Jose Carillo's 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!

The grammatically correct usage of the modals “may” and “might”

The four major Metro Manila broadsheets have kept their news and feature stories largely free of serious grammar errors for two weeks running now, so let’s take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to focus on how they are doing in the finer aspects of English usage. In particular, I would like to dwell on their usage of the modals, the auxiliary verbs that are used to enhance or restrict the main verb to a certain context. We will recall that modals, which are also called modal auxiliaries, function only as helping verbs and can’t act alone as the main verb in a sentence. 

The most often used modals in English are, of course, “can,” “could,” “may,” “should,” “might,” “will,” “must,” and “would.” They differ from the three other verb auxiliaries “be,” “do,” and “have,” all of which are non-modal in character and can also serve as main verbs in a sentence.

Now let’s take a look at particular specimens of the usage of the modal “may” in two of the leading broadsheets:

(1) Philippine Daily Inquirer: Use of wrong tense of the modal “may”

Ratings war may have doomed negotiations

MANILA, Philippines—A raging ratings war among broadcast networks may have doomed negotiations and turned an 11-hourlong hostage drama into a bloodbath, a radio-TV reporter who was on the phone to the gunman during the critical hours told a fact-finding panel Wednesday.

Erwin Tulfo told the committee headed by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima that the blow-by-blow coverage of the standoff was driven by the media tendency to “out scoop” each other.

“The problem is, we are all chasing ratings, exclusivity. My colleagues may not admit it, but that was the main thing, getting an exclusive report,” he said.

The big grammar question here is two-fold: Is the headline’s use of the modal “may” correct? And is the use of the modal “may” in the lead sentence of the news story, “may have doomed negotiations,” likewise correct?

By definition, “may” in the sense of indicating possibility or probability is the present-tense form, and its past-tense form is “might.” Grammatically, then, that headline should use “might” to read as follows: “Ratings war might have doomed negotiations.”

In newspaper journalism, however, there’s a tradition of rendering headlines in the present tense to give the story a greater sense of immediacy, as in the headline “Police seize P50-million worth of ‘shabu’ in Masbate.” It can therefore be forcefully argued that the use of the present-tense “may” in the headline “Ratings war may have doomed negotiations” is perfectly acceptable.

In the case of the lead sentence, however, I don’t think the use of the present-tense “may” in the verb phrase “may have doomed negotiations” is similarly defensible. The sentence in the story proper is clearly now being told in the past tense, so the correct modal for that sentence should be in the past-tense “might.” The headline and that lead sentence should then read as follows:

“Ratings war may have doomed negotiations

“MANILA, Philippines—A raging ratings war among broadcast networks might have doomed negotiations and turned an 11-hourlong hostage drama into a bloodbath, a radio-TV reporter who was on the phone to the gunman during the critical hours told a fact-finding panel Wednesday.”

To avoid confusing readers with the conflicting usage of “may” and “might” in this particular example (let’s keep in mind that the story doesn’t have the luxury of time to explain the grammar discrepancy), I think it would be highly advisable to use the past-tense form “might” for both the headline and the lead sentence, as follows:

“Ratings war might have doomed negotiations

“MANILA, Philippines—A raging ratings war among broadcast networks might have doomed negotiations and turned an 11-hourlong hostage drama into a bloodbath, a radio-TV reporter who was on the phone to the gunman during the critical hours told a fact-finding panel Wednesday.”

There’s one other usage of the modal “may” in the news story, this one where Mr. Erwin Tulfo is directly quoted:

“The problem is, we are all chasing ratings, exclusivity. My colleagues may not admit it, but that was the main thing, getting an exclusive report,” he said.

This time, the sentence is clearly in the present tense, so the usage of “may” in the clause “my colleagues may not admit it” is clearly grammatically correct and indisputable.

(2) Manila Bulletin: Wrong use of “may”; subject-verb disagreement error

Make Facebook and Twitter Work to your Advantage

Social networking is the fad these days. May you be in school or at work, you’ll miss out on most conversations if you don’t have any idea what Facebook and Twitter is all about.

