Sunday, January 14, 2007

ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 25 (14.01.07)

Error Correction
For discussion this week, the master teachers dissect a set of instructions for modeller’s clay.

This was, yet again, a somewhat pointless exercise: A cursory glance would have informed any reader that the instructions were quite obviously of mainland Chinese origin, and that the writer was a foreign learner of English with a rudimentary grasp of English grammar, translating from Chinese with the help of a dictionary. In short, this was an irrelevant example — it was not Singaporean English, and its errors hardly typical of Singaporean pupils. Hence, it is difficult to see what they are meant to learn from it.

Case in point: Stop using as soon as you tickle in playing clay (Line 4). Any Singaporean would recognize the grammar of this example as being entirely foreign; indeed, one could hardly imagine a Singaporean teenager uttering it. The use of tickle to mean ‘itch’ is irrefutable evidence of translation from Chinese: In Mandarin, yang (third tone; fall–rise) means either ‘ticklish’ or ‘itchy’.

Evidently, the futility of the exercise is not completely lost on the experts either. After struggling with just four lines of the eight-line instructions, they give up and invite the reader to ‘try your hand at correcting the rest of the instructions’.

Do Your Modifiers Dangle?
No sooner do the master teachers launch into correcting the errors in the example than they commit one themselves:

As a non-edible item, it is evident that clay cannot be consumed.

This is an example of a dangling modifier — typically a phrase or a clause that is misplaced and ends up modifying (i.e. explaining, or adding more information to) the wrong noun, noun phrase or pronoun. The way the sentence is written, the subject pronoun of the main clause, it, is falsely modified by the preceding phrase, As a non-edible item. Suggested remedies:

As a non-edible item, clay obviously cannot be consumed.
OR
It is obvious that clay, as a non-edible item, cannot be consumed.

Dangling modifiers are a highly stigmatized error, exceedingly common in English-speaking countries such as Britain and America. They are all too easily made, difficult to spot, and even more difficult to teach.

Just the day before, the Straits Times ‘Saturday’ supplement (13.1.06) carried an astonishingly poorly (and pompously) written half-page advertisement for the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), which, among other horrors, perpetrated the following:

Although gifted as a wordsmith, the words of what would become the National Pledge didn’t come easily, as they weren’t composed under the best of times.

The words of the National Pledge were gifted as a wordsmith? Certainly not, but this is what the sentence says, the way it is written. And under the best of times? Surely the correct preposition is in. Suggested remedy:

Although Rajaratnam was a gifted wordsmith, the words of what would become the National Pledge didn’t come easily, as they weren’t composed in the best of times.

Depending on their form, dangling modifiers are also sometimes known as dangling participles. An oft-quoted example:

Badgers can often be seen, driving at night.

Badgers drive at night? No; the above should read: Driving at night, we can often see badgers.
Sounding the Horn
The master teachers take issue with this example from the Singapore Police Force: ‘Horn to warn others of danger and not to express your frustration. Horning unnecessarily may alarm or anger other road users into making unpredictable moves which may lead to accidents.’

They rightly criticize the use of horn as a verb, but curiously do not provide any Standard English equivalents, though one is implied in the section title: ‘When to sound the horn’. Apart from sound the horn, we can say toot/honk the horn, or simply honk. Some readers will be familiar with the bumper sticker widely seen in the United States: Honk If You Love Jesus.

The master teachers quote an unnamed Australian friend as being ‘amused’ by the Singaporean expression and by the way ‘Singaporeans have mangled the English language’. She might like to know that Australian English likewise provides much amusement to many British speakers, who consider Australian English and American English mangled and inferior. The plain truth, of course, is that language change is natural, and no two societies living apart for a time will speak an identical variety of the same language. Just as it is naïve to regard Australian English and American English as degenerate varieties of British English, it is irrational to expect Singaporeans living in Singapore to speak British or American or Australian English.

Friday, January 12, 2007

ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 24 (07.01.07)

‘Lie’ vs ‘Lay’
The master teachers discuss this commonly confused pair, using such examples as:

(1) Lie here if you need a short nap.
(2) If you are tired, lay your head on the pillow for a rest.

It is worth noting this basic difference between the two verbs: Lie is intransitive, while lay is transitive. An intransitive verb is one that does not take an object — in other words, the subject performs an action, but this action is not transferred to an object. Hence, we can say Peter lies on the couch every evening, but not *Peter lies the couch every evening (i.e. Peter is not doing something to the couch; on the couch is an adverbial phrase telling you where he is lying). By contrast, a transitive verb is one that takes an object — the subject performs an action upon the object. Hence, you say Lay your head on the pillow because you are performing the action of laying on an object (your head).

The conjugation of lie/lay — changing their forms according to tense, agreement, and aspect — is not as obvious or straightforward as that of other verbs, and has to be learnt using a table, called a paradigm:

lie
(1a) I lie in bed. (simple present tense)
(1b) I am lying in bed. (present progressive)
(1c) I have lain in bed. (present perfect)
(1d) I lay in bed. (simple past tense)

lay
(2a) I lay the pieces on the floor. (simple present tense)
(2b) I am laying the pieces on the floor. (present progressive)
(2c) I have laid the pieces on the floor. (present perfect)
(2d) I laid the pieces on the floor. (simple past tense)

Note that, in its other sense, lie conjugates differently:

lie (‘to tell a lie’)
(3a) I never lie. (simple present tense)
(3b) I am not lying. (present progressive)
(3c) I have never lied. (present perfect)
(3d) I never lied. (simple past tense)

But it is unchanged for lay:

lay (‘to lay [an egg]’)
(4a) Ostriches lay eggs. (simple present tense)
(4b) The ostriches are laying eggs. (present progressive)
(4c) The ostriches have laid eggs. (present perfect)
(4d) The ostriches laid eggs. (simple past tense)

If this is all rather complicated, take heart — the lie/lay pair flummoxes even educated adult native speakers in Britain and America!

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

ENGLISH AS IT IS BROKEN 23 (31.12.06)

Care in Proofreading
The master teachers discuss a notice which, as they rightly point out, mysteriously had two lines transposed (indicated in bold): Please be informed that the Hill Street Escalators will be inconvenience caused / Sorry for any closed for upgrading.

They pronounce that this example ‘is a good reminder of the importance of proofreading one’s work to avoid careless and, at times, embarrassing mistakes.’

This is not very convincing, for two reasons:

1. The above is a very rare type of typographical error. There are many more common and meaningful ones that the teachers could have cited to make the point.

2. The column itself has been riddled with mistakes since EaiiB 1, so the master teachers and ST might do well to heed their own advice. Some examples from this week’s column are given the following section.

Errors

The introduction to the weekly English as it is Broken column asks: ‘Not sure what is good English and what is not?’ As any self-respecting student of English would know, this is a fine example of Singlish grammar. By contrast, in Standard English, is and good English are inverted: Not sure what good English is, and what it isn’t? No doubt poetic licence might have been at work here, but since this is a column on correct English, it ought to be exemplary.

The brief bio at the bottom of the page shows wonky grammar too. We are told: ‘All four are master teachers in English language — experts who help teachers develop good teaching practices and programmes.’ A teacher in English? Wrong preposition — make it master teachers of English. (The preposition in is, however, usual with lecturer: a lecturer in history.)

Finally, in their column, the experts provide this problematic example: John was averse to studying in a boarding school. The usual preposition is, of course, at, not in.