Shedding off the active-voice straitjacket from our English

In school, teachers of English furiously drill into the heads of their students the idea that they should always write sentences in the active voice. This creates such a strong bias—I would call it an aversion—that practically eliminates the passive voice in the English of those students even after they graduate and pursue their respective careers.

I must admit that I was one those who had acquired this bias against the passive voice, pursuing that bias like a zealot in my early writing and editing career. This was further abetted by my exposure to campus journalism and newspaper journalism, both of which demand the active voice even more relentlessly for immediacy’s sake. Later on, however, I began to sense that my predilection to writing all-active-voice sentences tended to give my narratives and expositions a mechanical, almost rubberstamp character. Then it fully dawned on me that good writing isn’t the all-active-voice affair that our English teachers had made us believe, and that there is, in fact, a perfectly valid place and role for passive-voice sentences in both our written and spoken English.

I gave vent to this realization of mine in “In Defense of the Passive Voice,” an essay that I wrote for my English-usage column in The Manila Times in 2004. I am now posting it here in the hope of making more people realize as I did many years ago that although a good thing, the active voice need not be a straitjacket to our natural instinct for clear, relevant, and forceful expression. (August 14, 2011)

In defense of the passive voice

The active voice has a cult following in English grammar. This is because from grade school onwards, most everybody is taught that sentences in the subject-verb-predicate form are the be-all and end-all of English, and that the passive voice is such a weak, fuzzy, and undesirable construction to even bother using. Grammar teachers furiously drill into every student’s head that the active-voice sentence “Emilio hit Andres violently with a bat” is superior to the passive “Andres was hit violently by Emilio with a bat” or to the similarly passive “A bat was used by Emilio to violently hit Andres.” The active-voice sentence in time achieves icon status, never to be resisted or questioned. No wonder, then, that many English language users—particularly those who learn it as a second or third language—write English-language essays almost entirely in clumsy, rubberstamp active-voice sentences, and speak English like the perpetually active-voice talking robots that inhabit science-fiction movies.

The truth is that when we get down to the dynamics of language, it is difficult not to conclude that a totally active-voice essay, prose narrative, or speech is neither a practical nor a desirable goal. English that uses an unbroken train of active-voice sentences, with no passive-voice ones whatsoever, is in many ways the equivalent of speaking stridently all the time or of singing a song on a high note from start to finish. We all know how exhausting that is both to the performer and the audience. Indeed, one virtue of the passive voice is that it works to leaven such verbal performances, providing low-energy counterpoints to the high-energy semantic field created by active-voice sentences: “We danced. We sang. We caroused. But soon we were put to sleep by fatigue.”

An even more compelling reason for using passive sentences, however, is that they are the most natural and oftentimes the only logical choice for communicating certain ideas. To see how true this is, let’s go back to the active-voice sentence we used as an example above: “Emilio hit Andres violently with a bat.” Assume now that right after you have said this, someone asks for a clarification. If that person is more interested in Andres’s well-being than in Emilio’s motive for assaulting him, his question will most probably take this form: “What did you say happened to Andres?” Your answer, of course, will not be the active-voice “Emilio hit Andres violently with a bat,” which highlights what Emilio did to him. That answer will be ridiculously out of context. The only logical answer is the passive-voice “Andres was hit violently by Emilio with a bat,” which rightly highlights what happened to Andres.

Then, if your interlocutor further asks, “What instrument did you say was used?”, it definitely wouldn’t be sensible to use the same active-voice answer, “Emilio hit Andres violently with a bat.” That would be very obtuse and strange indeed! The sensible answer will be another passive-voice sentence, perhaps “A bat was used by Emilio to violently hit Andres.” Finally, your interlocutor may dun you with this question, “How would you describe the act done by Emilio against Andres?” Your answer will perhaps be more ponderous and measured this time—the way we give such replies in real life—but it will definitely be in the passive voice: “Emilio’s act of hitting Andres with a bat was done violently.”

So what does this tell us about how we should fashion our sentences? Well, it is that we should write them or say them in the most logical and natural way possible—using the active voice whenever called for, but never hesitating to use the passive when logic and good sense demands it. So, unless your English teacher forces you to stick to the active voice on pain of failing in the subject, or your editors give you a standing order never to use the passive voice or be forever assigned to doing obituaries, the active voice should only be a secondary consideration. Much more important is to emphasize the sentence elements that you want to emphasize and need to emphasize. If it is the doer of the action that needs emphasis, then by all means use the active voice. But if is the receiver of the action, the instrument used in the action, or the action itself that needs it, you really have no choice but to use the passive voice.

The active voice certainly has its virtues, chiefly that it reflects how things really happen in real life—“Someone or something does something this way or that”—but it need not be a straitjacket to our natural instinct for clear, relevant, and forceful expression. The passive voice gives us both the opportunity and the latitude to focus on what we really need to focus on, to say exactly what we mean. Our prose and our speech will be squandering that opportunity and latitude by inflexibly deferring to the cult of the active voice. (February 9, 2004)

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

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, February 9, 2004 © 2004 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved. This essay later appeared as Chapter 66 in the book Giving Your English the Winning Edge © 2009 by Jose A. Carillo.

