it was ever repeated without being sorted out. Yet it was, quite a few times.


** - I can no longer recall the exact wording (or even anything close).

*** - I've now looked up what happened.