Mark my words: tyrant or softie?

When reporting from Northern Ireland during the Troubles, I used a simple (or was it simplistic?) test of journalistic objectivity. If both Nationalists and Loyalists rubbished your work in equally forceful terms as being hopelessly biased, you might actually be getting something right.

Can I rely on the same principle in the debate on what constitutes good use of English in a broadsheet newspaper?

A few of my British colleagues feel I am altogether too lax in my enforcement of British English as the preferred style of The National in Abu Dhabi. As many North Americans consider me a tyrant for pouncing mercilessly on such "words" as "exurbs", which crept into a headline the other day, and "normalcy".

No straitjacket is imposed on individual writing styles. I hope our American writers feel, especially when their features are published (news reporting is different, as has been pointed out in this debate), that the readers will recognise them for what they are: Americans writing in essentially their own style, taking account of a relatively small number of absolute rules contained within my guide.

For the second of my columns on the use of English, published today (Nov 22), I turned to this conflict between British English and American English. Since I am off to the banks of the Nile for a week or so, this will be my last posting for a while. So I reproduce the column here and look forward to catching up on the continuing debate when I return:

One of the trickier issues that presented itself as I composed a style guide for The National concerned what should be done about Americanisms.

Life was more straightforward when I worked in London for The Daily Telegraph, which somewhat grandly banned each example provided there was “a reasonable word of our own”. Here, the case for British English as our mode of expression was irresistible (though an Englishman would say that). Nevertheless, a degree of flexibility was desirable given the range of American influences, and the large numbers of Americans and Canadians, in the UAE.

Snatches of American conversation have, in any case, crept into everyday usage, and not only in the Emirates. Many people in the UK now routinely order food or drink by saying “can I get..?” in place of “may I have..?”.

Worse, the question “how are you?” frequently brings the reply “I’m good”. With the language in such disarray, what possible hope was there of persuading North American colleagues to use good when meaning virtuous or well-behaved rather than to indicate that they were in robust health or did not require a second helping of food?

Instead of abandoning the struggle, almost before it had begun, I chose to persevere while also granting concessions to reflect the cultural mix.

Our American/English glossary, prepared as an appendix to the style guide, borrowed its title from George Bernard Shaw: Two Countries Divided By A Common Language. Its lofty aim was to strike a balance, applying common sense rather than adopting a “no surrender” stance, and it began with an assurance that North Americans should take no offence at the decision to favour British English.

Questions of right and wrong did not arise, I wrote; the choice had been made “for perfectly logical reasons to do with the history and traditions of the region”.

The introduction acknowledged that certain words and phrases had become interchangeable through usage. “Apartment/flat is a good example of acceptable synonyms, while the phrase ‘French fries’ is readily understood to mean what the British call chips.”

For good measure, I ruled against altering any direct quotation to make an American speaker seem British. In compiling the glossary, I also took the precaution of seeking the help of one British colleague and one American.

Even so, The National’s clear preference is for the English variant whenever conflict arises. Defence is never defense. A boy practises his tennis daily, this being his practice. We go to the theatre, having purchased tickets using the product of our labours. Cars are cars, and have bonnets not hoods.

Proper nouns are exempt. We refer to the attacks on the World Trade Center, but revert to centre for subsequent references not giving the title in full.

But employees work from Monday to Friday, not Monday through Friday. Events happen on Tuesday, they do not happen Tuesday. In the spirit of flexibility, however, candidates may stand or run for office and films may be movies.

Although there are lapses, the style guidance and rules are generally observed. Whether they are always understood is another matter. I shall never forget the look of confusion on the face of a Canadian colleague who was clearly trying his best to reconcile the rule on different spellings with the rule on not tampering with direct speech.

In all seriousness, he asked: “Are you sure we can change the verb from practice to practise? I mean, it was an American and he was being quoted directly.”

Comments

[Craig McGinty]

I'm sure I wouldn't be alone in finding the writing guide a useful resource if made available online.

Editors, writers and journalists could find it a very handy tool to make decisions with.

Give me a shout if you need a hand.

[Bill Taylor]

Not a great deal to argue with here as Colin lays out the style rules that a newspaper must have, though my journalistic blood runs a little cold at his blithe statement: "I ruled against altering any direct quotation to make an American speaker seem British."
The immutable rule for any reputable newspaper is -- or should be -- that direct quotations are sacrosanct. You don't mess with them. Or perhaps Colin would prefer "mess about."
Good to know he's allowing The National's feature writers some leeway. But imposing a stylistic straitjacket upon news-writing can (and, from what I've seen of The National, does) lead to rigidity and tedium. Every story begins to sound the same and the reader finds him/herself yawning.
Colin has an obsessive-compulsive bee in his bonnet about the use of "I'm good." No one, not even him, could mistake the colloquial meaning of this phrase but I know he's even wont to pull people up when they use it in conversation with him, let alone in print. At the same time, he airily turns the noun "rubbish" into a verb. Fair enough -- the Cambridge International Dictionary of English describes this usage as "U.K. informal." Perhaps he might grant that "I'm good" is "N.A. informal." But I doubt it.
Finally, I wonder if that Canadian colleague who made the "practice/practise" comment "in all seriousness," wasn't in fact sending Colin up. We're noted for our deadpan sense of humour (as opposed to humor).