Doing battle with the tendency to misplace participial phrases

Based on my experience as a copyeditor, I can say that easily the most serious weakness of nonnative English speakers writing in English is the tendency to misplace modifying phrases. This is true whether the writer I’m editing is an above-average student, a respected academic, an acclaimed or award-winning litterateur, or an experienced professional journalist. By the time I’m done editing their work, their digital manuscripts would often be literally bleeding with red lines or red text where I had crossed out misplaced, dangling, or squinting modifying phrases and had reconstructed entire sentences to get rid of them. Sadly, as can be seen in my weekly media English watch in this Forum, this grammar weakness is also shared in no small measure by some writers and editors of the major Philippine mass media outlets. And I would say that in most cases, the offending phrase in their narratives or expositions would be a participial phrase (definitely much more often than offending infinitive phrases and gerund phrases), thus giving me the distinct and uncomfortable feeling that the participial phrase is perhaps the least understood and most misused form of modifier in the English language.  

This was what I had mind when I wrote the two-part essay below, “Dealing better with participial phrases,” in my weekly English-usage column in The Manila Times way back in 2006. I am now posting it here to help the current generation of nonprofessional and professional writers understand why participial phrases are such slippery grammar elements to handle and how they can be effectively tamed and harnessed to produce more readable and persuasive English prose. (August 7, 2011)

Dealing better with participial phrases

Part I:

We already know that the participle is a verbal—a verb form that functions as another part of speech—that ends either in “–ing” or “–ed,” and that a participle that ends in “–ing” is a present participle (“dancing,” “remaining,” “piercing”) and one that typically ends in “–ed” is a past participle (“stalled,” “walled,” “detested”).

In both cases, the participle functions as an adjective modifying a noun, as in the following sentences: “The dancing partners impressed the audience.” “The stalled car created a monumental traffic jam.” In the first sentence, the present participle “dancing” modifies the noun “partners”; in the second, the past participle “stalled” modifies the noun “car.”

Now, a participial phrase is simply a participle together with any words or phrases that modify it. These words or phrases can be in the form of a direct object or an indirect object of the participle, a prepositional phrase, or any complement of the action or state expressed in the participle. We have to keep in mind that a participial phrase, although functioning as an adjective, retains the intrinsic properties of its basic verb.

Here, for instance, is a participial phrase consisting of a present participle and the direct object of the action expressed in it: “Throwing all caution, the legislators attempted to turn themselves into a constituent assembly.” The participial phrase in that sentence, “throwing all caution,” consists of the participle “throwing” and its direct object “all caution.” Together, they serve as an adjective modifying the clause “the legislators attempted to turn themselves into a constituent assembly.”

Now here’s a participial phrase consisting of a present participle modified by a prepositional phrase: “The traffic officer caught the motorist speeding through a red light.” The participial phrase in that sentence, “speeding through a red light,” consists of the participle “speeding” and the prepositional phrase “through a red light.” Together, they serve as an adjective modifying the noun “motorist.”

And here’s a participial phrase consisting of a past participle and a prepositional phrase that modifies it: “Soldiers confined in the barracks too long become ineffective in war.” The participial phrase in that sentence, “confined in the barracks too long,” consists of the participle “confined” and the prepositional phrase “in the barracks too long.” Together, they serve as an adjective modifying the noun “soldiers.”

Because participial phrases are, in effect, many-worded adjectives serving as modifiers, we need to exercise caution when using them in sentences. There’s always the danger of misplacing them during construction, in which case they can end up modifying a wrong word, a wrong phrase, or a wrong clause or lead to a really bad dangle or tangle.

One handy rule for dealing with a participial phrase is to make sure that the noun or pronoun it is meant to modify is clearly stated, then to place that noun or pronoun as close as possible to it. When this rule is not observed, a dangling participial phrase is the result: “Parrying the blows of his opponent, his left leg got entangled on the ropes.” This is a logically problematic construction, for a leg doing the parrying of the blows is obviously an absurd idea!

To establish the doer of the action in such situations, we have to rely on context and logic. In this particular case, it is evident that the doer of the action is the noun “boxer.” We then have to specify that noun in the sentence and position it as close as possible to the participial phrase. One construction that meets this requirement—and thus prevents the participial phrase from dangling—is this: “Parrying the blows of his opponent, the boxer got his leg entangled on the ropes.” (Another dangle-free construction, of course, is this: “The boxer, parrying the blows of his opponent, got his leg entangled on the ropes.”) (December 11, 2006)

Part II:

In their role as many-worded modifiers, participial phrases enjoy some flexibility in positioning themselves in a sentence. They do their job best when placed as close as possible to the noun or pronoun they are meant to modify: “Tired after a long day’s work, the mechanic fell asleep in the bus.” They work equally well as interrupters in a sentence: “The mechanic, tired after a long day’s work, fell asleep in the bus.” Either way, the sentence functions without a hitch because “tired after a long day’s work” is positioned right beside the noun “mechanic.”

But the third possible position for that participial phrase—at the end of the sentence—doesn’t work: “The mechanic fell asleep in the bus, tired after a long day’s work.” This time, “tired after a long day’s work” is a dangler, absurdly modifying the noun “bus.”

In certain cases, though, a participial phrase can take an end-sentence position without dangling: “The policemen found the suspect shopping at the mall.” (Here, “shopping at the mall” modifies the noun “suspect,” not “policemen.”) “The lawyers glared at the witness, shocked by her self-incriminating testimony.” (Here, “shocked by her self-incriminating testimony” modifies “lawyers,” not “witness.”)

Such end-sentence placements should be approached with caution, however. In the second construction above, in particular, the participial phrase “shocked by his self-incriminating testimony” would have dangled without the pronoun “her”: “The lawyers glared at the witness, shocked by the self-incriminating testimony.” Now we can’t tell whether it was the witness or the lawyers who were shocked by the testimony! This is because semantically, the pronoun “her” is crucial to establishing “lawyers” as the subject being modified by that participial phrase.

