adminMEDICAL doctors classify the extent of skin damage caused by burns according to degrees; first degree burns, second degree burns and third degree burns. I am not sure if there are fourth and fifth degree burns.
I have not suddenly become an expert in burns though I have a little personal experience . . . grrrrr! But I do know that these “degrees” (I wish they were academic degrees) describe the measure of severity sustained in each case of burns.
Likewise, errors in English Language can be classified in degrees, namely classifiable according to degree of “wrongness”/ incorrectness. Some people think English Language expressions are simply WRONG or RIGHT. No! Not at all!
Yes, some of it is simply correct or incorrect. Nothing in between! But of course what makes this Language complex, especially the teaching part of this business, is this stretch, this elasticity determining levels of incorrectness. Some are wrong but not very wrong. Others are gross errors . . . very ugly errors. Others are simply clumsy, distorted, funny or nonsensical, if you like.
Good teachers of English, regrettably there are not very many of them, skilfully traverse on all these fine lines making it unquestioningly clear to the learner, the extent of each incorrectness. Gross errors, herein referred to as first degree errors, will therefore obviously cost the speaker or writer a lot of marks whereas second degree and third degree errors cost less each according to the class or category of incorrectness. Let me illustrate my case:
Consider the following examples of errors. These would fit in the GROSS ERRORS class, herein referred to as FIRST DEGREE ERRORS.
1. He was carrying a monarch. (Terrible error! This is not a mistake caused by carelessness. It is an error . . . typical error because you have no idea what is wrong.) Monarch is the name of a company that manufactures travelling bags, briefcases and suitcases.)
He was carrying a travelling bag. (Correct)
2. The doctor operated the poor old woman. (Incorrect)
The doctor operated on the poor old woman. (Correct)
3. She suddenly began to run for life. (Incorrect) What is running for life? If you think deeper, you will sense the incorrectness.
She suddenly began to run for dear life. (Correct). (“run for one’s life” is an English figure of speech, an idiom. You cannot change it . . . amend it, even slightly. As is indeed the case with other metaphors in English Language! Eg. “in the soup” meaning in trouble, can never be in hot, warm or cold soup. It is in the soup . . . nothing more, nothing less! All the time! )
4. The experts thoroughly audited the script before handing it over to the film director. (Incorrect). The word audited is wrong in this context. The correct one sounds exactly the same.
The experts thoroughly edited the script before handing it over to the film director. (Correct).
NB: The error caused by confusing similarly sounding words is called MALAPROPISM. Eg. “The expects edited the script first” is wrong. The correct word is EXPERTS, Not EXPECTS! The guilty part was ordered to pay a find.
(Incorrect). The word FIND is wrong. It is called a FINE, not a FIND.
“The meeting of heads of state is agent” is wrong. The word you want to use is URGENT, Not AGENT. “The meeting of heads of state is urgent” is correct.
“The man was run down by a car” is incorrect. “The man was run over by a car” is correct. “He is a refuge is incorrect.” “He is a refugee” is correct. “I can say this work is greatly appreciated”, is wrong. I must say this work is greatly appreciated’ is correct. “In leaps and bounce” is wrong. “In leaps and bounds” is correct. A match does not kick at three o’clock. It kicks off at three o’clock. Kick off (correct), not kick chete.(wrong).
5. We sit for our examinations in November this year. (Incorrect) If you carefully put your ears on “for our examinations”, you will sense the incorrectness.
We sit our examinations in November this year. (Correct)
6. Automatical the figures appeared on the data-sheet. (Incorrect)
Automatically the figures appeared on the data-sheet. (Correct)
SECOND DEGREE ERRORS
These are not glaring errors. You look at the expression and there is nothing obviously wrong or amiss. You need to stop a minute, think, and the error emerges.
Consider the following expressions:
1. The church was found in 1924. (Incorrect)
The church was founded in 1924. (Correct)
2. The thief was stoned to death. (incorrect).
The thief was stoned. (correct) “Stoned” means “literally killing by using stones”. Hurling stones at someone is not stoning. Stoned to death is a nonsense sentence like “killed to death”.