[louise]

As possibly the only non-journalistic participant to this debate, I'll just leap in with a couple of remarks ... and say something silly in the process as usual, but what the hell.

There is of course the problem of English/US spelling but I think we are all used to that and as an English person, as soon as I see a word such as 'color' I know it is an American article; reading an American book is a little annoying as I do tend to pick out the words that are spelt differently.

When I was at school all those eons ago, spelling was extremely important and we would lose marks for spelling mistakes. Nowadays, it would appear this is of little importance - my son of 17 who is bilingual and sitting the Baccalaureat in France makes the most terrible grammatical errors and spelling mistakes and when I correct him, he just shrugs his shoulders in a Gaelic way and tells me it is no longer important. I used to correct his English homework, until I realised that his English teacher was at fault and was teaching them incorrectly or that the word I had used was one she hadn't come across. And the lad is theoretically in one of the top ten schools in France!

So does one stand up for what us oldies were taught at school or do we adapt to modern language? I suppose it depends on what one is reading/writing.

And for you knowledgeable ones - the other day I came across this in Harry Potter - 'the crowd of students was ...' Is it 'was' or is it 'were'? The child reading the book asked me if it was an error - and I couldn't reply! Answers on a postcard, please.

[Bill Taylor]

In a "Gaelic" way, Louise? As Colin might say, "Shome mishtake, shurely." Or do the Irish have their own characteristic way of shrugging?
But you're right -- spelling and grammar standards have lapsed appallingly and, quite often, the root of the problem lies with a semi-literate teacher. Having spellcheck on a computer is a mixed blessing, especially if it's set to automatically correct errors. What it perceives to be the right word may be totally inappropriate.
"The crowd of students was...." is correct. No matter how many students, it's only one crowd. But the was/were question isn't always as clear-cut and, though Colin would probably disagree, my rule of thumb is to go with what sounds correct even if, strictly speaking, it isn't. The Randall version of English may be unyielding but in the real world the language is constantly evolving. Who, for instance, really cares any more about splitting an infinitive or ending a sentence with a preposition?

[Colin]

Sometimes, when addressing groups of new recruits, I say that almost all style rules are there to be broken.

Take contractions. Or let's take contractions if you prefer. Outside of direct quotes - and Bill's point about quotes needs a column of its own - they are discouraged in news reports and headlines. Certain phrases, however, would look odd if the apostrophe were replaced by the missing letter. I, or others in my absence, rule on each case. Features and personal columns are entirely different; I use contractions, verbless sentences and other devices in my columns. And in blogs, pretty much anything goes, including rubbish as a verb.
Split infinitives look ugly, in my opinion, and tend to irritate readers. But how many grammarians are actually on the side of those readers? Similarly, on Louise's closing question, a crowd logically is/was, but in certain contexts the singular form seems inappropriate or fussy. It is not worth losing sleep over. Sports teams,for example, invariably take the plural form in most newspaper styles I have encountered: England are out of the World Cup, Sunderland are renowned for beating Newcastle 9-1 on Dec 5, 1908.

[louise]

Sorry - I meant Gaulois - brain and fingers on keyboard working at different speeds.

I explained the was/were as you did Bill, but all the while explaining I was in fact thinking that 'were' sounded better, so trailed off limply! When I first lived in France there were times when I would say to my husband that such and such a word was wrong, and he would reply 'It is if you follow the rules, but in fact it's not wrong - it is so because it sounds better'.

[Parisgirl]

I agree, on the whole, with Colin. Maybe it is old fashioned and traditional to argue for consistent style in a publication but if you don't where is the grammatical line to be drawn? If split infinitives and misuse of the singular/plural form - to cite just two examples - are deemed acceptable, then does it matter if, say, an apostrophe is misused or left out here or there? Does it matter if to be less rigid we then accept some text messaging usages that everyone knows and understands (2 for two, u for you, tho for though, everything in lower case...)? I think it does matter.
As for direct quotations, Bill says they are "sacrosanct" and I agree in principle. But what if the quotation has been translated from something said in a different language and the editor believes - after consulting the reporter - another word or form of words would be truer to the original speech? Also, as journalists know, many quotations in newspapers are not exactly to the very word what the person actually said. That's not because they are made up but because we do not always speak in clean, printable sentences. If you actually wrote what we actually said we'd sound like uneducated half-wits. (Sorry, should that be half wit, half-wit or halfwit?).

