Topicalization

Today I'd like to say a thing or two about the question of topicalization, which is still a little problem area for many learners. First off, let me clarify that linguists understand two slightly different concepts by that term.

The word topicalization can refer to the act of placing information at the front of the sentence in order to establish the topic of what a speaker is going to say/write. Consider this headline:

In impoverished Syldavia, king's new palace an eyesore for some

What is the topic of the sentence? What this sentence about? Is it about the financial situation of the kingdom of Syldavia? The design of the new palace? Is it about what some Syldavians think of the royal palace? I would argue that the syntax doesn't make it all too clear. It is true that by fronting the adverbial phrase ("in impoverished Syldavia") we highlight one specific piece of information, namely, where the infamous building is located (also its financial precariousness). So, okay... the writer has stressed one element, most likely the thematic element in the phrase.

However, I don't want to address that kind of topicalization, but rather the one that allows us to establish a topic in an explicit manner.

So picture yourself in a job interview. Even if the "main topic" of the conversation is obvious, it is undeniable that a number of areas/aspects are going to be discussed: qualifications, benefits, salary, availability, etc. How do you signal what you're exactly referring to when you talk? You need an expression that helps you introduce or establish a (sub)topic, something that basically says: "I'm talking about money". Of course, you want to say that "Now I am going to talk about money". So... how should you express that idea?

It's actually quite simple. You just need the English equivalent of the Japanese "wa" particle. What is that? Well, it is a syllable that is customarily used to clarify the subject matter of a sentence, which is why in Japanese the question Where is John?, for example, sounds like this: John wa, doko desu ka? A rough literal translation would be: Regarding John, where is he?

Wouldn't it be nice to have such an efficient little particle in English? It would, indeed, but you don't need to dream about it because the English language does have an analogous particle. I refer here to the suffix "-wise". Yes. That little add-on (which we find, for instance, in the word otherwise) does the exact same job. Interestingly enough, it is a productive morpheme in some expressions, such as money-wise meaning in terms of money. Similar examples abound: weather-wise, health-wise, family-wise, personality-wise, etc. The bad news is that it cannot be bandied about just like an article or a modal verb. In other words, its use is rather limited. So, what do we do?

I can tell what you should not do. Many learners tend to resort to a small array of unidiomatic options. Let's assume they want to discuss the feasibility of a project. They'll start a sentence by using something like about its feasibility or talking about its feasibility. Ouch! Those are not exactly great choices, particularly in light of the many natural alternatives that the English language has to offer. Check these out:

• In terms of its feasibility
• As far as its feasibility goes
• Regarding its feasibility
• With regard to its feasibility
• With respect to its feasibility
• As for its feasibility
• On the question of its feasibility
• As to its feasibility

Should I go on? Alright. You get the idea. So, whenever you need to tackle a facet of a problem or address an aspect of a debate, make sure you establish the topic appropriately. As you can see, options are not exactly in short supply.

Choose your imagery

Today I'll jump right into a very practical issue: the imagery that idioms conjure up.

We know that idioms are a staple of the advanced level. We also know that idioms are, basically, "ready-made language". They've been around for as long as most people can remember and, if you don't like them, well, there's not much one can do about it. I suppose you can create your own expressions, but if you're the only speaker using them, they are not going to be of much use unless you convince thousands of people to work them into their daily conversations.

As a sophisticated learner, though, you can choose the kind of imagery you resort to, so that you may decide what you want the listener/reader to "see". I use the verb "see" deliberately because, whether you like it or not, when you speak you are often "painting". By using references to images, you plant mental pictures in your interlocutor's head. I don't know about you, but whenever someone mentions the proverbial "bull in a china shop" I can't help picturing the said bull wreaking havoc in the said store. Of course, other expressions paint no picture whatsoever. At least not in my mind. So, how can we create different "visualizations" (let's call them that)? And, more importantly, why is that relevant to your English?

In order to find out, we'll consider a common enough reference: causes and effects (i.e. events and their consequences) and see how we refer to them. Alright. We deal with that every single day, don't we? For the sake of clarity, we can state that, sometimes, one event has ONE consequence, which can be either pleasant or unpleasant. Thus, when you take a medicine, for instance, you may expect two basic outcomes:

• Scenario A: The medicine cures you and you feel good.
• Scenario B: The medicine cures you, but your left eye will not stop twitching.

