The grammar for avoiding blame for awful or disastrous outcomes

Almost always, the end of the year is review time for what the individual or the institution has done or has been unable to do during the year in question. Since human nature makes it so difficult to admit failure and culpability, such annual reviews often also become occasions for passing the blame for awful or disastrous outcomes. For instance, in the case of the horrendous disaster wrought by Typhoon Sendong in southern Philippines recently, the finger-pointing for why it resulted in the loss of almost 2,000 lives continues without letup to this day. We all know the routine, and as always, the finger-pointing language used is both familiar and disheartening.

In the English language, in particular, there’s a special verb form that allows people to avoid acknowledging responsibility for things that go sour or tragic. That verb form is the causative verb, and in an essay that I wrote for my English-usage column in The Manila Times in early 2006, I discussed how this verb lends itself very nicely to the pass-the-blame routine. I have decided to post that essay here to help us see through the smokescreen of words coming from the usual finger-pointers. Who knows, a good grasp of the grammar of the causative verbs could make us figure out intelligently rather than superstitiously who’s really to blame for the grave misfortunes that have hounded our country these past many months. (January 1, 2012)

  

Using causative and factitive verbs

When an awful act or serious mistake is made, particularly one that leads to a disastrous or tragic outcome, rare indeed is the soul that comes out in the open to take the blame for it. The usual response of the culpable is to ascribe the deed to somebody else or something else:

“They had me scoop the money from the vault at gunpoint.” (The perpetrator of an inside job is trying to extricate himself from the crime.)

“An earthquake made the mountain unleash the deadly mudslide.” (Actually, loggers had ruthlessly stripped the mountain of every inch of its forest cover.)

“The steel gate’s collapse caused the people to stampede.” (The crowd-control measures simply were too puny for so large a mass of humanity aiming to get rich quick.)

The English language has, in fact, evolved a special verb form to make people avoid acknowledging responsibility—if only for the moment—when caught in such situations. That verb form is the causative verb, which carries out an action that causes another action to happen. In the three sentences given as examples above, in particular, “have” is the causative verb in the first, causing the action “scoop” to happen; “make” is the causative verb in the second, causing the action “unleash” to happen; and “cause” is the causative verb in the third, causing the action “stampede” to happen. In each case, the crime or calamitous outcome is acknowledged but no one is accepting responsibility for it.

Causative verbs are, of course, not only meant to make people avoid taking responsibility for things that have gone sour or disastrous. In general, they are used to indicate the sort of actions that people don’t do themselves but allow, ask, or force other people to do: “Emily’s supervisor permitted  her to leave early today.” “Our landlady reminded us to pay our overdue rent.” “The thieves forced the tourists to hand over their jewelry.” Note that in a causative construction, the subject doesn’t actually do the action of the operative verb but only causes the object to do that action. In the last example above, for instance, the subject is “the thieves” and the object is “the tourists,” and the causative verb “force” makes this object do the action of handing over the jewelry.

The other most commonly used causative verbs are “allow,” “assist,” “convince,” “employ,” “help,” “hire,” “let,” “motivate,” “remind,” “require,” and “urge.” When used in a sentence, practically all of these causative verbs are followed by an object (a noun or pronoun) followed by an infinitive: “We allowed foreigners to invest in the local mining industry.” “The recruiter convinced me to leave for Jeddah at once.” “The desperate applicant employed deceit to get the plum job.”

The only notable exceptions to this pattern are the causative verbs “have,” “make,” and “let.” They are followed by a noun or pronoun serving as an object, but this time what follows the object is not an infinitive but the base form of the verb (meaning its infinitive form without the “to”):

“I had my fellow investors sign the incorporation papers yesterday.”

“They made him finish writing the book in only five weeks.” “We let the students pick the class schedules they want.”

Like the causative verb, another type of verb that exhibits peculiar behavior is the so-called factitive verb. While the usual transitive verb can take only one direct object, a factitive verb actually needs two of them. There are only a few of its kind, however, among them “choose,” “elect,” “judge,” “adjudge,” “make,” “name,” and “select.”

Here’s how a factitive verb works: “The prestigious finance magazine last night chose our company “Best at Consumer Goods” in its annual poll.” Here, “choose” is the factitive verb,  “our company” is the direct object, and “‘Best at Consumer Goods’” is the objective complement—all three in tight, uninterrupted interlock. (February 20, 2006)

--------------

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, February 20, 2006 issue © 2006 by The Manila Times. All rights reserved.


