Jose Carillo's English Forum

MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH

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

Team up with me in My Media English Watch!

I am inviting Forum members to team up with me in doing My Media English Watch. This way, we can further widen this Forum’s dragnet for bad or questionable English usage in both the print media and broadcast media, thus giving more teeth to our campaign to encourage them to continuously improve their English. All you need to do is pinpoint every serious English misuse you encounter while reading your favorite newspaper or viewing your favorite network or cable TV programs. Just tell me about the English misuse and I will do a grammar critique of it.

Read the guidelines and house rules for joining My Media English Watch!

A glaring grammar error persists on “News on Q”

In the September 19, 2009 issue of The Manila Times, I wrote in my weekly English-usage column about a recurrent glaring grammar error in Prof. Solita Monsod’s closing spiel for the news analysis segment of “News on Q.” That grammar error is committed every time Prof. Monsod, the sharp, bubbly economist from the University of the Philippines, fastidiously intones this catch phrase: “No issue is too big or too small to affect you.” I pointed out in my column that this statement is bad English, for it seriously misuses a figure of speech known as litotes, a rhetorical form of emphasis in which a statement is expressed by denying its opposite.

As I explained in my column, the sentence “No issue is too big or too small to affect you” is a badly constructed litotes because it fails to deny its opposite. To make sense, it has to effect that negation by inserting a “not” before the phrase “to affect you,” so it would read as follows: “No issue is too big or too small not to affect you.” Only then will the intended meaning emerge, which is that “No matter how small or big an issue is, it will always affect you somehow.”

I was hoping that through my column, Prof. Monsod and the scriptwriters of QTV would somehow get to know about this serious grammar error and quietly correct it. I felt then—and still feel the same way now—that it is very important to do so because given Prof. Monsod’s high academic and professional stature, that wrong English usage is likely to be emulated by many English learners and get established in Philippine English for posterity. We all know how pervasive the influence of network TV is on language acquisition in our country.

Yesterday, however, almost two months after the column came out, I was informed by a Forum member that Prof. Monsod still blithely uses that wrongly constructed litotes in her closing spiel on “News on Q.” It appears that neither Prof. Monsod nor anyone in the GMA TV network had read or heard about my column on that wrong English usage. I am inclined to believe, though, that someone had actually done so but decided to stonewall and not do anything about it. This is because the Forum member told me that a day or two after my column appeared, he took the trouble of e-mailing a copy of my column to the “News on Q” feedback address, newsonq@gmanews.tv. He also sent a copy twice to Prof. Monsod’s e-mail address at the UP School of Economics; both times, however, the e-mail bounced back with a “mailbox full” message (it seems Prof. Monsod no longer accesses that e-mail address).

I am sure that neither Prof. Monsod nor the GMA TV people would want to perpetuate bad English usage out of pique or spite or plain indifference, so I believe that this is simply a case of the grammar correction in my column having been unable to reach them up to this time. I am therefore posting that same column below in the hope that Prof. Monsod and the GMA TV or QTV people would finally get to read it and do something about that grammar problem:

No bad English on TV is too small not to affect us*

In her closing spiel for the news analysis segment of “News on Q” on cable TV, the incisive and bubbly economics professor fastidiously intones, “No issue is too big or too small to affect you.” I’m sorry to say at the very outset that this statement is bad English. The first time I heard it, in fact, I thought it was merely a slip of the tongue, but I heard her say it in exactly the same way when I watched the newscast twice this week. This convinced me that the flawed English is actually in the script of the spiel and that the well-respected economics professor is blithely unaware of it.

But what’s wrong with “No issue is too big or too small to affect you”? And why make a fuss about it? Well, it’s for the simple reason that the wrong usage is likely to be emulated by many English learners, so it’s best to correct it now before it gets established for posterity. Indeed, with that flawed English, the speaker is actually saying, “Well, folks, no matter if the issue I’ve just discussed is too big or too small, it won’t affect you anyway, so never mind what I said.” From a semantic standpoint, that statement deems as inconsequential the very issue she has taken all that trouble to analyze.

Now don’t be so quick to say that “No issue is too big or too small to affect you”” is simply a case of a double negative gone wrong. It isn’t. A double negative is an outright grammar error involving the nonstandard usage of two negatives in the same sentence so that they cancel each other and create a positive, as in “I didn’t see nothing” and “I hardly have none of those qualifications”—remarks that would mark you as an uneducated speaker. (The correct usage is, of course, “I didn’t see anything” and “I hardly have those qualifications.”) In contrast, that economic analyst’s closing spiel isn’t a double negative but an error in logic and semantics.

In English, there’s a figure of speech known as litotes—a rhetorical form of emphasis in which a statement is expressed by denying its opposite. A litotes is actually an understatement whose meaning depends on cultural context and the manner it’s said. For instance, depending on the speaker’s tone of voice, the litotes “His prose isn’t bad” could mean either “His prose is excellent” or “His prose is mediocre.” In contrast, a suitor who says “There isn’t a mountain that I wouldn’t cross for my beloved” is also speaking in litotes, but shorn of its rhetorical flourish, the statement can only mean “I would cross every mountain for my beloved.” In all litotes, though, the first negative declaration must be denied by a second negative declaration to produce a positive statement.

It should be clear by now what’s wrong with that closing spiel on QTV. “No issue is too big or too small to affect you” is litotes that’s unable to deny its opposite; in short, it’s a failed litotes. To make sense, it has to effect that negation by inserting a “not” before the phrase “to affect you,” as follows: “No issue is too big or too small not to affect you.” Only then will the intended meaning emerge, which is that “No matter how small or big an issue is, it will always affect you somehow.”