The second scenario presents what we call a side effect. Okay. Here's the rub: when I hear those two words (side effect) I don't picture anything in particular. It's not like the aforementioned bull breaking valuable objects in an enclosed space. That is not what this post is about, though. As a matter of fact, what I would like you to consider is rather the opposite: the case in which an idiom manages to make a listener "visualize" a scene.

So let's look at a more specific case of causes and effects. Let's discuss the case in which ONE event causes SEVERAL events to happen not simultaneously but one after another. How do you refer to that phenomenon? Here you have some options:

Do you see what I'm getting at, here? Roughly speaking, those expressions convey the same basic meaning ("sorta, kinda..."), but offer different nuances and, therefore, paint different pictures. Check out this sentence:

We had a chance meeting and it all snowballed from there.

This may well be said by someone who refers to a project which started after a casual conversation and got increasingly big. For all we know, it may have gone on to become a worldwide sensation. Okay. Do you see the difference between that image (the snowball rolling down a mountain) and the one you "see" when someone mentions an event that sent shock waves through the country? The little snowball versus the impact of an earthquake or an explosion. Now compare those two different types of consequences with the ripples on the surface of a lake (implicit in the abovementioned ripple effect). You can't seriously tell me that they elicit the same response from your listener.

Truly advanced imagery may revolve around more complex elaborate semiotic relationships. For instance, you may first resort to a black swan event and then, somehow, manage to refer to a big stone which falls into the water. First you present a swan in a lake and then you add the ripples that disturb its stillness. Isn't that nice? I'm afraid that's the sort of stuff that we expect from an accomplished writer or a poet (or a language teacher), not necessarily from a C1/C2 student.

All kinds of wrong: eggcorns, mondegreens and malaphors

As learners, you have a small advantage over native speakers. You are not customarily exposed to certain nonstandard expressions. Therefore there are plenty of mistakes you are simply unlikely to commit. Consider these sentences:

• Ain't got a problem
• I like them sneakers

Granted. By and large, English learners and native English speakers tend to make different kinds of mistakes. Sometimes, though, we can find an unexpected overlap. An inexperienced English student, for instance, may use the infamous double negative. For different reasons, (emphasis, register, dialect, lack of formal education) some native speakers may commit the very same "mistake". Just watch the first 30 seconds of this glorious cover of I don't need no doctor, the Ray Charles classic.

Another example: some native users might mess up conditional sentences in a way that should strike a chord with any teacher who has ever taught B2 level: If I would have known that before... This happens because native speakers also fall victim to an old danger: bad references. It stands to reason that speakers whose parents don't have a good grasp on conditionals should perpetrate the aforementioned "crime".

So, what happens when you hear a native speaker use what we can safely call "objectionable English"? (and I don't mean "colorful language" or "taboo vocabulary" here, but plain ungrammatical sentences, nonwords or suspicious idioms.) What do you do then? What happens when you hear two conflicting phrases? For instance: I feel good and I feel well.

A stuffy by-the-book teacher will typically correct the perceived "error"... and s/he will be plain wrong. They will be quick to point out that you ought to say "I feel well". However, that correction would fail to acknowledge a well-established phrase in the English language. Are you going to critize the likes of James Brown and Nina Simone? I don't think so. As an experienced teacher, I can tell you that both are "okay". "I feel well" simply sounds a bit formal whereas "I feel good" has a friendly, colloquial ring to it. I would not say the same about similar structures. The sentence "the negotiation went quite good" grates on my ears. I'm afraid it's a no-no.

Nonetheless, sometimes you'll come across pairs of expressions that cannot be explained away like I just did. That tends to happen when the error does not hinge on grammar rules or lexical precision, but rather on a concept that somehow feels "off". So-called malaphors represent that very scenario.

Malaphors

Malaphors or mixaphors (I love these two blend-words!) present an amusing way of mixing concepts. (When they are not uttered as a phrase but used as an extended rhetorical device, they are typically called "mixed metaphors"). Check out this sentence:

All at once, he was alone in this noisy hive with no place to roost

The "he" in that sentence is simultaneously compared to a bee and a rooster. Isn't that bizarre? Indeed, it is. In point of fact, that's a textbook case of mixed metaphors. Likewise, we should not juxtapose conflicting idioms. Let's assume that you want to characterize someone as a truly original thinker. You can conceivably say something like this: 

This girl really pushes the envelop and blazes the trail.

