Troublesome only when written

There are some compound English word tandems—meaning two words that can either be spelled as one word or two words and yield different meanings—that won’t give you any trouble when spoken, but they could mark you as a less-than-competent writer when you mess them up in written form. I’m talking here about such word pairs as “everyday”/”every day,” “maybe”/may be,” “awhile”/”a while,” “altogether”/”all together,” “anyway”/”any way,” and “everything”/every thing.” Indeed, when you don’t make it your business to write your thoughts at all but only speak them, you can spend an entire lifetime not knowing the differences in the meanings of these word pairs. But if you need to write or enjoy writing letters and e-mail to friends, family members, and business associates, or—even more crucial—if you write for a living, it pays to know very well the differences in those meanings and to reflect them accordingly in how you spell those compound words. That way, you’ll leave no doubt in anybody’s mind—“anybody,” by the way, is another of those words along with “any body”—that you’ve really learned and know your English exceptionally well.

It was to help writers minimize their misuse of those problematic word tandems that I wrote the following essay, “One-Word, Two-Word Mix-ups,” for my column in The Manila Times almost a year ago. I hope the written English of those who haven’t read it yet would also be fine-tuned by its prescriptions.

One-Word, Two-Word Mix-ups

In my work as an editor, I often spend considerable time correcting a good number of single words that should have been spelled out in two, or two words that should have been spelled out as just one word. I sometimes wish I could leave those words well enough alone so I could save time, but most of them could actually mean something different—even wrong—if not rendered in the proper way.

The word “everyday” is a particularly instructive case. Many writers habitually use it to mean “each day” in sentences like this: “She tends to her garden everyday.” That’s wrong usage, of course, for “everyday” is an adjective that means “encountered or used routinely,” as in “Our prim lady professor shocked us when came to class in everyday dress.” So the correct word choice in the sentence in question is the two-word variant: “She tends to her garden every day.” Here, it literally means “each day without fail.” As computer-savvy people might say, “every day” is wysiwyg, which is computer-speak for “what you see is what you get.”

Another recurrently misused tandem is “maybe”/“may be,” which not a few writers often use interchangeably. But the single-word form is, as we know, an adverb that means “perhaps,” as in “Maybe sabotage is what caused that plane crash.” On the other hand, “may be” is a verb form indicating possibility or probability, as in “You may be right about that woman after all.” We don’t say, “You maybe right about that woman after all.”

I strongly advise writers to also clearly differentiate between “awhile” and “a while.” The single-word form is an adverb that means “for a time”—a short period reckoned from a particular action or condition—as in “Dinner’s almost ready; please wait awhile.” On the other hand, the noun “while” preceded by the article “a” serves as the object of the preposition in expressions like these two: “It’s raining hard; stay for a while.” “We thought for a while that she could be trusted.” But take note that when we knock off the preposition “for” in such expressions, changing “a while” to “awhile” becomes a correct, natural option: “It’s raining hard; stay awhile.” “We thought awhile that she could be trusted.”

In the same vein, I must caution writers from giving their prose the wrong drift by using the two-word “all together” in such sentences as “The committee’s assessment of the situation was all together inaccurate.” It delivers an incorrect meaning for that statement because “all together” means “everyone in a group” or “all in one place.” The correct word is the adverb “altogether,” which means “wholly, “completely,” or “as a whole”: “The committee’s assessment of the situation was altogether inaccurate.”

Some of the manuscripts I copyedit also misuse the “anyway”/“any way” tandem every now and then. We know that the one-word variant means “in any case” or “anyhow,” and its two-word counterpart, “any particular manner, course, or direction.” So it’s incorrect to write, “We told her to avoid seeing that man, but she continued to date him any way”; instead, it should be, “We told her to avoid seeing that man, but she continued to date him anyway.” Conversely, it’s incorrect to write, “Do it anyway you like; after all, you’re the one paying for it”; instead, it should be, “Do it any way you like; after all, you’re the one paying for it.”

