The website said, “2.1—The amount of full-time jobs minimum wage workers need to work to be able to afford an average one bedroom apartment.”

I appreciated the factoid. The wording annoyed me.

The use of “amount” in the web post reflects a growing tendency. I regularly see it in news stories and student work. I hear it on radio and television and in conversations with colleagues, who—as educated university faculty members—I would expect to know better.

The Associated Press Stylebook (56th edition, 2022-2024) says:

“Use amount for things that cannot be counted individually: the amount of milk in the refrigerator, the amount of courage it takes to climb Mount Everest. For things that can be counted individually, use number: The number of soldiers in the army, the number of books in the library.”

Other style references define the same distinction. My Microsoft Word grammar checker highlights “amount” and suggests “number” when the sentence refers to items that can be counted. The grammar checker explains that “some words are similar but are used differently.” Nevertheless, the misuse of “amount” persists.

I have observed that many people younger than 45 use “amount” instead of “number” when they refer to things that can be counted. For example, three second-year graduate students I worked with this year all wrote “amount of people” in early drafts of their final papers.

Because college-educated people commonly use “amount” instead of “number,” I suspect the distinction will soon be lost for most speakers and writers. Still, I think the different word use is helpful. That thought probably makes me a curmudgeon. Now that I’ve retired from full-time work, I have more time to be grumpy about such annoying language changes.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon

Writers—both student and professional—sometimes have trouble constructing sentences. Appositives, participial phrases, prepositional phrases and dependent clauses end up in the wrong places—not near the nouns or pronouns they should modify. In spoken English, such “dangling” and misplaced modifiers are common. Our thinking moves faster than our speaking. Words don’t always come out of our mouths in the right order. We add sentence elements as we think of them. But written communication can—and should—be more precise. Written communication can be reread and edited for clarity.

Syntax problems in writing reflect fuzzy thinking. Writers who miss misplaced modifiers don’t truly understand what they are communicating. They don’t recognize that their word order is confusing. They appear to think that everyone reasons the same way and will be able to figure out what the text means.

That thinking indicates that the writer has abdicated his or her primary mission: clear, concise, correct communication. Why should readers have to figure out something that the writer hasn’t clearly presented?

The Associated Press Stylebook says: “Avoid modifiers that do not refer clearly and logically to some word in the sentence.”

The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA stylebook) says in Paragraph 3.21: “An adjective or adverb, whether a single word or phrase, must clearly refer to the word it modifies.”

Dangling modifiers have no referent or antecedent (word to modify) in a sentence. Such modifiers come in many forms and often involve misplaced participial and prepositional phrases or out-of-place dependent clauses. Here are some examples:

• The president hiked to a retreating glacier, counting on Alaska’s deteriorating landscape to illicit a sense of urgency.

In this syntax the participle “counting” modifies “glacier.” The sentence says the glacier was counting on the deteriorating landscape. The participle is supposed to modify “president.” Therefore the participial phrase should come before or after that noun: Counting on Alaska’s deteriorating landscape to illicit a sense of urgency, the president hiked to the retreating glacier.

(Note: A participle is a verb ending in “ing” that functions as an adjective.)

•  Growing up in Texas, my family always went to church each Sunday.

The participial phrase that begins with “growing” modifies “my family,” but the family didn’t grow up in Texas. The speaker/writer did, and he/she doesn’t have a referent in the sentence. Therefore the sentence needs to be rewritten: “When I was growing up in Texas, my family went to church each Sunday.”

•  Having interviewed the mayor, it is important to report the details accurately.

The participial phrase that begins with “having” modifies the pronoun “it,” but “it” has no antecedent (no referent). “It” is an expletive, a grammatical element that fills a space in a sentence (often the subject position) but carries no meaning. The participial phrase needs something to modify: “Having interviewed the mayor, I had an obligation to report details accurately.”

•  Norfolk Southern announced in January it would close its office in downtown Roanoke, moving those jobs to either Norfolk or Atlanta.

In this sentence the “moving” participial phrase is modifying “Roanoke.” But “moving” isn’t really a modifier. The word represents a second action in the sentence and should be a second verb in the predicate, not a participle: “would close its offices … and move those jobs ….”

•  The publication, which focuses on health and wellness, aggregates a number of ranking sources to create a list of the top 50 fittest colleges in the country, including U.S. News & World Report, The Princeton Review and Niche Colleges.

The participle “including” in this construction modifies “country.” The participial phrase should modify “sources”: “The publication, which focuses on health and wellness, aggregates a number of ranking sources, including U.S. News & World Report, The Princeton Review and Niche Colleges, to create a list of the top fittest colleges in the country.”

Note: This 38-word sentence is really too long for easy comprehension. Two sentences would be easier to read: “The publication, which focuses on health and wellness, aggregates a number of ranking sources to create a list of the top fittest colleges in the country. Those sources include U.S. News & World Report, The Princeton Review and Niche Colleges.”

•  When we travel to a conference, we try to do it as inexpensively as possible, putting four students to a room.

