Bad Grammar in Dialogue

[Nephylim]

I was thinking... dangerous I know but...

 

We are always vigilant for bad grammar in stories, also annoying phrases, innacuracies and all sorts of bad things. But what about dialogue?

 

To use just one example

 

What if a character says... "Look this just isn't good enough. I mean is just isn't is it? It's just..." Now usually I would try to avoid the word just if I could because... well it's just annoying isn't it. But what if my character uses the word a lot. I often base what my characters say on what people I know and hear say. It depends on the character but there are times when they just have to use it.

 

Or what about characters who are plain and simple. They wouldn't use 'correct' words. They wouldn't say... that was simply not correct. They would say... that's just not right.

 

One of my pet peeves is a character who is supposed to be grand and formal using slang, or a person who is simple or quirky or 'street' using stiff and formal language and words. You have to write to your character

 

So what if your characters don't speak as proper as what you does?

 

if you were reading a story and came across bad grammar in dialogue, would you condemn the story or recognise it for what it is... the way the character would speak?

 

Thoughts ??

[Cyhort]

The most important thing about dialogue is that it sounds natural. I hate hate HATE dialogue that has proper grammar 100% of the time because that's just not how most people talk. We misuse words and say things like "like" and "just" and "maybe" all the time and characters should say those things too. I want characters with personality, not stiff formal language, and it's one of the things that turns me off a story quicker than anything else.

[Conner]

When it comes to grammar rules, dialogue is a free-for-all. I pretty much agree with Cyhort's view.

[Abersloth]

I try to give my characters unique vernaculars. Everybody talks a little bit differently. I, for example, use a lot of Britishisms in my every-day speech that drives people around me off the walls. That stems from growing up around Englishmen. I find myself studying the way people talk in real life, drawing on their usages to construct a vocabulary and structure for certain characters whose personalities can be highlighted by specifics words and phrasings. The outcome of this is grammar that we would sometimes consider to be inappropriate. Some characters fragmented sentences to convey irony or sarcasm, while others pick bubbly, child-like constructs. Like, heavy usage of the word "Like." Like.

[Greg_A]

I think you have to use a mix of proper grammar and what a character would naturally say and how they would speak. Which of course makes it a fine line for any author to to try and walk. As an author you want and need to stay true to your character and write the characters dialogue the way they would naturally sound, but at the same time you need to make the conversations readable. For instance, writing a conversation in the speech patterns my ex-brother in law would use would include a ton of his own personal odd ball catch phrases and other assorted non-sense. While those of us who knew him could piece together what he was saying, the average reader would be left clueless if we actually wrote down some of his conversation. So if I was trying to write a story in which he was speaking I would want to use some of his speech to capture the feel of his character, but I would have to go back and 'clean up' a lot of it for the reader to understand what was actually being said.

 

Related to the above is regional jargon. I think as an author you want to include some of this in order to capture the setting your characters are in. But at the same time if you throw too much in you stand the chance of confusing your audience who might not be familiar with local phrases and words. As a minor example, in my area the word "telly" can mean two completely different things depending on who you are talking to - either a telephone or a television. While that one is fairly easy to figure out from the context of the sentence it was used in, heaven help you if you would happen to use it wrong around here!

 

And that doesn't even begin to cover all the verbal pauses people tend to use in natural speech. I'm not sure any author inserts all those "uhm's", "ah's', and "uh's" that are in most people's everyday speech.

[rustle]

A variety of language and idioms can give a clear separation of characters from each other, or from the narrator. It can provide "texture" or a greater sense of place. Since so few people speak standard written English, to use it exclusively in dialogue is unrealistic and yields writing that falls flat. I find poor grammar or idiomatic language in a first-person narration can be a key to character; in a strictly objective narrator, it comes across poorly.

 

The purpose of language is communication. What will it take for your characters to get their points across to each other, and to the reader? "Gonna?" "Ima?" Incomplete sentences?

 

Break the rules wisely. You have a host of tools to use.

 

A good author can transcend the tool that overpowers the lesser one.

