A well-regarded English-language website,
The Vocabula Review, used to carry this slogan in its banner: “A society is generally as lax as its language.” It explained that slogan in this wise: “Even today—subjected as we are to the apotheosis of popular culture—using the English language respectfully helps us maintain a sense of ourselves and our values. To do otherwise, to disregard the ways of our words, is to forsake our humanity and, perhaps, even forfeit our future. A society is generally as lax as its language. And in a society of this sort, easiness and mediocrity are much esteemed.”
I think this truism, “A society is generally as lax as its language,” can be justifiably paraphrased to apply to journalism as well: “A newspaper is generally as lax as its language” or, even more to the point, “A newspaper is generally as lax as its reporters and editors.” And along this line, I believe that it’s the obligation of every newspaper and also in its best interest to be ever watchful of its language, making sure that its reportage is not only grammatically and semantically correct but also logical at all times.
That said, I’ll now proceed to list down and critique what I believe are manifestations of serious language laxity in last week’s issues of three major Metro Manila broadsheets (all italicizations in the passages presented below are mine):
1. Philippine Daily Inquirer: Seriously flawed, imprecise reportorial language Phivolcs warns: Mayon to blow its top in few weeks “LEGAZPI CITY — Mayon Volcano, which has blown its top nearly 40 times in 400 years, Thursday menaced nearby residents with small eruptions of ash and lava as relief agencies moved more than 30,000 people to shelters in case of a larger eruption.”
Here, I submit that using the figurative expressions “blow its top” and “blown its top” in reference to Mayon Volcano is seriously flawed, inappropriate language. Also, the phrase “in case of a larger eruption” is used in a semantically inappropriate way that I’ll explain later.
2. Manila Bulletin: A wrong word sends the wrong messageRestive Mayon a tourist drawLocal and foreign tourists have started flocking to Albay to take a glimpse of the glowing lava flow from rumbling Mayon Volcano, while police and military personnel were told to seal off danger zones from tourists and hardheaded residents who have been evacuated but who continuously try to return to their homes.
Here, I submit that it’s bad grammar as well as bad semantics to use the verb phrase “take a glimpse” in reference to the glowing lava flow from Mayon Volcano. Also, the motivation implied for the tourists in wanting to go to Albay—“to take a glimpse of the glowing lava flow from rumbling Mayon Volcano”—is lame and unconvincing.
3. Philippine Star: In peacetime, no nation can really tighten its borders3 government agencies forge ties to tighten RP borders“MANILA, Philippines - The government has tightened the country’s borders to stop smuggling and human trafficking and prevent the entry of diseases.
“Customs Commissioner Napoleon Morales, Immigration Commissioner Marcelino Libanan and Bureau of Quarantine Director IV Edgardo Sabitsana have agreed to establish a Joint Chiefs of Enforcement Bureau (JCCIQEB) to implement a Strategic Partnership on Immigration, Customs, Quarantine Enforcement or SPICQE.”
Here, I submit that from a language standpoint, it’s seriously inappropriate and illogical to say that the government “has tightened the country’s borders,” for elementary logic tells us that unless encroached upon, the borders of any country remain fixed.
MY CRITIQUE AND SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS: Let’s now analyze the language of the three problematic passages I listed above and see how the passages can be improved:
1. Philippine Daily Inquirer: Seriously flawed, inappropriate reportorial language Phivolcs warns: Mayon to blow its top in few weeks “LEGAZPI CITY — Mayon Volcano, which
has blown its top nearly 40 times in 400 years, Thursday menaced nearby residents with small eruptions of ash and lava as relief agencies moved more than 30,000 people to shelters
in case of a larger eruption.”
I said earlier that using the figurative expressions “blow its top” and “blown its top” in reference to Mayon Volcano is seriously lax and inappropriate language. If, as the headline declares, Phivolcs had indeed made this warning, “Mayon to blow its top in few weeks,” that agency not only had taken extreme liberties with its English but had also used very unscientific language in its pronouncement. Instead of the well-established, level-headed word “eruption,” it used an emotionally charged figurative expression instead, “blow its top,” which means “to become violently angry” or “to go crazy.” If the Phivolcs spokesperson actually said that, using
personification—in this case, language that ascribes such deplorable human behavior to volcanoes—then he should be reminded to henceforth be more levelheaded and circumspect in his use of English.
But I strongly doubt that the expression “blow its top” came from Phivolcs itself. This much we can already gather from the lead sentence of the broadsheet’s story itself: “Mayon Volcano,
which has blown its top nearly 40 times in 400 years, Thursday menaced nearby residents with small eruptions of ash and lava…” That expression obviously springs from the same figurative mindset of the reporter or deskperson who wrote that lead sentence—a statement that happens to be erroneous not only in its language but also in its arithmetic. For even granting without accepting that Mayon does “blow its top” whenever it erupts, then Mayon definitely has blown its top not just “nearly 40 times” during the last 400 years but perhaps so many hundreds—if not thousands—of times.
Indeed, when Mayon had a major eruption 20 or so years ago, I happened to have watched the spectacle from Oas, Albay, just several kilometers away from the base of the volcano. I recall that in the span of an hour or so, it erupted with fire and volcanic rocks at least six or seven times, shooting fireballs of molten lava high up into the air, after which the lava would fall and cascade down the mountainside. And since that eruption lasted for several days, Mayon must have “blown its top” several hundred times during that single eruption period. Now, for a total 40 eruption periods during the past 400 years, how many times do you think Mayon had actually “blown its top,” if its eruptions can truly and logically be termed as such? Definitely not just 40 times but surely several thousands of times. This is the serious problem that arises when figurative language is mixed with bad arithmetic—you come up with highly improbable or even ridiculous conclusions.
