ESSAYS BY JOSE CARILLO
On this webpage, Jose A. Carillo shares with English users, learners, and teachers a representative selection of his essays on the English language, particularly on its uses and misuses. One essay will be featured every week, and previously featured essays will be archived in the forum.
Dealing with exceptional cases of reported speech more confidently
Except for the personal thoughts that people tell us face-to-face, most of the spoken information we get every day comes to us secondhand, either through another person or through other communication channels like the print or broadcast media. What we usually get is what’s known as reported speech or indirect speech—“So and so told me last night that neighbor X was heard berating neighbor Y at the latter’s gate”; “I heard from so and so that Dina was supposed to leave last night for a job in Dubai but was stopped by her husband at the last minute.” And when we read something said by someone in newspapers and magazines, it’s often in the form of a paraphrase. In print, few and far between are the times when things said by someone are so memorable or important enough to be dished out as direct quotes.
We are all familiar with the usual grammar for reported speech—the reporting verb is in the simple past tense (usually “said”) and the operative verb of that reported statement utterance generally takes one step back from the present into the past, as in “Benny told me last night that he was thinking of backing out.” This is in contrast to his exact words when he spoke to you last night: “I am thinking of backing out.” There are certain situations, though, where this general rule doesn’t apply, and the grammar for reported speech in such situations is governed by the so-called exceptional sequence rule.
In this week’s edition of the Forum, I am posting an essay I wrote for my English-usage column in The Manila Times almost four years ago explaining how verbs behave in the exceptional sequence. I hope reading it will give you greater confidence in dealing with this aspect of reported speech.
Click on the title below to read the essay.
In these troubled and troubling times when people’s utterances—whether expressed in private or aired through the broadcast, cellular, or print media—are increasingly being viewed with mutual suspicion, it would be useful to make a quick review of the grammar of reported speech. This would require a reacquaintance with how verbs behave in the normal sequence of tenses and in the so-called exceptional sequence. People should clearly understand this behavior of verbs so they can have a clearer, unbiased perception of the chronology and logic of fast-breaking events as they happen in time.
Reported speech or indirect speech is, of course, simply the kind of sentence someone makes when he or she reports what someone else has said. For instance, a company’s division manager might have told a news reporter these exact words: “I am resigning to join the competition.” In journalism, where the reporting verb is normally in the past tense, that statement takes this form in reported speech: “The division manager said he was resigning to join the competition.”
The operative verb in utterances obviously can take any tense depending on the speaker’s predisposition or intent. However, when an utterance takes the form of reported speech and the reporting verb is in the past tense, the operative verb of that utterance generally takes one step back from the present into the past: the present becomes past, the past usually stays in the past, the present perfect becomes past perfect, and the future becomes future conditional. This is the so-called normal sequence-of-tenses rule in English grammar.
Now let’s review how this rule applies when that division manager’s utterance is stated in the various tenses:
Present tense to past tense. Utterance: “I am resigning to join the competition.” Reported speech: “The division manager said he was resigning to join the competition.”
Past tense to past tense. Utterance: “I resigned to join the competition.” Reported speech: “The division manager said he resigned to join the competition.” (The past tense can usually be retained in reported speech when the intended act is carried out close to its announcement; if much earlier, the past perfect applies.)
Present perfect to past perfect tense. Utterance: “I have resigned to join the competition.” Reported speech: “The division manager said he had resigned to join the competition.”
Future tense to future conditional tense. Utterance: “I will resign to join the competition.” Reported speech: “The division manager said he would resign to join the competition.”
The exceptional sequence. There is, however, one very rare instance when the operative verb in reported speech does not conform to this normal sequence of tenses. In the so-called exceptional sequence, which applies if the information being reported is permanently or always true, the operative verb in reported speech doesn’t take a tense backward but retains the present tense.
For instance, to prove a point, the division manager might have surprised his subordinates by saying an eternal verity like this: “A square has four sides of equal length.” This time, using the normal sequence-of-tenses rule to report that statement would be silly: “Our division manager said a square had four sides of equal length.” All squares will forever have four sides of equal length, so the exceptional sequence applies: “Our division manager said a square has four sides of equal length.”
But should the reported speech for habitual things also follow the exceptional sequence rule? Say, for instance, that right after declaring his intention to resign, that same division manager adds: “I am always loyal to the company I work for.” Would this reported speech for that utterance be correct: “He said he is always loyal to the company he works for”? Definitely not. By his very words, the speaker has shown that loyalty is such a fickle thing, so the normal sequence-of-tenses rule applies to his reported speech: “He said he was always loyal to the company he worked for.” (March 6, 2006)
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, March 6, 2006, © 2006 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
Previously Featured Essay:
Precisely what’s so special about “at the end of the day” and “at this point in time” that probably one out of four Philippine legislators and public officials and probably the same ratio of TV talk-show hosts, news anchors, and guests are mouthing them much too often and with so much relish these days?
Nothing really. “At the end of the day” is simply a longer, flamboyant way of saying “ultimately,” “in the end,” or “after all,” while “at this point in time” is similarly a longer, flamboyant way of saying “now” and “currently.” And these two adverbial phrases—old-time grammarians call them “ablative absolutes”—aren’t really meant to call attention to themselves. Like such modifiers as “clearly” and “definitely,” they are designed simply to call attention to a point being made by the speaker, so they need to be used very sparingly to avoid irritating the listener or reader.
What’s very disturbing, however, is that many people think that liberally spicing their talk with these expressions is a sign of wisdom, discernment, and sophistication. Little do they know that on the contrary, “at the end of the day” and “at this point in time” have for several years now been condemned as the two most irritating clichés in the English language.
In a survey conducted in 70 countries in 2004 by the London-based Plain English Campaign, in particular, “at the end of the day” ranked first and “at this moment in time” (a variation of “at this point in time”) ranked second among the most hated English clichés worldwide. As the group’s spokesman so aptly observed when the rankings of the most irritating clichés were announced, “Using these terms in daily business is about as professional as wearing a novelty tie or having a wacky ring-tone on your phone. When readers or listeners come across these tired expressions, they start tuning out and completely miss the message—assuming there is one.”
Again, in 2005, in a poll of 150 senior executives all throughout corporate America by the temporary staffing company Accountemps, “at the end of the day” ranked first among the 15 most annoying clichés.
Finally, in 2006, in a poll of 10,000 news sources that included 1,600 American newspapers, the Australian-based database com-pany Factiva found “at the end of the day” at the top of the 55 most overused English clichés. But this is only the tip of the iceberg, to use a cliché, for that poll did not cover the US broadcast media where the overuse of “at the end of the day” is decidedly much more pronounced.
If “at the end of the day” and “at this point in time” have indeed become such dreadful banes to the English language, why is it that they are now enjoying such wide currency in the Philippines? They have become such pernicious semantic crutches for so many public officials, media people, and students, and their dependency level is such that they may no longer be able to speak their minds without overusing those two clichés.
I suspect that not so far back, a highly influential public figure either in government, media, or academe must have triggered this domestic overuse of “at the end of the day” and “at this point in time.” Perhaps he or she must have used these two clichés much too often during a major event that was covered live by all of the local TV networks, thus setting such a wrongheaded example for English-savvy speech for audiences all over the land.
It no longer matters who that culprit was, but there’s no doubt that we are now in the midst of an “at the end of the day” and “at this point in time” pandemic, and the only way to stop it is for all of us to totally retire these damaged semantic goods from our writing and speech—right now. (December 22, 2007)
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, December 22, 2007, © 2007 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved..
Click to read more essays (requires registration to post)