AutoSummarize: I'm Unimpressed

In its Tools menu, Microsoft Word offers a function called AutoSummarize. I tested this function and it does not impress me.

I tried AutoSummarize on four documents: one business letter and four well-written essays. In one feature, AutoSummarize lets me choose the length of the summary. For example, it would yellow-highlight either 25% or 10% of the document. But neither 25% nor 10% summaries seemed to contain the essence of the document.

True, in one case, AutoSummarize selected the final sentence of the first paragraph, which is the essay's traditional place for a point sentence. But in the three other cases, AutoSummarize ignored the first paragraph, even where the document's point sentence was there.

I cannot recommend AutoSummarize as a quick way to shorten your reading time. Instead, I recommend that writers have an agenda as they read or skim a document. I suggest that the reading emphasize the document's key locations: the introduction, its point sentence, its subtitles, the first sentences of sections and paragraphs, and conclusion.
(Flesch Reading Ease: 43. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 10.9.)

Brians Errors

His name is Paul Brians.

His collection of common errors and confusables in English is at
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors

Visit that site, and I predict that it will explain at least one mystery that has tickled your brain. Do you ever wonder whether you should write "among the three children" or "between the three children"? Yes, you could consult your dictionary. But if you go to Brians Errors, you stand a good chance of wasting glorious minutes among hundreds of other linguistic questions.

Now here is mine. I wonder why Paul Brians did not title the page "Brians's Errors."

Protect Yourself

More evidence is accumulating: e-mails risk insulting people. Books are being written; blogs are taking up the refrain. If you want to protect yourself, make every e-mail exude cordial good will.

Start with a salutation: Hi Jedediah, or Hi Friends, or Dear Bashemi, or even Dear Mr. Wolfe.

Close with cordiality: Thanks again, Take care, Best wishes, Best regards, or even Sincerely.

Never write an e-mail while you are angry, and if you do, save it as a draft and review it the next morning.
Consider phoning instead.
If you must send an e-mail with a negative evaluation, lard it with good wishes and include whatever praise you can.
If someone has hurt you, and you must reply, start by thanking them for their input.

Sound more cordial than you feel. Remember, an e-mail message does not automatically convey the goodness of your personality. An e-mail appears on the receipient's screen like an inkblot. He or she projects emotionality onto the words. And even "please" can be an insult if recipients take it that way.

Cultivate cordiality. It could save your career.

Scrambled Spelling: Does It Matter?

Almost everyone has seen the following so-called discovery about English:

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.

This so-called discovery has primarily been used by spammers to evade software that detects words that signal spam.

As an excuse for misspelling English, it is invalid.

First, all the words shorter than four letters must be spelled correctly.

Second, the message must be simple and contain familiar words. The message above further compensates for its misspellings because the message's content is echoed in the message's form.

Third, and most importantly, you will notice that these misspellings are carefully structured. For example, "Aoccdrnig" keeps far more of the basic structure of the word than, say "Anircocdg" would have. "Rscheearch" is a very disciplined misspelling compared to "rrhcscaeeh."

Finally, no one who wishes to be taken seriously scrambles letters or misspells words deliberately. Correct spelling is still a mark of both courtesy and prestige.

Here's what I think would be really interesting research: Just which misspellings are easier to overlook? The ones that retain the silhouette of the word? The ones that keep three to five final letters in their appropriate spaces, as "rscheearch" does? Or the ones that never move a letter more than two spaces, as "Aoccdrnig" does? In short, how DO we recognize a word? And do our recognition patterns depend on our individual learning styles?

Electronic References: DOI

APA has dropped the requirement that electronic references include the database (such as OVID or PsycInfo).

The source of this new guideline is http://www.apastyle.org/elecmedia.html:

"With the exception of hard-to-find books and other documents of limited circulation delivered by electronic databases, the database name is no longer a necessary element of the reference. This change is made in the interest of simplifying reference format."

The APA has published (in PDF format only) a 24-page "booklet" on electronic references (copyright 2007) that is available for $11.95. I have purchased it. It doesn't say too much that is new except to suggest what are called Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs).

APA has added a recommended element to an electronic reference: the DOI or Digital Object Identifier. I have tried to learn whether RefWorks automatically inserts the DOI, and I believe that it does. In any case, I quote below from the APA web site:

"Direct readers as closely as possible to the source you used. Along with this general principle, consider these guidelines for citing sources:

"1. All content on the Internet is prone to being moved, restructured, or deleted, resulting in broken hyperlinks and nonworking URLs in the reference list. In an attempt to resolve this problem, many scholarly publishers have begun assigning a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) to journal articles and other documents.