At any rate, from a structural standpoint, we need to observe three general rules as to when we should set off a participial phrase with commas:

(1) when it’s positioned at the beginning of a sentence,

(2) when it interrupts a sentence as a nonessential modifier, and

(3) when it’s positioned at the end of a sentence and is separated from the word it modifies.

To correctly apply Rules 2 and 3, we need to clearly distinguish between nonessential modifiers and essential modifiers. Remember now that nonessential modifiers are those whose removal won’t profoundly alter the meaning of a sentence, while essential modifiers are those whose removal will do so.

In the following sentences, the participial phrases need to be set off by commas for the statements to make sense: “The cause-oriented groups, spoiling for a showdown with the government, held a massive protest rally.” “Alicia threw a tantrum, angered by the late arrival of her date.” As proof that the participial phrase in each of the two sentences above is not essential to the statement, we can safely drop it without seriously altering the meaning of the sentence: “The cause-oriented groups held a massive protest rally.” “Alicia threw a tantrum.”

In contrast, no commas are needed for the essential participial phrases in the following sentences: “A motorist driving with an expired driver’s license faces a heavy fine.” “The necklace bought by the society matron from a respectable jeweler turned out to have fake diamonds.” Dropping the participial phrase profoundly changes the meaning of each of the statements: “A motorist faces a heavy fine.” “The necklace turned out to have fake diamonds.”

Before bringing this discussion of participial phrases to a close, we need to be aware that certain expressions derived from such participles as “considering,” “concerning,” “granting,” “speaking,” and “judging” can validly modify a clause even if that clause doesn’t have a doer of the action conveyed by the participial phrase.

Just two examples: “Considering the bad weather, the open-air concert needs to be canceled.” “Judging by first appearances, she shouldn’t even be considered in cosmetics sales.”

Because they have evolved into prepositions through long usage, such actor-less participial phrases can do their modifying job without dangling. (December 18, 2006)

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

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, December 11 and 18, 2006 © 2006 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Some multifunction English words that we learn to use only by gut feel

There are some multifunction words in English that we learn to use simply by gut feel. Hardly anyone of us bothers to check out precisely how these multifunction words work. Cases in point are the function words “either” and “any,” “either…is/either…are,” and “either…or.”  We just think we know when they are functioning properly in our sentences and when they are not, and we often get away scot-free even when we misuse them because very often, most of our listeners or readers don’t know any better. Perhaps the only time we’ll find out that we have done badly with them is when our English teacher gives back our essay or term paper to us with not a few harsh grammar corrections, or when we submit something for publication, in which case a professional editor does a really brutal and unapologetic copyediting job on our work. Only then do we feel the need to really brush up on our English grammar to spare ourselves from the humiliation of again being shown to be less than savvy in our English.

In “A few English-language conundrums,” a series of essays that I wrote for my English-usage column in The Manila Times in 2005, I discussed several perplexing aspects of English grammar for which many people have only conjectural ideas, among them the proper usage of “either” and “any,” “either…is/either…are,” and “either…or.” I now would like to share that essay with Forum members by posting it here under the title “Four very common grammar puzzlers in English.” (July 31, 2011)    

  

Four very common grammar puzzlers in English

Let’s take up four very common grammar puzzlers:  “either” and “any,” “either…is/either…are,” and “either…or.” 

Even after using the word for many years, some of us may not have figured out yet that “either” actually functions in four ways:

(1) As a pronoun to mean “the one or the other” (“We decided to use either of the two computers.”);

(2) As an adjective to mean “being the one and the other of two” (“There were spikes on either side of the fence.”) or “being the one or the other of two” (“Arlene uses either hand to write.”);

(3) As an adverb to mean “likewise” or “moreover” when used to emphasize a negative statement (“He was not smart or handsome either.”); and

(4) As a conjunction in “either…or” constructions, a form that gives rise to some grammar conundrums that we will try to unravel in a little while.

When “either” functions as a pronoun or adjective, of course, the standard practice is to use it in the singular sense to refer to only one of two items, as in “Either of the two choices is unpalatable to me.” But when more than two items are involved, “either” becomes a semantic misfit, so we use the word “any” instead, as in “Any of these five runners is likely to win” (that’s “any” working as a pronoun) and “A red marking on any face of the cube will suffice” (that’s “any” working as an adjective). Some liberal teachers or editors might let us get away with using “either” in such sentences, but it is prudent to stick to “any” for our own semantic peace of mind.

The word “any,” though, simply won’t work as a conjunction in a form similar to “either…or.” This time, English gives us no choice but to break its rule of two and use “either…or” even if it refers to more than two items. Such is the case in the following “either…or” construction with three coordinate clauses: “Either you go ahead with your candidacy or we will field another candidate or we might as well forget about fielding one altogether.” With “either” right in front, the sentence can theoretically string more and more clauses with “or” and remain grammatically correct. Except for this minor semantic quirk, the behavior of “either” as a pronoun, adjective, and adverb is fairly straightforward and needs no further discussion.

In the case of “either…or” as a conjunction, however, we run smack against two sticky grammar conundrums: what form the verb and pronoun should take when the “either…or” construction mixes singular and plural elements, and how to execute the parallelism rule for grammar elements in “either... or” constructions.