Again, from a semantic standpoint, does it make sense for a volcano to have “erupted nearly 40 times”? When it had already erupted 39 times and was about to erupt the 40th time, was this last eruption somewhat aborted for the total figure to remain 39? What we have here is another problem with the word choices and language used. In reality, of course, the reporter was dealing with an estimated number of major eruptions—about 40 in 400 years. Such an estimate, however, isn’t the same semantically as erupting “nearly 40 times” or “almost 40 times.”
Finally, in the coordinate clause “as relief agencies moved more than 30,000 people to shelters in case of a larger eruption,” the use of the phrase “in case of” is semantically improper. It doesn’t grammatically and logically link the preceding statement with the final phrase “a larger eruption.” The 30,000 people have already been moved, so the contingent aspect of the phrase “in case of a larger eruption” can’t apply here. The appropriate prepositional phrase for achieving that linkage is “as a precaution against.”
This is why to sum up, I think a more sensible rendition of that headline and story lead is this:
Phivolcs warns: Mayon girding for major eruption in a few weeks “LEGAZPI CITY — Mayon Volcano,
which is estimated to have had 40 major eruptions in 400 years, Thursday menaced nearby residents with small eruptions of ash and lava as relief agencies moved more than 30,000 people to shelters
as a precaution against a larger eruption.”
Indeed, in reporting volcanic eruptions, calling a spade a spade is still the best policy.
2. Manila Bulletin: A wrong word sends the wrong messageRestive Mayon a tourist draw“Local and foreign tourists have started flocking to Albay
to take a glimpse of the glowing lava flow from rumbling Mayon Volcano, while police and military personnel were told to seal off danger zones from tourists and hardheaded residents who have been evacuated but
who continuously try to return to their homes.”
Why is it seriously lax language as well as bad grammar to use the verb phrase “take a glimpse of the glowing lava flow from Mayon Volcano?”
First, the verb phrase used is incorrect. You “don’t take a glimpse” of anything; you “get a glimpse” of it. We say, “The poet William Blake
got a glimpse of eternity in a flower,” not “The poet William Blake
took a glimpse of eternity in a flower,” As a transitive verb, “glimpse” means “to get a brief look,” not “to take a brief look.” It’s very important to know this shade of difference.
But an even more serious flaw in that statement is the use of the verb “glimpse” itself. For simplicity of analysis, let’s take the locals out of the equation and just focus on the foreign tourists. Do you think they would take the trouble of flying in to Manila, then fly again or drive or take a ride some 400 kilometers all the way to Legazpi City just “to take a glimpse of the glowing lava flow from rumbling Mayon Volcano”? No way! Just a “glimpse” would be too short for all that trouble!
So what’s a more appropriate verb instead of “glimpse”? Perhaps good, old “watch” will do; but really, who in his or her right mind would take all that trouble just to watch “the glowing lava flow from rumbling Mayon Volcano”? All volcanoes spew lava when they erupt, and they all rumble during an eruption. So what’s the true motivation for a foreign tourist who comes to the Philippines to watch a volcanic eruption? It’s definitely not just the lava and the rumblings of just another volcano, so what would it be? It would be majestic Mayon with its almost perfect cone! Really, this is Mayon’s primary claim to fame and it’s biggest tourist draw. This is the motivation that should have been incorporated in the language of that lead sentence, but which the reporter was unable to provide.
One final comment: The sentence in question used the adverb “continuously” to modify the verb phrase “try to return to their homes.” It’s an incorrect word choice, for “continuously” means “marked by uninterrupted extension in time.” The correct word is “continually,” which means “recurring in steady usually rapid succession.”
Taking all these observations into account, the following reconstruction of that lead probably comes close to providing that much-need motivation that could make the statement semantically acceptable:
“Local and foreign tourists have started flocking to Albay
to watch a major eruption of majestic Mayon Volcano, while police and military personnel were told to seal off danger zones from tourists and hardheaded residents who have been evacuated but
who continually try to return to their homes.”
(For us local newspaper readers, of course, the adjective “majestic” could probably be treated as optional to that sentence.)
3. Philippine Star: In peacetime, no nation can really tighten its borders3 government agencies forge ties to tighten RP borders“MANILA, Philippines - The government
has tightened the country’s borders to stop smuggling and human trafficking and prevent the entry of diseases.
“Customs Commissioner Napoleon Morales, Immigration Commissioner Marcelino Libanan and Bureau of Quarantine Director IV Edgardo Sabitsana have agreed to establish a Joint Chiefs of Enforcement Bureau (JCCIQEB) to implement a Strategic Partnership on Immigration, Customs, Quarantine Enforcement or SPICQE.”
As I said earlier, elementary logic tells us that unless purposively encroached upon, the borders of any country remain fixed. To say that the government “has tightened the country’s borders” is therefore seriously lax and inappropriate language. Because a country’s borders are fixed by topography, tightening them just couldn’t be done physically, even if the government wanted to. It is the security measures in a country’s boarders that can be tightened in this particular case, and it’s really a surprise why this crucial element was overlooked in that lead statement.
Perhaps the reporter or deskperson had problems incorporating the phrase “providing security” in that sentence. Whatever the case, perhaps the word “watch” would work better instead of the phrase “providing security.” Let’s try it:
3 government agencies agree to tighten watch of RP borders“MANILA, Philippines - The government
has tightened its watch of the country’s borders to stop smuggling and human trafficking and prevent the entry of diseases.”
Now I think everything has become clear and logical in that statement.