Verb moods: Is it "if I was," or "if I were"?

Today's topic--Is it "if I was," or "if I were"? 

Which is correct?

A.) I wish I was a scuba diver.

B.) I wish I were a scuba diver.

If you chose B, you're correct!  Let's try another.  Which of these is correct?

C.) If I were president, I would make cupcakes the national dessert.

D.) If I was president, I would make cupcakes the national dessert.

If you chose C, you're correct!  Why is that?  Well, all the examples above use the past subjunctive verb "mood."  The subjunctive mood happens when we are expressing wishful thinking (referring to something that we know isn't going to happen).  A few more examples:

If the Easter Bunny were real, he'd probably be kind of scary.

If I were a secret agent, my code name would be The Countess.

If Lynn were here, we'd have enough people to play Balderdash.

I'm not a scuba driver. I'm never going to be president. The Easter Bunny isn't real, and I'm not a secret agent. Lynn isn't here, so we don't have enough people to play Balderdash. All of those are hypothetical scenarios, examples of wishful thinking. Therefore, the subjunctive mood is correct.

So when is it correct to say "if I was"?

"If I was" is an example of the past indicative verb mood.  We don't see this one quite as often as we see the past subjunctive, but here are a couple of examples:

If Shawn was at Rob's party last night, he's probably still recovering.

If she was in class yesterday, she heard Dr. Brown's lecture about social cognitive theory.

In these examples, we're referring to things that could easily have happened (we don't know for sure that they did, but they might have). So there's no wishful thinking; the past indicative is correct. 

For a more detailed discussion about verb moods, check out this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive

Today's topic: A frequently asked question about verb tense

Here is a question I hear all the time:  "When referring to source material, should I use past tense or present tense?  Is it always 'Jones stated...' or is it sometimes appropriate to say 'Jones states'?"

We'd all like the answer to be cut and dried, but unfortunately that isn't the case.  As with so many other issues in writing, verb tense depends on context.  Let's start with a concise explanation from the 6th edition APA handbook:

Past tense (e.g., "Smith showed") or present perfect tense (e.g., "researchers have shown") is appropriate for the literature review and the description of the procedure if the discussion is of past events....Use past tense (e.g., "anxiety decreased significantly") to describe the results.  Use the present tense (e.g., "the results of Experiment 2 indicate") to discuss implications of the results and to present the conclusions.  By reporting conclusions in the present tense, you allow readers to join you in deliberating the matter at hand. (pp. 65-66)

So:  Use past tense when reporting on another scholar's research or referring to your own results.  Use present tense to discuss what your findings mean, their implications for practice or further research; as the APA handbook points out, this lends an immediacy to the discussion.

There is another facet to this issue, and that is the present perfect tense (e.g., "has/have shown").  We use the present perfect tense when we're referring either to a.) something that didn't happen at a specific time or b.) something that started in the past but continues to this day.  This actually comes up quite a bit in scholarly writing.

Let's look at an example (used with permission from one of my students who prefers to remain anonymous).  Her paper is about two different learning theories.  The purpose of the section from which I excerpted this passage is to give background information about one learning theory and the ongoing conversation surrounding it.  Given that context, which verb tense works best?

A. Past tense:  There is a general consensus...that nursing education needs to shift from traditional teacher-driven, teacher-centric curricula to student-centric models (Handwerker, 2012; Kantar, 2013; Pettigrew, 2015). Many constructivist learning techniques have been explored and found to be effective means for knowledge acquisition and improving critical thinking skills.  Kantar (2014) stated that graduates must have a body of knowledge and the ability to use this knowledge to effectively transition and problem-solve in clinical practice settings.  Similarly, nurses transitioning to management roles have difficulty assimilating and acquiring the type of education which will help them succeed in their new roles (Omoike et al., 2011).