[MikeL]

When editing or proofreading an author's work, I always draw a distinction between dialogue and narrative. Dialogue should suit the character(s). An authentic accent, vocabulary, and pace of speaking is always appropriate. This should not be carried to an extreme which makes it difficult for the reader. I do have a problem with a character whose grammar is very poor to the point that it detracts from the story because it is so hard to read.

 

Narrative, on the other hand, should be closer to standard English (as fits the author's locale). I see no problem with dialogue being distinctly different from the narrative. Obviously an exception should be made for a story told in the first person; the narrative could reasonably be as nonstandard as the dialogue.

 

For me, it's just that simple.

[Cia]

Dialogue is also the only place I will accept the use of and at the start of a sentence A pet peeve of mine, you might say. Use of improper grammar in speech, when done deliberately, can highlight the personality of a character, their age, or the situationin which they find themselves. It should be used sparingly, however, as 'flavor' not the meat of the dialogue, or I am turned off as a reader. I attempt to remember that as I write myself as well.

[Former Member]

I'm a newbie author to GA, and new to writing stories in general. It's always something I've wanted to try, but not gotten around to before recently, so I'm still making plenty of mistakes.

What I do try to do in my stories though, is to try and make each of my characters at least slightly different, both in character and vocabulary, I'm not crazy about stories where every character within it speaks exactly the same way, so try not to do so in my own.

BTW, big fan of your work, Nephy!

[K.C.]

I know when I write dialog, I like it to be more conversational and casual, but good grammar is still a must… unless I’m really trying to portray someone uneducated or immature.

 

 

[Dannsar]

Here's a thing ... speech is grammar. A grammar of a language is only a description of how that language works syntactically to construct transferable semantic proposition ... it enables the decoding from the coding. Unfortunately, the pedantry police get it in their tiny little minds that the described standard of a language is the only way. Whereas, it is only actually the median 60% of the common speech pattern. The other 40% is what else is used but less frequently. It is not wrong, just non-standard. And we all gay people know what happens when the non-standard is defined as wrong.

 

Nephy, you use what you use for a character. What is important is that it has a dose of reality, and that means consistency. You are writing a fiction. You decide what the realities are. Of course, there is a line to be drawn at where it turns into annoying for the reader, or inappropriate to the characterisation. But other than that, you choose. But let me assure you. People do not speak in 'proper' grammar. They only speak. And the grammar is only an afterapplied pedantry.

 

Speech is colour. And none of us are the same colour. Not really.

[Abersloth]

Here's a thing ... speech is grammar. A grammar of a language is only a description of how that language works syntactically to construct transferable semantic proposition ... it enables the decoding from the coding. Unfortunately, the pedantry police get it in their tiny little minds that the described standard of a language is the only way. Whereas, it is only actually the median 60% of the common speech pattern. The other 40% is what else is used but less frequently. It is not wrong, just non-standard. And we all gay people know what happens when the non-standard is defined as wrong.

 

Nephy, you use what you use for a character. What is important is that it has a dose of reality, and that means consistency. You are writing a fiction. You decide what the realities are. Of course, there is a line to be drawn at where it turns into annoying for the reader, or inappropriate to the characterisation. But other than that, you choose. But let me assure you. People do not speak in 'proper' grammar. They only speak. And the grammar is only an afterapplied pedantry.

 

Speech is colour. And none of us are the same colour. Not really.

 

Very well said

[colinian]

Here's a thing ... speech is grammar. A grammar of a language is only a description of how that language works syntactically to construct transferable semantic proposition ... it enables the decoding from the coding. Unfortunately, the pedantry police get it in their tiny little minds that the described standard of a language is the only way. Whereas, it is only actually the median 60% of the common speech pattern. The other 40% is what else is used but less frequently. It is not wrong, just non-standard. And we all gay people know what happens when the non-standard is defined as wrong.