3. “It was dug in his yard.” The writer wants to write, “It was buried in his yard.”
4. The girl who does not have all parents. The writer wants to say, “The girl who does not have both parents.”
5. She is merely 12 years. (Incorrect) The writer wants to say, ‘She is merely 12” or “She is merely 12 years old.”
6. Zondie is the oldest in the family. (incorrect). The writer wants to write, Zondie is the eldest (not oldest.)-malapropism.
7. He was smelling beer. (nonsense) The writer wants to say, “ He was smelling of beer.”
8. ‘To avoid people from registering.’ (nonsense) The writer wants to write, “To stop people from registering.”
9. I buy my beef at that butcher. (double nonsense). The writer wants to write, “I buy beef (not my beef) at the butchery, (not butcher). A butcher is a person who is in the business of selling meat.
Butchery is the shop in which meat is sold. That is also why it incorrect to say, “I bought my dress, my cell phone, my laptop yesterday.” If it is yours, why buy it? Nonsense! If you want to emphasize that the item you bought was for you, you say, “I bought a dress for myself” Or “I bought myself a dress.”
10. The shirt which he bought is blue in colour. (incorrect). ‘In colour’ is wrong. Think about it. What difference does it make on the dress if you say, “It was blue?” You see! Ringori blue chete…ndiyo colour yachozve. Ko kuzoti ‘in colour’ ndochii? After any colour you mention, there is no need to add “in colour’. The car is metallic blue. (correct) / Not ‘in colour.’
Her dress is pink. His trousers are grey. (correct). Be careful not to say ‘His trousers is grey.’ It is a pair, and a pair refers to two things..So we use ‘ARE’ not ‘IS’. Munozvizwa here madhodha nendombi dzinoticha? Kutodzionera mhingo yedede! Teachers, do you understand and follow what I am saying?
If all this does not point at a complex business in the teaching of English Language, then I don’t know what is. Some people think ‘so long as you have communicated and what you want to say is ‘heard’, that is enough. It is not. It is not enough if you want to win the English Language Learning Battle.
This notion is more dangerous if it is a teacher who thinks so . . . more so an English Language teacher. If you allow these degrees of incorrectness, whether gross errors or not so gross, to crop into your work, you present mediocre work and play on the brinks of distinction.
You take away the sting from your language. Whether it is a traditional composition you are writing or an essay in History, Religious Studies or Divinity, Economics or Business studies, being aware of these levels of incorrectness matters. B-students would become clear A-students if their language flowed and lacked these syntactical stains.
If only they knew that rising above sheer communication is critical if you want to excel. Markers who say they do not mark English Language in other subjects other than English are guilty of telling professional lies. They do mark English Language no matter how much their chief examiners say they must not.
Those candidates who have a higher command of English Language . . . those who know the difference between English and Shonglish (adulterated version of English) always get the gold and leave the silver and bronze medals to the not-so-good. This is the truth of the matter. Even those who speak, discuss and argue skilfully always win the girl, don’t’ they?
Tell the truth! How do you mark something written in English language and disregard the language?
If you do or even try to do it, you would be guilty of lowering standards and claiming a smartness that does not exist.
The prolific writer always woes you to his or her side and the ‘‘illiterate’’ candidate always risks being condemned to failure . . . even if it is only psychological.
That fraction of verbal impression tilts the red pen towards the sky, not the ground. Do you get what I am saying?
Know your staff thoroughly . . . your facts and figures, but never forget to sharpen the tool with which you must display this knowledge and intelligence. Examinations are written in English Language except for special studies or the vernacular languages. Do not fool yourself that you will excel even if you make goulash out of these first, second and third degree errors.
Winning the English Language Learning does not mean winning the examinations alone. We are today nurturing politicians, lawyers, preachers, teachers, negotiators, speakers and writers, television and radio presenters, football and other sporting commentators who are verbally equipped to excel, not to settle for mediocrity.
That must be the task of every English teacher. Teach to produce nation builders . . . individuals who are impressively schooled and educated in the language of global development for tomorrow. Not Zimbabweans whose wisdom, ability and intelligence was tested in a few hours behind an examination desk.
Online Reporter