B. Present perfect tense:  There is a general consensus...that nursing education needs to shift from traditional teacher-driven, teacher-centric curricula to student-centric models (Handwerker, 2012; Kantar, 2013; Pettigrew, 2015). Many constructivist learning techniques have been explored and found to be effective means for knowledge acquisition and improving critical thinking skills.  Kantar (2014) has stated that graduates must have a body of knowledge and the ability to use this knowledge to effectively transition and problem-solve in clinical practice settings.  Similarly, nurses transitioning to management roles have difficulty assimilating and acquiring the type of education which will help them succeed in their new roles (Omoike et al., 2011).

Based on the APA style guidelines above, either past or present perfect tense would be acceptable here. However, I think the present perfect is most appropriate, because she is referring to an ongoing discussion within the discipline. Using the past tense gives the sentence a "this happened and now it's over" feel, and that's not the case here.  Although Kantar wrote that article in 2014, her statement is part of an ongoing discussion.  Also note that the sentences surrounding the one about Kantar are all in the present tense ("there is a general consensus," "nursing education needs to shift," "nurses...have difficulty assimilating and acquiring...").  The present perfect keeps that momentum going.

Now let's look at another example from the same paper, and consider what context tells us about verb tense.  The purpose of this passage is to describe the origin of constructivist theory. Which verb tense is best?

A.  Past tense:  Vygotsky's take on learning was derived from social psychology, where the thinking was that new knowledge and mental frameworks developed as a result of social interaction (Brandon & All, 2010; Dumchin, 2010)....Vygotsky posited that humans were life-long learners who were transformed by social relationships (Brandon & All, 2010; Handwerker, 2012). 

B.  Present perfect tense:  Vygotsky's take on learning was derived from social psychology, where the thinking was that new knowledge and mental frameworks developed as a result of social interaction (Brandon & All, 2010; Dumchin, 2010)....Vygotsky has posited that humans are life-long learners who are transformed by social relationships (Brandon & All, 2010; Handwerker, 2012). 

Here, past tense works best.  Why?  Because the context is a discussion of the origin of constructivist theory.  The theory has been established for years; it is not currently in the process of being invented.  Therefore, it is appropriate to refer to its development in the past tense.

The take-home message here is that when it comes to verb tense, context is everything.  I hope you've found this week's post helpful!  Happy scribbling!  

Hang in there!

Since it's spring break this week, we'll take a break from our tips of the week. But I did want to share this quote from the great Dorothy Parker:

"I hate writing.  I love having written."  

So there you have it, ladies and gents.  Even the greats can hate writing sometimes.  But there's nothing like the feeling of accomplishment when you finish something you feel good about.  An inspirational message for all of you finishing your capstones and dissertations right now.  

Hang in there!

The MEAL Plan for Better Paragraphs

Today's topic: Want better papers? Follow the MEAL plan.

If you want better papers, you have to start with better paragraphs.  The MEAL plan is a tried and tested method for achieving this.  It provides a formula for focused, well-developed, logically organized paragraphs. 

MEAL stands for the four crucial elements of a paragraph:

Main idea

Evidence

Analysis

Link

Main idea: This is the paragraph’s central idea, the main idea/point you’re trying to communicate.  Express the main idea in a topic sentence (usually the first sentence in the paragraph, though this isn't a hard and fast rule--some authors prefer to lead up to the topic sentence). You should limit yourself to one main idea per paragraph. When you try to do too much in a single paragraph, things tend to get muddled.  

Evidence: This is the support for your main idea.  This can come in the form of statistics, quotes and paraphrases from your sources, expert opinion, anything that provides reliable support for your point. The evidence you choose for the paragraph should clearly relate back to the main idea and help you develop it. 

Analysis: This is where you explain your evidence and make sure your reader sees how it is connected to the main idea (essentially, you need to make sure it’s clear that the evidence you provided does in fact show what you think it shows).  What does the evidence mean?  Why/how is it important?  Why does it matter?

Link: This is where you double check that the link between the information and analysis you have shared in the paragraph and your main idea is clear. You may or may not have to include a specific sentence to do this; the "link" step is about making sure that the connection between each sentence in the paragraph and the main idea is obvious to the reader.   