The use of the modal “may” in the construction “may you be in school or at work” is a grammatically improper way to denote alternative conditions or possibilities. The modal “may” can only be used to indicate the possibility or probability of something, as in “You may be correct,” but not alternatives. To denote alternative conditions or possibilities, the correct way is to use the conjunction “whether,” as in “whether you are in school or at work,” or, even better and more concise, “whether in school or at work.”

Also, in the noun phrase “what Facebook and Twitter is all about,” the nouns “Facebook” and “Twitter” form a compound subject, so the verb should be the plural “are” instead of the singular “is.”

Here’s that lead passage as corrected:

“Social networking is the fad these days. Whether in school or at work, you’ll miss out on most conversations if you don’t have any idea what Facebook and Twitter are all about.”

SHORT TAKES IN MY MEDIA ENGLISH WATCH:

(1) The Manila Times: Improper phrasing and faulty marshaling of facts

Police seize P50-million worth of ‘shabu’ in Masbate

LEGAZPI CITY: For the first time the biggest worth of illegal drugs was seized on the island province of Masbate on Wednesday by the joint forces of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

Maj. Harold Cabunoc, regional spokesman of Army’s Ninth Infantry Division, told The Manila Times that a five-kilogram of methamphetamine hydrochloride crystals or shabu with estimated street value of P50 million was seized by the joint forces of the national police and Armed Forces on Wednesday morning at the port of Masbate.

The breathless use of the phrase “for the first time the biggest worth of illegal drugs” gives the lead sentence above a slippery, bewildering sense. It gives rise to two unanswerable questions: What was done for the first time? And what does “the biggest worth of illegal drugs” mean? It’s obvious, of course, that the problem is in the improper phrasing and faulty marshaling of facts in that passage.

Here’s a suggested rewrite of that passage that should clarify matters for the readers:

A shipment of illegal drugs worth P50 million was seized on the island province of Masbate on Wednesday by joint forces of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). It was the biggest haul of illegal drugs ever by authorities in the Bicol Region.

“Maj. Harold Cabunoc, regional spokesman of Army’s Ninth Infantry Division, told The Manila Times that the five-kilogram shipment of methamphetamine hydrochloride crystals or shabu was confiscated by the national police and armed forces on Wednesday morning at the port of Masbate.”

(2) Manila Bulletin: Wrong choice of pointing adjective

Palengskwela: Market workers get a crack at education

Inside the bagsakan area of the Tagum Public Market, the air is damp and the heat is sweltering on that Thursday morning.

But for Delio Caya, 38, an Alternative Learning System (ALS) mobile teacher, this is another day of interesting encounter with his students under the Department of Education’s Palengskwela.

His 17 learners (11 boys and six girls) in the secondary level are mostly market vendors, street sweepers and out-of-school youths. Used to economic deprivation and sometimes emotional stress, these learners, with ages that range from 15 to 29 years old, at times attend their classes a little drunk. Classes start at 8 a.m. and ends at 4:30 p.m. every Thursday.

This is a very engaging, almost flawless narrative that’s told in the present tense, but its sense of “nowness” is ruined by its inadvertent use of the phrase “on that Thursday morning,” which, of course, roughly shunts the reader to the past. This is because the pointing adjective “that” evokes a time frame farther away or less immediately under observation or discussion; in contrast, the pointing adjective “this” evokes a time frame nearer or more immediately under observation or discussion—in other words, it conjures the present tense or “now” for the reader.

See how replacing “that” with “this” makes the events described in the passage seem to be happening entirely in the present tense:

“Inside the bagsakan area of the Tagum Public Market, the air is damp and the heat is sweltering on this Thursday morning.

“But for Delio Caya, 38, an Alternative Learning System (ALS) mobile teacher, this is another day of interesting encounter with his students under the Department of Education’s Palengskwela.