Visit Jose Carillo's English Forum now!

When media permits a grammatically flawed official statement to see print

If you are a reporter for an English-language media outlet, what’s the proper way to report the official statements of people who speak in less than impeccable English? Do you quote them verbatim—grammar errors and all—for total and uncompromising journalistic objectivity? Or do you correct their statements for grammar and usage errors so as not to embarrass them and avoid foisting bad English on your readers or listeners?

Of course, English-savvy reporters and editors faced with this dilemma routinely do the right thing—quote  statements verbatim when they are truly quotable and free of grammar errors, or else paraphrase those statements when they aren’t really quote-worthy and are grammatically faulty as well. But sometimes, when reporters or editors lower their guard or are themselves not very proficient in English, they let pass quoted statements that reflect very badly not only on those who gave or uttered them but also on those who reported or edited them. 

This is what happened in the case of the quoted statement I dissected in the essay below, which I wrote for my English-usage column in The Manila Times way back in 2006. I am posting it here as a practical lesson in grammar and usage as well as an exercise in basic copyediting. (September 18, 2011) 

An exercise in reporting a grammatically flawed statement

Assume that you are a reporter of a major daily newspaper and that you have just covered a media conference of an international foreign-aid organization. During the conference, the organization’s highest-ranking official in the country said these exact words in English: “The best time to prevent bird flu is now. Until the cases are low, let us stay ahead of the epidemic.”

Something is terribly wrong with that statement’s English, of course, and you’re sure that the speaker wasn’t misquoted because you had taped the interview. But your deadline is only two hours away, so you must decide right now how to deal with that statement in your story.

What will you do with its bad English?

(A) Quote the exact words of the speaker. It’s true that its English is faulty, but since the statement came from a well-educated medical professional, you feel that every word of it should be respected and retained. They are not your own words, after all, and you’re secure in your belief that people who talk to media should be held responsible for their bad English. If it gets printed verbatim and embarrasses them, that’s just too bad. Your job is to report the news accurately and clearly, not to correct other people’s poor English.

(B) Analyze the grammar and semantics of the statement carefully to see how best to report it. You believe that no respectable paper should give room for bad English, whether attributed or unattributed. You know that when reporters habitually allow bad English to creep into their stories, they can seriously jeopardize not only their reputation but also the integrity of their information sources and of their respective newspapers.

Some newspaper reporters and magazine writers are sometimes tempted to take the line of least resistance by choosing option A, but for any self-respecting journalist, Option B is actually the only prudent course of action. We will therefore assume that most of us have chosen Option B and are now ready to find better ways of expressing the problematic direct quotation presented earlier.

The English of the first sentence, “The best time to prevent bird flu is now,” is arguably good enough so we’ll let it stand as is. That of the second sentence, however, is seriously flawed and confusing: “Until the cases are low, let us stay ahead of the epidemic.” The speaker has wrongly used the conjunction “until” to mean “up to the time that,” in the sense that a particular state is not yet achieved. But she acknowledges that the particular state being referred to (“low”) already subsists or persists, so the correct conjunction to use is “while,” which means “during the time that.” “Until” is an illogical, semantically wrong substitute for “while” in this particular sentence.

Next, the speaker commits another serious gaffe when she inappropriately describes the noun “cases” using the adjective “low,” which is intended to mean “of lesser degree, size, or amount than average or ordinary.” In English grammar, such usage doesn’t make semantic sense. We can’t describe “cases” of a particular noun, such as bird flu, as either “low” or “high”; there can be no “low cases” and “high cases.” It is the incidence of “cases” that can be described as such. To give an idea of their relative numbers, the adjectives “few” and “many” (or “numerous”) should be used instead.

The speaker’s use of the phrase “stay ahead” in her second sentence, although not strictly wrong grammatically, is also questionable semantically. The verb “stay” denotes “pausing,” “ceasing,” and “remaining,” thus giving a strong sense of a stationary state rather than a forward movement, which is obviously what the speaker wanted to convey. Since the verb “keep” more appropriately conveys the active effort needed to maintain the condition of being ahead, “keep ahead” would be a much more suitable phrase.

