Here's a copy of a paper on Apostrophes that first appeared in Basic Writing. (As far as I know, it was the only essay ever printed in the journal that was accompanied by a New Yorker cartoon.)

Pain and Suffering: Apostrophes and the Great Academic Gamble

I want to look at apostrophes. Actually, I don't want to look at apostrophes as much as I want to look at why students--especially beginning writers--seem to want to leave them out or wilfully mess them up--and I want to suggest that there are good reasons why those beginning writers want to leave them out, sprinkle them in, and or otherwise ignore the problem of apostrophes all together. In doing so, I want to suggest that in teaching, we often oversimplify even so-called "simple" problems, and we often underestimate the problems beginning writers have simply trying to sort out the so-called "simple" rules and procedures from everything else out there that isn't so simple.

I doubt that many of us take much time arguing about the "rhetoric of the apostrophe." The usage rules, in fact, seem quite straightforward and simple: "Use apostrophe plus s to form possessive case" and "When a word ends in s, add only an apostrophe to form the possessive case" and "It's is always 'it is' because it's's the major exception to the rule."

Sometimes, of course, we add, "If a word ends in an s sound, as in 'audience' or 'conscience,' or 'sapience,' you add only an apostrophe to form possessive case." And we might also point out that you never use apostrophes to make plurals unless you are making plurals of numbers or letters or maybe confusing abbrev.'s or words named as words (as in "I got three and's in my first sentence). [Unless, of course, those numbers are spelled-out or in combinations like "1980s" or "1920s" or if those letters are in combinations like "PhD" or "MA" (at least according to the MLA).] [Actually, some people suggest that if you're using capital letters, you can omit the apostrophes as in "I got three As in geometry" but if you got "three b's in abbab," you ought to keep that apostrophe to prevent confusion. (See for instance Turabian 31.]

And if we happen to be following a particular style manual like Strunk & White, we might also want to point out that even though the general rule says you can add only an apostrophe after words that end in s, it's better to say "the laws of Moses" and "the temple of Isis" than to say "Moses' Laws" or "Isis' Temple." (Of course, if you happen to be using some edition of Turabian, you can say "Moses' Laws" and even "Jesus' Ministry" and "Xerxes' victories" but you can't say, "Confucius' lessons" because Jesus and Moses are Jesus and Moses and Xerxes is a "hellenized name" of more than one syllable, but "Confucius" is just an old name for an old Chinese dude.)

Such rules are simple enough if you already understand them. But what if you don't? Most of these rules depend on some kind of notion of "possession," but what, in fact, does it mean to "possess" something? Certainly, in simple cases, it's clear who owns or owned what when we say, "John's dog ate Joan's cat" or "Mr. Hughes' students ate their neighbor's sandwiches." (Of course, that's equally clear even if we don't use any apostrophes at all--"Johns dog ate Joans cat," but that's not the point.)

But things are not always that clear. The Little, Brown Handbook says you can use the apostrophe to "indicate possessive case" in sentences like this, too:

She took two years' leave from school.
For conscience' sake she confessed her lie. (143)

But for goodness sake, how do those "years" own or "possess" a "leave"? Do years have rights to ownership? Or how does a "sake" belong to a "conscience"? (And how do students know that nouns that sort of sound like "s" at the end don't take 's?) (For that matter, what about other cases of "possession" like "Abe's running for President upset Mary" or "Tom's being sick ruined Thanksgiving"?) (Does Tom actually "own" his "being"? Surely there's something metaphysical about that.)

There may, of course, be an answer somewhere and "possessive case" may, of course, not truly signal "possession" or "ownership" at all. The Harbrace, for instance, suggests that you use "possessive" case "immediately before a gerund" (57)--a nice rule that clarifies why Abe doesn't exactly "own" running in "Abe's running for President upset Mary" and why Tom doesn't exactly "own" his "being" in "Tom's being sick ruined the Thanksgiving." (Of course, all that depends on recognizing why "being" here is a "gerund" and not some "verb" or "participial," but those are other problems.)

But this Harbrace's "gerund" rule does not help students in sentences like

This running for President caused Mary headaches.

Whenever being sick threatened to ruin his Thanksgiving, Tom stayed home.

In fact, if they try to use "possessive case" "immediately before" all gerunds, they end up with strange stuff like this:

This's running for President caused Mary headaches.

and

Whenever's being sick threatened to ruin his Thanksgiving, Tom stayed home.

We can, of course, point out that those s's (or do we say 's's?) (or "'s"'s?) do not, in fact, have a "possessive" case--but then we're back again to the whole problem of "possession" (or is that "possession's problem?)--albeit from a slightly different angle. (And of course, all this still does nothing to explain "possession" or "possessive case" or "genitive" case in "three weeks' pay" or "three days' rent"--where the weeks don't get paid at all and the days don't even rent anything.)

And then, of course, there are all those other problems. Certainly, there's a difference, for instance, between the following two sentences:

The evidence points to Jones' committing the crime.
The evidence points to Jones committing the crime.

But the difference here has something to do with the intention of the writer and "objects of prepositions" and "participles" and "verbs used as nouns." (I suspect you could spend your whole life trying to explain that, and, in the meantime, your beginning writers will probably be out there dying in history and political science and whatever, knowing full well that they could probably write all their papers for history and political science and whatever without knowing anything about objects of prepositions and special kinds of "intention.")