Both idioms exist (and have the very same meaning), but, clearly the mental picture suggested by that sentence is odd: someone handling a (paper?) envelop while setting a path on fire. I doubt you can do both things at the same time. Anyhow, this wouldn't be an example of two mixed metaphors but rather a prime example of confusing imagery. I don't think I need to explain why something like that should be avoided.

In any event, the reason this happens is that, oftentimes, language learners tend to store/remember just the core "idea" within a particular expression and then build a sentence around that basic notion. Well, native speakers sometimes do the exact same thing. Indeed. Let's say a native speaker is vaguely familiar with two separate idioms:

• Every cloud has a silver lining
• To have a silver spoon in one's mouth

There is a chance that they may get confused in someone's head. This person might end up using a hybrid expression that takes a bit of both phrases: "every cloud is born with a silver spoon in its mouth" (!)

Those two expressions clearly refer to completely different realities. One alludes to the notion of seeing the bright side of a negative situation. The second one refers to inherited money. Yet, as the video above suggests, a native speaker might only remember "the silver element", which can be enough for him or her to mix up both expressions and produce an utterly ludicrous phrase. Okay. I must confess, I've never heard anyone utter the sentence "every cloud has a silver spoon in its mouth, but I have definitely heard people (native speakers) say "Don't worry, we'll burn that bridge when we get there." Again, this is obviously a hilarious combination of two different idioms:

• We'll cross that bridge when we get there
• To burn one's bridges

Trust competent speakers

Why do I bother to mention all this? Because you should be very careful who you trust. A native speaker is usually a pretty good reference, but they are by no means infallible sources of linguistic advice. Also, remember that sometimes educated speakers choose to use an incorrect phrase deliberately, for comic effect or simply because they want to adapt to a specific situation. At the advanced level you should be able to identify a speaker's attitude or tone so you can decide whether a given nonstandard phrase is a mistake or a joke.

Needless to say, we can always come across a native speaker who might not have a good handle on certain idioms. Just like a Spaniard may say "estoy entre la espalda y la pared "(roughly translated: "I'm between the lock and a hard place"), a Canadian English speaker can also make an analogous mistake. What can I say? Some speakers are more competent than others. So, you know what to do. Make sure that the language user you choose to imitate knows what they're doing. Otherwise you may find yourself "screwing your foot in it."

________________

N.B. To those of you that have watched the video above: I have definitely heard people say "butt naked" more often than I have "buck naked." But the truth is that both expressions are quite common. Should you be curious, you can read this informative article which sheds some light on the actual usage of those two phrases. By the way, in case you are wondering, I always say "buck naked", but, then again, that is my personal choice.

N.B2. Yes. Yes. You don't "screw your foot in it". Either you "put your foot in it" or you simply "screw up".

Competent speakers

Lately I have realized a recurring phenomenon amongst my students. Whenever I mention the fact that a particular structure or expression can be used in two or three different ways, I observe a distinct knee-jerk reaction. Invariably, some student will ask me: "So, which one is correct?" That's when I reply that "there is no correct expression." At this some of my students look utterly flummoxed. How is that possible? How can a word have two different plural forms? Of course, there is a number of reasons why this can happen: different registers, regularization processes, dialectal divergence, etc.

Even when there is an evidently "correct" (i.e. standard) form and an "incorrect" (i.e. nonstandard) version, things are not necessarily black and white. Thus Bill Withers, the author of the soul classic Ain't No Sunshine When She's Gone, would not have uttered the sentence "ain't no doubt in my mind" during a TV interview. Most likely he would have said "there is no doubt in my mind." The same speaker that uses a "correct" verb form in the interview chooses the "incorrect" one for the song. So there's that.