Let's look at a sample paragraph that follows the MEAL plan (example from a Walden University Writing Center PowerPoint presentation about paragraphs--by writing instructor Amy Lindquist):

Instructional scaffolding is one strategy for increasing student understanding and learning. Johnson’s (2010) study in a composition classroom revealed that students whose teacher used scaffolding strategies scored an average of five percentage points higher on their final essays than their peers in a lecture-based classroom. This significant difference in scores suggests that scaffolding enables students not only to understand a concept, but also to apply that concept in their own work. Teachers, therefore, should employ scaffolding strategies to help foster independence and confidence in their students.

Now let's break it down into the MEAL plan components.  I'll put the Main idea in bold, the Evidence in italics, underline the Analysis, and leave the Link in regular type.

Instructional scaffolding is one strategy for increasing student understanding and learning. Johnson’s (2010) study in a composition classroom revealed that students whose teacher used scaffolding strategies scored an average of five percentage points higher on their final essays than their peers in a lecture-based classroom. This significant difference in scores suggests that scaffolding enables students not only to understand a concept, but also to apply that concept in their own work. Teachers, therefore, should employ scaffolding strategies to help foster independence and confidence in their students.

Notice that this paragraph follows the two golden rules of paragraph development: it's coherent and it's unified, meaning it has a clear main idea and every sentence in the paragraph works toward developing that idea. There is nothing in the paragraph that does not relate back to the main idea.  When you write your next paper, try the MEAL plan.  I think you'll be pleased at the results.  

Click on this link to learn more about the MEAL plan from the Duke University writing studio (and to see another example): https://twp.duke.edu/uploads/assets/meal_plan.pdf

I hope you've found this week's tip helpful.  Happy scribbling!

Today's topic

The past-perfect verb tense: nope, not a typo.

Today's post was inspired by something that happened at one of my recent presentations.  Someone saw the phrase "had had" on one of my PowerPoint slides and mistakenly assumed it was a typo--that I'd repeated the word unintentionally. But it was not a typo.  It was an example of the past perfect, a frequently misunderstood and misused verb tense.  

In my presentation, I was describing a 1994 study conducted by several leading experts on critical thinking.  These authors found that many college professors had never received training on how to facilitate better critical thinking skills in their students.  As I pointed out on my slide, one of their findings was that "few faculty had had in-depth exposure to research on the topic of critical thinking."

Why did I say "had had" instead of "had?"  This is where the past perfect tense comes in.  

As we all know, we use the plain old past tense when we simply want to refer to something that happened in the past.  For example:

• The burglars escaped.
• We had that computer for six years.
• Jen visited Seattle in 2010.
• Jack never saw the ocean.
• Natalie felt conflicted about leaving Chicago.
• I liked the movie.

The past perfect tense goes a step further.  We use it when we want to refer to something that happened in the past, before another action that also happened in the past.  We form the past perfect when we combine the word "had" with another verb.  For example:

• By the time the police arrived, the burglars had escaped.
• We had had that computer for six years before it crashed.
• Jen had visited Seattle once in 2010 before she moved there in 2014.
• At the time of his death in 2004, Jack had never seen the ocean.
• As you can see, sometimes we have to interrupt the "had + verb" combination with an adverb, like "always," "never," "previously," "just," etc.  This is still past perfect tense. 
• Natalie felt conflicted about leaving Chicago, as she had lived there her whole life.  
• I only liked the movie because I had read the book.

As you can see in the examples above, we use the past perfect when we want to refer to two events that occurred in the past, one of which occurred before the other. 

So let's get back to my PowerPoint slide, and the typo that wasn't a typo.  Why did I say "few faculty had had in-depth exposure to research on the topic of critical thinking"?  Because I was referring to a study from 1994.  The study occurred in the past, and the professors' lack of exposure to critical thinking research occurred prior to the study. 

