Two of the biggest news stories in the Philippines these past few days are, of course, the heinous Maguindanao massacre and Filipino teacher Efren Peñaflorida Jr.’s being voted as “CNN Hero of the Year.” I would consider as the third biggest story the road-rage killing of the son of a Malacañang official allegedly by a relative of an Asian Development Bank (ADB) employee. As usual, I took great interest in how the major Metro Manila broadsheets fared in their English-language reporting of these three events.
I must say that all four broadsheets were at their finest in reporting the horrible, grisly details of the massacre of over 50 people in Maguindanao. Despite—or probably because of—the most unfortunate fact that 27 media people themselves were victims in the mayhem, the reporters came up with well-written, compelling reports that were remarkably free of serious grammar and usage errors.
In their issues this Friday (November 27), in fact, the only notable problematic passage I could find in their accounts of the massacre was this lead sentence of the
Philippine Star’s editorial:
(1) Erroneous use of the causative phrase “makes him warrant”“What is it about a small-town mayor that
makes him warrant VIP treatment from top government officials? Three days after the Maguindanao massacre, the person tagged by the victims’ camp as the mastermind was finally taken into custody and held without bail for multiple murder.”
That’s all, but as I’ll explain in my critique a little later, the grammar and semantic problems in that passage should give pause not only to editorial writers but to journalists in general.
As to Efren, the award-winning “pushcart teacher,” the
Manila Bulletin came up with this peculiar, logic-bending lead sentence in its front-page story about his return to the Philippines:
(2) An unwarranted, logic-bending lead sentence“CNN Hero of the Year Efren Peñaflorida Jr., the teacher and social worker who won international accolades for uplifting the lives of underprivileged children through education, is back in the country
to continue his pioneering and noble mobile education advocacy.”
Did you see right away what’s wrong with the semantics of that statement?
The third problematic English usage I’d like to point out is this one from the lead sentence of a front-page story of
The Manila Times:
(3) Unnecessary use of an indefinite article“The Department of Foreign Affairs is reviewing its policy on the issuance of diplomatic plates following the death of the son of a Palace official, the aftermath of
a road rage involving a vehicle registered to a staff member of the Asian Development Bank (ADB).”
Those who read last week’s edition of My Media English Watch will recall that I called attention to the same error—the use of an indefinite article for a noun that doesn’t need it—in the lead sentence of the
Philippine Daily Inquirer’s front-page story about the triumphal return to the country of champion boxer Manny Pacquiao.
To these three notable English-usage problems in last week’s major news stories, I now would like to add the following serious grammar and usage errors in two less controversial stories—all from the
Manila Bulletin:
(4) “Ducks seen as better alternative to pesticides, chemical fertilizers“DAVAO CITY – Not all rice fields in Mindanao are converted into banana plantations – a trend which is partly
blamed to the scarcity of rice in the country.
“Here, a non-government organization (NGO) is helping farmers gradually
adapt to a farming technology
using ducks to recover the rice industry.
“The rice-duck integration, known as the Aigamo project of the Philippine Agrarian Reform Foundation for National Development (PARFUND), is slowly
gaining grounds in the provinces of Zamboanga del Sur, Bukidnon, Misamis Oriental, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Sur and some parts of the Caraga Region.
“Jose Apollo Pacamalan, program director of the Aigamo project, said this technology uses ducks to maintain a healthy rice paddy environment
which, in turn, i
ncrease rice yield and
reduce production cost of rice due to non-use of pesticides.”
(5) “RP to get 9 million doses of A (H1N1) vaccines“The Philippines is set to receive some nine million doses of Influenza A (H1N1) vaccines from the World Health Organization (WHO)
who earlier pledged to distribute the vaccines equally to developing countries.
“Speaking in a media conference held at the Department of Health (DoH) office in Tayuman, Manila, WHO Director General Dr. Margaret Chan said the first batch of the vaccines
numbering to 1.9 million doses is expected before the end of the year.
“
The first bulk of the vaccines have been reserved for health workers who are more at risk for acquiring the disease, Health Secretary Francisco T. Duque III
said adding that they have already identified 400,000 medical personnel who will receive doses of the vaccine.”
MY CRITIQUE AND SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS: Let’s now analyze each of the problematic passages above and see how they can be improved or rectified.
(1) Philippine Star: Erroneous use of the causative phrase “makes him warrant” Let’s take a look again at the opening statement of that editorial:
“What is it about a small-town mayor that
makes him warrant VIP treatment from top government officials? Three days after the Maguindanao massacre, the person tagged by the victims’ camp as the mastermind was finally taken into custody and held without bail for multiple murder.”