The participle “putting” has no noun or pronoun to modify. “Possible” is an adverb. “By” should replace the comma. Then “putting” becomes a gerund (a verb ending in “ing” acting as a noun). The gerund phrase “putting four students to a room” becomes the object of the preposition “by.”

•  The teacher tested students using this procedure.

This sentence is ambiguous. The participle “using” modifies “students.” But who used the procedures? The students or the teacher?

•  As a Latino, Donald Trump is the way to lose my vote.

The “as a Latino” phrase modifies “Donald Trump.” But the phrase refers to the speaker/writer. Therefore, the sentence should say: “As a Latino, I can tell you that Donald Trump is the way to lose my vote.”

•  To be an effective supervisor, a thorough understanding of all employee duties is required.

The “to be” infinitive phrase is modifying “understanding,” the subject of the passive-voice sentence. But a thorough understanding can’t be an effective supervisor. The sentence should say: “To be effective, a supervisor needs a thorough understanding of all employee duties.”

•  Unbeaten so far this season, the victory was the team’s seventh in a row.

The “unbeaten” clause modifies “victory.” The clause should refer to the team: “Unbeaten so far this season, the team has won seven straight games.”

•  Based on this assumption, we developed a new model.

This wording says “we” are based on an assumption. The model was based on the assumption: “Based on this assumption, the new model was developed.”

•  Consistent with earlier polling results, researchers Smith and Jones showed that students favored Democrats.

This wording says that “researchers Smith and Jones” were consistent with earlier polling. Clearer wording would say: Researchers Smith and Jones showed that students favored Democrats. These findings were consistent with earlier polling results.”

•  The project for retirees, launched earlier this year, has federal backing.

This wording says the retirees were propelled into the air earlier this year. The wording should be: “The project, launched earlier this year for retirees, has federal backing.”

•  “Genesis” is the Bible study topic in the Disciples Sunday school class, which will end this month.

The class is continuing. Therefore, the nonrestrictive “which” clause should modify “topic,” not “class”: “‘Genesis’ is the Bible study topic, which will end this month, in the Disciples Sunday school class.”

•  State Sen. John Edwards of Virginia’s 21^st District, who is seeking re-election, announced today that Roanoke city workers had endorsed him.

The nonrestrictive “who” clause should modify “Edwards,” not “district”: “State Sen. John Edwards, who is seeking re-election in Virginia’s 21^st District, announced today that Roanoke city workers had endorsed him.”

•  The Hokies will play in Cassell Coliseum Wednesday at 7 p.m., one of the oldest basketball venues in the conference.

The appositive phrase “one of the oldest basketball venues in the conference” should modify “Cassell Coliseum,” not “7 p.m.”: “The Hokies will play in Cassell Coliseum, one of the oldest basketball venues in the conference, at 7 p.m. Wednesday.”

•  Professor Douglas Cannon of Virginia Tech, a communication faculty member, will direct the summer writing workshop.

The appositive phrase “a communication faculty member” should modify “Cannon,” not “Tech”: “Professor Douglas Cannon, a communication faculty member at Virginia Tech, will direct the summer writing workshop.”

Note: Long, complex sentences introduce more opportunities for syntax problems than short sentences. Therefore, keeping sentences short can cut down on syntax errors and improve scores on readability scales. Sentences that try to obscure the actor with passive constructions (the ball was thrown) or indirect wording (there are … or it is important that …) often increase opportunities for syntax problems as well.

Copyright 2015, Douglas F. Cannon

Paula LaRoque, longtime Dallas Morning News writing coach, said getting pronouns right would solve most common grammar problems (The Book on Writing, p. 203). She called pronouns errors “a major source of verbal pollution” (On Words: Insights Into How Our Words Work—And Don’t, p. 183). I agree. Incorrect pronoun use—especially pronoun-antecedent disagreements—muddles messages and reflects fuzzy thinking. Writers whose pronouns don’t agree with antecedents clearly don’t understand what they are saying.

The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (Paragraph 3.20) says: “Pronouns replace nouns. Each pronoun should refer clearly to its antecedent and should agree with the antecedent in number and gender.”

The Chicago Manual of Style (Paragraph 5.26) echoes the APA description and adds that pronouns are often used in one of two ways: (1) as a substitute for an expressed noun or pronoun in a sentence to avoid needless repetition or (2) as a stand-in for an understood noun from earlier in the text.

These definitions assume that writers understand two concepts: (1) antecedent and (2) agreement in number (singular or plural) and gender (masculine, feminine or neuter).

Antecedent

An antecedent is an earlier noun or pronoun in the same sentence to which the pronoun refers. If the reference is unambiguous, the antecedent might be a noun in the previous sentence. This clear connection is especially important in broadcast writing. Listeners and viewers can’t go back to check the reference. If misunderstanding is possible, repeat the noun.

The general rule (certain exceptions do exist) is that the antecedent is the first noun of the same number and gender before the pronoun:

Writers should use pronouns precisely. They must communicate clearly.