"A DOI is a unique alphanumeric string assigned by a registration agency to identify content and provide a persistent link to its location on the Internet. When a DOI is available, include the DOI instead of the URL in the reference. Publishers who follow best practices will publish the DOI prominently on the first page of an article. Because the DOI string can be long, it is safest to copy and paste whenever possible. Provide the alphanumeric string for the DOI exactly as published in the article. When your article is published and made available electronically, the DOI will be activated as a link to the content you are referencing.

"The DOI may be hidden under a button labeled 'Article,' 'Cross- Ref,' 'PubMed,' or another full-text vendor name. Readers who wish to look up the source can then link to either the actual article, if they have authorized access, or an abstract and an opportunity to purchase a copy of the item.

"If the link is not live or if the DOI is referenced in a print publication, the reader can simply enter the DOI into the 'DOI resolver' search field provided by the registration agency CrossRef.org and be directed to the article or a link to purchase it."

Adjectives Again

In one of the blogs I follow, I read this item:
“A report in the Gloucester Citizen,” writes John Gray, “about a traffic accident said that ‘Mr Brown died of multiple and fatal injuries.’ I suppose you can die of nonfatal injuries?"

Then I wondered: What if the newspaper had written, “Mr. Brown died of multiple fatal injuries.” Would that sentence mean that two or more of his injuries were such as to cause death? I suppose that situation is possible.

But the newspaper could have written simply, “Mr. Brown died of multiple injuries.” If he died of them, they were fatal.

By the way, the Gloucester Citizen, a U.K. paper, evidently follows the British habit of leaving out the period after “Mr.” Hmmm. That dropped period is a thrifty idea that never caught on here in the colonies.

Short Before Long

"None of the ingestions resulted in more than moderate clinical effects or death."

So reads the final sentence of an abstract in the journal Human Clinical Toxicology. That sentence illustrates the pitfalls of writing a series whose first item consists of many words. Readers are not sure where the "trunk" of the sentence ends. Is the trunk of the sentence "None of the ingestions resulted in more than"?

If so, then ingesting the substance never caused more than death.

Is the trunk of the sentence "None of the ingestions resulted in more than moderate"? If so, then ingesting the substance never caused more than moderate death.

Is the trunk of the sentence "None of the ingestions resulted in"? If so, then ingesting the substance never resulted in death or in more than moderate clinical effects--which would have been a good way to write the sentence.

When a series ends a sentence, it is wise to order that series from short item(s) to long.

Merriam-Webster on "They" as Genderless Pronoun

As one of you pointed out (see Anonymous comment to my post "A Pronoun Must Match Its Antecedent"), we do sometimes use "they" to refer to an organization.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, includes the following in a note at the entry for "they":

"usage They, their, them, theselves: English lacks a common-gender third person singular pronoun that can be used to refer to indefinite pronouns (as everyone, anyone, someone). Writers and speakers have supplied this lack by using the plural pronoun" [There follow several examples from Shakespeare, Auden, Thackeray, and G. B. Shaw].


"The use of they, their, them, and themselves as pronouns of indefinite gender and indefinite number is well established in speech and writing, even in literary and formal contexts. This gives you the option of using the plural pronouns where you think they sound best, and of using the singular pronouns (as he, she, he or she, and their inflected forms) where you think they sound best."

Shall I write, "The client called; they want you to call back"? Well, only if I wish to conceal the gender and identity of the caller. Otherwise, I would write, "The client called; it was Sheila Marston, and she wants you to call back."

Commas and Adjectives: A Long, Loose, Red Shirt

When should you put a comma between two adjectives? In general, the comma is correct if you could use an "and" between the adjectives.

Try out that rule in the following sentences:
He saw a bright chrome car-door handle.
There were fierce local gun battles.
It had been a long, hot, humid day.

Sometimes a noun phrase uses several adjectives, and some take a comma while some do not. For example, take the sentence, "He brought a worn, faded, loose red polo shirt."
We say, "He brought a worn and faded red polo shirt."
Or "He brought a faded and loose red polo shirt."
We could even reverse those two adjectives: He brought a loose and faded red polo shirt.

But we never say, “It was a red and polo shirt” or “...a polo red shirt.”

The Plural of Mouse

Microsoft publishes a Manual of Style for Technical Publications (that is its title). In its latest (third) edition, on page 17, the manual tells us that the plural of mouse is not mice, but mouse devices.

(We are here referring not to the small mammal, but to the movable control module on a computer.)

So imagine my surprise when I was browsing Microsoft's sales site, at
microsoft.com/mac/otherproducts/otherproducts.aspx?pid=otherproducts,
and found the following:

"Learn more about Mac-compatible mice."

Ah well, it is easy to promulgate a rule; it's hard to enforce it always.

Americans Are Not the Only People

Now let me be clear: I support the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless. They do great work.

But when I went to their home page today, I saw the following sentence:
"In April 2002, 4.2 million people were working part-time who wanted full-time work."

