Basic Style, Grammar, Syntax, and Punctuation Guide

(especially for Students writing about Pre-Modern History)

compiled by John S. Ott, Department of History, Portland State University © 2009 (updated 10.22.2018)


 
I.  Foreword

I have put this guide together over the course of the past few years in order to provide students in my classes at Portland State University, both History majors and non-majors, with some operative guidelines for writing critical analytical essays.  These guidelines are by no means comprehensive, nor would all my conventions necessarily be accepted, or deemed essential, by other instructors.  I am reasonably confident that most, however, would be.  Students making use of these comments should bear in mind that, while reflective of disciplinary norms for History in most cases, they pertain chiefly to my expectations as an evaluator of student work.

I welcome comments, feedback, and suggestions at ott@pdx.edu.

Conventions of analytical writing in History courses

The discipline of History, like all academic disciplines, embraces particular conventions of communicating in written format.  Students should be aware that the standards of written work in History classes may differ, sometimes dramatically, from writing papers in Anthropology, Psychology, Sociology, or other courses in the social and physical sciences.  Moreover, there are different modalities of writing, not all of which are pertinent or useful in a given context.  This section of the Guide is intended to acquaint you with the conventions of one style, namely analytical writing based on primary sources.


Some basic expectations of papers submitted for History classes
II.  Instructor shorthand: a key

Most instructors use a shorthand style when they grade to indicate changes to grammar, syntax and punctuation.  While there is some consistency in this usage across departments and disciplines, there is seldom complete consistency.  Here is the system that I use in marking student papers as well as some general observations about student writing weaknesses or blunders.  Generally for punctuation I follow the Chicago Manual of Style conventions.

A vertical strikethrough mark (an | or an L) indicates a word, letter(s), or punctuation mark that should be omitted.

A checkmark indicates a job well done.  A double-checkmark indicates excellent work and/or analysis.

- indicates the word "paragraph." Used when a paragraph should be inserted to break up an overly long passage.

? - A question mark means I have no idea what you are trying to convey.

amidst, amongst, whilst, etc., use of -  These words derive from British English and have common usage in the U.K. and elsewhere in the Commonwealth, and have been steadily creeping into modern American usage. Chicago Manual of Style prefers "among," "while," "amid", and so on, as the first Webster's International usage.

awk. - "Awkward," usually used when sentence syntax is garbled, difficult to understand, or hard to interpret.  Read the sentence aloud to yourself and see if it is as clear as it can be.  I also indicate awkward syntax by a squiggly line under the offending passage/word.

being - Unless used as a "noun" ("His words cut me to the very core of my being"), "being" can virtually always be omitted. A particularly common and ungainly construction is "That being said." If you must use this phrase in your writing (and I would argue you should not), then it may be shortened to "that said" and lose none of its clarity of purpose.

colloq. - "Colloquial," meaning that you have used a phrase which may be current in spoken language or popular culture (e.g., "I've got your back"), but which has no place in formal writing.

contractions - Avoid them in formal writing.  That includes contractions like "don't," "wasn't," "weren't," "can't," and "won't." Possessive contractions like "it's" are generally okay, but should be used sparingly (see below).

different than -- Different from is preferable usage, since one thing differs from another.

ellipses (. . .)
The basic rule for use of ellipses is as follows, following Chicago Style.  When inserting ellipses to indicate an omitted section of a passage or sentence, three dots (. . .), with spaces between the dots and on either end, should be used.  When inserting ellipses to indicate that the end of a sentence has been omitted, providing that the remaining sentence fragment has a subject-verb structure, four ellipses should be used.  Examples 1 and 2 applied to the sentence: "The professor was unhappy with the quality of the student writing." (1) The sentence may be shortened to: "The professor was unhappy with . . .  the student writing." (2) Or, alternatively, "The professor was unhappy. . . ."  Ellipses are always placed within quotation marks in Chicago.

itl. - "Italicize." Italicize or underline all titles of books.  Articles, poems, and chapters from books, should be contained in quotation marks (" ").

its vs. it's - These are frequently used incorrectly.  There is even a mutant hybrid that makes no sense, its'.  The simple rule: it's = it is.  If you can supply the helping verb "is" in your sentence, and still have it make sense, then use "it's." Otherwise, use "its."  Hence: (1) "It's cold outside." (2) "The paper lost its train of argument."