When we take all these clarifications into account, what emerges as the grammatically and semantically correct way of saying what the speaker actually said is this: “The best time to prevent bird flu is now. While its incidence is still low, let us keep ourselves ahead of the epidemic.” Another correct construction is this: “The best time to prevent bird flu is now. While the cases are still few, let us keep ourselves ahead of the epidemic.”

Of course, we must remember that we can’t present these two improved versions as the exact words of the speaker herself. It’s a time-honored convention in journalism that once we make substantive changes in the speaker’s exact words, we can no longer treat them as directly quoted material. They become a paraphrased statement, which does away with the quotation marks that set off verbatim statements from their attribution. (January 4, 2006)

--------------

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, January 4, 2006 © 2006 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Draconian demands for front-page editorial excellence

Normally, front-page headline stories in the national newspapers get the most lavish editorial attention, with nitpicky copy editors and section editors and possibly the editor in chief himself or herself making doubly sure that the facts are right, the numbers are right, the context is right, the headlines and typefaces are right, and the grammar and usage in the stories are perfect in every way—from spelling and capitalizations down to the last hyphen, comma, period, and close quotes. In the days when I was a newspaperman myself, in fact, it was considered a journalistic disgrace for even a single error—no matter how minute—to get to the printed page. A wrong word or two in the inside pages was forgivable, but for the front-page headline story? You could lose your job or damage your reputation irreparably if it happened!

So how are the four major Metro Manila broadsheets these days faring against such draconian demands for editorial excellence in their front pages? Let’s take a look at the lead paragraph of the front-page headline story of each of them for their issue on the same day last week:

Newspaper A:

“The configuration of the 2010 presidential election continued to take shape, with another possible team emerging and two popular evangelists flexing muscle.”

Newspaper B:

“Even if it’s a red letter day, people from all walks of life will paint the town yellow on Friday as they pay tribute to the late former Sen. Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., who was assassinated 26 years ago while fighting for Philippine democracy.”

Newspaper C:

“MANILA, Philippines - With the rising popularity of Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, Liberal Party (LP) stalwarts are being torn between him and Sen. Manuel Roxas II in their quest for the party’s standard-bearer in the 2010 elections.”

Newspaper D:

“Malacañang apparently needed former President Fidel Ramos more than the former leader needed it—at least when the subject was the 2010 elections.”

From the looks of it, the English grammar and usage of these lead sentences are far from perfect—and the errors in some are serious enough to cause some of the editors to lose a few nights’ sleep at least.

MY CRITIQUE AND SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS:

Let’s now analyze each of the four lead sentences above and see how they can be improved.

Newspaper A:

“The configuration of the 2010 presidential election continued to take shape, with another possible team emerging and two popular evangelists flexing muscle.”

My digital Merriam-Webster’s 11^th Collegiate Dictionary defines the word “configuration” as, first, the relative arrangement of parts or elements and, second, as “shape.” In other words, “configuration” is synonymous with “shape.” The main clause of that lead sentence could therefore also read as “the shape of the 2010 presidential election continued to take shape”—which means that it’s a tautology or a needless, circuitous repetition of the same idea, statement, or word.

It’s really a wonder how such an obvious tautology could crop up in the lead sentence of a story written by as many as three reporters; one would have thought that at least one of them would have noticed it and objected to it. But since this obviously didn’t happen, perhaps the section editor or the editor and chief could have blue-penciled the offending clause construction and supplied a better word than “configuration.”

This is all Monday quarterbacking, of course, so what we need to do now is figure out how to get rid of the tautology in that sentence. My first instinct is to replace “configuration” with “contour,” but a quick check with my dictionary tells me that “contour,” while a tad different in semantics, is also practically synonymous with “configuration.” Another possible word is “character,” but on second thoughts it sounds somewhat judgmental to me. (Now I can appreciate the predicament of the writers and editors when they were making their word choices for that sentence! My advantage over them, of course, is hindsight and the luxury of time.)

At any rate, I think I’ll settle for the word “makings”—it means “potentiality”—as the most semantically appropriate choice for that sentence:

“The makings of the 2010 presidential election continued to take shape, with another possible team emerging and two popular evangelists flexing muscle.”

At the very least, it gets rid of the tautology in the original sentence for good.

Newspaper B:

“Even if it’s a red letter day, people from all walks of life will paint the town yellow on Friday as they pay tribute to the late former Sen. Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., who was assassinated 26 years ago while fighting for Philippine democracy.”

