New study – Many English Speakers Cannot Understand Basic Grammar

Like This!

I’ll paste the entire content of the article, which can be found by clicking here. I will bold the points I find most interesting, followed by my comments below.

ScienceDaily (July 6, 2010) — Research into grammar by academics at Northumbria University suggests that a significant proportion of native English speakers are unable to understand some basic sentences.

The findings — which undermine the assumption that all speakers have a core ability to use grammatical cues — could have significant implications for education, communication and linguistic theory.

The research, conducted by Dr Ewa Dabrowska, showed that basic elements of core English grammar had not been mastered by some native speakers.

The project assumed that every adult native speaker of English would be able to understand the meaning of the sentence:

The soldier was hit by the sailor.”

Dr Dabrowska and research student James Street then tested a range of adults, some of whom were postgraduate students, and others who had left school at the age of 16. All participants were asked to identify the meaning of a number of simple active and passive sentences, as well as sentences which contained the universal qualifier “every.”

As the test progressed, the two groups performed very differently. A high proportion of those who had left school at 16 began to make mistakes. Some speakers were not able to perform any better than chance, scoring no better than if they had been guessing.

Dr Dabrowska comments: “These findings are ground breaking, because for decades the theoretical and educational consensus has been solid. Regardless of educational attainment or dialect we are all supposed to be equally good at grammar, in the sense of being able to use grammatical cues to understand the meaning of sentences.

“Of course some people are more literate, with a larger vocabulary and greater exposure to highly complex literary constructions. Nevertheless, at a fundamental level, everyone in a linguistic community is supposed to share the same core grammar, in the same way that given normal development we can all walk.”

The supposition that everyone in a linguistic community shares the same grammar is a central tenet of Noam Chomsky’s theory of universal grammar. The theory assumes that all children learn language equally well and that there must therefore be an underlying common structure to all languages that is somehow “hard-wired” into the brain.

Dr Dabrowska has examined other explanations for her findings, such as limitations to working memory, and even so-called “test wiseness,” but she concluded that these non-linguistic factors are irrelevant.

She also stressed that the findings have nothing to do with intelligence. Participants with low levels of educational attainment were given instruction following the tests, and they were able to learn the constructions very quickly. She speculates that this could be because their attention was not drawn to sentence construction by parents or teachers when they were children.

She adds: “Our results show that a proportion of people with low educational attainment make errors with understanding the passive, and it appears that this and other important areas of core grammar may not be fully mastered by some speakers, even by adulthood.

“These findings could have a number of implications. “If a significant proportion of the population does not understand passive sentences, then notices and other forms of written information may have to be rewritten and literacy strategies changed.

“What’s more, the existence of substantial individual differences in native language attainment is highly problematic for one of the most widely accepted arguments for an innate universal grammar: the assumed ‘fact’ that all native speakers of a language converge on essentially the same grammar. Our research shows that they don’t.”

Dr. Dabrowska presented her findings in a keynote lecture at the UK Cognitive Linguistics Association Conference on July 7.

When I first skimmed the study, I assumed that it was about people who were not born in English-speaking countries, and their issues with understanding grammar. To see that these comprehension difficulties were with native English speakers was pretty surprising to me. It always seemed logical to me (and apparently to the grammar and linguistic theorists as well), that while people may have different vocabularies and levels of grammar understanding, that if you were born and raised here you would have a basic understand of the general grammar rules.

The example cited in the study was “The soldier was hit by the sailor.” I erroneously assumed that this “basic” sentence would be understood universally by native English speakers. I thought that even the group that left school at 16 would have no problem with this sentence; there are no sneaky punctuation marks and no difficult words to comprehend. Apparently, the issue with comprehension was that it’s a passive sentence. This caught me completely by surprise.

Dr. Dabrowska noted that it was not an intelligence issue, and that once those with comprehension issues were taught the correct usages, they learned it quickly.

What is somewhat unsatisfactory is her speculation that this could be because their attention was not drawn to sentence construction by parents or teachers when they were children. I’m not sure that I have a better explanation, but just by hanging out with friends or coworkers or television one might limn enough about sentences to figure it out.

