MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH

If you are a new user, click here to
read the Overview to this section

The blind spot of some journalists for the present progressive tense

During the past two years that I’ve been doing my media English watch, I would routinely gloss over what I deemed to be a minor and harmless verb tense error by some Metro Manila newspapers: their misuse of the present perfect for the present progressive. In my recollection, only once had I called attention to such a grammar error, and that was in the case of the following lead sentence of a news story in the June 1, 2011 issue of one of the leading broadsheets:

Manila Bulletin: Wrong use of the present perfect “has pushed”

In my critique of that lead sentence, I pointed out that its use of the present-perfect verb phrase “has pushed for the establishment” is grammatically wrong because it gives the wrong sense that the party-list lawmaker no longer pushed for the proposed legislation after he filed it in the Lower House. We will recall that in English, the present perfect tense expresses an action or state completed at the time of speaking, and at first glance, this sense appears to be correctly conveyed by the present perfect “has pushed” in this sentence: “A party-list lawmaker has pushed for the establishment of a ‘plastic bag pollution fund.’”

On closer scrutiny, however, we’ll find that the lawmaker’s action of pushing for his pet bill didn’t stop when he filed it in the Congress. On the contrary, his act of filing just marked the official start of his legislative push for the plastic bag pollution fund. The present perfect tense therefore captures only the sense of the “push” towards the act of filing the bill—a sense that’s only partly correct. Indeed, unless that party-list lawmaker backed out of his advocacy right after filing the bill, his push for the plastic bag pollution fund could only be a continuing, uninterrupted one, and the tense that conveys this idea correctly is the present progressive, as in this rewrite that I offered at the time:

“A party-list lawmaker is pushing for the establishment of a ‘plastic bag pollution fund’ that would finance the environmental programs and projects.”

That, I thought, was the end of it for this seeming blind spot of local journalists for the present progressive tense. This weekend, however, I was taken aback when I came across two similar grammatical errors, one in the same newspaper as before and the other in the news website of a major TV network. They are as follows:

(1) Manila Bulletin: Wrong use of present perfect “have pushed”

(2) ABS-CBN News Online: Wrong use of the present perfect “has encouraged”

In the case of the first grammatically faulty lead sentence above, it’s obvious that the nursing organizations didn’t stop pushing for the bills concerned after issuing their strong appeal to the leadership of the House of Representatives to get those bills approved. We can be sure that they are still pushing for it today and will do so well into the future, so the verb in that lead sentence should be in the present progressive instead of the present perfect tense, as follows:

“Nursing organizations in the country are pushing for the passage of bills prohibiting private and government hospitals and other medical institutions from charging fees for on-the-job training of nurses.”

In the case of former Philippine President Joseph Estrada’s press statement, we can also be sure that his encouragement to more whistleblowers to testify on alleged fraud in the 2004 elections isn’t only for the moment but for as long as the issue remains unresolved. That lead sentence paraphrasing his statement should therefore be also in the present progressive instead of the present perfect tense, as follows:

“Former President Joseph Estrada is encouraging more people who have knowledge of alleged fraud during the 2004 elections to come out in public.”

Of course, if some reporters and editors are leery about the categorical imperative tone of that news lead, it can be attenuated somewhat by being restated in this less imposing form:

“Former President Joseph Estrada has issued a statement encouraging more people who have knowledge of alleged fraud during the 2004 elections to come out in public.”

SHORT TAKES IN MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH:

(1) ABS-CBN News: Fuzzy arithmetic

Let’s check the fuzzy arithmetic of the lead sentence above: There were two women who gave birth, all right, but how many babies did each give birth to? A quadruplet and a triplet each for a total of 14 babies in all? That seems to be what that sentence is saying, but of course that’s most improbable—even absurd from a biological standpoint. It would be much more logical to interpret that sentence this way: one woman gave birth to quadruplets, and another woman to triplets, for a total of only seven babies. But how do we say this clearly and unmistakably?

The scrupulously formal but rather stiff way is to deploy the adverb “respectively,” as follows:

“Two mothers gave birth to quadruplets and triplets, respectively, in a single hospital in Manila on Thursday.”

But I would much prefer this more relaxed version:

 “A woman gave birth to quadruplets and another to triplets in the same hospital in Manila on Thursday.”

Note that I also changed “a single hospital” to “the same hospital.” As far as I know, “single” isn’t the same thing as “same.”

(2) GMA News Online: Use of wrong tense for the verb

Because it’s in the wrong tense, the verb phrase “enabling the utility firm to service the entire island by 2014” in the lead sentence above gives the wrong sense that Manila Water Co. has already serviced the whole of Boracay Island even before the company has put up the water supply system for which it had obtained the loan. This is what happens when verb phrases in the progressive tense (like “enabling the utility firm…” in this case) are used indiscriminately, without examining their effect on the semantics of the sentence.

I propose the following rewrite to correct the wrong sense conveyed by that sentence:

“The Boracay venture of Manila Water Co. has secured from two local banks a P500-million loan that will enable the utility firm to service the entire island by 2014.”

Note that this sentence construction uses a “that”-clause to specify a future outcome made possible by the loan obtained by the company. 

(3) ABS-CBN News Online: Misuse of the word “youth”

The headline and the lead sentence of the news story above misuses the collective noun “youth.” In the singular form, “youth” either means “the quality or state of being youthful” or just one young person or creature. When the noun “youth” is modified by two or a larger number, it has to take the plural form “youths.”

That headline and lead sentence should therefore be corrected as follows:

(4) The Philippine Star: Wrong negative modification of a phrase

In the lead sentence above, bad phrasing due to wrong negative modification beclouds the sense of the clause “some Chinese-Filipino students don’t go to school driving their own cars or carrying the latest gadgets.” The semantics of the phrase “don’t go to school driving their own cars” is particularly problematic.

Here’s a rewrite of that sentence that clearly conveys the correct sense:

“In Tondo, Manila, some Chinese-Filipino students don’t drive their own cars to school or carry the latest gadgets.”

(5) Philippine Daily Inquirer: Bad syntax

The lead sentence of the news story above suffers from bad syntax, making it confusing to read. Also as a result, the prepositional phrase “to contain toxic elements, including lead and cadmium” ends up as a dangling modifier, unable to find a proper subject to modify.

Here’s a rewrite of that sentence that organizes its various elements in a clearer fashion:

“DAVAO CITY—Scientists from an international group found at a mall and in street stalls here some imported toys that contain toxic elements, including lead and cadmium.”

(6) The Manila Times: Use of wrong verb tense

The lead sentence above commits a very basic grammar error: using the present perfect “has entered” in a sentence that states the precise day and time—“Thursday afternoon”—that the action took place. The proper tense for such situations is, of course, the past tense.

Also, that lead sentence dysfunctionally uses the nonrestrictive relative pronoun “which” to introduce the relative clause “(which) is expected to bring more rains in Luzon and Visayas this weekend.” Logically, that clause should be treated as a coequal coordinate clause in that sentence, one linked to the first clause by the coordinating conjunction “and.”

So here’s that lead sentence as grammatically straightened out:

“Another weather disturbance entered the Philippine area of responsibility Thursday afternoon and is expected to bring more rains in Luzon and Visayas this weekend.”

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section