Then we come up against another problem. Something that is "incorrect" today may be "correct" tomorrow. Yes... I could get really technical and discuss the concept of diachronical continuum, but, for the sake of clarity, let's just say that language transformation is a slow process and changes do not occur overnight. That explains how it is perfectly possible for different options to be available at the same time. Whatever non-linguists tell you, the truth is that, before a linguistic novelty (i.e. a new/modified expression) becomes established, it coexists with the older form for a few decades or even generations. That phenomenon is called linguistic variation. Of course, at first, the "novelty" is deemed to be an outright mistake. With the passage of time, though, the "wrong" expression starts to feel rather "normal". Eventually, the "correct" one sounds dated and is abandoned. That's how changes take place. Therefore sentences such as "I'm seeing", "I'm hearing" or even "I'm loving it", which were frowned upon in the 1980s, are gradually becoming acceptable now. Is it okay to say "I'm loving this book"? Well... it depends.

Words of foreign origin

In Spain we find the case of "real classical Latin" and what I call "Spanish Latin". Established Spanish writers will use the expression in flagrante, which happens to be the classical formula used by the Romans (the full phrase being in flagrante delicto). However, the prestigious Diccionario de la Real Academia sanctions the use of the corrupt form in fraganti. Notice that erroneous first syllable: "fra". For reasons that need not be described, in Spain the word underwent a shocking transformation. Is "fraganti" classical Latin? I'm afraid it's not.  It's dog Latin. The difference between flagrante and fraganti reminds me of that kid I met in the US, whose name was Grabiel. Yes. Grabiel. The kid insisted that his name was not Gabriel but GRAbiel. An obvious mistake had been made (unsurprisingly, his parents happened to be uneducated immigrants), but of course nobody made him change his name. In a similar way, "incorrect" Latin expressions made their way into the Spanish (a grosso modo, de motu propio, etc.) and have managed to stay in the language, because most people were okay with them.

Why do I mention all this? Because an ancient tongue is kind of swampy terrain and different modern languages adapt loanwords in different ways. That's why we find Latin words with two possible plurals in English. Take a word that I used above: the technical term "continuum". What is its plural? Continuums or continua? If you get ahold of a copy of The Power of Babel (2001) and turn to page 81 you will see that Professor John McWhorter uses continua. So is continua is the correct plural?

Let me think. My favorite dictionary, the one and only Merriam Webster, also accepts the regularized version continuums. So, again... which one is "correct"? The answer is both and, since we find this trend across the board, there's hardly any need to panic. Sometimes several alternatives are grammatical.

Foreign plurals

What I just explained is not an isolated example. As a matter of fact, in the case of foreign plurals we usually tend to find two options. The Italian word paparazzo only has one acceptable plural: paparazzi, but Hebrew terms such as kibutz and goy can take both the original plural (kibutzim and goyim) and the regularized versions (kibutzes and goys). The same thing is true for certain Latin words: ultimatum and curriculum offer two plurals. Nevertheless, that is not the case of other Latin terms. Alumnus and bacterium, for example, only accept the "original" plurals, namely, alumni and bacteria. Don't ask me why. I don't make the rules. Ultimately, whenever you have two options, using one form or the other boils down to a choice. That's when the concept of style comes into play. I'll say it again. Not grammatical correctness but... style.

Style

Ask yourself: Do you say stupidest or the most stupid? Do you say if an astronaut takes his or her cat? or do you say their cat? Do you say the majority of people thinks or the majority of people think? The by-the-book correct expression is, of course, thinks (since the head of the noun phrase is majority), but the ad sensum use calls for "think" because it's the people (a plural noun) that do the thinking. In the first paragraph of this post I wrote "there is a number of reasons...". Well, that is my choice. Someone else could have chosen "there are a number of reasons". I know. I know. Some grammar sticklers will tell you that only the first one is correct and many teachers will mark the second option wrong. That said, there are solid reasons to justify either choice.

Not anything goes

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that obviously ungrammatical sentences can be justified on the grounds of "personal style". As is the case of so-called eggcorns and malaprops, a mistake is a mistake (even though languages are chock-full of embarrassing blunders that then go on to become official). Case in point: I abhor an atrocity like "I was literally petrified". Really. It makes my skin crawl (not literally), but I can accept that some speakers spell "chock-full" like me (with a hyphen) while others favor "chockfull" (without the hyphen). As far as I'm concerned both are acceptable and that's fine.

So, at this point you may be wondering... "What do I do if I'm not sure what to say?" If you want my advice: follow competent speakers and make sure you imitate expressions that are in reputable use. By "competent speakers" I refer to writers like Ian McEwan or Joyce Carol Oates, intellectuals like Steven Pinker or Sam Harris, actors like Stephen Fry or Emma Thompson... They are all exceedingly eloquent speakers whose mastery in English I definitely look up to. Dictionaries can also be helpful, of course.