And why can you say "three quarters of the country" but not "three quarters' of our country"--or "our country's three quarters"? (Especially if you can say both "the flag of our country" and "our country's flag.") [And why do those folk in Indiana make such a point to emphasize the distinction between "Indiana University" (yes) and "The University of Indiana" (no) when "Indiana's University" may be even better?]

And why can you say "the garden of Mr. Smith" but not "the garden of Mr. Smith's"? (Even though many of us probably do, say "the garden of Al's" instead of "the garden of Al"-- using what the Handbook of Harbrace's calls a "double possessive"--a form that people apparently use when they want to or when it somehow feels good or feels more right and better.)

And suppose you happen to own three pairs of blue jeans made by Levi Strauss and Company. And each of those jeans is called a "pair of Levi's"--or simply "Levi's." If each of those three pairs of pants have frayed cuffs, do you say, "My Levi'ses' cuffs are frayed" or "My Levi's's cuffs are frayed" or "My jeans are frayed"?

And on Sunday afternoon, you might turn on the television and see a sign that reads, "CBS Sports Coverage of the National Football League." But why is that better than "CBS's Sports Coverage of the National Football League" or "CBS Sports' Coverage of the National Football League" or "CBS' Sports Coverage of the National Football League"? I suppose the difference here has something to do with the functions of modifiers and the distinction between "possession" and "modification." [A similar problem occurs with common holidays such as "Mothers' Day" (or "Mothers Day"? or "Mother's Day"?) and "Valentine's Day" (or "Valentines' Day"? or "Valentines Day"?] But I don't exactly know how I learned to fuss over such things, and I don't really know if anyone else out there besides us really cares or sees the point at all.

And certainly, nobody sees the point as clearly as we do- - least of all those students who have other big things to consider--like how to keep track of that good idea for Great Works or how to flounder through Sociology without looking too foolish. Or how to use COMMAS. (By gawd have you ever tried to figure out all the parts to commas?)

And when you're out there in the big world, most other folk don't seem to see the point as clearly, either. Take a Number 21 bus up Wilshire Avenue sometime and you'll see a nice sign for Temptations Ladies Wear right next door to Venus Ladies Wear for Junior Missey. And Breuners Renting Furniture. And Ogdens One-Hour Cleaners. And Carl's Jr. Restaurant. Take a trip down Isaacs Avenue and you'll find that Joe Albertson's supermarket is called "Albertsons." And down at the Bonanza 88, they're advertising "toy's" for twenty percent off. And down in Milton- Freewater, the roadside stands are advertising "tomato's" for ten cents a pound. And down at the end of Figueroa, the Joneses have a sign all carved out with some kind of woodburning tool that reads, "The Jones's."

(A couple of years ago, you could go anyplace in the U.S.A. and find a department store called Montgomery Ward and Company--or "Wards" --an apostrophe-free nickname perhaps analogous to "Sears"--a name that more legitimately comes from "Sears Roebuck and Company. Recently, "Wards" seems to have suffered economic setbacks--but I don't think apostrophes have had anything to do with those setbacks.)

The problem is simple. While we exhort our students to follow those basic rules for apostrophes, our students have lot's more to worry about than a few simple, clear-cut case's presented sometime toward the end of the first or second week of class or assigned in some handbook exercises. In fact, I suspect their minds are often cluttered with more strange-looking apostrophe's than we ourselve's can possibly imagine.

--And while we tell them our simple rules and talk to them about "possession" and "gerunds" and "it's," they are quietly ignoring our rather complex, strangely inconsistent and possibly impenetrable rules in favor of their own perhaps equally complex and strangely inconsistent--but perhaps more friendly and forgiving rules--"Never use 's to form a plural unless it looks better (as in lot's and Jones') or if you've seen it that way down at the Bonanza 88." "Never use an apostrophe with a gerund." "Never use 'Levi's' in the possessive." "Always use it's both for possession and for it is--unless you want to risk two rules instead of one." "When in doubt, leave those apostrophes out unless the word ends in s in it's original form or is plural or is one syllable or less or is in a place where no one will notice. Then make your decision based on euphony, common sense, and/or analogy."

Somehow, things get fuzzier than we want. Just how much can our students risk if they don't know what the odds are or they don't know exactly what possession is or don't know how to distinguish possessive pronouns from possessive nouns or don't know squat about the "feel" of nouns as modifiers and nouns as "possessives" and "double possessives"? I suspect we need to think twice about simply criticizing such students for their "sloppiness" or "lack of attention" or failure to "proof read" when, in fact, buying into our system of handbook knowledge may simply not be worth the risk or the time.

As I say, things are probably always easier to learn if you already know how to do them. I doubt that many of us would disagree, at least in theory, with that. But I do think that sometimes we underestimate the power of our own abilities, the strong, clear vision we sometimes get as experts and expert punctuators--and we forget what a vast tangle learning is for those who don't already know what they're supposed to know.

Works Cited

Gibaldi, Joseph and Walter S. Achtert. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. 2nd ed. New York: MLA, 1984.

Fowler, H. Ramsey. The Little, Brown Handbook. 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 1986.

Hodges, John C. and Mary E. Whitten. Harbrace College Handbook. 10th ed. New York: Harcourt, 1986.

Strunk, William, Jr. and E. B. White. The Elements of Style. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan, 1979.

Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. 4th ed. Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1973.

Got questions?
Hashimoto's Homepage