Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/22177
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/22177
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

 **Of course you can't just ignore _all_ basic grammar rules.** For example, writing:

> Not cover the opening machines power be while do.

obviously makes no sense to anyone, even though it's got all the right words (plus or minus a few grammatical suffixes) in there. It's just broken English.

But you _can_ totally write, say:

> Do not open cover while machine is powered.

or, if space is really at a premium (or you just want to make the letters as big as possible to make them stand out), e.g.:

> DO NOT OPEN WHILE POWERED!

**So what's the difference, then?** The difference is that, in effect, English has a special [linguistic register](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28sociolinguistics%29) for terse messages like signs and headlines that modifies or relaxes _some_ otherwise (nearly) universal grammar and style rules in the interests of brevity. But not _all_ rules; only those that do not introduce any significant ambiguity in the message (or for which an alternative method for conveying the same distinction is available). In effect, it's a different language variety with (somewhat) different grammar rules from general literary English — but it _does_ still have grammar, because a language with no grammar at all is not a language, but just a bunch of random words thrown together.

So what are the differences between general English and this ["headlinese"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlinese)? I haven't personally read any scholarly studies on the grammar of this special language register (although it _has_ been studied, and the Wikipedia page I linked to even references a couple of articles on the subject), but just off the top of my head, the most notable differences are:

- **Omission of definite and indefinite articles.** When you really think about it, articles are rarely essential for conveying the meaning of a sentence. [Plenty of languages get by just fine without them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_%28grammar%29#Variation_among_languages) — the [map](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EuropeArticleLanguages.png) on the linked page shows pretty strikingly that the (near) compulsory use of articles in front of nouns is a distinctively Western European areal feature. In many languages it's a relatively modern one, too; classical Latin didn't have articles, but most of the Romance languages that descended from it developed them (generally from demonstrative pronouns that became a compulsive part of the noun phrase) under the influence of neighboring Germanic languages.

- **Omission of the [copula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_%28linguistics%29).** Have you _ever_ seen a sign that said "Door **is** closed," or a headline that read "Politician **is** caught lying"? Again, plenty of languages get by just fine without a copula at all, anyway.

- **Use of stand-alone noun phrases instead of full sentences.** Related to the above, it's very common to replace sentences that in standard English would use the copula "is" with just a plain noun phrase (with, effectively, an implied "there/this is"). This is _very_ common in signs: "NO SMOKING", "WET FLOOR" or "OUT OF USE" communicate their ideas much more concisely than "Smoking is not allowed here," "The floor is wet" or "This machine is not currently usable."

- **Omission of implied referents.** The default assumption is that a sign refers to the object or the location it's attached to. Thus, you don't need to write "_This store is_ closed" or "No trespassing _on this property_." Of course, such omission also occurs in standard literary English (even if some grammarians frown upon it), but it's extremely common in signs.

There are also some grammar and style features that, while not directly serving the interests of brevity, have nonetheless come to be commonly associated with this particular style of English. A notable example is [title case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_case), which (as the name indicates) is very popular in titles and headlines, but also commonly found in other places that employ a similar terse style. (Exercise: Open a drop-down menu on your computer and look at the entries; there's something like a 50-50 chance that they'll be In Title Case.)

Anyway, my point is that, as long as you _follow the established style and grammar conventions_ relevant to the context you're writing in, you certainly can (and, arguably, even _should_) break any "rules" of prescriptivist "standard English grammar" that conflict with actual established usage in your field. That's not the same as throwing grammar, willy-nilly, out of the window — that's just understanding that grammar, like all things in human communication, is a context-dependent and flexible construction that can and does adapt to fit the needs of the medium.

Original score: 20