And just in case you are among those who still have trouble mistaking “everything” for “every thing,” let’s clarify the difference between them once and for all. The single-word “everything” means “all that there is” or “all that is important,” as in this sentence: “She took care of everything for me—from my speaking engagements to my travel bookings.” The two-word variant, however, means “each thing individually” and usually allows an adjective in-between: “Every little thing means a lot to her.” (August 30, 2008)

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, August 30, 2008 issue © 2008 by The Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

----

What do you think of my ideas in this blog? Click the Reply button to post your thoughts.

When do we use “may” and “can”?

A member of Jose Carillo’s English Forum who uses the user name mylabskie posted this question in the Forum the other day:

Hello! Just want to ask when should we use “may” and “can”?

“Can I go out?”

“May I go out?”

I gave the following answer:

We use the auxiliary verbs “may” or “can” to express possibility, to denote the capacity to do something, or to express permission or ask for it. Our choice between them, however, greatly depends on the level of formality of the situation as well as on the social or professional rank or relative seniority between the speaker and the listener. “Can” leans towards the informal side of saying things, and “may” to the formal side.

Among friends, in particular, it’s expected and much more natural to ask “Can I go out?” than to ask “May I go out?” (To use the latter often draws quizzical looks from the listeners, as if the speaker came from Mars or somewhere else in time.) Conversely, if the speaker is a student addressing a professor in class or someone much more senior in rank or age, it’s considered polite and proper to ask “May I go out?” and rude—even uneducated—to ask “Can I go out?” If you are a lawyer, in fact, a stern judge may even cite you for contempt of court if you asked “Can I see Your Honor in chambers?” instead of “May I see Your Honor in chambers?” This is because in such situations, “can” becomes an improper demand as opposed to “may,” which signifies a plain, humble request.

I must say, though, that this distinction in the usage of “can” and “may” is often not very well appreciated among nonnative speakers of English; it often takes years of social interaction in formal settings or situations for them to understand the difference—and in the interim they are unfairly looked upon as crass or uncouth by socially fastidious people. Thankfully, the acquisition and acclimatization process for the proper usage of “can” and “may” is greatly hastened by reading English-language publications and by exposure to English-language movies and TV shows. In the Philippines where English is the second language, in particular, my feeling is that by the time the typical schooled Filipino turns 10, choosing properly whether to use “may” or “can” has become second nature to him or her. This is something that sets us apart from the people of other countries that don’t have a long English-language heritage like ours.

Formal launching of Jose Carillo's third book on English usage

I would like to take this opportunity to share this media release about the formal launching of my third book on English usage:

Give Your English the Winning Edge, the third book in Jose Carillo’s English-usage trilogy, was formally launched last July 20 in ceremonies at the Centennial Hall A of The Manila Hotel in Manila.

Carillo and Manila Times Publishing executives led by its president and CEO Dante Francis Ang II were joined during the launching by Dr. Isagani R. Cruz, the multi-awarded writer, critic, and educator; Dr. Ma. Lourdes Bautista, professor emeritus of English and applied linguistics of the De La Salle University-Manila; John Nery, senior editor and columnist of the Philippine Daily Inquirer; Ed Maranan, writer and Hall of Famer of the Palanca Awards for Literature, and several other guests. A lively discussion about English usage in Philippine literature and journalism ensued during the program.

The 486-page volume by the National Book Award-winning author discusses the various mechanisms and tools of English for combining words and ideas into clear, logical, and engaging writing. It shows how the various connectives—the conjunctions, the conjunctive adverbs, and the prepositions—establish the six basic logical relationships in language, then demonstrates how to make them work with the various other grammar elements to form more effective, convincing, and readable expositions.

Published by Manila Times Publishing, Give Your English the Winning Edge comes in regular softcover and, by order, in premium hardcover. Copies are now available in the major Metro Manila outlets of National Book Store, Powerbooks, Bestsellers, Goodwill Bookstore, Fully Booked, and Expressions. Distribution to their outlets in major cities outside Metro Manila will follow in the next few weeks.

