Celebrity English

Owen misplaces a modifier

“As a kid, my parents were pretty strict about manners, so I had the way I was with my friends and then my personality with adults, and that’s continued a little bit.” - Owen Wilson

Owen has misplaced a modifier. The introductory prepositional phrase “As a kid” is the modifier, and it describes the subject of the clause “my parents were pretty strict about manners,” which is “my parents.” This means that Owen’s parents were “a kid.” This does not make sense.

To correct the misplaced modifier, either change the prepositional phrase into a dependent clause or move it closer to the word it modifies.

“When I was a kid, my parents were pretty strict about manners, so I had the way I was with my friends and then my personality with adults, and that’s continued a little bit.”

The introductory dependent clause “When I was a kid” clearly refers to Owen.

“My parents were pretty strict about manners, so as a kid, I had the way I was with my friends and then my personality with adults, and that’s continued a little bit.”

The prepositional phrase “as a kid” precedes “I” and logically modifies this pronoun.

Hilary uses the wrong pronoun

“Barbies have really cool couture clothes in Japan. They made Barbies of Haylie and I and we got to design the clothes and it was really cool.” - Hilary Duff, on the line of doll clothing she designed with her sister

Hilary has used a subjective pronoun as the object of a preposition. In the prepositional phrase “of Haylie and I,” the compound object of the preposition “of” is “Haylie and I.” Separate the components of the compound object and pair each with the preposition to test the case of the pronoun.

of Haylie [This makes sense.]
of I [This does not make sense.]

The pronoun “I” is subjective and cannot serve as the object of a preposition. Change the case of the pronoun to objective to correct the error.

“They made Barbies of Haylie and me and we got to design the clothes and it was really cool.”

Will chooses the wrong pronoun

“There are many parallels between my son and I. We both wear diapers. I don’t have a problem, but I’m too lazy to go to the bathroom. It saves me time.” - Will Ferrell, in In Touch Weekly

Will has incorrectly used a subjective pronoun as the object of a preposition.

In the first sentence of Will’s statement, the preposition “between” has a compound object: “my son and I.” To understand the nature of this error, replace the preposition with one that does not require two objects and pair it with each of the components of the compound object.

for my son and I: for my son/for I
to my son and I: to my son/to I
by my son and I: by my son/by I

These examples demonstrate that using the subjective first person singular pronoun “I” as the object of a preposition does not make sense. Replace the subjective pronoun with an objective pronoun to correct this error:

for me
to me
by me

These prepositional phrases make sense.

This version of Will’s statement replaces the subjective first person singular pronoun “I” with the objective first person singular pronoun “me.”

“There are many parallels between my son and me.”

Mischa uses strange diction

“The writers needed a big finale, and they didn’t know what to do with Marissa anymore; she’d been through pretty much everything. I mean, I worked tediously for those three years and my character did a lot.” - Mischa Barton, in Teen Vogue, on her departure from The O.C.

Mischa has not made an error, but she has made an interesting choice of words.

The adjective “tedious” means “overly dull, slow, or boring; monotonous,” and the adverb “tediously” means “in a dull, slow, or boring manner; monotonously.” Mischa says she “worked tediously,” which means that she performed her role as Melissa in a dull, slow, or boring manner for three years. Mischa probably did not intend to characterize her own approach to her work in such an unflattering and negative way.

In the article, the writer points out Mischa’s choice of words and wonders if it was “deliberate” or “innocent” or if it was possibly “some kind of Freudian slip.” The writer postulates that perhaps Mischa meant to say that she was “tireless” in her work on the show.

This might be what Mischa intended to say:

“I mean, I worked tirelessly for those three years and my character did a lot.”

Jennifer makes an error in parallelism

“I want to be loved, happy, and not settle for something less than we all deserve.” - Jennifer Aniston

Jennifer has made an error in parallelism. She has listed three items that follow the infinitive “to be,” but two are adjectives and one is an infinitive phrase. Similar items in a series should be structured in a similar way.

These are the things Jennifer wants:

to be loved [The word "loved" is a participle; it is a verb form that functions as an adjective. The infinitive phrase "to be loved" makes sense.]
(to be) happy [The word "happy" is an adjective. The infinitive "to be" is implied and the entire phrase "(to be) happy" makes sense.]
(to be) not (to) settle for something less [The infinitive "to be" is implied. It does not make sense to follow "to be" with the infinitive phrase "not (to) settle for something less."]

Correct the sentence by restructuring the infinitive phrase “not to settle for something less” so that it is an adjective that can complete the list of how Jennifer would like to be (”loved,” “happy,” and an adjective form of “not settling for something less”).

“I want to be loved, happy, and uncompromising.”

Samuel makes an error in modifier confusion

“If I hit a bad shot, people five fairways away know it because I’m yelling [his favorite curse word], but if I hit a good shot, I’m yelling too. Everybody knows the difference in the yelling. Either Sam is playing well, or he’s playing bad.” - Samuel L. Jackson, in People, about his behavior on the golf course

Samuel has made an error in modifier confusion: he has used an adjective to modify a verb. Only an adverb can modify a verb.

In the last sentence, the second instance of the verb “playing” is modified by the adjective “bad.” This is incorrect because an adjective cannot modify a verb. To correct the error, replace the adjective with an adverb.

“Either Sam is playing well, or he’s playing badly.”

“Either Sam is playing well, or he’s playing poorly.”

