大象传媒

"I know because they write into tell me." This should be:
"I know because they write in to tell me". The 'in' clearly belongs with 'write', and the 'to' is part of the infinitive of purpose (why they write in), so they cannot be combined. OK - it was just a typo, but you set yourself up for it.

Ahem, yes. Well spotted, is now fixed.

I've notices that in may 大象传媒 broadcasts, prepositions normally included in common American speech are omitted. Is this characteristic of normal British usage or just carelessness?

I'd happily let them get away with murder, if only they'd stop saying 'terror' when they mean 'terrorism'.

You say that the dictionary use of words is of vital importance primarily to listeners of Radio 3 and Radio 4. But surely these are just the people who acknowledge that importance? It's important for everyone that words are used correctly. Not for the sake of sticklers and grammarians, but for the sake of basic comprehension. It's a short step from using 'infer' and 'imply' synonymously, and mixing up 'enormous' and 'enormity', to having the same words to denote astronomers and astrologers and, eventually, cats and dogs and war and peace.
I'm all for dialectical variation and lingusitic diversity, but it's much easier for nation to speak peace unto nation if as many people as possible are spared from ambiguity and confusion.

The correct use of English is not just pedantry, it's vital to reduce mis-understandings. The increasing use of "Americanisms" by all media types should be stopped, as they often mislead or even, in some cases, contradict normal English useage. (e.g it took years for "ordinary" people to understand the American useage of "billion" instead of the English "milliard". The 大象传媒 types just assumed that we understood them).
Also, Please Order (on pain of Pain) all newsreaders to stop useing tabloid terms like "... launched a probe ..." when they probably mean "... started an enquiry..." or "looked in to", and "half of one percent" instead of "half a percent". These terms are clumsy, sensationalist and show lack of courtsey to the story and to the listener.

Mark: Give an example?

mentions 3 examples (scroll down)

Mark, I think it would certainly help if you cited some actual examples. I find the opposite to be true in most cases with Americans, for instance, using "I bought a pair shoes," omitting 'of'. 'Pair of shoes' is the standard British usage.

What struck me while reading Tim Bailey's blog was how many times he used the word 'And' to begin a sentence. This, and using 'But' to begin sentences has become very trendy at the 大象传媒 but in my opinion it should not be overused.

My pet hate is the wrong usage of the past tense of the verb 'to lead'. It is led, not lead. Lead, pronounced led, is a heavy metal. It is a common mistake with lesser mortals but seeing this mistake made by 大象传媒 journalists (which I have) makes me cringe.

In my opinion, the 大象传媒 is an important British institution, not just a media company, and I believe it has responsibilities to uphold the correct usage of the (British) English language.

Growing up in India, I was one of many who held 大象传媒 English as the standard for the British style of English language and usage that was high quality, grammatically correct and superbly articulated.

Much as I see the need to incorporate British diversity (I am one of those who are held up as examples of 'diversity') into accents of newsreaders and reporters, I do not think it is a licence to use language incorrectly. Yes, language changes, but the import of the message can entirely change through a misused word or a malapropism.

Therefore I think correct grammar is very important.

And as for most broadcasters not being foolish, I think that word is not what you should have used. Perhaps 'incompetent', 'untrained in grammar' , 'careless about usage' etc could suit better but then again probably none of those satisfactorily expresses what you meant to say.

I've mentioned one of my pet grouses before on the 大象传媒 website: sentences like ".. for you and I". For I? Why not just " ... for you and me"? That's not difficult to understand, is it? I have not even blinked at split infinitives these last 50 years, since I hear then several times an hour whenever I listen to 大象传媒 radio or view TV.

I listen to the radio a lot; mainly Radio 4, and I think that probably punctuation is used less now so the meaning is not always clear to the listener.The newsreaders often put the stress in the wrong place in a sentence so you have to replay it in your head to make sense of it. When I was at school we had to read "with expression" if we were reading aloud in class. I feel this is often missing now from broadcasting.