That sentence reminded me again that we Americans are still (still!) ethnocentric. The sentence said nothing about which people were working part-time. Does this statistic (4.2 million) refer to Americans? If so, let's say so.

I try (I sometimes fail) to remember that the word "people" is not synonymous with the word "Americans." If I cite a statistic, I try to mention the population from which it is drawn.

In fact, my friend Angie from South America reminds me that even "Americans" is often a misnomer. The Americas include Central and South America, Mexico, and Canada. If I want to be precise (and globally aware) I should use "U. S. residents" when in fact I mean only that group.

The words I use reflect (help shape?) my consciousness; and it's past time for my consciousness to encompass the world.

Botched Sentences

Every day on the Web, I read sentences that force me to edit before I can understand.

First, there is the "one...they" confusion. "One" is singular, but "they" is plural. A Ph.D. takes that confusion even further when he writes, "The level of autonomy and independence that one achieves influences both the range of a person’s ability to adapt to his environment and their level of self-respect." If "one achieves," and one is a person with "his environment," how can we write of "their level of self-respect"?

Another gem: The new head of a research facility is said to "have duel French and English citizenship." I know that England and France are politically at odds theses days, but has it come to "duel citizenship"? I think the writer meant "dual."

I could go on, but I'll conclude with a badly written sentence whose unnecessary noun actions and passive verbs leave it so fuzzy that readers could miss the grammar error. "While occasional references to Islam as being etymologically linked to 'peace' is often made by Muslims, a comprehensive peace education curriculum is generally absent."

Stripped to its bare subject-and-verb structure, that sentence says "...references...is often made by Muslims." To rewrite this sentence, I would use the Doer-Action Rule, well known to my students. "While Muslims occasionally mention that Arabic etymology links the word 'Islam' to 'peace,' their schools generally do not teach peace comprehensively."

A Pronoun Must Match Its Antecedent

What's an antecedent? It's the noun to which the pronoun refers. If I use "they," readers should instantly know which plural noun I mean. If I use "that" as a pronoun, readers should be confident that I refer to a thing, not a person.

Can you find the pronoun-related errors in these sentences?

1. One can say what they wish.
2. Please identify the person that witnessed the accident.
3. The needle is quickly withdrawn and pressure is applied to it for 20 minutes.
4. The physical signs of stress, abuse, and neglect are serious, and it is often felt for years.
5. The client called yesterday, and they want an appointment.
You ask, What if the client is an organization? Well, let's think about that situation. Could an organization phone you? Probably it was a person who phoned, in which case you would want to say "he" or "she" wants an appointment, right?
However, you do raise an interesting related question. Do I want to refer to an organization as "it" or "they"? In British English, at least in the press, writers use "they," as in "Barclays Bank reported that they will..." U.S. writers usually write, "Ford reported that it will..." At least, that pattern has been my impression.

Affect versus Effect

The movie that affected Ann
had no effect on Ed.

If you can remember that sentence, you can solve about 90% of the affect-effect confusions you face in business writing.
In that sentence, "Ann" begins with "a" as does "affected," which is a verb.

"Ed" begins with "e" as does "effect," which is a noun.

This mnemonic rule is reversed only in relatively rare uses of the words. For example, if you deal in psychology, you use the noun "affect" to mean visible emotion: "He showed little affect."

In rather stilted English, a person could write, "The judge ordered the company to economize, so the company effected many cost-saving measures." This rather rare verb "effected" means "carried out" or "implemented."

Words to Watch

1. As of March 2007, Arkansas is clamping down on misspellings of the state's possessive form. They now insist on Arkansas's First Lady, Arkansas's interests, and Arkansas's pride in its scenic beauty. These correct spellings are consistent with the general rule that all singular nouns, when they become possessive, add apostrophe and "s."

2. In the Embarrassing Mistakes File, here is another entry. Website makers tout their database by writing:
"This page attempts to collect the largest sources of quotations and related items (proverbs, sayings, maxims, amorphisms, slogans, clichés, etc.)."
But there is no such thing as an amorphism, as their spell checker would have told them. They meant aphorism.

3. Another embarrassing error appears because writers failed to think about what a word meant: "If you look at your day and see all the tolerations you put up with, no wonder you leave stressed."

Those writers might have benefited from a good thesaurus and dictionary. They probably meant "and see all the annoyances you tolerate…."

4. Finally, there is the person who wrote, "After the accident, my car was a total right off." This person meant "a total write-off."

U.S. Army Professional Writing Collection

Surfing the Web, I stumbled upon our Army's collection of scholarly articles at www.army.mil/professionalwriting/. One article was entitled "Breaking the Tether of Fuel." Its first sentences required me to read them twice before I pieced together their (rather simple) meaning. Whatever happened to clear and frequent active verbs? Whatever happened to putting the old information in the sentence's beginning?