Every now and then it is okay to be persnickety in terms of grammatical correctness but don't push it. Most of the times, things are not black or white. Indeed, there are many shades of "gray" or... wait a second. Is it "gray", with an A, or should I spell it "grey" with an E?

Merry Christmas everyone!

Hi everyone. I thought I'd type a few lines to basically wish you all a Merry Christmas.

I also think that this season is an opportunity for you to get (re)acquainted with some archaic expressions that only seem to pop up in poems and traditional songs. I'm talking about the pronoun ye (=you), the possessive thy (=your), the adverb yon (=around / over there), obsolete meanings in words such as gay (=happy) and terms like Yuletide (=Christmas) that you may not hear often. Check out those meaning so you don't freak out the next time you hear O Come All Ye Faithful or listen to that other classic carol:

Have yourself a merry little Christmas / Make the yuletide gay

I happen to like Michael Bublé, but I'm definitely not a fan of Ariana Grande. That said, boy can she sing! Her range is off-the-charts awesome and her technique is simply impeccable. Enjoy this short clip and remember that, in a few hours, Santa Claus is coming to town.

Revisiting the B1 level

Chances are... if you are reading this post you're probably an English student trying to get to or stay in the advanced level. Understandably, you think the classroom material you covered years ago is somehow "beneath you". Stuff like relative sentences, prepositions and irregular plurals are "a thing of the past", which is why you probably prefer to center on truly advanced content: lexical accuracy (epaulet, flout, etc.), inversions (seldom would I dream of...), emphatic structures (an opinion he voiced in no uncertain terms) and that sort of thing. Fair enough. That's a healthy C1 obsession. And if you're inching towards the coveted C2 certificate you may even choose brood over he subtle semantic differences between terms such as masterful and masterly.

Okay. I'm painting something of a caricature. I know. Still, deep down, you know what I'm talking about here, right?

Let's just consider the following situation (which is, by the way, no caricature). Imagine you are reading the press and you stumble upon this:

Now, as the European Union regulators edge closer to approving two of those vaccines...

You stop reading, go online and look up the verb to edge. You immediately realize that its meaning is quite specific: "to move gradually". That is a word you need to incorporate right away (because you're a bit of a word nerd). Somehow, while you look for your vocabulary notebook on your cluttered desk, you vaguely remember a synonymous verb (to inch), which your teacher used in his blog (check out line 7 of this post). Anyway, you finally find the notebook and jot down the word "edge" and its meaning. Who knows? You might also take down a sentence that illustrates how to use the term in a real context. Some days later you decide to use the recently acquired word. So you say:

We're edging close to face a new economic crisis

The sentence does not conform to the grammar rules of the English language. After the adverb close you use the "-ing" form of a verb. Just reread the sentence above ("...edge closer to approving..."). What does this little thought experiment tell us? The answer is quite clear. You may learn an "advanced" word but fail to use it properly due to "intermediate" issues.

This is why I've decided to revisit B1 material and by that I mean prepositions, singular/plural forms, etc. Just this week I touched on the case of weird plurals. Yes. In my C1.2 class we read an article about the kind of life that papparazzi lead. I mentioned that the singular form of papparazzi is, of course, papparazzo. I went on to remind my students that the plural of nucleus is nuclei and the plural of kibutz is kibutzim. I added that this state of affairs makes many native speakers rather uncomfortable, which explains why some language users will write several ultimata but most people prefer the regular several ultimatums.

Of course it's not only Latin terms and loanwords that have unusual plural forms. Take the case of "secretary general". What is its plural form? It is "secretaries general". I know. It feels bizarre, but that's the way it is. Is it possible, then, to be learning sophisticated grammar and make basic mistakes? I'm afraid it is, but the solution to that is extremely simple. Read up on the subject!

I'll give you two options.

Option A

If you feel like brushing up on your plurals you can read this enjoyable article by Arika Okrent, which discusses some words that have no singular form.

Option B

If you are curious about the history of irregular plurals in English the video below is an entertaining condensed lesson that will put things into some kind of perspective. Have fun.

