Retain Certain Optional Words

Removing unnecessary words is among the first few tactics in any list of style rules, especially those aimed at International English. But it is dan-gerous to be overzealous in cutting words. Sometimes it is more helpful to the reader to retain a few of those otherwise removable words. Cer-tain optional words in English make the logic of a sentence much clearer.

International readers will have an easier time with sentences that in-clude these extra words. The most recurring example is the that appear-ing before indirect speech:

Before:

We do not believe the management will forget its promises.

After:

We do not believe that the management will forget its prom-ises.

The flaw in the Before sentence is that it misleads the readers, who see We do not believe the management before they realize that the sen-tence means the opposite.

Usually, sentences should be truthful from the beginning, reading from left to right, and should not contain late material that amends an earlier

claim. When the sentence logic forces the reader to double back, this is an example of a GOTO, a reverse of direction that adds to the reader’s burden.

Similarly, in international documents, it is usually safer to repeat nouns than to point at them with pronouns such as this, these, which, or who;

this X or that Y is preferable. Unclear relative and personal pronouns, such as he or they, should be replaced with repeated nouns.

Before:

We have assessed the improvements to the accounting tools, which, in our opinion, do not justify the cost of the upgrade.

(What does the word which refer to?) After:

We have assessed the improvements to the accounting tools.

These few improvements, in our opinion, do not justify the cost of the upgrade.

It is also useful to repeat words that are sometimes omitted in pairs, as in:

Before:

The team will be ready to start work and write the first report by December 1.

After:

The team will be ready to start work and to write the first re-port by December 1.

Even when the goal is to waste no words, it is still dangerous to write in telegraphic style, so named because it refers to the day when people sending telegrams would be charged by the word and would edit accordingly.

Punctuation and International English

Some punctuation marks, such as the full stop period, are required; oth-ers, like the comma after such introductory phrases as of course, are helpful, though optional. A good many of the punctuation marks in American business documents are neither—for example, the embarrass-ing apostrophe in the possessive its.

After years of editing American reports and papers, I have concluded

that most American college graduates who are not professional writers or teachers know very few of the rules of punctuation. Many would make the error, for example, of setting off the restrictive clause—who are not professional writers or teachers—with commas. Their commas and apostrophes appear almost at random; they confuse hyphens and dashes—and almost never use dashes; they rarely set off nonrestrictive clauses with commas because, indeed, most have no idea what a clause is, let alone a nonrestrictive one. In fact, a substantial minority of the educated adults I meet claim that they were never taught grammar and punctuation in school at all!

Making matters worse, the replacement of most kinds of short busi-ness correspondence with e-mail has exacerbated the problem, giving most business writers the sense that punctuation and spelling and gram-mar are of minor consequence in business communication. This last trend is most regrettable; as I shall argue in Chapter 6, every badly written, underedited, ill-formed word and sentence in an e-mail in-jures the sender. And even though the sender may have saved time by not reviewing and revising the document, nothing could do more to help the sender’s career than to make the needed improvements in his or her document.

The absence or randomness of punctuation in most business writing is understandable among people who have never been convinced that grammar and style could possibly affect their professional goals. But American English, and even British English to an extent, is also influ-enced by the journalistic indifference toward refinements of punctua-tion, especially commas. Generally, American newspaper writers would not have put the comma after the generally at the beginning of this sen-tence. Nor do they put commas before the and or or in a series. Inherent in this practice is, on the one hand, a preference for fast, muscular prose that moves without pauses or detours and, on the other, contempt for layered, parenthetical constructions within sentences. Journalists, like nearly everyone, dislike academic and scholarly prose, and they take pains to avoid constructions and styles that smack of it.

The point that every writer must appreciate, especially those brave enough to communicate with E2, is that sentences, once they extend beyond five or six words, need punctuation to be understood. Punc-tuation is neither a cosmetic decoration nor an affectation of style—

and certainly not a game played to satisfy one’s school teachers. It is the technique that tells us which words in a sentence are related to

which, what modifies what, and how the logic of the utterance is to be processed. Louis Menand made this point well in a recent maga-zine piece:

The function of most punctuation—commas, colons and semicolons, dashes, and so on—is to help organize the relationships among the parts of a sentence. Its role is semantic: to add precision and complex-ity to meaning. It increases the information potential of strings of words.

(2004, p. 103)

Menand might also have mentioned that punctuation increases infor-mation by decreasing the number of potential misreadings, thereby tak-ing away some guesswork. Just as a well-designed mechanical device discourages operators from using it inappropriately, a well-punctuated sentence makes itself harder to misunderstand. To illustrate, just recently I read a British article containing the following sentence: By the time it ended the effects of the war were devastating. The lack of a comma after ended is more than a small stylistic failure to set off an introductory phrase; it also encourages a misreading of the sentence, causing many to inadvertently construct the unintended ended the effects and forcing them to reread the passage.

Most journalists, however, take the fully defensible position that a well-built sentence should be clear and unambiguous with little or no punctuation. By keeping sentences short-and-simple, they say, and us-ing reliable syntax, you should not need dashes and parentheses to make a point. This attitude, with its emphasis on simplicity and directness of form, is entirely appropriate for International English Style. E2 readers will generally prefer two independent sentences with full stops to a pair of independent clauses linked by a semicolon. Most E2s would prefer that a parenthetical apposition—that is, an explanation of the previous phrase set off in commas, parentheses, or dashes—appear in the next sentence, instead of being intruded into the flow of the first sentence.

Consider the difference:

Before:

Most E2s would prefer a parenthetical apposition (that is, an explanation of the previous phrase set off in commas, paren-theses, or dashes) to appear in the next sentence, instead of being intruded into the flow of the first sentence.

After:

Most E2s would prefer a parenthetical apposition to appear in the next sentence, instead of being intruded into the flow of the first sentence. (An apposition is an explanation of the pre-vious phrase set off in commas, parentheses, or dashes.) Writers of International English, then, are obliged to learn and re-member the punctuation rules for their own nation’s English and, then, must be prepared to modify and revise those rules on the few occasions when it will help to reduce the burden on the reader or discourage mis-reading. Moreover, if they work in settings where professional editors review their writing, they should be prepared for a conflict or two. Edi-tors, whose authority is often limited by soft and hard-to-explain prin-ciples of style, cling fast to unambiguous punctuation rules and may blanch at the thought of breaking one on purpose.