Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncte.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
College English.
http://www.jstor.org
616 COLLEGE
ENGLISH
CRITERIA OF CORRECTNESS
KARL W. DYKEMA'
indicate that there has been a very sweeping and devastating as-
sault. But a mere intensive like very does not possess sufficient
force to convey his meaning. He probably has no other similar as-
saults specifically in mind, so that he is not really writing of one of
several; but, being a somewhat cautious journalist, he hesitates to
use an unqualified superlative and write "He made the most sweep-
ing and devastating assault ....." He feels he has achieved his pur-
pose by using the forceful most qualified by the formula one of whose
function is to change the superlative from absolute to relative.
And, since he has in mind a single assault, he naturally makes his
verb singular to agree with the singular idea. Such an analysis will
hardly make possible a neat diagram of the sentence; but it does,
I think, explain the underlying logic of a sentence which is perfectly
comprehensible and at least moderately effective.
Similarly, the dangling construction which has no formal relation-
ship to the rest of the sentence is often condemned on the ground
that it is ambiguous; and no doubt it often is. But is it so invari-
ably ambiguous that it deserves to be dogmatically condemned?
Some entirely respectable stock expressions are nothing more than
dangling participles: strictly speaking, speaking of, considering his
age; owing to is now called a preposition. But there are many con-
structions besides these which are quite unambiguous-in fact, per-
fectly clear and less awkward than the alternative "correct" con-
struction: "Driving down Riverside Drive, the Washington Bridge
can be seen in all its glory." To suggest that there is even the possi-
bility of a momentary ambiguity here is as absurd as to insist that
a double negative makes an affirmative.
When the dangling construction is ambiguous, it should be con-
demned as bad rhetoric rather than as bad syntax. And there are a
number of other constructions which might better be treated as
matters of style than as "bad grammar." The logical objection to
the split infinitive is, of course, nonsense (John B. Opdycke's fan-
tastic discussion in Get It Right, for example. He draws a parallel
between to quickly go and al-rapide-ler, geh-schnell-en, ir-celeriter-e
[p. 174]), since historically to is not a part of the infinitive. But
rhetorically there may sometimes be legitimate objection to the
construction, though there may be just as legitimate objection to
CRITERIA OF CORRECTNESS 621