First things first: the compound term “red letter day” needs a hyphen between “red” and “letter.” When we do that, “red-letter day” becomes a legitimate modifier that means “of special significance.” Without that hyphen, “red letter day” becomes literal and its meaning becomes difficult to figure out.

I’m also bothered by the mixing of so many metaphors and figurative expressions in that sentence. The metaphors there are, of course, “red-letter day” and “paint the town yellow,” while the figurative expressions are “from all walks of life,” “pay tribute,” and “while fighting for Philippine democracy.” The use of “red-letter day” is perfectly acceptable usage, of course, but “paint the town yellow” as a variation of the metaphor “paint the town red” is semantically questionable. The expression “paint the town red” means “going out for a night out with lots of fun and drinking,” and the use of “red” is actually an allusion to the kind of unruly behavior that results in much blood being spilled.

Now, the writer’s unilateral changing of “red” to “yellow” in the metaphor “paint the town red” violates the three major attributes of a true idiom, which is that its words are not compositional and not substitutable and that the idiom itself is not modifiable. When we say that an idiom is not compositional, this means we can’t compose or construct an idiom from the individual meanings of its component words. When we say that the words of an idiom are not substitutable, this means that when any of its words is replaced with a related word or even a close synonym, the idiom collapses and loses its intended meaning. And when we say that an idiom is not modifiable, this means that changing the way the words of an idiom are put together or inflected alters its meaning or, worse, changes it beyond recognition. In sum, “paint the town yellow” is a false, semantically unwarranted expression that shouldn’t have been used in that lead sentence.

The figurative expressions are “from all walks of life” and “pay tribute” are perfectly acceptable usage in that lead sentence, but to say that the late former Sen. Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. was assassinated 26 years ago “while fighting for Philippine democracy” is to go overboard semantically. That he did fight for Philippine democracy is beyond question, but to say that he was assassinated while in the act of doing so is too much of a stretch. It would perhaps be more prudent to simply say that he was assassinated “when he returned to the Philippines to fight for Philippine democracy.”

Overall, then, I would suggest the following reconstruction of the original lead sentence in that newspaper to make it more on the level semantically:

“It will be a red-letter day on Friday when Filipinos from all walks of life pay tribute to the late former Sen. Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., who was assassinated 26 years ago when he returned to the Philippines to fight for Philippine democracy.”

Newspaper C:

“MANILA, Philippines - With the rising popularity of Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, Liberal Party (LP) stalwarts are being torn between him and Sen. Manuel Roxas II in their quest for the party’s standard-bearer in the 2010 elections.”

When you are “torn between” two lovers, as the old song goes, it means that you love both and couldn’t decide whom to choose. On the other hand, when you are “being torn between” two lovers, that means you are literally and physically being torn apart by some outside force between two people whom you love—and you are bound to be physically harmed in the process. That is the fundamental difference between the idiom “torn between” and the literal expression “being torn between”—the first is a figurative adjectival phrase, and the second is a literal verb phrase.

For this reason, I think that lead sentence will be much better off grammatically and semantically when shorn of the verb “being” before “torn.” Also, I think the use of the word “quest” is a little bit too subjective and melodramatic for what should be an objective news story; “choice” would be a more level-headed word.

So here’s the sentence as improved:

“MANILA, Philippines - With the rising popularity of Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, Liberal Party (LP) stalwarts are torn between him and Sen. Manuel Roxas II as their choice of party standard-bearer for the 2010 elections.”

Newspaper D:

“Malacañang apparently needed former President Fidel Ramos more than the former leader needed it—at least when the subject was the 2010 elections.”

On the face of it, there seems to be nothing grammatically wrong with this lead sentence of a headline story—until we reach the latter part that refers to the 2010 elections in the past tense. We then realize that there’s a serious disconnect or inconsistency in the use of tense between the main clause and the parenthetical that follows it.

Indeed, since the matter is still unfolding and unresolved anyway, we can make that sentence grammatically and semantically aboveboard by putting all of its verbs in the present tense. Look:

“Malacañang apparently needs former President Fidel Ramos more than the former leader needs it—at least when the subject is the 2010 elections.”

Now we can say that all four problematic lead sentences of the leading broadsheets are as grammatically and semantically excellent as we can make them.