Tell me when the word "before"
was replaced by the phrase "ahead of"?

I agree very strongly with the writer of comment 5. It annoys me that 大象传媒 values come in to play when reporting certain groups. A bomb that is detonated and kills innocents can be caused by "terrorists", "extremists", "militants" and/or "illegal combatants" depending on who is responsible for it. The 大象传媒 decides which descriptor based upon it's own values therefore is flavouring the communication of the news.

I appreciate that language is very difficult to get right all the time and accept that mistakes will be made especially on occasions such as when a presenter goes off script to convey breaking news. However, it is the language decisions made accordingly to the 大象传媒's left wing political beliefs that I can not forgive.

Grammar pedantry - what fun. Can we talk about pronunciation next?

Here鈥檚 a controversial question 鈥� when did the 大象传媒 decide that 鈥渃ontroversy鈥� should be pronounced 鈥渃ontro-versy鈥� and not 鈥渃ontrov-ersy鈥� (as per every dictionary I鈥檝e ever seen)鈥� yes its pedantic I know鈥�

I think trying to eradicate ambiguity is the main thing, though it's difficult to keep to "correct" grammar and vocabulary sometimes when we speak off-the-cuff, as newsreaders and interviewees do all the time.
It is infuriating, though, to hear things like "The men went into the bank and robbed a million pounds" when they actually STOLE the money, though they robbed the bank.
I heard recently: "Built in 1914, Quentin Tarrentino has described it as his favourite cinema in the world," - he's older than I thought, then. Also, "There are a lot of activities for people with disabilities such as archery and climbing." No - I think those are the activities, not the disabilities.
My husband's a teacher who constantly bemoans the wretchedness of his pupils' grammar and vocabulary: this lack of understanding means that they often don't spot the niceties of quite simple exam questions and do the wrong thing. An Italian friend is on a course learning to teach English to foreigners: she's the only non-native speaker, and the only student on the course who's been taught English grammar. Go on, 大象传媒 - give us a lead. You know you can.

Two things more than any others:
One - The creeping use of haitch instead of aitch, especially among younger and strangely enough strangely enough female presenters
Two - Schedule pronounced with the "sch" as in "school" - nasty, very nasty!

In recent years the 大象传媒 has adopted a policy of referrng to all legal entities as "firms". A "firm" is a partnership - a collection of individuals acting together. In contrast, the vast majority of legal entities operating in business are "companies". If a single generic word is to be used to describe all legal entities in the 大象传媒 news, why has "firm" been chosen when "company" would accurately describe the majority of businesses. Alternatively, if you need a generic word then "business" is more accurate.

My real objection is to the misuse of adjectives instead of adverbs. On sunday during the men's finale a commentator said "He moves quick." and the in the next sentance said. "His moves beautifully". I was so pleased to hear that he did know what an adverb was but would have been more delighted if he had used an adverb in the first sentance. The adoption of 'good' instead of 'well' is a sad loss to the breadth of our language. Please encourage your commentators to know and use adverbs correctly. Thank you.

Why has the word "fewer" seemingly disappeared from the 大象传媒? Just watch out for how frequently the word "less" is used in its place, like "this website is receiving less complaints than it used to". You will be shocked.
Well, that's my rant finished.

I think the use of correct english and grammar is important, so many people now communicate in short hand due to email text and msn that language skills are sliding. But also it amuse me when the news teams have pet words of the month, such as unprecidented and use it at almost every possible situation they can. Didn't anyone teach them that using different words in nearby sentences, when similar meaning words are required makes for easier reading and listening. Keep it simple, keep it clear, keep it creative.

Personally I hate the word "blog" !

RE: Words words words. I think the 大象传媒 should make the effort to use fewer Americanisms.

