|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 4 July 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
General English for GCE A/L : Grammatically gauche by A. F. Dawood It was heartening to read the article titled "Improving English in schools and Universities" in the Daily News of May 25, that the Cabinet has approved a proposal of the Education Ministry to launch a comprehensive programme to improve teaching and learning of English in the schools and universities.
Is this a lip service or is the Ministry determined to track down the place where the shoe pinches for the deteriorating standard of English in schools throughout the country ? I like to think this is in view of the lackadaisical attitude shown by the former Education and Higher Education Minister Richard Pathirana to my registered letter dated July 5, (registered No 6241, Dehiwela post office) eliciting a litany of grammatical blunders such as ING-Participle clause, ED-Participle clause, Infinitive clause etc, unheard of in the realm of English Grammar, contained in the grade nine textbook "The World Through English", prepared by the National Institute of Education (NIE) in 1998. No meaningful step was taken to rectify the erroneous contents in the text by publishing anextures or corrections to the text, despite my having written to the Commissioner of Educational Publications by registered mail dated June 6 (registered No. 4297, Dehiwela post office), elucidating the fallacious contents in the said textbook. Let me quote a paragraph in that letter to the Minister "However, it is a melancholy fact to note that the teachers of English handling this textbook have remained apathetic, some through ignorance but others who knew the onions of their English, through fear of stirring a hornet's nest by criticising the book. Therefore, it behoves upon you, as custodian of the nation's education, to probe into this sorry state of affairs and rectify the comedy of errors contained therein." Grammatical Once again the National Institute of Education (NIE) has trudged on the beaten track of grotesque grammatical blunders in the compilation of the General English Book for G.C.E. (A.L.) published in 2001. The textbook contains several grammatical inaccuracies; the erudite authors Dr. Manique Gunesekera, Dr. Arjuna Parakrama and Dr. Hemamala Ratwatte who have introduced some interesting comprehension passages, letter writing, reports, job application and interviews, have erred enormously as the text contains several howlers and faulty explanations on preposition, phrases, phrasal verbs, objects and wrong usage of tense. The New Oxford Dictionary by Lesley Brown describes a preposition as a word before a noun or pronoun in a sentence to indicate its relationship to another word eg; The servant is in the kitchen. (relationship servant and kitchen). The child returned home by car. (relationship home and car) On page 167 VII Grammar: preposition exercise question No (4) is as follows: We have very few organisations and institutions.... (for, to, of) to help the disabled. The solution is 'to' and this is not a preposition according to the above definition of preposition. It is an infinitive verb, which is formed by 'to' and a present tense verb as illustrated in the following examples: to go, to help, to buy, to come. And the sentence No (4) "We have very few organisations and..." is wrong because it gives a negative meaning. It should be "a very few organisations....". On page 175 in the preposition lesson question No. (3) contains a howler. Children are affected because it is difficult...spot landmines. Again by the same argument the solution 'to' is not a preposition but 'to spot' is an infinitive verb. Preposition On page 82 in the preposition exercise the underlined solutions in No. (2) "and continued to ask" and in No. (4) "appealed to them to help" are not prepositions for the same reason explained above. It is important that the students should be explained when 'to' is a preposition and that 'to' is not a preposition when it forms an infinitive verb. On page 33 the text gives the following faulty examples for phrases under the heading - Phrases Used For Thanking (1) Thank you (2) Thank you very much (3) I must thank you (4) I am grateful (5) I am extremely grateful. All the above are complete sentences and not phrases. In the first two the subject 'I' is understood. Under the heading - Phrases Used For Apologising, the following are wrongly named as phrases. (1) I'm sorry (2) I'm very sorry. (3) I apologise. (4) I must apologise. These are also complete sentences. On page 71, the following are given as phrases under the heading-Notice How Phrases Are Used To Express Apology. (1) We regret very much that .... (2) We are very sorry that/for (3) We apologise for... (4) Please accept our sincere apologies for ... (5) We offer apologies for ... The given examples are not phrases but complete sentences. Nos (1) and (2) can be completed with subordinate clauses to make them complex sentences and 'that' and 'for' will serve as relative pronoun or subordinate conjunctions; Nos (3), (4) and (5) end with 'for'; here if 'for' is treated as a preposition and words are added, the sentence will remain a simple sentence; if 'for' is treated as a subordinate conjunction, the sentence will become a complex sentence. Similarly, the following given erroneously as phrases on page 73 are sentences. (1) We appreciate the following.... (2) I write to express my gratitude for....