usage

How Many Is They?

Posted by

1

Since I’ve been a manuscript editor, JAMA Network journals have published a few articles about health care for transgender patients. I’ve had the good luck to edit a few—they are always interesting—but this week, I realized that there is a grammatical issue in editing these articles that I have never heard fully addressed.

The issue is not what pronouns to use for transgender individuals—that question is well-known. Because the English language uses gendered pronouns, people who change their gender expression or whose gender isn’t accurately defined by labels are faced with several choices: should they go by she, he, a singular they, or a neologism, such as xe?

The news media has addressed this, including The New York Times articles in 2016 and 2017, with another written by transgender English professor Jennifer Finney Boylan in 2018. These articles often make the same points: that people can get confused by this transformation of language, but that people who want to use pronouns that reflect a gender different from their assigned sex should have their wishes respected. This squares with the approach used in JAMA Network journals.

But it also raises a question rarely addressed: what about verb conjugation? In the present tense, English applies a letter s to the third-person singular (he, she, or it runs) but not to the first-person singular, first-person plural, second-person singular, and third-person plural (I, we, you, and they run). So, if an article uses a singular they, should it be conjugated like the third-person plural (run) or like the third-person singular (runs)?

While editing, I have realized that the default method of using the singular they along with someone’s name (or a descriptor, such as the patient) involves flip-flopping between singular and plural verb conjugations (eg, “The patient is receiving gender-affirming treatment, and they are pleased with the outcome thus far”). A consistent use of the singular they would seem to require using third-person singular conjugations throughout (“The patient is receiving treatment…. They is pleased…”) or plural conjugations throughout (“The patient are receiving treatment…. They are pleased….”). Is either approach correct?

The public discourse on pronouns has not provided much insight. It has prompted the argument that we all use forms of singular they-series pronouns in casual language, in sentences such as “If someone wants gender-affirming treatment, that is their choice” or “Give them an injection.”

But that is distinct from the current issue. In these usages, the pronoun is usually objective (them) or possessive (their or theirs), and the verb is conjugated in the third-person singular alongside another subject. (In the example sentences, these are “someone” and “that,” and in the command, an unspoken “you.”) When the singular they is placed immediately before the verb, the question of conjugation instantly reappears.

Weighing “they run” vs “they runs,” I looked for guidance in the AMA Manual of Style. It offered a few relevant thoughts: “In an effort to avoid both sex-specific pronouns and awkward sentence structure, some writers use plural pronouns with singular indefinite antecedents… Editors of JAMA and the Archives Journals prefer that agreement in number be maintained in formal scientific writing.”

But that seemed short of clear instructions. Still uncertain if constructions like “they is pleased” would please anyone, I reached out to Jennifer Finney Boylan, the New York Times contributor whose article on pronouns was published in 2018.

A quick email to her university address got an equally quick response. “I’m not certain about this,” she wrote. “I want to endorse ‘they is’ because the non-specific pronoun is still referring to a singular individual. On the other hand, ‘they are’ sounds better to my old, English professor ears.”

That seemed similar to how our society is handling the matter. On her authority, I decided to stick with conjugations that shift from singular to plural and let the matter rest until a thoughtful body of grammarians, popular opinion, and perhaps the next edition of the New York Times’ article series on pronouns weigh in with a definitive answer to conjugating verbs after a singular they.—M. Sophia Newman

Unconfusing “The Confusables”

Posted by

0

I was recently gifted a copy of Dreyer’s English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style, a book by Random House Copy Chief Benjamin Dreyer. It is one of the latest in a line of modern guides on editing and writing that shed the stuffiness usually associated with language and instead take on the subject with wit and humor.

Amid references to pop culture and classic literature, tips on spelling and punctuation, and even a relatable confession that the rules of grammar aren’t always  interesting (sorry, linguistics enthusiasts), there is a chapter called “The Confusables.” Confusables are homonyms, synonyms, similarly spelled words, words with comparable meaning — a word you thought you meant but did not. As Dreyer puts it, “Spellcheck is a marvelous invention, but it can’t stop you from using the wrong word when the wrong word you’ve used is a word (but the wrong word).”