Browse the book at the Bookshop section of Jose Carillo's English Forum

ADVANCE CRITIQUES OF “GIVE YOUR ENGLISH THE WINNING EDGE”:

Jose Dalisay, Jr., PhD, Director of the Institute of Creative Writing, University of the Philippines: “Jose A. Carillo’s Give Your English the Winning Edge is the latest book in a series of what’s become the definitive guide to the English language for Filipinos (and Americans, the English, and others). It builds on the foundations Carillo raised in English Plain and Simple and The 10 Most Annoying English Grammar Errors to present the reader with ways to gain mastery over the English language by showing how such seemingly simple but tricky concepts as ellipsis, paragraph transitions, modifiers, parallelism, and negation work. More than a grammar textbook, Give Your English the Winning Edge is an enjoyable, invigorating, and often challenging romp through the hills and valleys of language, profusely illustrated with both local and foreign examples. Fans of Carillo—count me among them—will not be disappointed. He makes perfect sense of what I and other professional writers have been trying to do intuitively over these past many years.”

John Nery, Senior Editor and Columnist, Philippine Daily Inquirer: “‘Our words define us,’ writes the preternaturally positive Jose Carillo. Yes, and our sentences reveal us for who we are. In Give Your English the Winning Edge, Carillo offers 155 well-tempered essays on grammar, usage, and style that we can read—that we must read—to help us in our own acts of revelation. His loving mastery of the English language is a source of hope—and a happy standard we can all aspire to.”

Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of English and Applied Linguistics, De La Salle University-Manila: “Obviously, Jose Carillo loves the English language, knows his grammar, and has a style so engaging that he makes learning grammar almost painless. Indeed, the book can well be subtitled ‘English Grammar Without Tears or Fears.’ On top of everything, he is up-to-date on current thinking about grammar, ably highlighting the distinction between formal and informal style and deftly tackling the issue of sexist language.”

Sonny Coloma, PhD in Organizational Development; Professor, Asian Institute of Management, and columnist, Business World: “This book provides a much-needed boost to the advocacy for correct and proper English speaking and writing. It is a timely resource book, especially for younger Filipinos and their parents, considering the way the current culture of text messaging has caused a massive depreciation of our ability to speak and write good English.”

Maria Luz C. Vilches, PhD, Associate Professor and Dean of the School of Humanities, Loyola Schools, Ateneo de Manila University: “In an engaging way, this book offers a comprehensive understanding and appreciation of how the English language works for good, effective, and winning communication. It meticulously focuses on the grammatical makeup of English and its impact on making meaning, then considers problematic usage and how it can be avoided by paying attention to appropriate register and style in given communication contexts. Students, teachers, and professionals can trust this book to be their companion to success!”

Ed Maranan, Carlos Palanca Hall of Fame writer; winner, NCCA Writer’s Prize for the English essay: “With his first two books, we thought that Jose Carillo had given us sufficient ammunition to overcome our inadequacies with English. Now he offers up yet another excellent guide to the grammatical rules and correct usage of the world’s global language. The table of contents appears daunting, but one feels rewarded with a new-found confidence after going through the book. This is definitely essential reading for teachers, columnists and reporters, lawyers, public officials, job seekers, and all those who need to be competent and credible in their use of English. For the accomplished as well as for the aspiring writer, reading this book promises to be a delightful voyage of discovery.”

The third book in my English-usage trilogy launched

Give Your English the Winning Edge, the third book in Jose Carillo’s English-usage trilogy, was formally launched last Monday (July 20) in ceremonies at the Centennial Hall A of The Manila Hotel in Manila.

Carillo and Manila Times Publishing executives led by its president and CEO Dante Francis Ang II were joined during the launching by Dr. Isagani R. Cruz, the multi-awarded writer, critic, and educator; Dr. Ma. Lourdes Bautista, professor emeritus of English and applied linguistics of the De La Salle University-Manila; John Nery, senior editor and columnist of the Philippine Daily Inquirer; Ed Maranan, writer and Hall of Famer of the Palanca Awards for Literature, and several other guests. A lively discussion about English usage in Philippine literature and journalism ensued during the program.

The 486-page volume by the National Book Award-winning author discusses the various mechanisms and tools of English for combining words and ideas into clear, logical, and engaging writing. It shows how the various connectives—the conjunctions, the conjunctive adverbs, and the prepositions—establish the six basic logical relationships in language, then demonstrates how to make them work with the various other grammar elements to form more effective, convincing, and readable expositions.