So that's the past perfect tense.  I hope you've found this week's post helpful.  Happy scribbling!

Boring Adverbs

Today's topic: Spicing up your writing by eliminating boring adverbs

First, let me apologize for my two week "tip of the week" hiatus.  As many of you know, I have been holed up working on a huge project the past few weeks, and I haven't had time to do much else.  My apologies if you missed me.  

Okay, quick refresher: What's an adverb?  The simple explanation is that an adverb is a word that describes another word (often a verb, but sometimes an adjective or even another adverb). They tend to end in "ly," but not always (for example, "very" is an adverb).  Here are a few examples (there are MANY more):

Very
Extremely
Completely
Really
Loudly
Truly
Definitely
Softly
Slowly
Quickly
Totally
Possibly
Happily

Examples of adverbs modifying verbs: 
He walked slowly to the door.
"Give me my car keys," she said furiously.

Examples of adverbs modifying adjectives:
Really interesting
Extremely important

Examples of adverbs modifying other adverbs:
I read quite slowly.
She spoke very convincingly.

There is nothing grammatically wrong with using adverbs, but there are a couple of style issues they present.  First, writers often choose an adverb + adjective or adverb + verb combo in place of a stronger, more descriptive adjective/verb (resulting in dull, wordy writing).  In addition, adverbs often serve as filler words that don't add much (if any) meaning to the sentence. 

Here are some examples where we can replace the adverb + adjective combo with a stronger, more descriptive adjective:

Instead of "very interesting," say "fascinating."
Instead of "extremely important," say "crucial" or "vital" or "essential." 
Instead of "completely finished," just say "finished." 
Instead of "really funny," say "hilarious."
Instead of "very useful," say "indispensable" or "invaluable."

Here are some examples where the meaning won't change if we cut out the adverb (making it unnecessary):

Instead of "very unique," say "unique" (the word "unique" means "one of a kind," so something can't be "very" unique).
Instead of "She might possibly be there," say "She might be there."  ("Might" already means "possibly.")
Instead of "He smiled happily," say "He smiled."

To be clear, I'm not saying you should cut all adverbs from your writing.  I'm just saying they are often either unnecessary or boring, wordier alternatives to a crisper, more interesting word.  I do think you should abolish the words "very," "really," "truly," "definitely," and "extremely"--these are pretty useless.  The next time you proofread one of your papers, keep an eye out for adverbs.  When you find one, ask yourself whether you could cut it without damaging the sentence, OR if you could find a more interesting word to use in its place.  It's a simple way to prune your writing and make it more vivid.

I hope you've found today's tip helpful.

More Grammar Myths

Today's topic: MORE Grammar Misconceptions

We all fall victim to grammar myths sometimes.  Here is a list of some of the common ones.    Thanks to Mignon Fogerty, the Internet's "Grammar Girl," for pointing out # 2 (all the words and examples in this post are my own, I just got the idea for #2 from Ms. Fogerty).

*Misconception #1:  "You and I"/"Johnny and I" is always correct--never say "You and me"/"Johnny and me." 

Nope!  Whether to use "I" or "me" depends entirely on the sentence.  Here's a quick, easy trick to ensure that you will never use the wrong personal pronoun again:  Eliminate the other person from the sentence.  Which pronoun is correct now, I or me?  Example:

There's a great portrait of my husband and I/me on the living room wall. 

Let's employ our sneaky new trick, and take the husband out of the sentence (sorry, dear!): 

There's a great portrait of ___ on the living room wall. 

Would it make sense to say "There's a great portrait of I on the living room wall"?  Of course not!  So the correct pronoun in this sentence is "me."  "There's a great portrait of my husband and me on the living room wall."

*Misconception #2:  Run-on sentences are sentences that are too long (or a sentence has to be long in order to be a run-on sentence). 

Nope!  This is one reason (I suspect) why many grammarians now refer to these as "fused" sentences; the term "run-on" creates the erroneous impression that a run-on sentence must "run on."  In truth, run-on sentences can be quite short. 

