Error Analysis

I have been one of a favorite reader of ‘straight talk' column for the past one year or so. I admit that its articles have indeed been very inspiring to me. However, I recently took two of its articles as case studies: "Kiai's Indictment of police lacks satisfactory evidence" and your 29th Nov article "All judges must be shown the door for a new dawn", and I was really shocked to see how language has been poorly used by the writer.

The conclusions here are based on the following assumptions-

• That I am allowed to see the errors, correct them and even share such findings.
• That some errors arise due to the editors' assumption that the writer's work is ‘complete' in terms of grammar and semantics.
• That some errors arise due to the fact that the writer is not a native speaker of English after all.
• That some errors arise due the high pressure from target readers to give an article that is exclusive in terms of grammar and that pleases the intellect i.e use of unfamiliar words and word order.

The analysis does not refer to a named writer since some columnists have been known to hire writers for their work. In this regard, the paper will refer to the speaker in the articles as ‘the writer' and not ‘Ahmednasir Abdullahi'

The following key errors were identified from the aforementioned articles.

1. The title ‘all judges must be shown the door for a new dawn' remains as vague as it is. For one to understand the meaning in it, inferences have to be made. Otherwise if references are made solely to the title, does the writer mean to say that ‘only when judges are trained… well, will they see the brighter parts of their career… a brighter part imagined by the symbolism ‘the door for a new dawn? That is the only meaning possible in the reference field of semantic deduction. (my ellipses here mean ‘trained or any other move that will ensure judges are assisted to see the door for a new dawn')

But consider this structure, "For a new dawn, all judges must be shown the door" the reference here is very clear and I should think this was what the writer meant to say (though I am not in his head). The original heading appears to be a transfer error from Swahili or even mother tongue.

1. In the same article on paragraph (par) 2 there is an error the writer makes associated with elementary English learners. ‘None of our neighboring countries pose an immediate military threat to our national security'. The line violets subject verb agreement. The verb ‘pose' should be used in the progressive ‘poses'.

This should be noted as a persistent error throughout a number of this writer's works.

1. In ‘Kiai's indictment of police…' following constructions have been termed as ‘inarticulate cries' for serious editing.
   1. Par 3 line 2… as another stab on the part of KNCHR to unnecessarily shock. Instead of ‘unnecessary shock' (that is if there is anything as a necessary and unnecessary shock).
   2. Par 4 last line… that might do him good at a personal level, but in the long run it has corrosive effect on the deference Kenya has hold that important institution. Missing article a corrosive effect… missing preposition after hold *.
   3. Par 6 line 2… it is 10 pages and six lines. What does the writer mean? It is sketchy in factual data, but curiously long in hypothesis. How can data be sketchy? It should be inadequate… if all the phrases refer to the report's failure why use ‘but' why not a double imperative and? Why not say hypotheses? A plural will make sense. Consider "it is a 10 page and a few lines document"

The writer goes ahead to say in par 11 line 1… after dissecting the 11-page report… compare this with… it is 10 pages and six lines…? These are contradicting ideas… giving sketchy data (if to borrow the writer's words).

1. Par 7 line 2… it is subjective to be useful … that is wrong anyway.
2. Par 7 line 3… the writer writes … report has a lot of missing gaps… note the elementary error here, some items are missing so there are gaps; and this gaps, according to the writer are also missing!
3. Par 8 line 2… informed sophistigious community… he ‘ferries' it into the print even after Ms Word's warning… ‘Sophisticated community' is true.
4. Par 9 line 4… with such scant and unreliable… scanty is however the correct adjective here. Line 2 … Not one name of the… ‘Not a single name' is however the accurate phrase here… line 3… isn't it really *preposterous scheme… omission of the indefinite article ‘a'.
5. H. Par 10 last line… we are all too familiar with… demonstrative ‘that' (or which, depending on whether it's American or British Eng.) omitted… that we are all too familiar with… in any case ‘very' will be accurate than too.  Have a look at this…despite the reputation risk of the police… where is the risk? The police or the reputation… this is a clumsy construction and can become a very ‘expensive' error in such writing.
6. I. Kindly read par 10 and see if it is communicative enough… I doubt.
7. J. The columnist being a lawyer is better placed to differentiate ‘damage' as used in legalese and in the normal/ usual variety or register of the English language than anybody else. But still in par 10 line2 he writes… the damages done to the prestige of … "Damage remains as damage in normal syntax and to give it a plural here is a grammatical error. In legalese ‘damages' is used to mean that the ‘accused has been found guilty and must pay Shs.20, 000 as damages for publicly saying ‘things' that brought reproach to the complainant's reputation etc.  

In the ‘all judges must be shown the door…' following errors are further identifiable

1. I.             Par 1 line 2… Neither is it from… beginning with the double imperative ‘and' is meaningful.
2. II.            Par 2 line 3… May be to ordinary Kenyans… the definite article ‘the' is omitted.
3. III.            Par 5 line 1… they resorted to pre-law remedies… are they really remedies? Are these actions really viable means to an end? I believe the ‘sweetness' of the word superseded the intended meaning. This is an error of regularization.
4. IV.            Par 7 line 3… are almost non-existent… existence has no continuum… it's either something is in existence or non-existence-- and not ‘almost' or even ‘very' existent.
5. V.            Par 8 … a clean break with the past… the preposition is rather misused… ‘From' should have conveyed the meaning clearly. Break with is used with two subjects whose breaking relationship is clearly stated, which is definitely not the case here.
6. VI.            Interestingly, the catch phrase is clumsy and not as impactful as the writer thought it to be… the Kenyan judiciary is so rotten, that its stench has assumed a sense of normalcy… in true, what exists is a ‘state' of normalcy and not a ‘sense'. With the kind of the audience that such a piece targets, giving up on reading the article due to such clumsy phrases can be inevitable to the readers.

For instance, take phrases like… what law can a magistrate develop (par 23)… can such a magistrate be conscience of his (par 23)…an absolute legal fallacy (par 27)… judge is suitable for reappointment or is competent and diligent (par 13)…entrapped in earthly personal pursuit (par 25)… but even these ones, and with profound apology (par last)… etc

The questions to ask here are… are laws developed? Are we conscience of our… or are we conscious of our…? Is the phrase ‘absolute legal fallacy' creating any picture to us? Isn't it ignorantly redundant to talk of ‘suitable for reappointment', ‘competence' and ‘diligence' as different referents in this sense? What exactly is ‘entrapping' in personal pursuit that qualifies it (the pursuit) as earthly to warrant such an obfuscated phrase here? What? And is it grammatical to use demonstrative ‘these' in a manner where a writer does not mention the objects being referred to? and so to speak in a new paragraph? Even books like common mistakes in English reject the use of ‘after talking about all these…' ‘According to the above, we must…' the objects involved must be used: after talking about all these processes, we should…, according to the above rules, we must…

To conclude, the column's efforts to employ quality language use have not abated and if informed editing is done before printing, the results will be the ideal article that this critique paper seeks. While it is true that the notion of grammaticality has everything to do with intuition, the errors indentified above are agreeably honest and real. Well, this paper welcomes any academic debate in this direction. This paper has no problem with the content of the column but the way language is used. And the objective is not to make a shot at the linguistic competence or performance of the writer, but to add a voice to the call that use of misguided ‘sweet' and ‘unfamiliar' words does not add any value to a piece of writing: more so in newspaper. It should be remembered that audiences are as easy to inform and entertain with phrases as they are to get disenchanted and negatively critical.