Sad to say, the indignation of the editorial writers over the Maguindanao atrocity seems to have gotten the better of their English grammar in the lead passage above. Firstly, the use of the causative “makes” in the verb phrase “makes him warrant VIP treatment” is patently wrong grammar and semantics. This is because the subject of that sentence—the small-town mayor—is semantically and logically incapable of making him warrant the VIP treatment on himself. Indeed, what’s supposed to warrant that VIP treatment is the very the answer to the rhetorical question asked by that question: “What is it about the small-town mayor?” Whatever it is, that third party or third element definitely couldn’t be the mayor himself.
By definition, the transitive verb “warrant” here means “to guarantee or give assurance” for something to someone. That “something” is, of course, the “VIP treatment,” and that “someone” is the mayor himself as the receiver of the action. The causative “makes” is therefore uncalled for here, for it would indicate that the subject himself—the mayor—is causing the act of warranting to be performed on himself, which is a semantically absurd idea.
For that sentence to become logical and yield the correct semantics, the causative “makes” has to be dropped and the verb phrase “makes him warrant VIP treatment” replaced with “warrants his VIP treatment,” as in this reconstruction:
“What is it about a small-town mayor
that warrants his VIP treatment from top government officials? Three days after the Maguindanao massacre, the person tagged by the victims’ camp as the mastermind was finally taken into custody and held without bail for multiple murder.”
Secondly, even after this correction is made on the first sentence, one big semantic problem remains: the second sentence in that passage doesn’t logically follow from the premise of the first. The two sentences lack a transitional idea to get themselves semantically linked.
One very simple way is, of course, to use the linking phrase “it took” and recast the second sentence a little bit, as follows:
“What is it about a small-town mayor
that warrants his VIP treatment from top government officials?
It took three days after the Maguindanao massacre for the person tagged by the victims’ camp as the mastermind to be finally taken into custody and held without bail for multiple murder.”
The logical link between the two sentences, we can see clearly now, is the time that elapsed before authorities arrested the suspect in the multiple murder. To avoid confusing readers, reporters and desk editors should develop a keener eye for such links when writing or editing their news and feature stories.
(2) Manila Bulletin: An unwarranted, logic-bending lead sentenceAt first blush, there seems to be nothing wrong with this lead sentence:
“CNN Hero of the Year Efren Peñaflorida Jr., the teacher and social worker who won international accolades for uplifting the lives of underprivileged children through education, is back in the country
to continue his pioneering and noble mobile education advocacy.”
On closer scrutiny, however, we’ll find that the prepositional phrase “to continue his pioneering and noble mobile education advocacy” doesn’t credibly or logically follow from its premises. Indeed, that phrase suspiciously looks like a not-so-well-thought-out rhetorical flourish or something the reporter had just yanked out from thin air to dramatize the story.
Of course, there’s absolutely no doubt that Efren will continue his pushcart-education advocacy, but in this context, it’s absurd to say that he returned to the Philippines precisely with that objective in mind. He returned to the Philippines because, well, he had to come home after winning the CNN award, shouldn’t he? It’s not as if he was forcibly stopped from doing his advocacy by being exiled abroad for some time.
Perhaps a better way to end that problematic sentence is to be more matter-of-fact about what happened, like this:
“CNN Hero of the Year Efren Peñaflorida Jr., the teacher and social worker who won international accolades for uplifting the lives of underprivileged children through education, is back in the country
after receiving the award in star-studded ceremonies Saturday night at Hollywood’s Kodak Theatre in the United States.”
Some specific details in stories like this are simply more relevant and interesting than others.
(3) Manila Times: Unnecessary use of an indefinite articleHere we go again with that pesky little problem:
“The Department of Foreign Affairs is reviewing its policy on the issuance of diplomatic plates following the death of the son of a Palace official, the aftermath of
a road rage involving a vehicle registered to a staff member of the Asian Development Bank (ADB).”
I’ll simply repeat my critique last week of the
Philippine Daily Inquirer’s unnecessary use of the article “a” in this sentence: “They came in the tens of thousands, braved
a staggering heat, and showered him with accolades no other Filipino boxer had ever received.” Like the noun “heat,” the noun phrase “road rage” belongs to that class of uncountable nouns with an unspecified referent that don’t need the indefinite article “a,” such as “fun,” “joy,” and “teamwork.”
(For those who missed that critique, let me repeat this part of my explanation for this particular usage: We don’t say “We had
a great fun!”; instead we say, “We had
great fun!” In the same token, we don’t say “She expressed
an indescribable joy”; instead we say, “She expressed i
ndescribable joy.” And, of course, we don’t say “The tennis partners have
a great teamwork”; instead we say, “The tennis partners have
great teamwork.”)
So now I’d like to give this grammar advice to all newspaper reporters and editors—treat “road rage” in precisely the same way:
“The Department of Foreign Affairs is reviewing its policy on the issuance of diplomatic plates following the death of the son of a Palace official, the aftermath of
road rage involving a vehicle registered to a staff member of the Asian Development Bank (ADB).”