He’s right. Spellcheck and software like Grammarly are useful, but they don’t perform the same function as an editor. This can feel hard to explain to businesses looking for a way to cut costs. Copy editors are increasingly difficult to find in newsrooms, advertising agencies, and other companies that decide to leave writers to edit their own copy. But, like with many of the finer points of editing, confusables are hard to detect, and a keen, well-trained eye is needed to spot them. (Not to mention it feels pretty darn satisfying to catch one.)

Dreyer includes a list of common confusables in his book. Here are a few I have seen recently:

Affect/effect

This is one of the more common pairs of confusables. There are some subtler differences between the 2 words, but most of the time the RAVEN rule (Remember, Affect is a Verb, and Effect is a Noun) will get you by.

Casual/causal

In medical and scientific editing, we frequently discuss the use of causal language in studies (ie, the inference that there is a relationship between variables).  Casual language might be used to describe a relationship with friends. A misuse of either of these words might be easy to read over because they are very close in spelling, but they are very different in meaning.

Discreet/discrete

To be discreet means to be prudent, while discrete means separate or distinct. I used to have a hard time differentiating these 2 words until a fellow editor shared her mnemonic device that the t between the e’s of discrete keeps them separate from each other.

Intermediate/intermittent

These confusables, though different in definition, have some crossover in usage. Intermediate means in the middle, while intermittent means in intervals. So, sure, a solution could be mixed using either intermediate or intermittent shaking. But how does one quantify an intermediate shake? It’s likely intermittent is meant in this situation, but if something isn’t completely clear, it’s always best to ask the author to clarify.

Peak/peek

This pair is tricky because writers might think of the oft-combined “sneak peek” and want to use the ea spelling for both. However, peak refers to a high point, such as the peak concentration of a drug, and peek means to look. The way I keep these straight is associating the ee of peek with the ee of peer or the 2 e’s in eye.

Rational/rationale

These 2 words have similar spelling and meaning, with only one letter setting them apart. However, rational means to be reasonable while rationale is the reason behind said reasonableness.—Jamie Scott

Race and Ethnicity

Posted by

1

One of my favorite chapters in the AMA Manual of Style is about inclusive language, particularly the section about race/ethnicity (11.10.2). Race/ethnicity is a complicated topic because these categories have cultural and biological implications. In scientific research, it is important to specify race/ethnicity of study participants to understand the generalizability of the results. AMA Style instructs authors to indicate who classified the race/ethnicity of study participants (ie, the investigator or the participant).

Recently, I edited a research article with a table of participant characteristics that listed race/ethnicity as white, black/African American, Asian, and other. AMA Style notes that Asian and Asian American are not equivalent or interchangeable and that authors can be queried to clarify. All participants in this study were from the United States, so I asked the author about using Asian American instead of Asian. The author declined the edit, so Asian it stayed.

The editor in me shrugged it off. Editing is meant to serve authors and their research, and unless something is inaccurate, I have no problem reverting to the author’s original wording. After all, even the CDC website uses Asian and Asian American interchangeably.

The noneditor side of me, though—the child of immigrants who grew up in the United States and spent childhood summers in Hong Kong and Taiwan—was frustrated. I have been told I’m either not Asian enough or not American enough, and I try to explain that I’m both. I’m Asian American.

(As a sidebar, I also want to point out that black/African American presents its own problems. Many researchers do include non-Hispanic black, but where does that leave Afro-Latinx? This could be a whole other blog post.)

Of course, I understand that it may be exhausting to list out all the racial/ethnic groups in a table, especially considering page limits. I do appreciate when authors list more specific racial/ethnic groups, even if for many of them, n = 0. Any type of representation is a big step. However, I’ve also seen manuscripts in which the only race designations are white and nonwhite. The AMA Manual of Style notes that we should avoid using “non-” (eg, white and nonwhite participants) because it is a nonspecific “convenience” grouping. Instead, editors can query the author about using a specific race/ethnicity or using multiracial or people of color to address the heterogeneous ethnic background of many people. As an editor, a human, or even a potential study participant, I would self-report my race/ethnicity as Asian American or a person of color but never as nonwhite.—Iris Y. Lo

Offensive Words and Apologetic Quotation Marks: Sorry Not Sorry

Posted by

1

News organizations everywhere had an important editorial decision to make in early January 2018 when President Trump categorized certain countries in a defamatory manner during a closed-door discussion about immigration in the Oval Office with Senators Dick Durbin and Lindsay Graham, among others.