Doing “either…or” constructions is simple when both of the elements referred to are singular or when both are plural. In the first case, the verb invariably takes the singular form, as in “Either my mother or my brother is coming tomorrow.” In the second case, the verb invariably takes the plural form, as in “Either my parents or my brothers are coming tomorrow.” But when we have a sentence that mixes singular and plural elements, should the verb be singular or plural?

In such mixed situations, an accepted practice is to make the verb agree with the number of the noun or noun phrase closest to it: “Either my mother or my brothers are coming tomorrow.” “Either my brothers or my mother is coming tomorrow.” But some grammarians feel that such mixed “either…or” constructions are inconsistent no matter what number the verb takes, so they suggest rewriting the sentence to get rid of the inconsistency. One way is to drop “either” and recast the sentence a little bit: “My mother or my brothers might come tomorrow.” “My brothers or my mother might come tomorrow.” The sense of both sentences is intact even with “either” gone, proof that the word is not functionally necessary in such mixed constructions.

All that remains is for us to make sense of the parallelism rule for “either…or” constructions. The basic principle in parallelism, of course, is matching in both form and structure all equally important ideas or grammatical elements in a sentence. One useful rule of thumb for achieving this in “either…or” constructions is to place the word “either” right before the first of the two elements being compared.

For instance, the following sentence is incorrect (and illogical) because it puts “either” where it shouldn’t be: “They either planned to buy a townhouse or lease an apartment.” Now see what happens when we put “either” right before “buy a townhouse,” which is the first of the elements being compared: “They planned to either buy a townhouse or lease an apartment.”

Now we have a logical statement that not only looks right but also sounds right. (April 11, 2005)

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

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, April 11, 2005 © 2005 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Twice Over, It’s Our Good Fortune That We Speak English

This is the introduction to the lecture I delivered as resource person during the “Refresher Course on English Grammar and the Basics of Responsible Journalism” held in Lucena City, Philippines, last July 23, 2011.

From a language standpoint, we Filipinos are such a lucky people. By a fortunate accident in our history, English has been our second language for almost 100 years now, and I think you’ll agree with me that it’s such a good thing.

Let me share with you what I wrote about this good fortune of ours in my English-usage column in The Manila Times in 2003 or more than eight years ago: “Nearly 50 years of American colonization had deeply Anglicized the way we Filipinos think and run our lives—the way we name ourselves and our institutions, the way we consume, the way we educate ourselves, the way we inform and entertain ourselves, the way we do business, and the way we muddle through with our politics. English is in our soul, in our tongue, in our stomachs, in our scent, in our clothes, in our shoes, in our printed word, in our airwaves and bandwidths, in the very air we inhale and exhale. We can argue to death that this may not be exactly a good thing, but that is precisely what we Filipinos have become—Asian by geography, skin, and temperament but decidedly American by taste, inclination, and aspiration.”

Our other good fortune is that over the past half century or so, English has become the world’s global language. In a very real sense then, our English-language legacy has given us a strong competitive edge over many other nonnative-English-speaking nations in the world. It’s a built-in competitive edge that makes the Philippines the second largest labor exporter in the world today—second only to Mexico—and also today’s world leader in the call-center industry, eclipsing even India in size and growth. And the English language gives us this competitive edge at a time when most of our neighbors in Asia—South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Japan, Cambodia, Thailand, and lately China—have just started to appreciate the value of English and are now breaking their necks and spending fortunes just to learn its basics and make themselves more competitive global players.

This is why I think the Philippines must aggressively nurture its English-language legacy rather than sideline it ostensively in the name of nationalism. We should vigorously hone our English writing and speaking skills to protect and further strengthen this legacy. In short, we must make ourselves proficient in English not only in reputation but in reality, and I think the country’s leaders, educators, teachers, and civil servants should take the lead in this effort. And on the part of Filipino journalists, you must not be just passive participants in this undertaking. This is because aside from your work as disseminators of news and opinion, and whether you like it or not, you are actually de facto role models for good English grammar and usage in this country. You therefore shouldn’t set a bad example by being slipshod in the English of your news stories, feature stories, and commentary.  

This is why I’m delighted that you have invited me to conduct this refresher course on English grammar for journalism. I think it’s a clear indication that you are taking your English seriously and that you are truly desirous of polishing it to a good shine—to an English that’s demonstrably better than the English of our nonnative English-speaking counterparts elsewhere in Asia and in the rest of the world. (July 23, 2011)

Writing well in English no guarantee of speaking well in English

Over the past nine years that I’ve been pursuing my good-English advocacy, initially through my English-usage column in The Manila Times and now also through my English-usage books and this website, I have received hundreds of e-mail from people commenting on my views or asking for personal advice on how they might be able to improve their English. In terms of English grammar and usage, I’ve always been confident that my advice and prescriptions could demonstrably help learners improve their written English as well as their thinking process. I didn’t have the same level of confidence though in being able to help people speak well in English. Being totally print-based, I just felt that I didn’t have the wherewithal to give useful instruction on such aspects of speech as pronunciation, enunciation, voice projection, and body language. This was why in practically every case, I would suggest to those asking me for advice on improving their spoken English to seek more competent instruction elsewhere.

Looking back now, I couldn’t help but wonder how those who sought advice from me fared after getting nothing from me beyond such general suggestions as developing the ability to think logically, learning from good English speakers as role models, and relentlessly doing practice, practice, practice. With a tinge of guilt, I am particularly keen in knowing what happened to the pseudonymous Euclid Paraiso, about whose desire to be a call-center agent I wrote the essay below—rather harshly and dismissively, I regret to say—in my English-usage column in the Times way back in 2006. (July 17, 2011)

The need to speak well in English

A few days ago, I received this e-mail from a reader of my English-usage column in The Manila Times:

Dear Mr. Carillo,
 Please give me some pointers on (1) how to improve my capability to speak fluent English, (2) how to speak with confidence before an audience, and (3) how to speak without gaps in my speech. I’m making this request, sir, because I plan to apply to a call center and I want to prepare myself before I send my application. 