 

Nephy, you use what you use for a character. What is important is that it has a dose of reality, and that means consistency. You are writing a fiction. You decide what the realities are. Of course, there is a line to be drawn at where it turns into annoying for the reader, or inappropriate to the characterisation. But other than that, you choose. But let me assure you. People do not speak in 'proper' grammar. They only speak. And the grammar is only an afterapplied pedantry.

 

Speech is colour. And none of us are the same colour. Not really.

 

I agree. In "How English Works: A Linguistic Introduction" Anne Curzan and Michael Adams describe how there are distinct grammars used in formal writing and used when speaking. And there are millions of grammars being used when people speak. That is one of the interesting things about the English language. It is a language that is constantly changing. Those who speak it, all of us, are the ones responsible for those changes which become a part of our language.

 

Colin

[Zolia Lily]

I actually think it's important that your dialogue and narrative stand out. Even when i'm writing in first person, in a stream of consciousness narrative, I think my character's speech is different from his/ her thoughts. For me, the idea is that no one speaks perfectly. People do say 'gonna' (sorry, Nephy...) and 'like' and 'you know' , and often over use them. People also make mistakes - backtrack, stammer, repeat themselves, 'um' and 'ah', pause at opportune and inopportune moments...

 

I use all of these things as tools, and i think they're all acceptable in dialogue - the only thing is overuse. Then, ya know, they can all become a bit , like .... annoying. Enough to give us an idea i think is all you need.

 

 

[option]

Grammar within dialogue should be correct for that character.

It should also be consistent whenever that character speaks, so no starting out with everything 'correct' & then lapsing into chav-speak.

[BlueSoxSWJ]

As long as it doesn't get so bad that I have to stop, go back, and figure out what the character is trying to say, I'll forgive almost any errors in speech.

 

Far more common, I find that authors tend to make dialogue, especially if characters are exchanging long thoughts with one another, sound more like an e-mail exchange or something you would read on here. If a supposedly "spontaneous" verbal dialogue reads like a series of carefully crafted, edited, and proofread exchange of text-based messages, it can break up the flow of a story almost as thoroughly as a flagrant continuity error.

[Jammi]

I agree that dialogue is the one place where grammar depends on the character and how the character speaks. to me dialogue has to sound natural and spontaneous, and at the same time it needs to make sense to convey what you are trying to convey. For example most people use contractions they say I can't or I don't instead of I cannot and I do not. But if your character is known for being proper and correct then there will be no contractions in their speech. Then there are the characters described as being california surfer types who use the word "dude" and "like" to a nauseating degree lol but it's them they stand out that way. To me dialogue is used to move the story along, but its also there to help us better understand the characters we're reading about. i know i try to be conscious of how each of my characters will say something depending on who they are. a doctor's speech is likely to be refined and schooled and will likely differ greatly from say a street merchant who could use a lot of slang. It also differs depending on whom the person is talking to. The way one may talk around their friends may not necessarily be the way they speak around their parents or their bosses or strangers. There is so much to think about when doing dialogue i could discuss it all day. So i will stop now

[Dannsar]

I've been reading a story on holiday and come across one of my pet hates ... putting *words* in *asterisks* to show emphasis. The contractions talked about actually get over this problem. If a character says "I won't do that", or "I will not do that" there is a difference in emphasis in the second one if the character's natural idiom is to use the contraction.

 

Just an example that came to me ...

[Mark92]

Well most of you know I didnt go to school. So a lot of my stories and poems speak how I speak.

The one I am always being pulled up about is The Legacy. The lord is from Yorkshire, which has its own particular dialect even for gentry.

Some became rich from coal mines or the steel works and textiles. And the managers and owners of these, became gentry. The lords and ladies of Yorshire spoke the dialect..

Not all gentry went to public school or spoke with a plum in there mouths.

Just needed to voice that lol.

[David McLeod]

Wish I had gotten in on this earlier. All the good stuff has been said. Summary: dialogue should reflect the natural speech patterns of the speaker. The speaker's speech patterns can be used to characterize him or her. Even so, too much vernacular can be off-putting. (I attribute the last verb-preposition to Winston Churchill.)

 

David