On Misplaced Modifiers

By now, you may have heard that former MLB slugger Jack Clark has accused Albert Pujols (along with Tigers ace Justin Verlander and retired outfielder Shawn Green) of using performance-enhancing drugs. Essentially, Clark claimed on WGNU 920 AM in St. Louis that Chris Mihlfeld, an athletic trainer who worked with Pujols early in his pro career, told him about Pujols' PED use when both Clark and Mihlfeld were working for the Dodgers a decade ago.

Pujols, of course, has denied the accusations and says he's initiating legal action against Clark. Mihlfeld likewise claims that he never told Clark any such thing and would “bet [his] life” that Pujols never used performance-enhancing drugs. Finally, insideSTL Enterprises, the company that employed Clark for WGNU, has asked Clark and co-host Kevin Slaten not to return to work.

I'm not here to offer commentary on the story itself, as fascinating as it is. Rather, I'm interested in the wording of insideSTL's statement.


Per the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the company said the following:

As independent contractors, we want to make it clear that the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions of insideSTL. Also as independent contractors, insideSTL did not have editorial control over the show’s content.

As a writer, I want to stab myself with a rusty spoon after reading a statement like this one.

A modifying phrase is just a collection of words that gives more information about a noun or pronoun in a sentence. Some examples:

As a physician, I see dozens of patients every day.

Unlike most board games, chess has no element of chance.

Like many Americans, he enjoys a cup of coffee every morning.

In each case, the phrase at the beginning of the sentence provides additional information about a person or object mentioned later in the sentence. The sentences would still make sense without the introductory phrases, but the modifiers make them much richer.

To make the sentence clear, however, a modifying phrase needs to be placed as close as possible to the noun or pronoun it modifies. If there are any other nouns between the modifying phrase and the noun it modifies, we have a misplaced modifier error. For instance:

As their doctor, my patients depend on me for all their prescriptions.

Because of the placement of the modifier, this sentence is saying that the speaker's patients are their own doctor, which makes no sense whatsoever.

One way to fix this issue is to move the modifying phrase as follows:

My patients depend on me, as their doctor, for all their prescriptions.

This revision works, grammatically speaking, but the sentence is a little awkward as constructed. A second option is to insert another clause just after the modifying phrase.

As their doctor, I know that my patients depend on me for all their prescriptions.

In this version of the sentence, the closest noun to the modifying phrase is the personal pronoun “I,” which is correct. Although this sentence is longer than the original, it communicates the same thing with none of the grammatical awkwardness.

Let's return to insideSTL's statement, this time with the modifying phrases in bold.

As independent contractors, we want to make it clear that the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions of insideSTL. Also as independent contractors, insideSTL did not have editorial control over the show’s content.

See the issue? The intent of this statement is to point out that Clark and Slater were working for insideSTL as independent contractors; thus, their opinions are not insideSTL's opinions. Due to the placement of the modifying phrases, however, insideSTL's publicist has actually stated that he and his colleagues at insideSTL are independent contractors.

This isn't just a grammatical nit-picking point, by the way. I'd argue that the misplaced modifiers make this statement hard to understand and easy to misinterpret. It took three or four readings for me to actually (somewhat) make sense of what insideSTL was trying to say, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's had that issue.

How can we fix this issue? In this case, the misplaced modifier is harder to correct because Clark and Slaten, the independent contractors in question, aren't even present in the sentence. Here's one possible revision of the first sentence.

As independent contractors, Clark's and Slaten's opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of insideSTL.

Close, but not quite. While this sentence appears to say that Clark and Slaten are independent contractors, it's actually saying that Clark's and Slaten's opinions are independent contractors. Unless modern technology has made it possible for an abstract idea to sign a contract, that makes no sense.

I bring this up mostly to illustrate how tricky misplaced modifiers can be. Remember, it's the closest noun or pronoun to the phrase that needs to match, and possessives (such as Clark's and Slaten's) don't count as nouns.

Let's try this revision:

As independent contractors, Clark and Slaten expressed opinions that do not necessarily reflect the opinions of insideSTL. Furthermore, insideSTL did not have editorial control over the show's content, which was the work of independent contractors.

Grammatically, this works. However, it's very likely that the original author deliberately avoided mentioning Clark and Slaten by name, perhaps to further distance insideSTL from their comments. The following revision preserves the original intent without the modifier error.

The opinions of independent contractors do not necessarily reflect the opinions of insideSTL. Furthermore, insideSTL does not have editorial control over statements made by independent contractors.

See how clear that is? There's a reason I'm a stickler for proper use of language, and it's not (just) that I love grammar for its own sake. Eliminating issues like misplaced modifiers almost invariably makes sentences easier to read and understand.

PS: I've read insideSTL's statement several dozen times, and I have to admit I'm not completely sure of its intent. Of course, I'd say that that's another strike against the statement, but I also recognize that corporate statements are sometimes intended to obscure facts rather than clarify them. I'd still argue there are better ways to do that than with improper grammar, though.

Nevertheless, in the highly unlikely event that anyone from insideSTL is reading this blog, please accept my apology for any misrepresentation of your statement. I make no such apology for the rusty spoon comment.