         Euclid Paraiso*

Here’s my open reply to the letter:

Dear Euclid,

To speak fluent and convincing English, you need at least four major attributes: a good grasp of English (and by this I mean its vocabulary, grammar, semantics, and structure), logical and clear thinking, good pronunciation, and confidence and empathy with your audience.

It takes years to develop all of these attributes, and those still sorely deficient in most of them by the time they finish college don’t stand a chance at all of landing an English-language call center job. A clear, demonstrable command of spoken English is a must for this job, so all things being equal, applicants who don’t meet this criterion can’t hope to compete with the thousands who have already cultivated their spoken English to a high level. They may possess the intelligence and native charm to impress people in their regional tongue, but if their spoken English is way below par, it would be much better for them to pursue occupations that don’t give too much premium to good spoken English.

It’s true that through my English-usage column, I aim to help people improve their written English, but I would like to emphasize that there’s a whole world of difference between being able to write good English and being able to speak like a good native English speaker. Writing and speaking are two different disciplines, and I’m afraid I can only teach the former. Good writers aren’t necessarily good speakers, and good speakers aren’t necessarily good writers. In fact, it’s an open secret that there are many excellent English-language writers and editors who speak dreadful English, as there are many excellent English-language lecturers, public officials, and TV talk-show hosts who can hardly write a coherent English paragraph, much less a cohesive English exposition.   

As to logical thinking and clarity of thought, Euclid, I fear that these are such in short supply these days. People allow too much politics, ideology, religious fanaticism, and superstition to bend and twist their thinking into such ludicrous shapes. Scores of people getting crushed to death in a TV show stampede? Blame the current national leadership for the grinding poverty that had desperately made those people want to get rich quick by participating in that TV show. A huge chunk of a denuded moun­tainside collapsing to bury a whole village and most of its population? Blame the current national leadership, the rain, or the people themselves for perhaps forgetting to pray the night before for the absolution of their sins. I just hope that you aren’t one of the legions of our people who have been rendered largely incapable of rational thinking by their social milieu, because if you are, Euclid, even impeccable English won’t land you a job in a call center or in any other job that needs clear, straight thinking to produce the desired results.

Good English pronunciation is, of course, something you learn from good English speakers as role models and from years of practice, practice, practice. Only these can eliminate the flaws and gaps in your articulation and build your confidence when addressing an audience. But frankly, Euclid, if you still have serious doubts about your pronunciation up to now, forget that call center job. By dint of hard work you may ultimately achieve passable English diction, but by then your regional accent would have already clung to your tongue and vocal chords so tenaciously that there’d be no hope for you to sound like a native English speaker ever. (February 27, 2006)

------

*Euclid Paraiso is a pseudonym of the letter writer, who at the time of the writing of this letter lived in San Pedro, Laguna.

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, February 27, 2006 © 2006 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

The two ways of paraphrasing quoted statements in reportage

Last week, I posted here a three-part essay, “How to handle reported speech,” that I wrote for my English-usage column in The Manila Times in 2009. I discussed in that essay how the operative verb in a reported statement must be rendered to grammatically match the tense of the reporting verb, and what grammatical changes must be made in the reported statement itself to conform to the sense of reported speech.

This time I am posting a two-part companion essay, “Dealing with quotations and attributions,” which I wrote in 2005 to explain how today’s news service agencies as well as newspapers and magazines present paraphrased quoted statements. As we all know, paraphrasing routinely does away with the quotation marks that set off a quoted statement from its attribution, but this question arises: Which tense should control the time framework of the whole sentence—that of the attribution, or that of the quoted paraphrased material?

The prevailing practice in media is to use the sequence of tenses rule, in which the tense in the paraphrased statement is retained when the attribution comes after or within that statement; when the attribution comes ahead of the paraphrased quoted statement, however, the tense of the attribution gains control over the tenses in the rest of the statement. In contrast, some media organizations use the so-called exceptional sequence rule, which generally retains the tense used in the speaker’s exact words no matter where the attribution falls in the paraphrased quoted material.

The two-part essay that follows discusses precisely how these two ways of dealing with paraphrased statements are done. (July 9, 2011)

  

Dealing with quotations and attributions

Part I:

A reader from India, Jhumur D., has raised a very interesting question by e-mail about the proper use of the tenses in indirectly quoted or paraphrased statements:

“I came across your articles through Google and since then have been its regular reader. We all know that the past tense should be used for indirect narration if the verb [in the attribution] is in the past tense, except for universally true facts. But these days I regularly see the opposite. Can you please explain why this sentence from a reputable news agency doesn’t follow the grammar rule?

State-run Indian Oil Corp. (IOC) is in preliminary talks to acquire Canada’s Niko Resources and French energy firm Maurel and Prom, a spokesman for the Indian refiner said on Friday.

“It should have been ‘was in preliminary talks.’”

Offhand, my answer is that the news agency is correct in using the present tense in the sentence in question. To understand why this is so, however, we first have to review the basics of how written English normally handles quotations and attributions.