Carillo, a nationally awarded writer and editor and an internationally awarded corporate communicator, won the National Book Award for linguistics from the Manila Critics Circle in 2005 for his first English-usage book, English Plain and Simple: No-Nonsense Ways to Learn Today’s Global Language. He came out in mid-2008 with his second English-usage book, The 10 Most Annoying English Grammar Errors.

A former newspaper journalist and corporate communications executive, Carillo ran a Metro Manila-based English-language services company as its general manager for nearly five years until mid-2005. He is now an independent editor and communication consultant based in Metro Manila, and writes a weekly English-usage column for both the print and online editions of The Manila Times.

Published by Manila Times Publishing, Give Your English the Winning Edge comes in regular softcover and, by order, in premium hardcover. Copies are now available in the major Metro Manila outlets of National Book Store, Powerbooks, Bestsellers, Goodwill Bookstore, Fully Booked, and Expressions. Distribution to their outlets in major cities outside Metro Manila will follow in the next few weeks.

Download photo of book launching of Give Your English the Winning Edge

and of the covers of Jose Carillo’s books from

http://josecarilloforum.com/mediakit.html

ADVANCED CRITIQUES OF “GIVE YOUR ENGLISH THE WINNING EDGE”:

Jose Dalisay, Jr., PhD, Director of the Institute of Creative Writing, University of the Philippines: “Jose A. Carillo’s Give Your English the Winning Edge is the latest book in a series of what’s become the definitive guide to the English language for Filipinos (and Americans, the English, and others). It builds on the foundations Carillo raised in English Plain and Simple and The 10 Most Annoying English Grammar Errors to present the reader with ways to gain mastery over the English language by showing how such seemingly simple but tricky concepts as ellipsis, paragraph transitions, modifiers, parallelism, and negation work. More than a grammar textbook, Give Your English the Winning Edge is an enjoyable, invigorating, and often challenging romp through the hills and valleys of language, profusely illustrated with both local and foreign examples. Fans of Carillo—count me among them—will not be disappointed. He makes perfect sense of what I and other professional writers have been trying to do intuitively over these past many years.”

John Nery, Senior Editor and Columnist, Philippine Daily Inquirer: “‘Our words define us,’ writes the preternaturally positive Jose Carillo. Yes, and our sentences reveal us for who we are. In Give Your English the Winning Edge, Carillo offers 155 well-tempered essays on grammar, usage, and style that we can read—that we must read—to help us in our own acts of revelation. His loving mastery of the English language is a source of hope—and a happy standard we can all aspire to.”

Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Department of English and Applied Linguistics, De La Salle University-Manila: “Obviously, Jose Carillo loves the English language, knows his grammar, and has a style so engaging that he makes learning grammar almost painless. Indeed, the book can well be subtitled ‘English Grammar Without Tears or Fears.’ On top of everything, he is up-to-date on current thinking about grammar, ably highlighting the distinction between formal and informal style and deftly tackling the issue of sexist language.”

Sonny Coloma, PhD in Organizational Development; Professor, Asian Institute of Management, and columnist, Business World: “This book provides a much-needed boost to the advocacy for correct and proper English speaking and writing. It is a timely resource book, especially for younger Filipinos and their parents, considering the way the current culture of text messaging has caused a massive depreciation of our ability to speak and write good English.”

Maria Luz C. Vilches, PhD, Associate Professor and Dean of the School of Humanities, Loyola Schools, Ateneo de Manila University: “In an engaging way, this book offers a comprehensive understanding and appreciation of how the English language works for good, effective, and winning communication. It meticulously focuses on the grammatical makeup of English and its impact on making meaning, then considers problematic usage and how it can be avoided by paying attention to appropriate register and style in given communication contexts. Students, teachers, and professionals can trust this book to be their companion to success!”

Ed Maranan, Carlos Palanca Hall of Fame writer; winner, NCCA Writer’s Prize for the English essay: “With his first two books, we thought that Jose Carillo had given us sufficient ammunition to overcome our inadequacies with English. Now he offers up yet another excellent guide to the grammatical rules and correct usage of the world’s global language. The table of contents appears daunting, but one feels rewarded with a new-found confidence after going through the book. This is definitely essential reading for teachers, columnists and reporters, lawyers, public officials, job seekers, and all those who need to be competent and credible in their use of English. For the accomplished as well as for the aspiring writer, reading this book promises to be a delightful voyage of discovery.”