Numbering (following Chicago Manual of Style) - For numbers less than 100, always spell out. For numbers more than 100, always write out numerically, except when beginning sentences, when they should be spelled out.

Numbering, of centuries - Spell out the numbers of centuries, as, for example, "eighth century," not "8th century."

passive voice - too many instances of passive verb use, such as "it can be said," or "it can be argued" detract from the power of your writing.  Put those verbs in active tense: "Historians argue," or "Scholars say."

personal opinion - this is a pretty subjective category for most instructors. I personally prefer that students limit assertions of personal opinion or viewpoint as much as possible, if not omit them entirely.  While there is nothing wrong with writing "I think" or "In my opinion" in a paper on rare occasions, the point of analytical writing in History is to make an argument that does not depend on the subjective interpretation of the student writing the paper.  The goal should be to build an argument that any reasonable person would likewise conclude with based on a reading of the same evidence.

plur.-sing. - When this designation appears, or its reverse (sing.-plur.), it means you have employed a noun or pronoun with an incorrect antecedent or an incorrect verb declension.

pp.# - Missing page numbers. Always number your pages. Always.

redun. - "Redundant." You have repeated a sentence, phrase, or idea.

sent. frag. - "Sentence fragment," meaning an incomplete sentence which lacks a subject and/or a verb.  Incomplete sentences do have a place in some styles of prose writing, and are found frequently in journalistic writing, but should be used sparingly, if at all, in formal essay writing.

sp. - "Spelling." You misspelled the word, or correctly spelled a word that was unintended in the sentence.

"such" and "said" - The overuse of "such" and "said" is becoming increasingly common (e.g., "the said book," "the said phrase," "the said person"). These can almost always be omitted.

syn. - "Syntax." Your sentence structure is confused or grammatically deficient in some way.

'then' and 'than,' usage - Students frequently confuse these two words owing to a slippage of vowel sounds in their spoken use. "Then" is most frequently adverbial in modern usage, and refers strictly to an order of time, or else modifies a previous statement (e.g., "She did not put out much of an effort, but then, she did not really want to get an A."). "Than" is a conjunction and preposition, which establishes a relative, usually comparative relationship: "Colder than ice," "more than enough," or, "She was stronger than him."

transition - You have moved from one sentence or paragraph to another without establishing a clear connection between them, or between the sentences and the main ideas of the paper. Try to eliminate abrupt changes in thought or direction from your writing.

uncl. - "Unclear," meaning I do not understand what you are trying to convey. Re-write, re-word, or expand on what you have stated.

verb tense shift (t.s.) - You have moved from using one verb tense to a second verb tense in the same sentence or section. Whichever verb tense you write in, be consistent. In general, in historical writing, past tense is most often preferred.

w.c. - "Word choice": you have used a word incorrectly or inadvisedly, or maybe invented one of your own. Search for a synonym or better word.

you/your - Avoid using the pronoun "you" or possessive pronoun "your" in formal writing. Use the neutral third-person "one" instead, or reword your sentence to eliminate the pronoun altogether. After all, to the reader of your paper, "you" indicates the reader, not some imagined third person.


III.  Hints on word use and phrasing when writing about pre-modern History

Many students are unfamiliar with prevailing conventions when naming or describing pre-modern dates, people, or places, and as a result I see a mind-boggling variety of descriptive and personal nouns in student papers. The following usages are generally accepted, though variations in, say, capitalization formats do exist.


A.D. and B.C., use of - Lightning will not strike if you use these common dating formulae, but be aware of their confessional context and meaning. A.D., "Anno Domini," means "in the year of the Lord." B.C. means "Before Christ." Preferred alternatives are B.C.E. and C.E., "(Before) Current Erra," which, while acknowledging the fact that western dating systems are organized on the putative year of Jesus's birth, avoid the confessional bias of A.D. and B.C.  Just for the record, Jesus was born about 6-3 B.C.E., not in "0" or 1 C.E.  Also, separate the letters with periods.

A.H., use of - Students who would use A.H., "Anno hejirae" or "al-Hejirah," to refer to the year of Muhammed's trek to Medina and the calendar on which it is based should preferably reference the Gregorian calendar date as well, e.g., 10 A.H./632 C.E.  Be aware of the confessional context here, too.