  • “Trump decries immigrants from ‘shithole countries’ coming to US” (CNN headline)
  • “Trump derides protections for immigrants from ‘shithole’ countries” (Washington Post headline)
  • “‘Fox & Friends’ host called for Trump to clarify ‘s—hole’ comment shortly before denial” (The Hill headline)

In scientific reporting, as in politics and life, things sometimes get ugly, and when they do, we turn to apologetic quotation marks. In the examples above, the term shithole is a part of the story; without using the offensive term, the story’s meaning is lost. It’s interesting that these 3 examples apply the apologetic quotation marks in 3 different ways. The first example includes “countries” within the quotation marks, which is not necessary. The Washington Post example gets it right. And the example from The Hill is not fooling anyone. If you’re going to include it, include it. Crossing out a few letters in the offensive term is the literary equivalent to putting black bars over a patient’s eyes to make the patient “unidentifiable.” (←ironic use of apologetic quotation marks.) 

This is not a picture of my cat:

This is not an offensive word:

S—HOLE

You get the point.

The revised edition of the AMA Manual of Style will provide expanded guidance in the “Apologetic Quotation Marks” section of the Punctuation chapter, which currently only states that apologetic quotation marks are “sometimes used around words for special effect or to indicate irony.” Additional guidance will note that in some instances, the use of a potentially offensive term might be unavoidable if it is a direct quotation that is important to an article (eg, in a news story). In such cases, the offensive term may be published within quotation marks. The New York Times occasionally opens up its policy on including offensive terms in print. Ultimately, whether or not to include offensive language in an article is an editorial decision that comes down to how the term relates to the meaning of a story.—Lauren Fischer

   



Disability and Language

Posted by

1

I recently found myself in the middle of an intense inter-community debate regarding whether the term “disabled people” or “people with disabilities” should be used when speaking of people who have disabilities. I personally prefer to describe myself as a person with a disability (hard-of-hearing, to be exact), but there are many people within the disability community who object to the term and would describe themselves as disabled people. As that article highlights:

The description “disabled people” is preferred by people who follow the social model of disability, which prefers the term “impairment” to describe our conditions and argues that “disability” is caused by barriers put in place by society to prevent people with impairments accessing society “normally.’”

This is certainly true, but the barriers society has put in place regarding disability are often not fully realized by most people. I’ve lost count of how many times someone claims they “don’t need a microphone,” ignoring hard-of-hearing folks who won’t be able to hear without a microphone no matter how loudly the speaker projects. Unfortunately, society as a whole still views disability as a negative thing. The AMA Manual of Style combats such negativity by emphasizing “people-first” language. The style guide’s section on inclusive language advises writers to “avoid labeling (and thus equating) people with their disabilities or diseases (eg, the blind, schizophrenics, epileptics). Instead, put the person first.” In describing myself as a person with a disability, rather than a disabled person, I avoid defining myself solely by my hearing loss (not to mention the negative connotations that society has given the term “disabled”).  The same must be done when discussing patients or study participants. Avoid using phrases such as “confined to a wheelchair,” which implies that the person is somehow limited or by their wheelchair use. Instead, “uses a wheelchair” is preferable.

It is similarly important to avoid words or phrases that imply helplessness on the part of people who have experienced illness or trauma. For this reason, the style guide advises against using the term “victim”: instead of “victim of trauma” or “stroke victim,” use “survivor of trauma” or “person who has had a stroke.”