According to the general rule, the antecedent for “they” in this example is “pronouns.” That word is the closest plural noun to the adjective. “Pronouns” could be the subject of the second sentence: Pronouns must communicate clearly. But the two sentences might be ambiguous to some readers. They might think “writers” is a more logical antecedent. Avoid such confusion. Make sure that the intended antecedent is always unmistakably clear. Don’t make readers guess at what you mean.

Agreement

Agreement relates to gender and number. All nouns have one of three genders (masculine, feminine or neuter) and one of two numbers (singular or plural). In English, unlike many other Indo-European languages, gender reflects the sex of noun referring to humans. Nouns referring to males are masculine. Nouns referring to females are feminine. Nouns referring to things or animals are neuter. In other languages, nouns are assigned genders. Adjectives and word endings reflect those assigned genders. For example, in German (a parent language of English) the words for newspaper and island are feminine (die Zeitung, die Insel). The words for mirror, train and secretary are masculine (der Spiegel, der Zug, der Sekretaer).

American writers have problems with antecedent agreement in at least four situations: (1) nouns with unclear gender, (2) collective nouns, (3) adjectives implying nouns and (4) references to concepts.

• Unclear gender: Singular nouns, such as reporter, writer, musician or executive, can refer to a man or a woman. Until the 1970s writers used a singular masculine pronoun for such nouns when the sex of the actor was ambiguous. (Each writer corrected his manuscript. He made sure pronouns agreed with antecedents.) The masculine pronoun represented both sexes. The Women’s Movement of the 1960s and 1970s changed that thinking. Writers began using non-sexist language. (Each writer corrected his or her manuscript. He or she made sure pronouns agreed with antecedents.) Because that “he or she” construction was awkward, speakers began saying “they” and “their” when the sex of the actors wasn’t specific. (Each writer corrected their manuscript. They made sure pronouns agreed with antecedents.) Those plural pronouns didn’t agree in number with a singular antecedent. Such usage should be avoided. Sentences with such noun-pronoun disagreement should be revised. (All writers corrected their manuscripts. Writers made sure pronouns agreed with antecedents.)

• Collective nouns: A related problem to unclear gender is the use of “they” for singular collective nouns that are neuter. Examples include committee, audience, faculty and staff. All these nouns take “it.” Committee members or faculty members would take “they.”

• Adjectives implying nouns: Sometimes writers mistake possessive words for nouns: John’s background qualified him for the assignment. “Him” is supposed to refer to John, but the sentence doesn’t include a noun for John. “John’s” is in the possessive case and is acting as an adjective for “background.” Therefore, “him” has no antecedent.

• Concepts: Sometimes writers try to use “this” or “that” as pronouns to refer to everything in the preceding sentence or paragraph. (Average social network and Twitter use in our sample is younger and more educated than the typical social network and Twitter use in the U.S. This is important in considering how Internet variables correlate with civic participation.) Exactly what is the antecedent for “this”? William Strunk writes in The Elements of Style (p. 61), “The pronoun this, referring to the complete sense of the preceding sentence or clause, can’t always carry the load and so may produce an imprecise sentence.” The same thinking applies to “that” used in the same way. A simple fix is to transform the pronouns into adjectives: “That difference is important.”

Note: This post focuses on one pronoun topic: noun-pronoun agreement. Writers need to know other things about pronoun use as well. Furthermore, I have limited the discussion to basic rules of thumb in a few situations. Exceptions do exist, but let’s sharpen the thinking about these basics first.

Copyright 2015, Douglas F. Cannon

Writers face two common challenges: (1) What to say and (2) how to say it. The first challenge relates to knowledge. The second relates to skill.

Not knowing what to say may indicate that the writer (1) doesn’t have enough information about the topic or (2) doesn’t understand the topic well enough to explain it. Research may address the lack of information. But simply collecting more details may not improve understanding. If fact, too much information may lead to “the paralysis of analysis.” The writer isn’t sure how to evaluate with all the facts. Nevertheless, the writer’s mission is to synthesize a collection of facts into a simple explanation of a topic. That process requires critical thinking—based on the reason for writing—about what’s important and relevant to intended readers. Remember: Good writing is good thinking with ink on it.

Not knowing how to package messages for intended readers may reflect (1) a fuzzy understanding of purpose or (2) lack of technical expertise. Writers should always be clear about why they are writing. Is the purpose to inform, influence (persuade) or entertain intended readers? Once that answer is clear, writers need the technical skills to package messages in ways that will engage and communicate to intended readers. Will the vocabulary attract reader attention, precisely convey information and be understood? Or will the presentation bore or confuse readers? Are sentences short and easy to follow or long and convoluted? Does the syntax and word use present the message without ambiguity? If not, writers may need to work with good editors or consult—and follow—grammar references (usage guides, stylebooks or writing handbooks). Remember: Good writing is accurate, brief and clear.

When writers can easily explain what they want to say and have a clear idea of how to say it, they can avoid writer’s block and have a better chance of communicating effectively. They will not present torturous texts that reflect muddled thinking.

Copyright 2015, Douglas F. Cannon