Learning the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs

Many people, whether native or nonnative speakers of English, reach adulthood without a clear understanding of the transitivity or intransitivity of verbs. I think this is largely because many English verbs can be transitive or intransitive depending on their particular usage in a sentence, thus making it difficult for some people to pin down the difference between the two properties.

Consider the verb “laugh,” for instance. It is intransitive in the sentence “She laughed all the time during the party,” but transitive in “The audience laughed the singer off the stage.” But how do you explain the difference between the intransitive “laugh” of the first sentence and the transitive “laugh” of the second?

The quality of the English-language teaching one gets is, of course, a major factor in learning that difference. Blessed are those taught by English teachers who can clearly and succinctly explain that difference, and accursed are those taught by English teachers who can’t do better than parrot such fuzzy linguist definitions of transitivity and intransitivity like the one below or elaborate on them in similar slippery language:

“A transitive verb is one that describes a relation between two participants such that one of the participants acts toward or upon the other. An intransitive verb is one that describes a property, state or situation involving only one participant.”

This state of affairs prompted me a few years ago to write the essay below, “Dealing with Various Levels of Intransitivity,” to shed some light on this rather challenging and often exasperating aspect of English. I hope that this reading will be of some help to those who still find themselves wanting in their understanding of the subject.

Dealing with Various Levels of Intransitivity

When we were children and just beginning to learn our English grammar, many of us no doubt were taken aback by the strange failure of some verbs to work in certain sentence constructions. For instance, perhaps while watching a magician perform in the circus, we might have exclaimed “He gone the rabbit!” and promptly got told off by our parents for our bad grammar. When we probably corrected ourselves by saying “OK, he disappeared the rabbit!” (the way we’d say “Teacher dismissed the class early” without being censured), again we’d be chastised for yet another grammatical gaffe. Then, when the magician finally made the rabbit reappear, we might have confidently said “Now he appeared it again!”—sure this time that by using “appeared” (as in the case of “missed” in “I missed class today”), we could no longer be possibly wrong. But as we might have learned to expect, such a sentence construction was unacceptable, too!

So, we might have asked in exasperation, what seemed to be the matter with such verbs? Why couldn’t “gone,” “disappear,” and “appear” behave like the good, old verbs we knew—verbs like “scare,” “build,” “fix,” and “receive”? Like “missed” above, didn’t these verbs work perfectly in such sentences as “He scared the rabbit,” “Daddy built a tree house,” “My brother fixed my bike,” and “My sister received a love letter”?

Such were the puzzling dilemmas posed by our first encounters with verbs that don’t possess “transitivity,” or the ability to pass on their action to something that can receive it. As we would learn later, of course, “gone,” “disappear,” and “appear” are intransitive verbs, or the kind that simply can’t pass on their action to anything in the sentence. Because they don’t have the power to transmit their action to a so-called direct object, such verbs generally dissipate that action in themselves. When acting as stand-alone verbs, in particular, “gone,” “disappear,” and “appear” can only function in such objectless constructions as these: “The rabbit goes missing.” “The moon disappeared.” “The freckles appeared.” Such verbs absolutely would not admit any takers of their action, even if we put in many more words or phrases to the sentence.

As all of us already know, of course, it’s an altogether different matter when a verb is of the transitive kind. This time, for the sentence to work properly, it needs to provide an object to directly receive the verb’s action. The basic requirement of transitivity, in fact, is that the subject of the sentence—drawing power from the verb—must be able to act on this direct object.

Verbs that require only a direct object to work properly are what some linguists label “one-place transitives,” as the verbs in these sentences: “The woman received the letter.” “Typhoons damage infrastructure.” “The professor delivered the lecture.” When we drop the direct objects “letter,” “infrastructure,” and “lecture,” so that nothing receives the action of the verb anymore, all the three one-place transitive sentences become nonsensical: “The woman received.” “Typhoons damage.” “The professor delivered.” No direct object, no sentence.