Let me say in closing that making this public correction is something I would rather not have done, knowing that economics professor to be one of the most astute, articulate, and entertaining presences on local television, but I believe that no faulty English usage on television is too small not to be corrected publicly in the interest of people who look up to TV anchors and commentators as role models for good English. (The Manila Times, September 19, 2009)

*This column can still be accessed at the archives of The Manila Times by clicking this link. However, some coding error in the reformatted Times website had converted the quotation marks in that column into boxes. Otherwise, it’s the same column as the one that I have posted above.

SHORT TAKES IN MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH:

(1) “Interpellated,” not “interpolated”

A story in the Philippine Star last November 12, 2009, “Whistle-blowers should be spared,” carried this paragraph:

“Gordon, meanwhile, defended the committee report. ‘I am willing to be interpolated and that’s the way it is because I am the ponente. As far as I am concerned I am going to stand by my recommendation,’ Gordon said.”

The reporter must have misheard Sen. Gordon, for “interpolated” isn’t the correct word in the context of his statement; it should be “interpellated” instead. These two words are almost homonyms or sound-alikes, but their meanings are vastly different. The verb “interpolate” means (1) “to alter or corrupt (as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter,” (2) “to insert between other things or parts,” or (3) “to estimate values of (data or a function) between two known values.” On the other hand, the verb “interpellate” means “to question formally concerning an official action or policy or personal conduct”; in short, to interrupt with a question. It’s clear that Sen. Gordon meant “interpellate” in that statement of his.

By the way, you still won’t find the word “ponente” in some English dictionaries, including the Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary. It’s actually a Spanish word that means “speaker” or “presenter”; literally, it means “reporter” or “notetaker” in Spanish. In meteorology, however, “ponente” is the Spanish or Italian word for “a west wind on the French Mediterranean coast, the northern Roussillon region, and Corsica.”

(2) Two improper uses of determiners in a row

A news story in the Philippine Inquirer last November 12, 2009, “Canada firm bid to use ‘Ibaloi’ protested,” carried the following lead sentence:

“LA TRINIDAD, BENGUET, Philippines—A policymaking body for an Arabica coffee industry in the Cordillera is contesting the intellectual property rights application of a Canadian firm in using ‘Ibaloi’ as brand name for its products.”

The phrase “for an Arabica coffee industry” in the above sentence gives the wrong impression that there are several Arabica coffee industries in the Cordillera. The word “industry” means a “distinct group of productive or profit-making enterprises” for a particular product (as in “footwear industry) or “manufacturing activity as whole” (as in “Philippine industry’). It’s obvious, of course, that there’s only one Arabica industry in the Cordillera, and this industry as a whole has the Cordillera Regional Arabica Coffee Council Inc. (CRACC) as its sole policymaking body. Indeed, contrary to what the sentence as constructed suggests, there is no other such policymaking body for the Arabica coffee industry in the Cordillera.

These two semantic problems in that sentence can be corrected simply by changing the unspecific determiner “a” for “policymaking body” to the categorical “the” to reflect the fact that it’s the only one such body, and by changing the unspecific determiner “an” for “Arabica coffee industry” to the categorical “the” to reflect the fact that it’s the only one such industry in the Cordillera. In short, the original lead sentence made two mistaken uses of determiners.

Here’s the grammatically and semantically correct construction of the original lead sentence:

“LA TRINIDAD, BENGUET, Philippines—The policymaking body for the Arabica coffee industry in the Cordillera is contesting the intellectual property rights application of a Canadian firm in using ‘Ibaloi’ as brand name for its products.”

(3) Misuse of the present perfect tense in Fr. Sinnott release story

The headline story of the Manila Bulletin last November 12, 2009, “MILF helps secure release of Irish missionary,” carried the following lead sentence:

“ZAMBOANGA CITY – Kidnapped Irish Catholic missionary has been freed unharmed early Thursday in this city after a month in captivity through the intercession of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Authorities said no ransom was paid.”

This sentence misuses the present perfect tense, which is formed in English with the singular auxiliary verb “has” and plural auxiliary verb “have” to express action or state completed at the time of speaking. In this particular case, since the time when the “freeing” of the priest is specifically indicated as “early Thursday,” the simple past tense should have been used instead.

Also, the lead sentence in question missed out on the name of the kidnapped priest. In journalism, it is mandatory to state the full name during the first mention.

That lead sentence should therefore be corrected as follows:

“ZAMBOANGA CITY – Kidnapped Irish Catholic missionary Fr. Michael Sinnott was freed unharmed early Thursday in this city after a month in captivity through the intercession of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Authorities said no ransom was paid.”

(4) Wrong verb to denote an outstanding achievement

The Manila Bulletin carried the following grammatically and semantically erroneous second paragraph for a feature story in its November 13, 2009 issue, “A Woman of Science”:

“Science has always been a field typically dominated by men. But through the years, more and more women are leveling the playing field.

“Dr. Lourdes Cruz, Filipino scientist and professor at the Marine Science Institute at the University of the Philippines Diliman, adds to the roster of these not-so-ordinary women when she was named laureate at the 12th annual L’ORÉAL-UNESCO Awards for Women in Science.

“Because of her discovery of marine snail toxins that can serve as powerful tools to study brain functions, Dr. Cruz becomes the first Filipino ever to receive the prestigious award.”

The wrong verb in that second paragraph is “adds.” That’s definitely not an action done by or attributable to Dr. Lourdes Cruz. She didn’t “add” to the roster; she “joined” that roster when she became a winner of that science award.

The verb “adds” in that second paragraph should therefore be changed to “joins”:

“Dr. Lourdes Cruz, Filipino scientist and professor at the Marine Science Institute at the University of the Philippines Diliman, joins the roster of these not-so-ordinary women when she was named laureate at the 12th annual L’ORÉAL-UNESCO Awards for Women in Science.”

Click to post a comment to this critique

View the complete list of postings in this section