Isn't the phrase "2,500 cringeworthy English" itself cringeworthy English?

[Joe Carillo]

Feedback posted on my Personal Box by aidsasis, new Forum member (September 1, 2013):

I read your article “2,500 cringeworthy English in DepEd’s Grades 8, 7 learning materials” in the Manila Standard, and I’m pretty sure you didn’t write that title.

I do hope you spoke to them about that cringeworthy error.

My reply to aidasis:

I did write that title. Can you please tell me what you find objectionable about it? That way, I can give you a proper response.

By the way, it wasn’t published in the Manila Standard-Today but in The Manila Times.

Rejoinder of aidsasis:

Isn’t it that the word “English” functions like a mass noun? We don’t say, “People should improve their Englishes,” or “My student made a mistake on 5 English today.”

That’s why I found the title cringeworthy.

My response to aidasis’s comments:

The word “English” does function as a mass noun as you’ve pointed out, but depending on usage and context, it can also function as a count noun or an adjective.

It’s obviously a mass noun that’s singular both grammatically and notionally when used to denote English as a language, as in the sentence “English is a major hiring criterion today,” and as a field of study, as in “English is only an elective in my course.” A telltale sign of this mass-noun usage is the absence of the definite article “the” before the noun; in such cases, the verb takes the singular form. In contrast, “English” is a mass noun that’s plural both notionally and grammatically when used to denote the English people as a group, as in “The English speak what’s known as British English.” A telltale sign of this usage is the presence of the definite article “the” before the noun; in such cases, the verb takes the plural form.

“English” is a count noun that becomes plural both grammatically and notionally when used to denote the various kinds or varieties of English in use in various parts of the world, as in “Worldwide, scores of Englishes have been identified by the researchers.” (“Yes, there’s a plural for English and it’s ‘Englishes’”) As a count noun, however, “English” can also be singular both grammatically and notionally when preceded by the indefinite article “an,” as in “An English like yours won’t qualify you for a call-center job for the American market.”

Of course, when the word “English” modifies a noun, it functions as an adjective, as in “English idioms number several thousands, making it tougher for nonnative English speakers to speak the language with confidence.”

Now I think we’re ready to analyze my usage of “English” in that title of my column in The Manila Times last August 31, 2013: “2,500 cringeworthy English in DepEd’s Grades 8, 7 learning materials.” Is that usage aboveboard or, as you argue, itself a cringeworthy one?

Let’s consider that usage of “English” from two viewpoints.

From the first viewpoint, we can look at each of the 2,500 flawed passages identified by Mr. Antonio Calipjo Go in those two DepEd learning modules as a distinct and discrete kind of English, with what we might justifiably call a perverse grammar, syntax, and logic of its own. Each of them is therefore a countable noun or entity that not only can be modified as a grammatical term but also totaled in the following manner: “1 cringeworthy English + 1 cringeworthy English + 1 cringeworthy English + 1 cringeworthy English + …1 cringeworthy English = 2,500 cringeworthy English.” We can’t call their total “2,500 cringeworthy Englishes” because each instance of cringeworthy English identified by Mr. Go is distinct and doesn’t add up to a single, distinct cringeworthy language. This would be the semantically wrong sense if we use the phrase “2,500 cringeworthy Englishes” instead.  

From the second viewpoint, we can consider the noun phrase “2,500 cringeworthy English” as an ellipted or streamlined form of the longer phrase “2,500 cringeworthy English passages” or “2,500 cringeworthy English errors,” with the word “passages” or “errors” dropped for brevity and easier articulation. We use this kind of ellipsis quite often in such sentences as “We have already counted as many as 500 walking dead in that ongoing TV series on zombies.” This sounds much better and more forthright than this fully spelled out construction: “We have already counted as many as 500 walking dead people in that ongoing TV series on zombies.”

By the same logic and syntax, I used for that column of mine the more succinct title “2,500 cringeworthy English in DepEd’s Grades 8, 7 learning materials” instead of the longer, fully spelled out “2,500 cringeworthy English passages in DepEd’s Grades 8, 7 learning materials.” I think that apart from making that title more compact for headline purposes, dropping the noun “passages” or “errors” makes it more compelling and gives it a much greater sense of immediacy.

So then I must disagree with you that the English of that column title is in any way cringeworthy. I’m confident that its grammar, semantics, structure, and syntax are airtight, making the English of that title definitely way above the league of the 2,500 cringeworthy English found in those two DepEd learning materials.

[aidsasis]

Oh...

So in effect, you're saying that the following phrases are also acceptable because they're "ellipted or streamlined forms" of their longer counterparts:
 
- three air (for three air pockets )
- six oxygen (for six oxygen particles)
- seven Chinese (for seven Chinese characters)

and so on...

[Joe Carillo]

I can see that you’re either unfamiliar or just feigning unfamiliarity with the nature of elliptical construction and its limits. Otherwise, I don’t think you’d have proffered—whether in plain jest or with intent to obfuscate—these three obviously invalid, downright cringeworthy examples of ellipses:

“three air” (for “three air pockets” )
“six oxygen” (for “six oxygen particles”)
“seven Chinese” (for “seven Chinese characters”)

No matter your intention, I’ll share this caveat with you about elliptical phrase and sentence construction: it’s an advanced form of writing that absolutely shouldn’t be done in the slapdash, trigger-happy manner that you’ve done with your three examples. You do ellipsis—that is, drop certain words from a phrase or sentence for brevity and ease of articulation—only it if doesn’t put the ellipted phrase at risk of being misunderstood or put the sentence or exposition itself in danger of losing its sense or continuity. Three air! Six oxygen! Seven Chinese! Ellipses are obviously not done in the unthinking formulaic way you came up with these three examples. That’s done only by a rank amateur in the use of English or by an English-savvy person just trying to muddle an otherwise clear-cut issue.