We also know, of course, that some transitive verbs not only require a direct object but may also take an indirect object, or a grammatical entity that represents a secondary goal of the verb’s action. Such a verb is the so-called “Vg two-place transitive,” or short for the linguistic label “two-place transitive like give” (the “g” in “Vg” stands for “give). In this verb type, the verb first acts on the direct object and transmits the result of the action to the indirect object, as in these sentences: “He buys her diamonds.” “She brings him apples.” “They served Joanna breakfast.” The indirect objects in these sentences are the pronouns “her,” “him,” and “Joanna,” while the direct objects are “diamonds,” “apples,” and “breakfast.” But the indirect objects are optional in such sentences, which will work perfectly even with only the direct objects around.

The third and last type of transitive verbs carries the “Vc two-place transitive” label, which is short for “two-place transitive like consider” (the “c” in “Vc” stands for “consider”). In such verbs, the action of the verb actually takes place within the subject or doer of the action, or is done to the subject itself, then is transmitted to the direct object: “They considered the rebellion a lost cause.” “Factual errors like this make the editors extremely suspicious.” “The beauty queen’s detractors believe her victory to be a fluke.”

In “Vc two-place transitive” constructions, the verb is followed by a noun phrase working as direct object, onto which must be attached an obligatory complement such as another noun phrase, adjective phrase, or infinitive phrase. These complements, however, unlike the indirect objects of “Vg two-place transitives,” don’t function as indirect objects but modify the direct object instead.

From Give Your English the Winning Edge © 2009 by Jose A. Carillo. All rights reserved.

What do you think of my ideas in this essay? Let me know your thoughts by posting them below.

Grammar poll on a contentious subject-verb agreement issue

I would like to share with readers of this blog the recent exchange of e-mail below between me and a well-respected English professor and writer in the Philippines regarding the following sentence construction:

“Many people discover to their dismay that their many years of formal study of English has not given them the proficiency level demanded by the job market, by the various professions, or by higher academic studies.”

It is the first sentence of an online ad for my third English-usage book, Give Your English the Winning Edge.

The English professor, whose identity I will keep in strict confidence here, e-mailed the following response to the circulation department of The Manila Times:

“Oops! Please correct the verb in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the ad!”

The e-mail was forwarded to me and I e-mailed this response to the English professor:

“The marketing group of The Manila Times has alerted me about your feedback to the first sentence of the online ad for my book Give Your English the Winning Edge.

“No, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with my use of the singular verb form ‘has’ in the following sentence:

“‘Many people discover to their dismay that their many years of formal study of English has not given them the proficiency level demanded by the job market, by the various professions, or by higher academic studies.”

“Since English-language experts like you and [name withheld] think otherwise and have called my attention to the seemingly wrong verb usage, I have made a full-length explanation on this page at Jose Carillo’s English Forum. Please click the link to read it and do let me know what you think. I’m willing to be overruled—and will rewrite the sentence in question if need be—if you and an overwhelming majority aren’t convinced by my explanation.

“Thanks and have a nice day!”

The English professor then e-mailed me this response:

“Sorry, but you’re not right. The word that can be removed in sentences of this sort. (I know you’re right = I know that you’re right.) If you remove that, you will see that your argument falls apart. The real direct object of discover is the entire clause ‘their many years of formal study of English have not given them etc.’ Years is the subject of the verb have in the clause.”

I responded by e-mail as follows:

“You seem to have a point when you convert my sentence into its ‘that’-less form, but look at this other sentence whose construction is every bit similar:

“‘She is convinced that her 20 years of teaching experience [is, are] a big plus to her credentials.’

“And see what happens when you convert that sentence into its ‘that’-less form:

“‘She is convinced her 20 years of teaching experience [is, are] a big plus to her credentials.’

“I wonder if you’d still insist on the plural ‘are’ for both constructions. I think it’s clearer here that the relative noun phrase ‘that her 20 years of teaching experience’ is, in fact, both grammatically and notionally singular, don’t you agree?”

His response:

“Not really. The linking verb has to agree with either or both subject and/or predicate. Example: Many years is one thing, but all your years is another. You used to have, which has to agree only with the subject.”