 

______________________

N.B. Word to the wise: check your Educantabria mailbox you should soon receive an email informing you that there's a new quiz ready for you. If you are a C1.1 student the test will be about ways of describing "importance" without using the word "important". Students in the C1.2 and C2 courses will take a quiz about singular and plural forms. Don't panic if your score is not too high.  Both quizzes are really challenging. I haven't designed them to boost your self-esteem but rather to teach you some necessary grammar/vocabulary.

Don't build sentences. Say them

This may sound like an obvious statement, but lately I have noticed a gaping divide between two kinds of students: those who still struggle to build sentences and those who simply say them. I know it seems simplistic, but just bear with me.

At the advanced level you're not really supposed to build sentences anymore. By that I mean that you don't make many choices in terms of word combinations. When you want to describe how you feel about a sensitive personal situation you may (understandably) take your time to find the right words. But as far as expressing yourself in most contexts you string sentences together without giving much thought to the grammar or the collocations that are needed. Allow me to repeat this: you do make decisions, of course, but not many.

Let's suppose that you're working on a project with a friend who feels frustrated because of a minor mishap. You may say: "Hey! Keep your chin up. It's not the end of the world". I know that those are two idioms, which means they are somewhat predictable. Few people want to speak in cliches. And that's commendable, but first things first. Before an English learner sets out to speak "originally" (whatever that means) they should master the "obvious" phrases. The beauty of this approach is that, when you finally resort to fixed phrases, you realize that you don't even stop to think of the potential options, that is to say, you don't have to choose between these sentences:

• Keep your eyes up
• Keep your hair up
• Keep your chin up

You just know what you are supposed to keep up: your chin. This way a silly mistake is avoided. As for the second sentence, again, you don't really need to consider the following options:

• the end of the universe
• the end of the cosmos
• the end of the galaxy

See what I mean? You just say "the end of the world" because it is the conventional expression. So, you don't have to hesitate and consider nonstandard/"incorrect" alternatives.

A speaker that is "sort of familiar" with the idea (in the phrase "the end of the world") might ponder the merits of such phrases as "the finish for the world", "the world's ending", "the termination of the galaxy", etc. which needless to say, do not conform to the convention. For all I know, they may be translating from their mother tongues. Unfortunately, that happens to be irrelevant. It just doesn't work in English, which means it's a no-no in an advanced class. Anyway, my point is that all those moments of hesitation vanish into thin air when you know the sequence and say it.

So that's what I mean when I say that "some students just know what to say". They've heard an expression before and simply use it when they identify the function that it serves. Yes. That's the way to go about it, I'm afraid. Less grammar and more "usage awareness".

I can anticipate your reaction: "But I want to be myself. I don't want to speak in stock phrases" (because you avoid cliches like the plague). Well, I've got news for you: you already speak in stock phrases in your mother tongue. Yes, you do. Unless you're a creative speaker, the kind of language user that can come up with dazzling never-before-used similes, the talker that coins neologisms and creates new turns of phrase, you are using expressions that somebody else has created and millions have used. Even great writers are compelled to resort to conventions (even if they often go beyond them). Otherwise nobody would understand their texts. So, however idiosyncratic your English may be, it is, it cannot be not totally original. And that's not sad. That's what a language is: a complex set of conventions. Certain combinations do feel refreshing even if their "components" are not new. Millions of speakers use time-honored expressions to good effect. Some sound predictable and boring while others shine.

I remember Amazon.com used to offer an interesting piece of information about most books: the so-called SIPs (Statistically Improbable Phrases). I haven't seen that feature for a while, but I recall sitting and reading them before buying a book. What are SIPs? Simply put, they are unusual combinations that can give an on-line shopper a taste of what makes a book quirky or different. Think about it. If I told you about a book that contains the phrase turophobic chucklehead, would you be curious or put off by it? I haven't checked (I just put those two words together), but I can imagine not many books in the world contain sentences which include that peculiar "word sequence". So, how many unusual combinations can you come up with? Do you still be want to be original or are you ready to settle for something... less demanding? The good new is... you don't have to be that creative to be an advanced speaker and, of course, you have time to become a writer. Just don't get ahead of yourself.

In short, be humble. Find competent speakers and imitate what they say. Do not try to improve on those expressions. Not yet, anyway.