(3) I wish to say thank you for... (4) Please accept my sincere thanks for (5) Thank you very much for ..... The above five are sentences because they contain a subject and a predicate. Unfortunately, through an oversight the misnomer phrase is given to sentences in pages 33, 71 and 73. There is a distinct difference between a phrase and a sentence as explained below. A phrase is a group of words without a verb as illustrated below. Without water, in the room throughout the day' the above examples are preposition phrases by classification. I am compelled to restrain from dwelling on various other types of phrases owing to constraint of space. A severe blunder is made on phrasal verbs in page 81. The book gives 45 examples of phrasal verbs, none of which is correct. I would pinpoint 10 from the given examples and prove that they are faulty. (1) alternate to (2) allergic to (3) familiar with (4) in my house (5) in regard to (6) under consideration (7) consist of (8) combine with (9) opposed to (10) what I mean by. In order to justify my contention that the above are erroneous, I quote the Oxford Dictionary on phrasal verbs - An idiomatic verbal phrases consisting of a verb and an adverb, e.g. breakdown, polish up; or verb and preposition eg. see to, call over. The following are phrasal verbs formed with an adverb, bring down, knock down, polish up. Reference These phrasal verbs are formed with a preposition-see to, call over, call at, put in. In phrasal verbs the adverb or the preposition does not function as an adverb or preposition separately, but collectively does the function of a verb as illustrated below. (1) The government will bring down the cost of living. (2) Sarath has to polish up his English before applying for a job. (3) Please call over for an interview at this office. (4) You have to put in more hours of study if you are to pass the examination. (Note: In the above sentences the adverbs 'down', 'up' and prepositions 'over', 'in' are parts that go to make the phrasal verbs, which express actions). With reference to the examples given in page 81 of the textbook under review, I would state that 'allergic to', 'alternate to' and 'familiar with' are adjectival phrases because each of these begins with an adjective, and not a single of these contains a verb, to name it a phrasal verb. Similarly the phrases - 'in my opinion', 'in regard to', and 'under consideration" are not phrasal verbs but preposition phrases and preposition phrases do not express an action. I would strongly assert that the given examples such as 'consist of', 'combine with' and 'opposed to' are not phrasal verbs. Why? Prepositions like 'of', 'with' and 'to' following verbs as in the above examples in page 81 do not make phrasal verbs, as the prepositions in each do the function of a preposition, and not inseparably a part of the verb to make a phrasal verb. Let me use the above examples given in the book in sentences to show that they function as prepositions. (1) Today's special lunch consist of rice, chicken, vegetables and salad. (of is related to lunch and rice, chicken etc.) (2) The English stream class was combined with the Sinhala stream class last week as the English medium teacher was absent. (with is related to English stream and Sinhala stream) (3) Some parents are opposed to co-education. (to is related to parents and co-education) Therefore, 'of', 'with' and 'to' are prepositions. Furthermore, the example 'what I mean by' is not a phrasal verb. With or without 'by', the above is a clause and can be used in a sentence as follows: (1) He understands what I mean. (the underlined part is noun clause used as object of the transitive verb understands) (2) What I mean by this is different from what you mean. (the underlined parts are clauses used as subject and complement.) Sentences On page 180 the fourth paragraph in the passage on "Nihal's War" has the following two sentences with verbs in the present perfect tense - (1) On the way here, we have passed empty buildings peppered with bullet holes. (2) We have gone through other check points and have given two soldiers a ride to their destination for there are no buses. The three underlined present perfect tense verbs mean that the actions have been completed before and the actions are not taking place now. Note: (This article does not refer to G.C.E. (A/L) textbook volume 1 printed in 1999 and volume 2 printed in 2001, but to the textbook without the word 'volume' printed in 2001 and reprinted in 2003. To be continued |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