I guess we were all wrong.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Origins #18 (by request) Blue Laws

Like This!

Blue Laws

The concept of a ‘Blue law’ has a puritan background, from Massachusetts Bay colony (I found a reference to New Haven colony also. It was probably common in different colonies.) A  “blue law” refers to an edict designed to regulate public activities on the Sabbath, which meant Sunday to the Congregationalists of that day.

Why ‘blue’ though?

The origin of the term blue law is disputed. Many authorities have argued that some of the early laws, or a book describing the regulations, were printed on blue paper.

Pretty simple, right? Blue papers, blue laws.

This information (along with much more on the topic) courtesy of u-s-history.com.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Origins #17: Why a fast day is called a “fast”

Like This!

Fast Day

The point of this post, believe it or not, is about the choice of the word ‘fast’ to symbolize the abstention from food, drink, et cetera. Anybody who has fasted will tell you that these days feel like the slowest days of the year.

The first (of many) definitions for the word ‘fast’ is:

1 a : firmly fixed <roots fast in the ground> b : tightly shut <the drawers were fast> c : adhering firmly d : not easily freed : stuck <a ball fast in the mouth of the cannon> e : stable <movable items were made fast to the deck>

The idea seems to be indicating a firm adherence to the religious ritual of abstaining from food for a specified period. It would take willpower and firmness of resolve. Anybody who has fasted knows this quite well.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Site of the Week: howjsay.com – A free online Talking Dictionary of English Pronunciation

Like This!

The tagline basically says it all. It’s an online dictionary that pronounces words for you. I thought this was a pretty cool resource, especially for those who could use more English help. It’s especially helpful because there are currently 132,358 entries in this dictionary. I haven’t listened to them all, but the ones I listened to seemed to be correct. There”s actually a cool FireFox plugin so you can just type in the word and it will pronounce it. You can add that by clicking here.

The site seems to be kind-of bare and without any flavor, and has way too many ads, but I guess they’ve taken the “Hey, it’s free – don’t complain” route, which is fine by me.

Site of the Week: howjsay.com

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Origins #16: Doubting Thomas

Like This!

Thomas The Apostle

Thomas The Apostle

Doubting Thomas is a term used to describe someone who will refuse to believe something without direct, physical, personal evidence; a skeptic.

I’ve used this term many times, and had no idea that we get this expression from Christianity! Live and learn.

Thomas the Apostle claimed he wouldn’t believe in the resurrection until he actually touched the wounds of Jesus. Jesus understood Thomas’ doubt and invited him to do just that. But according to the Gospel of John, Jesus also included this gentle rebuke: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (John 20:29)

Origin courtesy of Merriam-Webster, and it can be found here. Thanks to Kim for bringing it to my attention.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Origins #15: (Reading someone) the Riot Act

Like This!

Reading the Riot Act

Reading the Riot Act

On the Merriam-Webster website, one that I visit frequently, they have an area on the site with TOP 10 LISTS. Today’s origin comes from the Top 10 Words Born in Conflict. While all ten are interesting, I think one is more interesting than the others, so I’ve chosen to highlight the Riot Act.

If someone “reads the riot act to you”, they’ve got something to say, and it isn’t pleasant.

The origin, courtesy of the site:

In the early 18th century, the Riot Act was something actually read aloud – by the agents of King George I, who used it to break up gatherings of more than twelve people by ordering them to disperse within an hour. (One practical issue: it can be challenging to read something audibly during a riot.)

The term’s meaning has changed over the centuries, but it still suggests a serious offense.

Another example of an origin that is pretty clear and based in history, which makes me enjoy it even more. You can find a complete list of the Top 10 Lists here.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Origins #14: Keeping Score, Keeping Tally, Shares, and Stocks

Like This!

Tally Stick

Tally Stick

I get a phrase (and its origin) sent to me via email every week. You can subscribe by clicking here and scrolling down to the bottom of the page.

This week’s phrase is ‘in the nick of time’, and it’s pretty interesting, but that’s not the reason for this post. There is a little tidbit thrown in there as an aside, which I found really interesting.

In order to provide some context, I’m going to do a little copy-and-paste from the post. (Pay more attention when you get to the note.)