Use of people-first language and avoidance of emotion-laden terms such as “suffering” and “victim” offer patients autonomy and dignity even as they’re being written about anonymously in a journal publication that thousands of people read every day.—Suzanne Walker

 

 

 

Death Sentences

Posted by

1

Could it really be 15 years since we waited in this funeral home parking lot for a wake to begin? It seems only last week that we were here for her mother. Both women are now gone from our lives, too soon. We steel ourselves for a few moments more but exit the car when her grandmother arrives. I take the small woman’s frail arm, opposite the one holding a cane, and walk my mother-in-law into the building.

The funeral parlor hasn’t changed much. In place of easels with poster boards full of family photographs, a large-screen monitor at the back of the room runs a PowerPoint file chronicling my niece’s life. Friends and family watch and smile as they recognize themselves in photographs from happier days.

Funeral parlor conversations haven’t changed much either. She “passed away,” “is in a better place,” and “is at peace.” Most conversations are in those soft tones reserved for such occasions. Quiet laughter, though, is heard every so often as stories about fun times are retold.

Wikipedia includes a table of more than 131 expressions related to death categorized as slang, polite, formal, humorous, and so forth. In my work as a medical copy editor, we encounter expressions for death in many forms.

Large clinical trials may include a Kaplan-Meier graph illustrating mortality, with each treatment group represented by a curve that shows the percentage or proportion of patients still alive as follow-up progressed. The number of patients at risk at regular time intervals is provided in a table; the values dwindle as they advance in pace with the downward trajectory of their group’s curve. Text descriptions may list the different causes of death with a simple “(n = X)” after each one. “Seventy-two patients with visual impairment died during follow-up: myocardial infarction (n = 27), respiratory disease (n = 18), and renal disease (n = 12) were the causes most often listed for patients with this information.”

Case reports provide narratives of a single patient from presentation to the end of follow-up or death. In these manuscripts, I’m more likely to encounter euphemisms (taken from the Greek eu, “good,” and pheme, “voice”). The AMA Manual of Style describes euphemisms as “indirect terms used to express something unpleasant,” and states that “directness is better in scientific writing.” Part of my job, then, is to replace the euphemisms: patients died rather than succumbed or passed away.

Even reports of animal studies are not immune to the appearance of euphemisms. Such studies typically require the animal’s death to allow for dissection and subsequent measurement of bone, tissue, or ligament to assess outcomes. However, even in these manuscripts, I often replace sacrificed or euthanized with killed or humanely killed.

The Manual’s chapter on correct and preferred usage further states that “persons die of, not from, specific diseases or disorders.” An example of this usage could be the written as: “She died of complications of renal failure.”

Scientific reports may seem clinical and removed; patients may be grouped and their mortality is frequently categorized. Nevertheless, individual lives underlie advances in medical science. Although euphemisms seem called for when discussing the deaths of people we love, direct language, such as that used in our work, is no less respectful.—Connie Manno, ELS

 

The Proliferation of Wellness

Posted by

0

My interest was piqued by this post on Language Log exploring the ubiquity of the word wellness. It’s a trend I might never have noticed, but now that it’s been brought to my attention I have to admit that wellness is everywhere.

For many, wellness connotes a certain touchy-feeliness that health doesn’t, in particular the integration of mental, emotional, and even social well-being into the concept of health. In this sense it’s very much a word for our times, as science explores the physiological effects of practices like meditation and mental health is discussed more openly. A New York Times article from 2010 referenced in the blog post gives some of the background on the burgeoning popularity of wellness over the years. The author notes that the word has become more popular as society expands its notion of what it means to be healthy. The article traces the origins of this mindset back to the mid twentieth century, quoting from the preamble to the World Health Organization’s 1948 constitution: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” On the flip side, to some wellness has a whiff of the unscientific; one of the commenters on the blog post recalls seeing the word used extensively in sales pitches for alternative medicine.

What makes wellness such a hot property? As Mark Liberman of Language Log points out, wellness has a ring of positivity to it that health doesn’t: “My impression is that ‘health’ has become too much about negatively associated things like doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and giant pharmaceutical firms—and it was never rigorously positive enough anyhow, since you can have good health or bad health. There’s no such thing as bad wellness.”—Heather Green

 

 

Medical Literature and “Forbidden Words”

Posted by

0

On December 15, 2017, reports emerged that staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were presented with a list of 7 forbidden words or phrases (ie, diversity, transgender, vulnerable, fetus, entitlement, evidence-based, and science-based) when writing budget appropriation requests. Since then, officials from the Department of Health and Human Services clarified the situation, saying that these words should be avoided but were not necessarily prohibited. Regardless, physicians, researchers, marginalized people and their allies, and others have spoken out against this. What is the importance of these words in a medical research context, and what does the AMA Manual of Style say about usage?