Here is what I read:
During the advance on Baghdad, senior Marine and Army field commanders had many significant interdependent variables to contemplate in addition to the capability and intent of the Iraqi forces before them. In order to maintain both the velocity and operational tempo of their highly mobile forces located across a wide battlespace, the subject of fuel was an ever-present consideration. Much time, energy, and continuous analysis was put into determining when, or if, a culminating point would be reached due to this vital resource. (Flesch Reading Ease 18.7, grade level 12.0)

Here is what some military pundit could have written:
While US field commanders advanced on Baghdad, they worried not only about what Iraqi forces could do and intended. They had to move their highly mobile forces across a wide battlespace; so they worried constantly about fuel. They continuously analyzed supply and use variables to learn when their fuel would run out.

In my opinion, the longer a general must spend decoding flowery language, the less time she has to think strategically, learn about her people, and achieve every soldier's dream: unemployment. (My writing in this post has a Flesch Reading Ease of 49.4 and a grade level of 9.9.)

Dyslexia

You know the first-grader who doesn't seem to understand phonics? The fifth grader who avoids reading and whose handwriting looks like insect tracks? The adult who says, "I brought the things over there, and I saw how they had the stuff so that's where I told him to put it"?

Any of these people might be dyslexic. I've been reading about dyslexia for years, and working with two dyslexic children about whom I care deeply. I've benefited from talks with a brilliant scientist friend who himself has an unusual cognitive style. Here's what I've found.

The best book on dyslexia is probably Overcoming Dyslexia (2003) by Sally Shaywitz, MD. The subtitle is "a new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level."

Shaywitz's book builds, I think, on the linguistic science in Why Our Children Can't Read And What We Can Do About It (1997) by Diane McGuinness, Ph.D. McGuinness constructs an elaborate foundation of detailed linguistic analysis of English, which leads up to a section of "practical solutions." These solutions are consistent with the later ones that Shaywitz presents. The solutions are ways of teaching reading that concentrate on linking sounds with the wide variety of letters or syllables that represent them. This linking process is what daunts people with dyslexia.

Shaywitz emphasizes the other mental strengths that surround the dyslexic person's phonemic weakness. This emphasis on developing compensatory cognitive strengths is broadened in another good book, The Myth of Laziness by Mel Levine, MD.

In short, for the poor reader (at any age), there is now understanding--and help.

Noodlebib to Create Bibliography

Noodlebib (at Noodletools.com) is a good choice of software for someone who must write term papers for elementary school, high school, or even college.
Months ago, I told you I'd subscribed to Noodlebib, software for creating bibliographies in APA or MLA style. My sister the librarian had to show me how to use it, but once she did, I became a fan.
Noodlebib, available at noodletools.com, is easy to use (I *could* have figured it out myself). After you select APA or MLA and the kind of source you want to record (book, article, etc.), Noodlebib offers and explains meaningful alternatives. It opens a questionnaire that solicits all the information that it will need. Before you close the questionnaire, it even checks for errors. Noodlebib is filled with help features that are easy to access.
I paid $6 per year to have the notecard feature. (Without that feature, Noodlebib is free.) I wasn't able to use notecards in my Safari (Mac) browser, but when I queried Noodletools, they responded promptly that I just needed to upload Firefox, which I did. So the support for Noodletools wins my praise.

Breaks and Brakes; Breach, Breech; and Broach, Brooch

Commentator Julie is correct: a car does not use breaks to stop, it uses brakes.

Unless you read that cars have brakes, your spellchecker and your habits will not help you.

A related and embarrassing misspelling is breach for breech. Breeches, the noun, was the old word for pants. (Personally, I suspect they were called breeches because they broke or separated into two legs.) The breech is also where a gun breaks into two parts for loading. Breech today refers to that part of the body upon which one sits; in a breech delivery, that part of the baby's anatomy appears first.

On the other hand, breach is a break, violation, or gap; there can be a breach of trust. And breach can be a verb: They will not breach the contract. (The past tense is breached.)

Unfortunately, breach is often confused with broach. To broach is to open or break into. One can broach a subject or broach a keg of liquid. From this word we may have gotten the woman's pin-held jewelry, the brooch: it pierced or broke into the dress.

Yes, friends, good proofreading requires a dictionary. And a dictionary can bring out the sleuth in anyone.

Proofread, Please

Your spell checker will not question the following errors:

1. X is non-complaint with rules.

2. The problem did not phase him.

3. I spent the evening pouring over books.

4. The appeal strikes a cord in Americans.

5. And, my favorite, here is an error that still lurks on a Web page designed to tell us how to write:
"...working at Coors purposes."
(Possibly the writer envisioned two people trying to collaborate while drinking beer?)

For those of you who are wondering, the corrections are
1. compliant
2. faze
3. poring
4. chord
5. cross