[Bill Taylor]

You make some good points. And I have no argument with the need for consistent style in a publication. Where Colin and I might differ is on the parameters for such a style.
I disagree with him on split infinitives. For backing, I'll cite askoxford.com (the on-line presence of the Oxford dictionary), which quotes perhaps the mostly widely known split infinitive of them all: To boldly go where no man has gone before:
"The infinitive is to go, and it has been 'split' by the adverb boldly. Split infinitives have been the cause of much controversy among teachers and grammarians, but the notion that they are ungrammatical is simply a myth: in his famous book Modern English Usage, Henry Fowler listed them among 'superstitions'!
Split infinitives are frequently poor style, but they are not strictly bad grammar. In the example above, to avoid the split infinitive would result either in weakness (to go boldly) or over-formality (boldly to go): either would ruin the rhythmic force and rhetorical pattern of the original. It is probably good practice to avoid split infinitives in formal writing, but clumsy attempts to avoid them simply by shuffling adverbs about can create far worse sentences."
Misusing an apostrophe can often change the meaning of a word so I think that's a little more serious than choosing the plural over the singular because it sounds better. And using text-messaging abbreviations is simply sloppy and can only lead to an even faster impoverishment of the average person's vocabulary than is currently happening.
As for quotations, what chilled me was Colin's saying that he "ruled against altering any direct quotation to make an American speaker seem British," the implication being that such an alteration had been given serious consideration. To me, as a journalist, that would be utterly unacceptable.
No, it isn't always practicable to quote someone 100-per-cent accurately, given, as you say, that we tend not to speak in clean sentences. (Your point about a quotation translated from another language is well taken but, I think, falls into a different category.) All the same, changes should be as minimal as possible and serve only to ensure the clarity of what is being said.
As an example: in the Toronto Star's coverage of a recent murder-suicide, a neighbour was quoted as saying, "I seen the car parked outside." Perhaps not terribly literate but the meaning was clear and it's what the man said. There was, therefore, no need to "clean it up."
I'd write halfwit as one word, though I believe quite a few dictionaries give it a hyphen.

[Parisgirl]

Thank you Bill. I have spent my entire career rewriting entire paragraphs trying to avoid split infinitives only to discover...you are right about them not being grammatical heresy; damn it! I dug out my very old Fowler's Modern English Usage and discovered he is "inconclusive" on the subject. (Sorry, couldn't find the superstition listing). He gives a fine example where NOT splitting an infinitive makes nonsense of a sentence as follows: The greatest difficulty about assessing the economic achievements of the Soviet Union is that its spokesmen try absurdly to exaggerate them; in consequence the visitor may tend badly to underrate them."
I am going to quietly retire from this debate and reflect on how best to use this new knowlege!

[Parisgirl]

Oh, just one more thing...
Bill, out of interest, what would you have quoted if the person had said: "I saw'd the car"? I have heard this used. I admit I would have changed the quote you cite to: "I saw the car parked outside". Firstly because 'I saw' is grammatically correct and at the same time doesn't alter the meaning in any way. Also because I wouldn't want to suggest that the person being quoted was an ungrammatical halfwit, and you have to admit "I seen..." does hint at this, even if slightly. By the way, I am not claiming this is the right thing to do, just what I would do. Not at all the same thing!

[Bill Taylor]

That's a good question. Yeah, in that instance I probably would make it "saw." Perhaps just in case I'd misheard! But changing "seen" to "saw;" no, I wouldn't. Does it suggest that the person is an ungrammatical halfwit? I'd say that's not for me to judge; my function is to accurately report (accurately to report? to report accurately?) what is said. Yes, it's a balancing act but that's the side I would always try to fall on.
As an aside, it strikes me that the water bottle, prominent in the picture at the top of this post, is superfluous. It adds nothing to the composition. Could it be that Colin has added product-placement as a means of turning an honest dirham from his blog?

[keith]

Surely by changing "seen" to "saw" you are not changing in any way the meaning of the sentence. You are merely tidying up the speaker's grammar, thereby doing him a favour and ensuring clarity of language. I see no harm in that in the right context.

[Bill Taylor]

Equally, leaving "seen" alone does not make the sentence any less clear. Nor would I see it as doing the speaker a favour. Context, of course, is everything. But where does tidying up end and homogenization begin? "Seen" to "saw" could be the thin end of an undesirable wedge.

[louise]

This is a little "see saw"(or"seesaw"), Bill.
Sorry!