Diversity

Including men and women of different races/ethnicities is imperative to research, particularly for understanding drug outcomes. For example, male and female bodies metabolize drugs at different rates. Because women wake faster from sedation with anesthetics, they recover at a slower rate and report more pain events than men. Not including both male and female participants in a study could lead to incomplete results. Race and ethnicity are also important to incorporate in medical research because specific diseases or disorders may be more pertinent in certain groups, such as chronic hepatitis B in Asians and Pacific Islanders or Tay-Sachs disease in the Ashkenazi Jewish population.

Transgender

Transgender refers to people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. Transgender health care is unique and differs from cisgender health care. Besides gender reassignment surgery, transgender patients may also require special care concerning mental health or substance dependence.

Vulnerable

Clinically vulnerable populations may include persons with Medicaid, no health insurance, low educational attainment, limited English proficiency, and members of racial/ethnic minority groups.

Fetus

A fetus is the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, after major structures have been outlined. Per AMA style, neonates or newborns are persons from birth to 1 month of age, and infants are children aged 1 month to 1 year. There is a clear difference between a fetus and a newborn or infant. Fetus is a medical term and is not open to political or social interpretation.

Entitlement

Government programs that give assistance to anyone who qualifies are called entitlements. For example, Medicaid, the Children’s Medical Security Plan, and the Vaccines for Children Program are entitlement programs. These types of programs are important for those who may not have easy access to health care.

Evidence-based and science-based

According to some reports, these phrases should be replaced with “CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes.” Evidence-based medicine applies the best evidence from rigorous studies (eg, randomized clinical trials) to clinical decision making, and hopefully, to policies. Without evidence-based medicine, clinicians may not be using the best knowledge base when treating patients.

Even if these words are actually banned from use in CDC budget requests, it is important to note that medical journals with true editorial freedom would theoretically never fall into a similar situation. Editors and publishers/owners must guard against the influence of external commercial and political interests (as well as personal self-interest) on editorial decisions. Editors of such journals should not comply with external pressure from any party that may compromise their autonomy or of their journal’s integrity. The AMA Manual of Style notes these examples, among many others, of inappropriate pressure:

  • Pressure from an owner or a politically powerful or motivated individual or group on the editor to avoid publishing certain types of articles or to publish a specific article
  • Compliance with governmental or other external policy to not consider manuscripts from authors based on their nationality, ethnicity, race, political beliefs, or religion

Read more about editorial freedom and integrity of medical journals in AMA 5.10.—Iris Lo

A Dirty Look at the AMA Manual of Style

Posted by

0

Remember how much fun you had reading The Elements of Style? How about the times you yukked it up over the ambiguity examples in Warriner’s English Grammar and Composition? Here is a classic to jog your memory:

As soon as the students had left the classrooms, the custodians cleaned them.

That’s entertainment!

You can revisit those days of abandon in the quest for clear writing, even if no one seems to chuckle when they consult the AMA Manual of Style. Maybe this owes to its being a behemoth. If you wish to consult the manual with a smile instead of grim determination, the opportunities are there.

Every so often, a nonassociation style guide becomes a bestseller. Such a chartbuster assumes that usage matters, and that correct usage rules and examples entertain and inform. Authors have climbed the list with pragmatism (thanks, Susan Thurman), charm (hi, Mary Norris), innuendo (I’m talking to you, Lynne Truss), or light-heartedness (howdy, Bill Bryson).

Some even go dirty, quick and dirty, as in Mignon Fogarty’s amazing Grammar Girl. I understand this. A down and dirty read (a basic, practical review and not a backstreet editing assignation) is often called for when deadlines loom.

