Tactical/Strategical Purpose:
Much like sentence fragments, the use of a convoluted sentence structure is discouraged by most writers. This is because said structure is, unexpectedly, convoluted. Some versions of it interrupt the subject and the verb from each other, disrupting the flow of the sentence. Think of it like how Yoda from Star Wars speaks, e.g: “...so great life is, to finish it no way there is.” Readers and/or listeners may rewind and look over that phrase once or twice to fully comprehend the sentence Yoda is saying because his structure is unconventional. We expect to see a subject, verb, and direct object respectively, so when Yoda switches the placement of them it becomes harder to understand.
Another form of convoluted sentence structure is when the author places multiple subordinate clauses in between the main subject and the main verb. An example and analysis is shown further below.
Convoluted sentences, in the context of dialogue, can be used for characterization purposes. Returning to Yoda, he’s very well known for his speech patterns, and the way he speaks has become a well-known part of his identity and somewhat crucial to mimicking him.
Steps for analysis:
Consider the context.
Is this a fictional or storytelling piece? If so, why would the author be using convoluted structure?
Is the writer’s native language the one they’re writing in?
Is the piece, article, or transcription you’re reading a translation?
Take it apart.
Figure out what exactly the sentence is saying. Usually, convoluted sentences are packed with prepositional phrases and adjectives that can be ignored when searching for the main point.
Take note of word order. Does it read normally, or does it feel backward?
Start questioning.
Why would the author use convoluted sentence structure in the context of what they’re writing?
Is it a fictional piece, where characters ramble and monologue?
Is it a transcription of a speech, where punctuation is hard to keep track of and speakers tend to ramble?
Is it a translation of another language, where grammar structures are different and may be hard to transfer into smooth English?
Is it a satire, meant to show how obviously confusing someone’s work is?
Why would the author use convoluted sentence structure in the context of their background?
Would their amount of education lead them to struggle with grammar and sentence structure?
Would their personality or status lead them to complicate sentences in order to sound more formal?
Example from Parallel Lives:
“But Pompey, who was surveying on horseback the battle array, when he saw that his antagonists were standing quietly in their ranks and awaiting the moment of attack, while the greater part of his own army was not at rest, but tossing about in waves of tumult, owing to its inexperience, was afraid that his array would be completely broken up at the beginning of the battle, and therefore ordered his front ranks to stand with their spears advanced, to remain fixed in their places, and so to receive the enemy's onset” (Plutarch 298).
Plutarch. "Parallel Lives."
penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Pompey*.html. Accessed 6 Sept. 2022.
Additional analysis:
Parallel Lives is a lengthy historical work written by Plutarch in the first century and compares the lives of notorious Greek and Roman people from history, primarily figures who had long passed by the time the piece was written. The most significant fact about this work is that it’s written entirely in Attic Greek, an ancient language used primarily by well-educated Romans. The convoluted sentence structure we see could well be the result of transferring one language to another, as English has grammar customs that probably differ greatly from Greek. We rely solely on the translator for tidying up rough translations, and doing so sometimes proves to be inaccurate to the source, leading to many translators to just leave the sentence be.
Pompey, one of the subjects of Plutarch’s biography and the specific figure of interest in this section of the text, is a well-known Roman general who rivalled Julius Caesar near the end of both their careers. The battle that’s said to specifically make or break their fighting was the Battle of Pharsalus, which Plutarch describes in the quote. Plutarch tries to paint a picture of the battlefield for the reader, to not only entice them and draw them into the action but also stay faithful to the “facts” he knows. It’s important to note that Plutarch isn’t well-known for his truthfulness, and because he is not only a historian, but a philosopher, emphasizes or stretches truths to relay messages in his writing. His early audience might’ve not known any better, but with historical context, modern readers should take his accounts with a grain of salt.
Kelsey W