Usage is a difficult area I agree but the sloppy use of less instaed of fewer is truly irritating. They are different words for different things, and journalists who presumably would not say 'I ain't not got none' seem happy to say 'less policemen on the beat'.
Another pet hate is ridiculous false stress on prepositions and other words that are not the important part of a sentence, rendering the meaning impenetrable. This is common place in weather forcasting as in 'there WILL be showers' I always feel as though they believe I had disputed this possibility. Speaking as one human being to another instead of in trite journalese cadences would be a great relief to all.

"they write in making their views know with what is known as great vigour".

They make their views "known". It's also a rather ugly sentence, but I'll let that one pass :)

Though you are setting yourself up a bit here.

To answer the question regarding American v British use of prepositions, I find that "of" is overused in the US. There is no requirement in either British or American English for an "of" after words such as "all", "outside" and "inside". Perhaps this is what the reader is noticing? In contrast the Americans don't use the word "that" as often as the British, and it is in fact quite easy to drop without losing meaning.

I have also found some rather dodgey English used on the 大象传媒 web site. Who does your proofing?

The 大象传媒's national newsreaders are generally very good - and so they should BE. Sometimes though, it's not what you say but how you say it that's imporTANT. Why do so many of television's senior REE-porters and correspondents resort to a "sing-song" way of delivering their LINES - REEgardless of their conTENT. This is usually accompanied by the emphasising of the last word or syllable in every SENTENCE. It does not carry any meaning and is extremely irriTATING. I think they need to do more ree-SEARCH. If they did, it would be miles, sorry, ki LOMM iters.

Intelligibility of a sentence can be greatly increased using correct stress and INTONATION - as well as PRONUNCIATION. And do they really understand what they're actually SAYING? Do they talk to friends and family like THAT? Point MADE?

Barrie RedFERN, AmsterDAM.

I think the point about "clarity, concision and comprehension" is very valid: comprehension ought to be the primary consideration.
This appears to have been forgotten in the deliberate use of phrases alien to everyday English speech in some news programmes (e.g. "at the top of the hour" on 大象传媒 News 24, which I assume is used in a bid to sound more American).

I find it infuriating that the 大象传媒 (and the British press) insist on treating collective nouns as if they were plural. It is just plain wrong to say "the government are..." because the government is a single institution and so it "is" doing something (or nothing !). Similarly, correspondents should remember that "none" is a contraction of "not one", so when using this word it should be considered singular, as in "none of these grammatical errors is too serious by itself, but collectively they are a serious problem"

Re: comment 16 by Mike. Yes, it is very annoying when people say "con-tro-ver-sy" in the style of The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Prince, but it's not half as annoying as when they say "an hotel" or "an historic". Whoever in the 大象传媒 thinks this is correct, natural sounding or in the least bit desirable?
When I was younger, I thought there was such a thing as the 大象传媒 Pronunciation Unit, which pronounced (no pun intended) on this sort of thing. A search on the website turns up no such thing, however. Does anyone know if it ever existed and, if so, what became of it?

I think the advent of 24 hour news has changed things a great deal. Far more now, people are doing unrehearsed pieces to camera rather than reading from prepared scripts. They are thus far more prone, as we all are, to making slips of the tongue. If the mistakes appear online or in another written form then that is more worrying.

Mark.

Which expressions are you referring to? Often American verbs drop the prepositions used in British English.

e.g. Why don't you write me?
The prisoner was released Thursday.

For anyone after intelligent and accurate reporting with excellent use of language I recommend the New York Times online (www.nytimes.com). The reporting here is outstanding and I often go there to read UK and world news.

Articles are full to the brim with detail and you get a real sense of the story rather than the all-too-often basic overview given by the 大象传媒 and other UK news outlets. I was also surprised at just how impartial and objective the reporting is.

Look at the average 大象传媒 web story: it is only ever one page long, the paragraphs are one sentence in length, and the language tabloid (e.g. any minor problem is a 'crisis', every disagreement a 'row', and trivial reports are justified with the inevitable 'questions/concerns were raised'. Raised by whom? They never say).