I have not yet answered this last e-mail by the English professor. Since the matter has remained contentious and has not had a satisfactory closure, I have decided to make this grammar poll among readers of this blog.

Please let me know whether you are in favor of the English professor’s contention or of mine, and provide a justification for your choice. To ensure confidentiality, please don’t post your response directly on this blog; send it to me by private e-mail at joecarilloforum @ gmail.com. I can then publish your response later in the blog without identifying you as its source and without embarrassing anybody in this academic exercise about English usage.

As I promised in my initial response to the English professor, I’m willing to be overruled—and will rewrite the sentence in question if need be—if you and an overwhelming majority disagree with my grammar usage in that sentence in question.

Thank you have a nice day!

A descriptivist’s grand tour of how languages work

Linguistics today has two major opposing camps: the prescriptivists and the descriptivists. One member of the prescriptivist camp who has achieved wide prominence in recent years is, of course, Lynne Truss, the British author of the bestselling book Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation, who goes as far as to prescribe that anyone putting an apostrophe in a possessive “its” (as in “it’s” in “the dog chewed it’s bone”) should be struck by lightning and chopped to bits—a worse-than-divine punishment than those meted by the religious Inquisition during the Middle Ages. On the ramparts of the descriptivist camp, on the other hand, stands David Crystal, a renowned British linguist with dozens of books on language to his name, who steadfastly maintains that “languages do not get better or worse when they change” and condemns those who would condemn to death—even if only figuratively—someone who as much as wrongly spells a plural word in its possessive form, as in “potato’s” for “potatoes.”

Indeed, on the basis of the many books he has written about language, David Crystal is every bit more humanist in approach than many of his prescriptivist counterparts who have written books on English usage. He would rather see English and any language for that matter develop and evolve as it will without the prescriptive interference of strict grammarians—a point of view that he passionately espouses in his 2005 book How Language Works: How Babies Babble, Words Change Meaning, and Languages Live or Die.

Here’s how Crystal describes the groundwork for the book in its first chapter:

“How Language Works is not about music, or cookery, or sex. But it is about how we talk about music, cookery, and sex—or, indeed, about anything at all. And it is also about how we write about these things, and send electronic messages about them, and on occasion use manual signs to communicate them. The operative word is ‘how.’ It is commonplace to see a remarkable special effect on a television screen and react by explaining ‘How did they do that?’ It is not quite so usual to exclaim when we observe someone speaking, listening, reading, writing, or signing. And yet if anything is worthy of exclamation, it is the human ability to speak, listen, read, write, and sign.”

This done, Crystal proceeds to take the reader on a grand, sometimes technical and sometimes clinical tour of how languages work. He traces their origins, describes the anatomy of both human tongue and vocal chord alike, and explains in layman’s terms how children learn to speak, how a typical conversation really works, how language marks one’s social status, and many other language phenomena. He then describes the process of how languages prosper and die and makes an impassioned appeal to save the thousands of languages all over the world that are now on the brink of extinction.

Much later in the book, however, Crystal sheds off his professional reticence and vents his spleen on the prescriptivists in general and on the likes of Lynne Truss in particular: “Believing in the inviolability of the small set of rules that they have managed themselves to acquire, they condemn others from a different dialect background, or who have not had the same educational opportunities as themselves, for not following those same rules. Enthused by the Stalinesque policing metaphor, they advocate a policy of zero tolerance, to eradicate all traces of the aberrant behaviour. This extreme attitude would be condemned by most people if it were encountered in relation to such domains as gender or race, but for some reason it is tolerated in relation to language. Welcomed, even, judging by the phenomenal sales of Eats, Shoots and Leaves.”

Otherwise, Crystal keeps himself scholarly and on an even keel in How Language Works, and his lucid and highly instructive explorations of language could very well serve as a definitive guide on communication for experts and laypeople alike.

Preview David Crystal’s How Language Works in Google Books

Read “In praise of pedantry,” British novelist Ian Sansom’s review of How Language Works in The Guardian

What do you think of the opposing viewpoints of David Crystal and Lynne Truss about language? Share with me your views.