We all know that when the exact words of a speaker are quoted, those words should be duly set off by quotation marks. The attribution is then provided either before or after the statement, but depending on the writer’s judgment, it may also be placed within the quoted statement whenever appropriate:

The manager said, “Our president has decided and he’s someone who rarely changes his mind.”
 “Our president has decided and he’s someone who rarely changes his mind,” the manager said. “Our president has decided,” the manager said, “and he’s someone who rarely changes his mind.”

No matter where the attribution is placed in such quoted statements, the statement retains the exact words and the tense of the verbs used by the speaker. We are not at liberty to change anything in what was actually said.

The quoted material presented by Jhumur is something different, however. It has been paraphrased; in other words, it doesn’t use the speaker’s exact words. In print journalism, this practice is indicated by doing away with the quotation marks that normally set off quoted material from its attribution.

Now, when quotation marks are dropped in this manner, there could be confusion as to which tense should control the time framework of the whole sentence—that of the attribution, or that of the quoted paraphrased material. This is why when using paraphrased quoted statements, many news service agencies as well as newspapers and magazines follow the so-called sequence of tenses rule.

Under this rule, when the attribution comes after or within that statement, the tenses in the quoted statement are retained. This is why the quoted paraphrased statement presented by Jhumur uses the present-tense “is in preliminary talks” instead of the past-tense “was in preliminary talks.” On the other hand, when the attribution comes ahead of the paraphrased quoted statement, the tense of the attribution acquires control over the tenses in the rest of the statement.

The tenses used in the original verbatim statement will then change as follows:

(1) The present tense becomes past tense (“is”/”are” to “was”/”were”). For instance, if a beauty contest winner tells the news reporter these exact words, “I am overwhelmed,” the reporter would write it as follows: She said [that] she was overwhelmed.

(2) The future tense becomes conditional (“will” to “would”). For instance, if an irate beauty contest loser tells the reporter these exact words, “I will appeal the judges’ decision,” the reporter would write it as follows: She said [that] she would appeal the judges’ decision.

(3) The past tense becomes past perfect (“was”/”were” to “had been”), except when the time element is indicated. For instance, if a beauty contest chair tells the newspaper reporter these exact words, “We were scandalized by the loser’s complaint,” the reporter would write it as follows: She said [that] they had been scandalized by the loser’s complaint. However, the past tense is retained when the time element of the action in the quoted material is given: She said [that] they were scandalized when the loser filed a complaint yesterday.

(4) The future perfect becomes conditional (“will have + past participle” to “would have + past participle”). For instance, if the beauty contest chair tells the newspaper reporter these exact words, “I will have to review the scores first before deciding,” the reporter would write it as follows: She said she would have to evaluate the scores first before deciding.

Some publications don’t follow this rule, however. Instead, they use the so-called “exceptional sequence rule,” which generally retains the tense used in the original quotation no matter where the attribution is placed in the quoted paraphrased material.

We will discuss this other rule in detail in the next column. (December 20, 2005)

Part II:

We saw in the preceding essay that when quoted statements are paraphrased or don’t use the speaker’s exact words, the convention in written English is to drop the quotation marks that set off the quoted material from its attribution, after which the traditional “sequence of tenses” rule determines the tense of the verbs in the paraphrased quoted material.

This rule is easy to apply when the attribution comes after or within the paraphrased quoted statement. For instance, if a political analyst tells a newspaper reporter these exact words, “Some senators are vehemently against changing the Constitution and I think they’ll fight tooth and nail to defeat the proposed amendments,” the reporter might make a quoted paraphrase in either of two ways:

(1) Some senators are strongly opposed to charter change and will fight the proposed amendments in every possible way, the political analyst said.
 (2) Some senators are strongly opposed to charter change, the political analyst said, and they will fight the proposed amendments in every possible way. The tenses in the speaker’s exact words are retained.

When the attribution comes ahead of the paraphrased quoted statement, however, the tense of the attribution gains control over the tenses in the paraphrase, and the sequence of tenses rule is then applied as follows: present tense becomes past tense, future tense becomes conditional, past tense becomes past perfect, present perfect becomes past perfect, and future perfect becomes future conditional.

Thus, in the earlier example, the quoted paraphrase will change the tenses in the verbatim quotation this way:

The political analyst said [that] several senators were strongly opposed to charter change and would fight it in every possible way.

As previously pointed out, many news service agencies, newspapers, and magazines use the sequence of tenses rule for paraphrased quoted statements, but others consider this rule confusing and misleading. They prefer to use the “exceptional sequence” rule, which generally retains the tense used in the speaker’s exact words no matter where the attribution falls in the paraphrased quoted material. The example given earlier will thus be rendered in this paraphrased quoted form: The political analyst said [that] several senators are strongly opposed to charter change and will fight it in every possible way.

Proponents of the exceptional sequence rule argue that paraphrased quoted statements formed by using it are clearer and more logical and immediate than those formed by using the traditional sequence of tenses rule. True enough, by not having to change the tenses in paraphrased quoted statements, the exceptional sequence rule eliminates a procedure that can sometimes confuse even the writers themselves and possibly mislead the reader.

We can better appreciate the relative virtues of the two rules by applying each to a statement about a situation that doesn’t change so quickly. Assume, for instance, that a provincial governor told a reporter these exact words yesterday: “I have a green card but I don’t intend to live in the U.S. upon my retirement.” A quoted paraphrase of this verbatim statement using the traditional sequence of tenses rule will change its tense from present to past:

The provincial governor said [that] he had a green card but didn’t intend to live in the U.S. upon retiring.

