You Cannot Be Serious, # 25

This — another from Teach First — is an example of the kind of grammatical idiocy that ensues when logical relative clause formation is abandoned:

Link: Teach First, ‘Why we exist’

The writer clearly recognizes that using a zero relative clause has compromised coherence, but attempts to restore syntactical logic, and thus unambiguous meaning, by inserting a comma in the gap left by the omitted relative pronoun (that). In addition to being grammatically dubious (at best), the statement’s impact has been weakened since the comma interrupts the movement from the first clause to the second, thus disconnecting them, where the relative pronoun would underline the relationship between the clauses.

Zero relative clauses are occurring ever more frequently in various kinds of writing, and can even be found in formal scholarly compositions at various levels. However, it is apparent that clarity of expression and effective communication of sense are not their primary motivation; on the contrary, both are often undermined. It would seem that zero relative clauses have escaped from the world of journalism, where every word counts because it is counted. They have no place in education at any level.

Incidentally, it has taken me some days to work out that Teach First is called ‘Teach First’ —

— and not, as its prominent logo suggests, ‘TeachFirst’:

zero relative clause: so poor, providing; Teach First or TeachFirst