The post Lesson: Adjectives and Adverbs first appeared on Media Helping Media.
]]>This lesson plan is based on the article ‘The use of adjectives and adverbs in journalism‘ which we suggest you read before adapting for your own purposes.
Students will identify and evaluate the use of adjectives and adverbs in news writing, determining their necessity and impact on clarity. They will apply strategies to minimise unnecessary modifiers, enhancing the conciseness of their writing.
Display a short paragraph from a news article. Ask students to read it silently and identify any adjectives and adverbs. Have them underline these words. Then, in pairs, discuss which modifiers could be removed without changing the meaning. Share findings with the class, focusing on how removing unnecessary modifiers can enhance clarity.
Think, Pair, Share: Guide students through a collaborative exercise to reinforce their understanding of minimising adjectives and adverbs in writing.
Circulate the classroom to offer guidance and support as students work through the exercise.
Ask students to answer these questions:
Here are some suggested answers:
The free teaching tools at the Khan Academy were used as a basis for converting the original article into a lesson plan.
The post Lesson: Adjectives and Adverbs first appeared on Media Helping Media.
]]>The post Adjectives and adverbs in journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.
]]>Journalists should not waste words. Their writing should be concise and tight. Adjectives and adverbs clutter up news stories and should be avoided wherever possible.
When it comes to writing – not just news writing but any kind of writing – adjectives and adverbs have a bad reputation.
Mark Twain said: “When you catch an adjective, kill it.” Stephen King said: “The road to hell is paved with adverbs”.
For many decades, the conventional wisdom in journalism has been that you do not, usually, need adjectives and adverbs. Your sentences will be better if you cut them out.
But wait! I just used “usually”, an adverb, and “better”, an adjective. If I cut them out, the first sentence will no longer be accurate, since I am trying to say that there will, occasionally, be a need. And the second sentence does not work at all if I remove “better”.
So you cannot ban the use of adjectives and adverbs.
But you should keep them to a minimum. Mark Twain, in fact, modified his advice:
“I don’t mean utterly, but kill most of them (adjectives) – then the rest will be valuable. They weaken when they are close together. They give strength when they are wide apart.
“An adjective habit, or a wordy, diffuse, flowery habit, once fastened upon a person, is as hard to get rid of as any other vice.”
Instead, make a virtue of economy: use as few words as possible. The newspaper guru, Leslie Sellers, in his 1968 guide, “The simple subs book”, put it this way: “fewer words, better sense”. Apply this across the board, but especially (a permissible use of the adverb in this case) with adjectives and adverbs.
Adjectives and adverbs are words that modify. Adjectives change the meaning of nouns. Adverbs change the meaning of verbs, phrases, clauses or sentences. You should always test whether the modification is necessary.
Here are a few examples of commonly-used but unnecessary modifiers, in which the first word can always be cut:
Adjectives to do with size are often too broad to add any useful meaning, like “big”, “huge”, “massive”, “astonishing” . They can be cut or replaced with something that adds to the understanding of the story.
Adjectives like “tragic”, “improved” “sad”, “incredible” “unfortunate” are especially dangerous since they include value judgements. Leave it to your readers or listeners to make their own judgements.
Two of the most objectionable words are “really” and “very”. They seldom add any meaning. Mark Twain suggested that every time you are tempted to write the word “very” in your story, substitute the word “damn” – then, as he put it, “your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be”.
Mark Twain was also down on adverbs. He said they were the tool of the “lazy writer”. In their most common form they end in “ly” and are attached to verbs. Here are some sentences which would be better without their adverbs:
“She tiptoed silently into the room.”
“He glared aggressively at the traffic warden.”
“She knew perfectly well he was lying.”
“He completely rejected the allegation.”
In all these cases, the adverb states the obvious. The verb does the job without needing modification. Always try to let the verb stand alone – if it needs strengthening with an adverb, it is the wrong choice of verb.
Journalists choosing their words are the same as carpenters choosing a piece of wood or tailors choosing a length of cloth. We are all craftspeople and our success depends on using the right raw materials – in our case, words.
So be sparing in your use of adjectives and adverbs. It is one of the qualities that marks a professional.
Journalists, like any craftsperson, wield words as their tools. Just as a sculptor chisels away excess stone to reveal the form within, journalists must prune unnecessary words to expose the core of their story.
This principle of concision isn’t merely about brevity; it’s about clarity, impact, and respect for the reader’s time.
While the conventional wisdom in journalism cautions against the overuse of adjectives and adverbs, the issue is more nuanced than a blanket ban.
Using adjectives and adverb properly requires an understanding of their function, and then careful and precise usage.
A single, well-chosen adjective can illuminate a noun, while a cluster of them obscures it.
The same holds true for adverbs. They can add subtle shades of meaning to verbs, but often they merely state the obvious or, worse, mask a weak verb choice.
The problem with excessive modifiers isn’t just wordiness; it’s that they often introduce subjectivity and weaken the writer’s authority.
Words such as “tragic,” “incredible,” or “astonishing” tell the reader how to feel, rather than letting the facts speak for themselves.
Similarly, adverbs such as “really” and “very” rarely add substantive meaning; they are intensifiers that often intensify nothing.
The real skill lies in choosing strong verbs and nouns that carry their own weight.
This isn’t to say that adjectives and adverbs are inherently evil. They have a legitimate role to play in adding detail and nuance.
The job for the journalist is to understand their purpose.
A well-placed adjective can sharpen an image, while a carefully chosen adverb can clarify an action.
The key is to ask: Does this modifier add essential information, or is it merely decorative? Does it enhance the reader’s understanding, or does it simply clutter the sentence?
The journalist’s craft is to choose each word with care, considering its weight, texture, and purpose.
A journalist shouldn’t rely on a weak verb propped up by an adverb when a stronger verb would do the job better.
The pursuit of concision isn’t about stripping language bare; it’s about using it with precision and power, allowing the story to resonate with clarity and impact.
It’s about showing, not telling, and trusting the reader to draw their own conclusions.
By mastering the art of economy, journalists can elevate their writing from mere reporting to compelling storytelling.
If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan: ‘Adjectives and adverbs in journalism‘ which you are welcome to download and adapt for your own purposes.
For further reading on this subject, you might want to read the excellent “A journalist’s guide to the use of English”, by Ted Bottomley and Anthony Loftus. It was written in 1971 and has been updated for this website by Ted’s son John.
The post Adjectives and adverbs in journalism first appeared on Media Helping Media.
]]>