 In contrast, a quoted paraphrase using the exceptional sequence rule will retain the present tense:

The provincial governor said [that] he has a green card but doesn’t intend to live in the U.S. upon retiring. Both versions are grammatically correct, and present no logical problems with their differing use of the tenses.

We must be aware, though, that even under the exceptional sequence rule, some situations arise in which changing the tense of the verbatim quoted material becomes absolutely necessary. For instance, assume that a city mayor told a reporter of a daily newspaper these exact words yesterday: “I am not feeling well so I will not attend the party caucus tonight.”

In a news report for today’s papers, the following paraphrased quoted statement using the exceptional sequence rule will no longer hold logically:

The city mayor said [that] he is not feeling well and will not attend the party caucus last night.

This is because by the time the report is read, the city mayor might have already gotten well and might have even attended the party caucus eventually. Thus, there’s no choice but to use the past tense, as in the case of the sequence of tenses rule:

The city mayor said [that] he was not feeling well and would not attend the party caucus scheduled last night.

Indeed, no matter what rule we use in writing paraphrased quoted statements, we must reflect in a logical way the effect of the passage of time between the utterance of the quoted statement and its being read in the printed form. (December 26, 2005)

-----------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, December 20 and 26, 2005 © 2005 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Reported speech needs advanced grammar skills and a quick mind

From a grammar standpoint, writing about the things we have said ourselves is much simpler than reporting to people what we heard or learned somebody else has said. This latter activity is what’s known in English grammar as reported speech or indirect speech, and it requires higher grammar skills and quickness of mind to do properly. As I’m sure many of us have already found out, putting the reported clause—the statement uttered by the person we are talking about—in the proper tense and form isn’t all that simple. Unless we are among the very few people on Earth gifted with total recall, we won’t be able to quote those utterances word for word. We will often need to paraphrase those utterances and apply what’s known as the normal sequence-of-tenses rule for reported speech—a rule that needs thorough mastery before it can be applied with confidence and finesse.

In “How to handle reported speech,” a three-part essay that I wrote for my English-usage column in The Manila Times in 2009, I discuss how the operative verb in the reported statement must be rendered to grammatically match the tense of the reporting verb, and what grammatical changes must be made in the reported statement to conform to the sense of reported speech. I am posting all three essays here for those who need a full-dress review of reported speech to further improve their English. (July 3, 2011)

How to handle reported speech

Part I:

Handling directly quoted statements is quite simple, but it can sometimes go wrong when we mix up the Ame­rican English and British English styles for using quotation marks and for punctuating quoted statements within quoted statements. It gets just a bit more complicated when we report what someone else has said but don’t use the exact words. We do this, of course, when we can’t remember the exact words or when we just want to summarize, focus on the salient points, or perhaps improve the grammar of what was said. We then enter the realm of what is called in English grammar as reported speech or indirect speech.

The pivotal factor in reported speech is the tense of the reporting verb. When the reporting verb is in the simple present tense, present perfect tense, or future tense, the operative verb in the reported statement remains unchanged; often, only the pronouns in the quoted statement need to be changed.

Consider the following directly quoted statement by American baker Kent Dueitt in an interview with The New York Times: “We keep the dough cooled, to prevent the baking powder from activating, and we don’t beat the dough up. We mix slow.”

In the simple present tense, that statement can be rendered in reported speech as follows:

American baker Kent Dueitt says that they keep the dough cooled to prevent the baking powder from activating and that they don’t beat the dough but mix it slow.

In the present perfect tense:

American baker Kent Dueitt has said that they keep the dough cooled to prevent the baking powder from activating and that they don’t beat the dough but mix it slow.

And in the future tense:

American baker Kent Dueitt will say that they keep the dough cooled to prevent the baking powder from activating and that they don’t beat the dough but mix it slow.

     

In all three of the reporting tenses above, the only grammatically significant change in the reported statement is the replacement of the pronoun “we” with “they.” Of course, the conjunction “that” is used to introduce the indirectly quoted statement, since it takes the form of a noun clause. In informal writing, however, the conjunction “that” can often be dropped to make the reported speech easier to articulate, as we can see in the following “that”-less construction of the simple present tense rendition:

American baker Kent Dueitt says they keep the dough cooled to prevent the baking powder from activating, and don’t beat the dough but mix it slow.

But things in reported speech become more iffy when the reporting verb is in the past tense. The general rule, as we all know, is for the operative verb in the reported statement to move one tense back, but that rule applies only when the action in the reported statement is a completed or consummated one.

Take this direct quote from a Philippine official about the Somalia ship-piracy issue as reported in The Manila Times: “At the moment, we have not gotten any feedback as to the advisability of issuing an official ban for Filipino seamen going there [Somalia].”

Quite simply, that direct quote can be rendered in reported speech this way:

The Philippine official said that they had not gotten any feedback at the moment as to the advisability of issuing an official ban for Filipino seamen going to Somalia.

When the action is a repeated or habitual one, however, as in the case of the baker’s statement quoted in The New York Times, the operative verb in the reported statement formally should take the modal form “would + verb”:

American baker Kent Dueitt said [that] they would keep the dough cooled to prevent the baking powder from activating and [that they] would not beat the dough but mix it slow. (April 18, 2009)

Part II:

In the previous essay, I observed that while the general rule in reported speech is to move the operative verb in the directly quoted statement one tense back, things are not as predictable when the action in the reported statement is a repeated or habitual one, as in this directly quoted statement by an American baker: “We keep the dough cooled, to prevent the baking powder from activating, and we don’t beat the dough up. We mix slow.” I said that in reported speech, the operative verbs in that reported statement formally take not the simple past tense but the modal form “would + verb”:

American baker Kent Dueitt said [that] they would keep the dough cooled to prevent the baking powder from activating and [that they] would not beat the dough but mix it slow.

