Just Because
By Doug Fisher
You probably remember when your mother or father told you, "Just
because!"
That's likely the only time you didn't need anything else with this little
conjunction to understand the meaning. But "because" usually
introduces thoughts that need the rest of the sentence for understanding,
and that's where we find some rough patches.
Warning: Grammar terms alert. "Because" is a subordinate conjunction,
not as strong as its "coordinate" brethren: and, or, nor, but,
yet, for and so. They get to join independent clauses, those that if you
put in a period and took out the conjunction could stand alone as sentences.
But "because" introduces dependent clauses, those that need
something else to make sense: City leaders say they approved the plan
because the contractor has the required bond. If we split off "because
the contractor has the required bond," it's a fragment that makes
little sense on its own.
So the first rough spot is whether to use a comma. Somewhere in
the musty recesses of composition books and middle-school English classes
lurks the pronouncement that "because" requires a comma. Numerous
hands go up in my classes when I ask who was taught that. In journalism,
however, that goes against the grain. As Brooks, Pinson and Wilson note
in Working With Words, "Some composition books insist that
a clause introduced by because is always preceded by a comma, but media
writers put a comma before a conjunction only if it introduces an independent
clause."
Don't holster that comma yet, however. Rooney and Witte, in "Copy
Editing for Professionals, note that it's useful to clarify meaning when
you have a sentence like this: City leaders say they didn't approve
the plan because the contractor lacks the required bond. Some people
will finish that on a little higher mental pitch than the original; they're
waiting for an answer to: Well, then why didn't city leaders approve the
plan? While rewriting is better, a comma can clarify that ambiguity: City
leaders say they didn't approve the plan, because the contractor lacks
the required bond.
And while "because" may be "subordinate," it is a
powerful word that wants to dominate what follows: But when Republicans
took control of both houses in 2002, they said the court's plan was untenable
because it gave too much power to Democrats and called for an unusual
second redistricting.
Here, "because" wants to apply to both "it gave too much
power" and "called for." But the plan didn’t call
for that second redistricting; Republicans did. When working around "because," take
care to make such things clear: But when Republicans took control
of both houses in 2002, they said the court's plan was untenable because
it gave too much power to Democrats, and the GOP called for an unusual
second redistricting. (Using "they" instead of "the
GOP" could produce confusion about whether its antecedent was "Democrats.")
Then there's the question of using "because of" or "due
to." Traditionally, "because of" was most often called
for. "Due to," the argument goes, is an adjective that should
be linked back to a noun through a linking verb (usually a form of "to
be.")
Traditionally wrong: He is leaving due to his illness. Traditionally
right: His leaving is due to his illness. Also right: He
is leaving because of his illness.
Most major usage guides now allow either. If "because of" seems
stilted or awkward, use "due to." But usage expert Bryan Garner
also cites one writer who calls it "a graceless phrase, even when
used correctly." So maybe it's worth knowing, and using, the traditional
way when possible. After all, we are wordsmiths, and as Mark Twain said, "The
difference between the almost right word and the right word is really
a large matter – it's the difference between the lightning-bug and
the lightning."
Some quick notes
Using negative constructions the wrong way can seriously change meaning.
A student told me she saw an epilepsy association poster that read "Myths" followed
by a list that included "It is impossible to swallow your own tongue" and "Epilepsy
is not a barrier to success."
Think about it.
And the editor needs an editor. In my December column, I wrote, "More
than a quarter of the police and sheriff's offices flaunted the
law by failing to provide records that should be open for the asking,
with no other requirements. In many cases, outrageous copying fees bar
easy access." The word, of course, should be flouted, to show scorn
toward. Flaunted means to show off ostentatiously or defiantly. So by
flouting correct usage, I proved – again – that everyone needs
an editor.
