Keep it simple

My friend Alan Booth has dawn my attention to this sentence in the Independent.

Ms Williams, whose father, Stephen, works as a detective constable for West Mercia Police, which is leading the investigation into her disappearance, was reported missing after failing to attend a driving lesson or meet her boyfriend, Matthew Bird, 18, on Monday morning to travel to a music festival.

Alan asks whether prizes are awarded for such sentences. Maybe they are, but if so they are not called Pulitzer.

First, it must be said that the sentence is grammatically correct and is systematically punctuated, but … it is the grammar and the punctuation that are the problem.

Complex sentences are to be welcomed in their place. The last thing we want is sentences that just have one clause each, but here we have the opposite extreme. Basically, we are told that Ms Williams was reported missing in certain circumstances, but this sentence contains within itself two linked relative clauses: whose father … and which is …. It also contains two cases of apposition, Stephen and Matthew Bird, and a parenthesis telling us Matthew’s age, 18. The relative clauses and appositions are set off in commas; non-restrictive relative clauses should be but the need is not so great for apposition. I see nothing wrong with

whose father Stephen works as a detective constable

or

her boyfriend Matthew Bird.

As it is written, the reader is navigating a rigmarole of clauses that have to be kept in mind while constantly tripping over commas that hinder a clear assimilation of the meaning. A ratio of eight commas to 48 words in one sentence is too much. Why should it be one sentence anyway? Why indeed should we be told Matthew’s age? I see no reason. How about this?

Ms Williams was reported missing after failing to attend a driving lesson or meet her boyfriend Matthew Bird on Monday morning when they were to travel to a music festival. Her father Stephen works as a detective constable for West Mercia Police, which is leading the investigation into her disappearance.

That won’t win a Pulitzer prize either but at least it’s easy to read.

Comments

[John Cowan]

The sentence looks quite American to me; we are generally speaking in a commatose [sic] condition compared to y'all. But I agree that a relative clause inside a relative clause is a sign of overpacking — which, come to think of it, is also a habit of American journalism, trying to get the whole story in a one-sentence lead. One wonders.

[Peter Harvey]

True, British English now tends to reduce punctuation to a minimum but I can't see the point of sentences that are too long to read. The usual criticism of British journalism is that the language is too simple, with short sentences and short paragraphs.