Go on, try it out. I bet you'll be surprised.

Tim,

I'm sure you're not a foolish and arrogant broadcaster, but the grammatical error in your paragraph "they write in making their views know with what is known as great vigour" seems to be very unfortunate. An ironic mistake or merely coincidence? I'm sure it's the former.

JvdB.

I'm one of those horrible old pedants who insist on the difference between "fewer" and "less" , and am very biased when it comes to this subject.

I don't live in the UK and am out of touch with the current vernacular, but during my occasional stays in Britain I often have difficulty following both the newspapers and the television news: incoherent sentences due to the use of wrong or inappropriate words; non-sequiturs; failure of reference...the list is endless. But all questions of grammar and the appropriate or correct use of words aside, I find that the language used has become inelegant and turgid, and totally lacking in spark or richness. (I hope you enjoy pulling apart those convoluted sentences as much as I enjoyed writing them).

Anyway, all that aside, we insist that our children learn good English (i.e. English with no mistakes, no incorrect use of words, no grammar errors etc). We also try to enlarge their vocabularies. unfortunately, the 大象传媒 and the majority of the British press are no longer references.

I understand the arguments that language changes, but there's a difference between a language changing to adapt to new things and so becoming richer, and it changing due to dumbing down and illiteracy and so being diminished. I'm afraid I see the latter not the former.

nickd

One failure of pronunciation that astounds me is 'sikth' in place of sixth. Once you are sensitised to this error, you will realise that it runs rampant across all TV and radio broadcasting.

Another distinction that seems to have disappeared is that between the words 'that' and 'which'. As I understand it, 'that' qualifies the previous noun, adding a defining description, whereas 'which' adds incidental information, which if discarded would not fundamentally alter the subject of the conversation.

To illustrate:

There was only one car. The car, which was red..

There were many cars. The car that was blue ..

I wish the 大象传媒 would stop using the term "Train Station".

Fair enough if it鈥檚 an American station that鈥檚 the subject, but we British use the term Railway Station.

It's interesting to see peoples' own grammar prejudices and peeves coming to the fore here, many of which I share, incidentally.

Having said that, I found the penultimate paragraph of Tim Bailey's the most interesting and, to some extent, encouraging: if you are going to bend the rules or even break them, you should first think carefully about why you are doing it. I do, however, notice an increasing 'tabloidisation' of the news media, with the excuse commonly given that, somehow, this is what the audience wants. Oddly, I'm reminded of the line from 'Going Underground' by the Jam:

"The public wants what the public gets."

In the matter of omission of prepositions, one example I've noticed on more than one occasion is failure to use a preposition such as "to" afer the verb to go. It reminded me each time of the French utilization of the verb "aller" as in allez chez lui. But as I understand that verb, it implicitly includes the preposition in the verb itself and as I understand the English verb "to go" it does not.

Terry Wogan had a campaign on his breakfast show some 25 years ago to clear up the controversy over the pronunciation of controversy.

Personally I don't think we'll ever see a decent journalist again. After all, grammar and languages are no longer taught in schools as they were. And even though I was taught grammar in primary school, by the time I arrived at University to read Classics in 1988, all I ever knew about it had been wiped from my brain by subsequent learning. This was a distinct disadvantage when trying to get my head around the linguistics side of my degree and I believe it is something that should be addressed more in English Language lessons (if such things still exist).

大象传媒 presenters routinely mispronounce American proper names. 大象传媒, in common American usage, the city of Houston Texas is pronounced Hew ston, Houston Street in lower Manhattan is pronounced Howse ton. Neither are pronounced Hoo ston.

Until a few years ago Iraq was always pronounced to rhyme with 'back'. 大象传媒 policy now seems to insist it is pronounced to rhyme with 'mark'. What is all that about?

My pet hate is the phrase "our top stories tonight..." which seems to be used more and more often by newsreaders these days.