But pragmatic or dirty, these bestsellers put their readers in good hands. That they entertain and inform offers a springboard for a quick dive into the ways that the style manual, in addition to assuring you that you’re in good hands, can entertain as it informs. Here is a representative down and dirty look at a portion of the manual.

If you hand out Halloween candy, you have seen the proverbial “fun size,” a bite that only leaves you wanting more unless it is a Butterfinger. My idea of fun size would be a candy bar as big as my arm. However, any amount of candy is fun (except a Butterfinger), so in that spirit, small can be fun size. By my original standard, the 1010-page Manual of Style is already fun size, but chapter 11 offers the overlooked qualities of being thought-provoking and entertaining. (So do chapters 7-10, 12, and 13, but that is another post.)

The online manual can take you right to 11 without the papercuts, but the idea is to look at its alignment with the tone of popular usage books. From a certain vantage, this chapter could stand as a compact usage book alongside other usage books that sell well. A fun size AMA style guide!

The “Correct and Preferred Usage” chapter starts with 2 fun quotations, one with empathy for proofreaders and another that mentions a porcupine. The entries begin with word choice examples aplenty (similar to Bryson’s look at troublesome words), with italicized labels and directives that establish a hierarchy (Incorrect, Correct, Also Correct, Avoid, Preferred, Also, and the apotheosis of middle ground, Acceptable).

Sometimes a truth plainly spoken is in itself amusing, and that truth can orient you toward correcting descriptive language. The entry “abnormal, normal, negative, positive” indicates “Examinations and laboratory tests and studies are not in themselves abnormal, normal, negative, or positive.” If you have gone around allowing authors to describe tests as negative, it can be bracing to see such clear direction.

The entry for Jargon offers a similar plain-spokenness. “….[D]rugs are usually neither systemic nor local but are given for systemic or local effect.” Parallelism can sharpen a keen awareness of specificity.

Because redundant words are always funny according to natural law, section 11.2, with its eye-opening list of redundancies, expendable words, and incomparable phrases, can supply abundant levity. You will also encounter a well-known quotation from Yogi Berra.

The legal profession once advocated plain language (ha ha!). Everyone talks about jargon, but the AMA Manual of Style does something about it. Granted, you can violate the manual’s jargon directives and still be allowed to walk around freely, vote, and drive a car, but if you see what Morris Fishbein wrote on page 408, you will never want to use jargon again. Even by accident or in an emergency.

Chapter 11 contains scores of other usage grace notes. Shakespeare’s Polonius says, “brevity is the soul of wit,” and you can verify that by looking up “describe, report” for an example. Even one of the longer entries (“because of, caused by, due to, owing to”) ends with a lovely Clue to usage (a one-off category) that brings it all home in 3 lines.

One-off labels nod toward the gray areas of usage, which are usually skillfully handled in style guides. The manual may be a behemoth, and another one-off category, Possible exception, under “adherence, compliance,” may help explain why. This example shows its accommodation of nuance. Nuance can take space.

Across its chapters, the manual draws from literature (Alexander Pope, Samuel Johnson, Mark Twain, Toni Morrison) for contextual quotations. Medical editing embraces the humanities in its quest for clarity.

For a good time, read chapter 11 of the AMA Manual of Style.  It shares some of the endearing qualities of the bestselling usage guides (except, I think, innuendo). Review the material when you aren’t searching for an answer. It’s not just for reference anymore.—Timothy Gray

 

Quoth the Raven

Posted by

4

The word impact as a verb comes up pretty often in the course of my work. I am not a fan (and neither is the AMA Manual of Style). I prefer to use affect instead, and when it comes to nouns I like effect better than impact, but I always had to stop and think about it and be sure that I was correctly using these words. I just could not remember. Then, a few weeks ago, I was poking around the internet and came across this useful mnemonic device, RAVEN.

“Remember: Affect is a Verb and Effect is a Noun.”

It’s not a new thing, but I hadn’t heard it before. It stuck in my mind because crows and ravens, those smart, handsome birds, are very interesting to me. Since then, I’ve noticed that the phrase popped into my head right away when I was confronted with the effect/affect question.

Happy Halloween!—Karen Boyd