A run-on, or fused, sentence is one in which two or more independent clauses are linked without appropriate punctuation.  An independent clause (IC), by the way, is a phrase which includes a subject and a verb and could stand alone as a complete sentence.  Since ICs (complete sentences) can be quite short, run-on sentences can be short as well.  Examples:

I love cats, they are so cute. 
It was my turn to cook I made spaghetti. 

Note: The first of these is an example of a comma splice.  A comma splice is a run-on sentence in which the two ICs are linked with a comma.  Commas are weak punctuation; they are not strong enough to separate ICs.  You can fix run-on sentences in a number of different ways.  You can: 1.) Separate the ICs with a semicolon (see my earlier Writing Tip of the Week on semicolons for specifics), 2.) separate the ICs with a period (thereby making them into two sentences), or 3.) separate the ICs with a comma + a conjunction (and, but, or) or other appropriate word.  Which you choose depends on the sentence, of course.  In the first example above I would probably choose a semicolon, because the two ICs are closely related.  In the second example you could add a comma after the word "cook," then the word "and" or "so."  You could also separate the two ICs with a semicolon or period.  It's a style choice.

*Misconception #3: I.e. and e.g. mean the same thing.

Nope.  As I pointed out in my blog post on this topic, i.e. means "in other words," and e.g. means "for example."  You'll find more details and examples of proper usage in my original post:  http://writingtipoftheweek.blogspot.com/2013/10/ie-vs-eg.html

*Misconception #4: You should never start a sentence with a conjunction (and, but, or).

Nope!  I'm not sure why people perpetuate this myth.  People have been starting sentences with "and," "but," and "or" for hundreds of years.  As grammarian and author Patricia T. O'Conner points out in her book Woe is I: The Grammarphobe's Guide to Better English in Plain English, it "feels natural because it is natural," and what's wrong with that?  Nothing.  As long as your sentence is complete, with a subject and predicate, feel free to start it with a conjunction.

*Misconception #5: Passive voice is always wrong (or always right).

Nope.  There are situations where passive voice is correct,  and situations where active voice is correct.

If you aren't familiar with passive and active voice, here's a quick primer.  Passive voice puts the emphasis on the passive recipient of an action (someone or something having something done TO them), while active voice emphasizes the doer.  For example:

Passive voice:  The paper was written by Sarah.
Active voice:  Sarah wrote the paper.

Passive voice:  Several studies were found which examined the effects of gamma rays on man-in-the-moon marigolds.
Active voice:  I found several studies which examined the effects of gamma rays on man-in-the-moon marigolds.

Passive voice:  The study was conducted at a small midwestern family practice clinic.
Active voice:  We conducted the study at a small midwestern family practice clinic.

Most of the time, active voice is clearer and more concise.  I know what you're thinking: "But I was told never to use "I" or "we" in scientific writing!"  And you are right; for decades, science writers avoided the first person in favor of passive voice constructions like "The study was conducted..." and "The following search terms were used..."  However, now many style guides (including the latest edition of the APA handbook) specifically recommend active voice, which means first person is now on the table for scientific writers.  I know some of you are going to balk at this, but don't shoot the messenger.  If you don't believe me, check the 6th edition APA style manual!

That said, sometimes passive voice works better.  Sometimes you want to put the emphasis on the recipient of the action, not on who or what did it.  For example:

"The king was assassinated."  In this case, we don't care that Joe Nobody assassinated the king.  The important thing is that the king is dead.  So the passive voice works better here.

"The lights were installed on the top and sides of the cabinet."  Again, here we want the emphasis on the recipient of the action (the lights).  We don't care that John Doe installed the lights; we care where they are.  Passive voice wins again.  Passive voice also wins when you don't know who is responsible for the action.

So.  Active voice is usually better, but passive voice is fine in certain situations.

I hope you found this post helpful.  Happy scribbling!