Anyway, for a quick review of the basics of elliptical construction, I would like to invite you to check out two of my previous Forum postings on the subject. They discuss the various grammatically legitimate forms and patterns of the ellipsis, giving examples of each of them. I trust that when you are done with the readings, you’ll no longer be tempted to trifle with the earnest discussions in the Forum by coming up with obviously absurd examples that, frankly, don’t qualify as ellipses at all.

READINGS ON ELLIPSIS:
Elliptical sentences often read and sound better than regular sentences
Deconstructing and understanding those puzzling elliptical sentences

[aidsasis]

Haha! Cool it, Mr. Carillo! We're just talking about proper usage here.

I'm really just asking what makes "2,500 cringeworthy English" acceptable and my examples unacceptable.

Let's just stick to your phrase. Your explanation seems to imply that a teacher can correctly tell a student, "You have 5 wrong English in your essay."

Is that acceptable? I find that sentence cringeworthy.

[Joe Carillo]

Yes, I agree with you that the sentence “You have 5 wrong English in your essay” is unacceptable, even cringeworthy, but then that sentence is a semantically defective construct of yours, not mine. It’s a far cry from, say, Mr. Antonio Calipjo Go saying, “I found 2,500 cringeworthy English in DepEd’s learning modules for Grades 8 and 7,” and then proceeds to identify and list each one of them into a countable set. As I explained in my reply to your initial posting, the validity of an elliptical construction is selective and highly contextual.

But I can very well see now where you’re coming from—you want a rigid, formulaic rule for elliptical phrase and sentence construction. Since you are a former high school teacher who’s now a home-based English tutor, however, you should know very well that there’s no such thing. The rule that you have in mind applies only to simple statements that teachers use to drill basic English to entry-level kids. Outside academe, however, you have to deal with the real-life dynamics of language on a case-to-case, contextual basis, with special attention to the specific words used and their precise syntactic mix. This is as true for elliptical phrases and sentences as it is for idiomatic phrases and figurative expressions. They work properly and can be understood only if both speaker (or writer) and listener (or reader) implicitly and mutually know beforehand the unstated context of the statement that’s being made. I know this to be true in the case of most of the readers of my column in The Manila Times, so I had no qualms at all in writing the column title “2,500 cringeworthy English in DepEd’s Grades 8, 7 learning materials.” I was sure that the great majority of my readers would be perceptive enough to get from that title the gist of what it’s saying, and that if they were still in doubt as to its precise meaning, they would just proceed to dig into the column proper to resolve that doubt.

In contrast, a high school teacher who tells his or her student “You have 5 wrong English in your essay” should be prepared to hear a smart-alecky riposte like this: “Teacher, you have 1 wrong English yourself in your comment.” Why? Because there’s as yet no mutually understood context for that elliptical statement between teacher and student. The student won’t know that the teacher had unilaterally dropped the noun “sentence” from the phrase “5 wrong English sentences.” As I explained in my earlier posting, elliptical phrase and sentence construction is an advanced form of writing, not to be foisted whimsically on those who don’t know yet how ellipses work.

Ellipsis is, in fact, a form of idiom itself. Every English teacher worth his or her salt should know this, so I was really taken aback when you proffered these three absurd ellipses in your previous posting: “three air” (for “three air pockets”), “six oxygen” (for “six oxygen particles”), and “seven Chinese” (for “seven Chinese characters”). Anyone who does that must have such a cringeworthy sense of humor indeed—and I must tell you that it’s absolutely no laughing matter when it comes from an English teacher and tutor like you!

[aidsasis]

Thank you for doing research on me, sir! I'm flattered.

Well, I guess we'll agree to disagree on the acceptability of your use of "2,500 cringeworthy English" then.

I don't see a substantial difference between your phrase and the phrase "5 wrong English". I think both are clearly understandable in their contexts, and yet, I don't find either of them to be acceptable.

I've asked some of my peers, and they also think your usage was wrong, but you seem to be very convinced, so I'll just leave that at that. A suggestion -- Maybe you can ask your peers, too, just for confirmation purposes.

Anyway, there are many disagreements when it comes to allowed usage in the English language; maybe this is just one of them.

I wish you all the best in your quest for excellence in the use of the English language. Cheers!

[Joe Carillo]

Great! Let’s agree to disagree then, and I’ll certainly follow your suggestion to ask my own peers if indeed the phrase “2,500 cringeworthy English” is itself cringeworthy English. In the same token, please continue checking out with your own peers how they find that phrase. Tell them that the Forum has an open invitation to them to post their views and opinions in this discussion board.

When some new Forum member either impresses or depresses me with their English or with their assertiveness, or both, I do a little check—not hard research by any means—where they are coming from. This just gives me a better handle on how best to read the mind behind the post—a practical routine that really should neither flatter nor fluster you.

You’ve offered your cheers and I’d like you to know that I’m delighted to toast to that! I hope to hear from you often in the Forum, whether to agree or disagree on things English or whatever.