Capitalization - As a general rule of thumb under Chicago Manual guidelines, isolated nouns like bishop, king, count, chieftain, knight, lord, and so on are not capitalized, although certain editorial styles allow for it. Do not do it. Where you should do it is when the title modifies (as adjective) a proper name.  Thus: "King John cut off the traitor's head and affixed it to a pole," but note: "The king cut off the traitor's head."  "Papal," pope, papacy, and saint are never capitalized except to begin sentences, or when modifying a personal name (as with king above). Similarly, Bible, Torah, Qur'an, etc., are generally capitalized regardless of the writer's religious beliefs, but not "biblical" or "koranic."

Capitalization, "Church" (as in, Catholic Church) - It comes up quite frequently that students are unsure whether to capitalize "church" when writing about the historical or modern Catholic Church. In general, I would say the guidelines should be to refrain from capitalization in most situations, above all when referring to the institutional church before about the thirteenth century. It is hard to make a case for a coherent, fully centralized and influential institution existing at that time in medieval Europe, any more than we would refer to Europe's many kingdoms, principalities, and other polities using the modern designation of "State." For many scholars, this issue constitutes a judgement call, so there is no hard and fast rule. Here are, however, some suggestions: (1) Catholic Church should always be capitalized. (2) Instead of using the noun "Church," see if another substitute, such as "local church," "pope," "bishop(s)," "clergy," "episcopate," "clerical hierarchy," etc., might be more precise.

Capitalization, "crusade" and "holy land" - Conventional use generally admits the capitalization of specific crusades, e.g., First Crusade, Second Crusade, Children's Crusade, Baltic Crusade. However, "crusades" should not be capitalized when used in a general sense, nor should "crusaders." "Holy land" should not be capitalized, since it is not a common or ecumenical designation for a particular place. One can safely speak of "Christian holy land(s)" or "Muslim holy land(s)," however.

Capitalization, divinities - Divinities are capitalized when their proper names are used -- regardless of the writer's specific religious beliefs. Thus: "God," "Allah," "Zeus," "Shiva," the "Furies," and so on. In pronomial use, however, capitalization is not necessary (thus, unless the writer's religious faith prefers it, when speaking of God in the third person it is not necessary to refer to "Him" or "His will").

Capitalization, "medieval" and "Middle Ages" - As a rule, "medieval" is not capitalized when used adjectivally (e.g., medieval Europe), although some editorial styles allow for it. I prefer it not be capitalized. Middle Ages should be capitalized, although, again, there are some editorial exceptions to this. There is no reason capitalize "Medieval Period" or "Medieval Age," as those usages do not follow any editorial precedent of which I am aware.

Numbering, of rulers - Always use Roman numerals to indicate rulers with a commonly used name, e.g., Urban II or Henry V, not "Urban the 2nd."

"Roman Catholic Church," use of - to use this phrase when writing about the historical church prior to the sixteenth century is anachronistic and thus discouraged. The Greek word "catholic" (katholikos) simply means "universal," so to use it adjectivally to modify "Church" is not wrong, insofar as Catholic Christian doctrine was considered to be universal in its scope in the premodern world. It is also permissible to use "Catholic Church" to distinguish the orthodox branch of Christianity from those Christian confessions it deemed heretodox (so Arian Christianity, Monophysite Christianity, and so on) or from other Christian churches (Armenian, Syriac, Jacobite Christians). The denomination of the Catholic Church as "Roman" was frequently insisted upon by sixteenth-century Protestant reformers, who painted the papacy as espousing a certain (to reformers, corrupt and local) brand of Christianity, not the universal religion of the Bible. "Roman," in other words, was derogatory in some pre-modern, and modern, confessional contexts.

In general, and to be accurate without being anachronistic or overtly confessional, refer to: "Christianity," "the Christian religion," "Christian sects," Nicene Christianity," and so on. I generally avoid the term "orthodox," which positions itself confessionally against religions and sects it deems heterodox.

"Saint" and "St." use of - I do not expect writers to use the ascriptions "Saint" or "St." as adjectives modifying an individual canonized by the Catholic Church or any other religious institution. "Saint" are only saints from a confessional, usually institutional (but often popular), perspective. Students may use the personal name instead, e.g., "Augustine of Hippo," "Thomas Aquinas," "Francis of Assisi," "Martin of Tours," and so on forth. Again, "saint" is not capitalized unless it precedes a personal name.