The formal use of the modal form “would + verb” for this particular situation is meant to indicate that while the actions described—keeping the dough cooled and not beating it—were being repeatedly or habitually done by the bakers up to the point of Mr. Dueitt’s utterance, it’s possible that they might have stopped doing those actions thereafter. In other words, the use of the modal form recognizes that there’s a zone of uncertainty as to whether the repeated or habitual actions described had continued or persisted up to the time the statement was reported. Of course, without that uncertainty—if we are definitely sure that the bakers continue to do those actions up to now—we can very well use the simple present tense for the operative verbs in the reported speech, as follows:

American baker Kent Dueitt said [that] they keep the dough cooled to prevent the baking powder from activating and [that they] don’t beat the dough but mix it slow.

Now, as I had discussed in an earlier essay, when the reporting verb is in the simple past tense, the operative verb in a directly quoted statement—in whatever tense it might be—generally moves one tense backwards in reported speech.

From past progressive in a directly quoted statement:

We were cooling the dough when the baking powder activated it.

To past perfect progressive in reported speech (taking into account that Mr. Dueitt is male): He said they had been cooling the dough when the baking powder activated it.

From present progressive:

We are finding it difficult to cool the dough.

To past progressive:

He said they were finding it difficult to cool the dough.

From simple present perfect:

We have cooled the dough enough but the baking powder activated it.

To simple past perfect:

He said they had cooled the dough enough but the baking powder activated it.

From present perfect progressive:

We have been cooling the dough but the baking powder still activated it.

To past perfect progressive:

He said they had been cooling the dough but the baking power still activated it.

Keep in mind, though, that when the operative verb of the reported utterance is in the past perfect or past perfect progressive tense, no change is possible for it in reported speech; it stays in that tense.

Utterance in the past perfect:

The dough had cooled by the time we remembered to beat it.

In reported speech:

He said the dough had cooled by the time they remembered to beat it.

Utterance in the past perfect progressive:

We had been cooling that dough without beating it as a matter of procedure.

In reported speech:

He said they had been cooling that dough without beating it as a matter of procedure.

We will conclude this discussion in the next essay. (April 25, 2009)

Part III:

We are now almost done with our review of how directly quoted statements behave when transformed into reported speech, particularly in the way their operative verbs move one tense back in the paraphrased statement. All we need to do now is to tie up a few loose ends to make sure that the transformations we make are grammatically correct every time.

In making the transformations, we also need to always change the time signifiers in the directly quoted statement to conform to the sense of reported speech. These time signifiers, whenever present in the direct quote, must be back-shifted one step in time along with the back-shifting of the operative verb. If we forget to do this, our sentences would be askew both grammatically and logically.

These time signifiers or adverbs of time and their conversion to the form needed in reported speech should now be second nature to us, as we can see in the list below of the most common time-signifier conversions:

From “now” to “then”:

Direct quote: “The public should start taking precautions against the swine flu virus right now,” the health official said last week.

Reported speech: The health official said last week that the public should start taking precautions against the swine flu virus right then.

From “today” to “that day”

Direct quote: “I am giving you only until today to settle your account,” she said.

Reported speech: She said she was giving me only until that day to settle my account.

From “tomorrow” to “the following day”

Direct quote: “See me tomorrow to discuss your monthly sales,” my manager said.

Reported speech: My manager asked me to see him the following day to discuss my monthly sales.

From “yesterday” to “the previous day” or “the day before”

Direct quote: “Please tell me what you were doing at the park yesterday,” the irate wife asked her husband.

Reported speech: The irate wife asked her husband what he was doing at the park the previous day [or the day before].

From “last year” to “the year before”

Direct quote: “We met last year during a heavy downpour,” the bride told us.

Reported speech: The bride told us that they met the year before during a heavy downpour.”

Apart from the time signifiers, we also need to routinely change the place signifiers “here” and “this” in directly quoted statements to conform to the sense of reported speech, as follows:

From “here” to “there”

Direct quote: “I saw you here with another woman this morning,” his fiancée said at the restaurant.

Reported speech: His fiancée said at the restaurant [that] she saw him there with another woman that morning.”

From “this” to “that”

Direct quote: “I warned you about this matter several times,” his supervisor said.

Reported speech: His supervisor said [that] he had warned him about that matter several times.

Finally, when the operative verb in a directly quoted statement is in the modal form, we need to remember to always change the modal auxiliary to its past tense form in reported speech.

From “will” to “would”

Direct quote: “The staff will leave only upon my instructions,” the general manager said.

Reported speech: The general manager said [that] the staff would leave only upon his instructions.

From “can” to “could”

Direct quote: “Alicia can finish her report in three days,” the supervisor said.

Reported speech: The supervisor said [that] Alicia could finish her report in three days.”

From “must” to “had to”

Direct quote: “All projects must be finished by yearend,” the president said.

Reported speech: The president said [that] all projects had to be finished by yearend.

From “may” to “might”

Direct quote: “I may go to New York next month,” my friend said.

Reported speech: My friend said he might go to New York next month.

We are done with our review of reported speech. (May 2, 2009)

-----------
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, April 18 and 25 and May 2, 2008 © 2008 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

RELATED ESSAYS:

“The proper way to construct sentences for reported speech”

“Going back to the basic forms of reported speech”