Good job! Sheryl knows her “whom” from her “who”

“I went for my annual mammogram - I’ve been getting them yearly since I was 35 - and [the doctor] saw new calcifications. I wasn’t nervous about it, so when they told me to come back in six months, I left the clinic. Three hours later, my ob-gyn, whom I’ve been seeing for years, called and said, ‘I never recommend waiting six months for anything.’ She set me up with an oncologist, and two days later I had the needle biopsy done.” - Sheryl Crow, in Glamour, on her breast cancer diagnosis

Sheryl has correctly used an objective relative pronoun as the direct object of an adjective clause. Way to go, Sheryl!

In the adjective clause “whom I’ve been seeing for years,” the subject is “I,” the verb is “have been seeing,” and the direct object is the objective relative pronoun “whom.”

A common error is the use of the subjective relative pronoun “who” in an objective role in a sentence. If Sheryl had used the adjective clause “who I’ve been seeing for years,” she would have made such an error.

To determine whether to use “who” or “whom” in a sentence, rearrange the words and replace the relative pronoun with a personal pronoun. It is helpful to use “he” and “him” even if the person is female because both “him” and “whom” end in “m” and both of these pronouns are objective.

Start with the original clause:

whom I’ve been seeing for years

Rearrange the words so that the subject is at the beginning of the clause:

I’ve been seeing whom

Replace the objective relative pronoun “whom” with the objective personal pronoun “him”:

I’ve been seeing him

This makes sense. “I’ve been seeing he” does not make sense, so neither does “who I’ve been seeing.”

Mischa makes a confusing error in subject/verb agreement

“I’m one of those people who dresses according to my mood.” - Mischa Barton, in In Touch

Mischa has made an error in subject/verb agreement. She has also used awkward syntax.

A common error in sentences that contain “one of” is the use of a plural noun paired with a singular verb. In Mischa’s statement, many people are dressing so the pronoun “who” refers to the plural “people.” The verb should be the plural “dress.”

Rearranging the words in the quote results in awkward language, but it highlights the error:

Of those people who dresses according to my mood, I am one.

The rearranged syntax underscores Mischa’s awkward syntax. She uses the pronoun “my” to refer to the mood that dictates how people dress. Mischa’s choice of words implies that other people dress according to her own mood.

Mischa’s fashion statements may in fact influence how other people dress, but it is unlikely that they choose what to wear based on how she is feeling at any given moment. Changing the pronoun from one that refers to Mischa to one that refers to “people” would make the meaning of her statement more logical.

This version of Mischa’s statement corrects the agreement error and avoids the awkward syntax:

“I’m one of those people who dress according to their moods.”

Notice that “mood” has been changed to the plural “moods” to reflect that each person has his or her own mood.

Ocean’s Thirteen - “insouciant”

We recommend using news and quotation search engines to find examples of words in context, as this can be helpful in understanding their definitions and connotations.

insouciant - (adj) carefree and unconcerned

A search on Google News for “insouciant Ocean’s Thirteen” produced these results:

“Clooney, Pitt, Damon: as insouciant as ever, tossing off the repartee with an ease that borders on sedation.” - Willamette Week

“…Steven Soderbergh… recaptures the insouciant rat-pack spirit that made his initial remake of Ocean’s Eleven so enjoyable…” - Straight.com

“..in Ocean’s Thirteen, the insouciant charm wears off early, and what seemed carefree about the earlier films comes to seem careless…” - Seattle Weekly

Colin makes two pronoun errors

“Fatherhood only changes you if you allow it to change you. I kind of avoided changing me for a while. I just know that I have somebody who, for the first time in my life, I’m in love with, and it’s going to last.” - Colin Farrell, in OK Magazine

Colin has made two pronoun errors. He has also used a colloquialism that is considered to be an error by the writers of standardized examinations.

In the clause “I kind of avoided changing me,” the pronoun “me” is the object of the gerund “changing.” While “me” is in the objective case, its use in this context would be acceptable only if someone else were the subject of the clause. Since the subject and the object of the gerund refer to the same person, the object of the gerund should be a reflexive pronoun. To correct this error, replace the objective first person pronoun “me” with the reflexive first person pronoun “myself.”

The adjective clause “who, for the first time in my life, I’m in love with” contains a relative pronoun in the incorrect case. Follow these steps to determine which relative pronoun to use in this context:

1. Remove the intervening phrase “for the first time in my life.”

who I’m in love with

2. Rearrange the words so that the subject is at the beginning of the clause.

I’m in love with who

3. Replace the subjective relative pronoun “who” with the subjective personal pronoun “he.”

I’m in love with he

4. Recognize that the use of a subjective pronoun as the object of the preposition “with” does not make sense. Replace the subjective personal pronoun with an objective personal pronoun.

I’m in love with him

5. Replace the objective personal pronoun with an objective relative pronoun.

I’m in love with whom

6. Rearrange the words and insert the intervening phrase.

whom, for the first time in my life, I’m in love with

The phrase “kind of” is very common in everyday speech, and Colin’s use of this colloquialism is perfectly acceptable in this informal context. However, this phrase (and the similar phrase “sort of”) may appear on standardized examination questions and you will be expected to identify it as an error in diction. Depending on the context, possible alternatives for this phrase include “somewhat,” “rather,” “to a degree,” and “quite.” The use of these adverbs can make speech and writing sound extremely formal (”I rather avoided changing myself”). Rearranging the syntax to accommodate these adverbs in a less formal manner may result in either a change in meaning or confusion (in the clause “I avoided changing myself somewhat,” the adverb “somewhat” can modify “avoided” or “changing myself”). Possibly the least formal and clearest way to avoid the use of “kind of” in this sentence is to insert “to a certain degree” at the beginning of the sentence.

This revision of Colin’s statement corrects the two pronoun errors and avoids the use of the colloquial phrase “kind of”:

“To a certain degree, I avoided changing myself for a while. I just know that I have somebody whom, for the first time in my life, I’m in love with, and it’s going to last.”