“His 17 learners (11 boys and six girls) in the secondary level are mostly market vendors, street sweepers and out-of-school youths. Used to economic deprivation and sometimes emotional stress, these learners, with ages that range from 15 to 29 years old, at times attend their classes a little drunk. Classes start at 8 a.m. and ends at 4:30 p.m. every Thursday.”

(3) Philippine Star: Seriously convoluted sentence

Improve ICT curriculum to address job market demand, TESDA tells tertiary schools

MANILA, Philippines - The Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) wants colleges and universities to improve their information communication technology (ICT) education curriculum to enable them to produce graduates that are competent and employable IT workers that it said is now much in demand by the local and foreign job markets.

TESDA director-general Joel Villanueva said that the agency would take the initiative in introducing ICT training curriculum content to beef up the ICT education programs of colleges and universities all over the country.

The first sentence of the lead passage above is a seriously convoluted sentence for the following reasons:

  1. Excessive multiple modification of a noun: The noun phrase “their information communication technology (ICT) education curriculum” is so difficult to comprehend because the operative noun, “curriculum,” is modified by no less than five words—the possessive “their” and five nouns in succession. Much better: “their curriculum for information communication technology (ICT).”
  2. Triple-barreled use of infinitive phrases: The consecutive use of three infinitive phrases—“to improve…”, “to enable them…”, and “to produce”—makes the sentence very cumbersome to read. A way has to be found to reduce these infinitive phrases.
  3. Double-layered use of “that” subordinate phrases: Along with the triple-barreled use of infinitive phrases, the consecutive use of two “that” subordinate phrases—“that are competent and employable IT workers” and “that it said is now much in demand by the local and foreign job markets”—makes the sentence so bewildering that it’s practically a mind-twister. A way has to be found to relieve that sentence from its serious grammatical overload.

Here’s a proposed clearer, more readable reconstruction for that highly problematic sentence:

“The Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) wants colleges and universities to improve their curriculum for information communication technology (ICT). This, the TESDA said, will enable them to produce competent and employable IT workers who are now much in demand in both the local and foreign job markets.”

(4) Manila Bulletin: Pronoun with unclear antecedent; wrong preposition usage; wrong form of past perfect tense

Increased Fish Intake Reduces Risk of Hearing Loss in Adults

Hearing loss is one of the leading disabilities among older people. But eating more fish will help lessen the chances of getting this.

It was found in a study from the University of Sydney, led by Paul Mitchell, that those people who ate fish twice a week had lessen their chances of getting hearing loss by 42%, compared with those who ate only less than a serving a week. It was assumed that this was due to higher intakes of omega-3, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and docosapentaenoic acid (DPA).

  1. Pronoun with unclear antecedent: In the second sentence of the lead paragraph, the pronoun “this” has an unclear antecedent. It couldn’t be the plural “leading disabilities,” of course, and repeating the true antecedent of “this”—the noun “hearing loss”—would sound awkward in this particular case. The intended meaning will become much clearer by adding the singular noun “disability” after “this” rather than relying on “this” alone.
  2. Wrong preposition usage: In the third sentence, the noun phrase “a study from the University of Sydney” improperly uses the preposition “from”; “at” would convey the intended sense much better.   
  3. Wrong form of past perfect tense: The verb phrase “had lessen their chances” is in the wrong form of the past perfect; the verb “lessen” should be in the part participle “lessened” instead: “had lessened their chances.”

So here’s that lead passage as corrected:

“Hearing loss is one of the leading disabilities among older people. But eating more fish will help lessen the chances of getting this disability.

“It was found in a study at the University of Sydney led by Paul Mitchell that those people who ate fish twice a week had lessened their chances of getting hearing loss by 42%, compared with those who ate only less than a serving a week. It was assumed that this was due to higher intakes of omega-3, particularly eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and docosapentaenoic acid (DPA).”

Click to post a comment to this critique

View the complete list of postings in this section




Copyright © 2010 by Aperture Web Development. All rights reserved.

Page best viewed with:

Mozilla FirefoxGoogle Chrome

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!

Page last modified: 11 September, 2010, 3:05 a.m.