First, only a section of people who notice and mind these mistakes write in. Second, I know that there is an ongoing argument between the advocates of prescriptive and descriptive grammar, and the 大象传媒 might have adopted the latter approach. How very post modern to say "who are we to judge uses of English?". Well you are the British Broadcasting Company, so you are responsible for correct use of your chosen medium/tool.

Therefore, I think, you don't need to apologise for high standards or think that standard English is not inclusive. The best start people can have in their school and career is their good command of their mother tongue and if they don't hear it spoken properly at home or school, the 大象传媒 is probably their only chance.

People in the media always misuse 'ironically'!

Errors in pronounciation and gramatical usage are hardly my favorite 大象传媒 gaffs. Several years ago 大象传媒 aired a piece on New York City to strains of Gershwin's "An American in Paris." I wrote them about it and they offered one of their usual lame excuses.

Three points:

1) Editors often comment on Radio 3/4 listeners' interest in grammar and high standards of punctuation and delivery as though this is is solely the obsession of an elite of 'sticklers' in the audience. But as Simon Hugo noted, standards and conventions are not the preserve of a minority but are the essential basis on which everyone can take part in conversation, writing and reading. If editors and producers crave to be 'inclusive' then clarity and adherence to a common standard in grammar, pronuncation and punctuation are vital.

2) Barrie Redfern is spot on with his attack on the weird intonation patterns of many broadcasters, who seem to be under instructions to place strong emphasis on words at random in order to sound more interesting and presumably to prevent the dumbed-down viewer from switching off or over.

3) A related point is the strange fashion for eliding sentences, so that one runs straight into another before the broadcaster is compelled to take a breath mid-sentence. It can be extremely hard to follow what is being said sometimes. This habit is now unbreakable with eg Jim Naughtie on TODAY and is widespread elsewhere on the news programmes. I assume that the intention is to sound informal, conversational, improvised and 'accessible'. In reality it is irritating and often a barrier to understanding. So please stop - you know who you are.

Presently, I am living in the USA. I emigrated from England in 2002, and miss my homeland a great deal.

On occassion, the use of what they like to call English here, makes me cringe, however there are exceptions to the rule.

Fall rather than autumn is, I believe Elizabethan English retained in common usage here after this country gained it's independence, as indeed is 'gotten', rather than got.

I like this, it is rather quaint.

I try my best to retain my English accent, as so many folk here seem to appreciate it.

I achieve this by listening to recodings by elequent speakers such as Kenneth Williams and Penelope Keith, such a joy.

Films with British actors and actresses also help, (I hate females being referred to as actors).

A most useful book is 'Mother Tounge' by Bill Bryson...

I also belong to a number of newsgroups where I find the standard of English nothing short of completely dreadful.

I mostly tolerate such horrors lest I should be considered a pedant, or as they prefer to say over here: 'anally retentive' Yuk!

With all Good Wishes

尝茅辞苍

I'm interested in newsreaders intonation,
and I'm going to propose a thesis about it. I need a standard intonation of 大象传媒 newsreaders that will be my reference. Can you help me? where can I get the rules of intonation in 大象传媒 for newsreaders?
thanks

I wonder when the pronunciations unit is going to teach many of the 大象传媒 reporters and presenters to pronounce the French city of Strasbourg properly. along with many other British people they say "Stras-berg" 鈥� I really cannot understand how "Bourg" can become "Berg!" You only have to look how it is spelt.

It is so much nicer when listening to a French news programme hearing it pronounced "Stras-bourg." After all it is in France, not in Germany.

I agree with the posts that complain about the use of terror, when terrorist or terrorism are the correct terms. The 大象传媒 seems to suffer from laziness, especially when typing it.

Too many reporters and presenters are also saying "terr" and "ferr" in the place of "to" and "for."

Last is the use of 'gridlock' to describe a traffic hold-up. This is an American word and is not applicable to U.K. roads. Therefore, the M6 cannot be gridlocked, this is impossible.