Category: grammar

One space or two after a sentence?

May 7, 2018 • 10:00 am

I have arrived in Paris, the weather is gorgeous, and I look forward to reacquainting myself with what I consider the world’s most beautiful city. If I had a gazillion dollars, I’d buy myself a pied-à-terre in the Sixth Arrondissement, near where I lived for six months in 1989-1990, but overlooking the Seine and the Louvre.

But we have more important issues to consider: when typing, do we use one space or two between sentences?

I use two, as that’s the way I was taught in 10th-grade typing class (an alternative to “shop”—woodshop—and a choice I’ve never regretted). But there’s a bitter argument about this issue, and no strong consensus. I will use one space between sentences in this first paragraph.

Now two spaces in this one.  The Washington Post has an article about this kerfuffle (click on screenshot).  Its answer, which purports to be “scientific” is “TWO SPACES AFTER A SENTENCE!”

(One space). Science? How could it do that? Well, the Post reports on an article that tested reading ease with different spaces. Here’s the result:

The researchers then clamped each student’s head into place, and used an Eyelink 1000 to record where they looked as they silently read 20 paragraphs. The paragraphs were written in various styles: one-spaced, two-spaced,  and strange combinations like two spaces after commas,  but only one after periods.  And vice versa, too.

And the verdict was: two spaces after the period is better.  It makes reading slightly easier.  Congratulations, Yale University professor Nicholas A. Christakis.  Sorry, Lifehacker.

Christakis’s tweet (remember him?) pushing the two-space approach:

But it’s not that clear-cut!:

Actually, Lifehacker’s one-space purist Nick Douglas pointed out some important caveats to the study’s conclusion.

Most notably, the test subjects read paragraphs in Courier New, a fixed-width font similar to the old typewriters, and rarely used on modern computers.

Johnson, one of the authors, told Douglas that the fixed-width font was standard for eye-tracking tests, and the benefits of two-spacing should carry over to any modern font.

Douglas found more solace in the fact that the benefits of two-spacing, as described in the study, appear to be very minor.

Reading speed only improved marginally, the paper found, and only for the 21 “two-spacers,” who naturally typed with two spaces between sentences.  The majority of one-spacers, on the other hand, read at pretty much the same speed either way.  And reading comprehension was unaffected for everyone, regardless of how many spaces followed a period.

The major reason to use two spaces, the researchers wrote, was to make the reading process smoother, not faster.  Everyone tended to spend fewer milliseconds staring at periods when a little extra blank space followed it.

(Putting two spaces after a comma,  if you’re wondering,  slowed down reading speed,  so don’t do that.)

(One space.) Amusingly, the authors report that they submitted their paper to the journal with two spaces between sentences. The journal changed every one to a single space.

(Two spaces.)  The article is below.  I haven’t downloaded it as I’m at O’Hare writing this, and all you can see is the abstract (which is in Cristakis’s tweet above) but it’s a sign of how venal Springer is that they want $39.95 for a pdf of this article!  Do weigh in below about whether you’re on the one-space or two-space side.

______

Johnson, R. L. et al. 2018. Are two spaces better than one? The effect of spacing following periods and commas during reading. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2018 Apr 24. doi: 10.3758/s13414-018-1527-6. [Epub ahead of print]

Springer, you suck!

An insulting misuse of quotation marks

April 22, 2018 • 10:30 am

I spotted this sign in one of the fancy-schmancy stores that sell arts and crafts around the perimeter of the old Plaza of Santa Fe:

Why the scare quotes around “artisans”? Are they not real artisans but faux artisans or artisans manqué? And wouldn’t they be insulted to find the denigrating quotation marks around their status?

There’s no excuse for this in a high-toned store, but of course the use of inappropriate quotation marks is common. See here for many posts and even websites that specialize in collecting these errors.

Ageism in Chicago!

March 16, 2018 • 6:57 pm

I’ve previously pointed out this sign on buses and trains, calling attention to its hamhanded grammar. It implies that “customers with seniors” get priority seating, so you would get a special seat even if you’re with a senior. What they should have written is ” . . is for seniors and customers with disabilities.”

But today I noticed that the “senior” is indicated by a man holding a cane, which is a form of ageism. I don’t have a cane, and can walk perfectly fine, thank you.  (Further, not all disabled people are in wheelchairs.) Is the cane some kind of Universal Product Code for older people?

If not, perhaps readers can come up with a better one that’s less ageist. Maybe someone with gray hair, or someone with a speech bubble saying “Get off my lawn!” (That of course would have to be in several languages.)

Friday’s verbal infelicity

June 23, 2017 • 8:00 am

I heard this phrase twice yesterday, which reminded me that it’s quite common—and I don’t like it:

“The thing is, is that. . . . “

It’s used for emphasis, as in the sentence, “The thing is, is that I’d already done the job but I still got chewed out.”

Now this is just wrong: the second “is” can be omitted without any ambiguity of meaning. I suppose the repeated word is used for emphasis, but my arrector pilae contract when I hear this.

I suppose it’s time that readers get a chance to share their beefs about language, so put yours below.

Grammar that irks

December 19, 2016 • 7:19 am

I’m going downtown this morning for various errands, so all posts will be delayed until about 10 a.m. Chicago time. No worries, though: we will have Hili, we will have animals, and we will have a “spot the” feature. And there will be more on human sexual dimorphism as well.  In the meantime, perhaps you can fill this thread with things that bother you—or words and phrases that bother you.

Being a grammar Nazi, one of the things I don’t like to see is the use of the word “hopefully” in place of “I hope that.” Hopefully is an adverb that means “with hope”, as in “he looked at Shirley hopefully.” It is not to be used like this: “Hopefully, things will turn out for the best. Yes, I know that some dictionaries say “hopefully” can be used as “in the hope that”, but I don’t like it.  And I don’t care if Steve Pinker says it’s okay, for this is a thread about words that bother us.

Here’s another: “I could care less.” Well, if you don’t care about something, you couldn’t care less. If you could care less, that means there’s room for less caring, and that’s now what you want to say.

Alternatively, just talk about what’s on your mind, which would be a nice experiment.

Back in a few hours.

Two commonly misused phrases

October 6, 2015 • 1:15 pm

I’m not an extreme language prescriptivist, but I think two phrases bear inspection since, for both, the correct form makes more sense than the other one. Here they are:

It’s “toe the line,” not “tow the line.”

And it’s “Give the person free rein,” not “Give the person free reign.”

I can’t recall how Steve Pinker comes down on these in his excellent new book The Sense of Style, but I hope he’s on the side of the better angels.

I’m sure readers have pet peeve phrases as well, so put them below. And no language policing, for if a phrase bothers you, it’s your LIVED EXPERIENCE.

Another messed-up sign

November 22, 2014 • 9:29 am

Okay, this sign, which appeared in the elevator of my building, is messed up. How many errors can you find? There’s one big one that is common and always peeves me.

(No fair telling me that it’s all okay because, after all, you can understand what it means. Read Pinker’s new book to see the problem with accepting such usage).

IMG_0390