…Prior to the 16th century there was another expression used to convey that meaning – ‘pudding time’. This relates to the fact that pudding was the dish served first at mediaeval mealtimes. To arrive at pudding time was to arrive at the start of the meal, just in time to eat…

…That seems a perfectly serviceable idiom, so why did the Tudors change it to ‘the nick of time’? The motivation appears to be the desire to express a finer degree of timing than the vague ‘around the beginning of the meal’. The nick that was being referred to was a notch or small cut and was synonymous with precision. Such notches were used on ‘tally’ sticks to measure or keep score…

Note: the expressions ‘keeping score‘ and ‘keeping tally‘ derive from this and so do ‘stocks‘ and ‘shares‘, which refer to the splitting of such sticks (stocks) along their length and sharing the two matching halves as a record of a deal.

It’s interesting that from a stick that used to have marks in it we get such ubiquitous terms that span sports and business.

Cool, no?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Origins #13: Marshmallow

Like This!

I never knew what the origin was, and I just saw it on a list of Merriam-Webster’s Top 10 Words of Summer. You can see it here.

The marshmallow gets its name from the mallow plant that grows in marshes.

In ancient times, sap from the root of that plant was used to make medicinal syrup and ointment. Eventually, that same sap became a source of candy.

Today’s supermarket marshmallow is untouched by root sap. It’s made from corn syrup, gelatin, egg whites, and sugar.

Golly that sure is simple, right? With all the crazy origins out there in the English language, sometimes it’s nice to see one that is simple and clean!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Origins #12: Words that mean ‘nonsense’

Like This!


Among of the blessings of the English language is the diverse collection of words that mean largely the same thing. It allows for a tremendous amount of nuance, empowering the writer with the greatest opportunity to convey the precise meaning he has in mind.

One such example is expressing that something is ‘nonsense’. Some examples are balderdash, bunk, claptrap, drivel, fiddlesticks, folly, foolishness, fudge, hogwash, and humbug,  among a surprisingly large list.

Let us try to go through some of these and help us understand from where they come. The origin of bunk is fairly popular, so let’s start with it.

1) Bunk – 1900, short for bunkum, phonetic spelling of Buncombe, a county in North Carolina. The usual story of its origin is this: At the close of the protracted Missouri statehood debates, on Feb. 25, 1820, N.C. Representative Felix Walker began what promised to be a “long, dull, irrelevant speech,” and he resisted calls to cut it short by saying he was bound to say something that could appear in the newspapers in the home district and prove he was on the job. “I shall not be speaking to the House,” he confessed, “but to Buncombe.” Bunkum has been American English slang for “nonsense” since 1847.

2) Poppycock – As the
OED reminds us, the word is actually American in origin, first turning up there about 1852. The OED is firm in dismissing one often-heard view of its origin, from the Dutch word pappekak for soft faeces. It says firmly “no such word appears to be attested in Dutch” but points to the very similar word poppekak, which appears only in the old set phrase zo fijn als gemalen poppekak, meaning to show excessive religious zeal, but which literally means “as fine as powdered doll poop”. The word was presumably taken to the USA by Dutch settlers; the scatological associations were lost when the word moved into the English-language community.The first half of the word is the Dutch pop for a doll, which may be related to our term of endearment, poppet; the second half is essentially the same as the old English cack for excrement; the verb form of this word is older than the noun, and has been recorded as far back as the fifteenth century.

3) Balderdash – 1590s, of unknown origin; originally a jumbled mix of liquors (milk and beer, beer and wine, etc.), transferred 1670s to “senseless jumble of words.” From this site, “It’s a pity that such a fine word should come of unknown stock, but we really don’t have a clear idea where it comes from. Some argue its origin lies in the Welsh baldorddus, idle noisy talk or chatter (though that is pronounced very differently), while others point to related words in Dutch, Icelandic and Norwegian, such as the Dutch balderen, to roar or thunder. It appears around the time of Shakespeare with the meaning of froth or frothy liquid, or a jumbled mixture of liquids, such as milk and beer, or beer and wine. Only in the latter part of the seventeenth century did it move towards its modern meaning, through the idea of speech or writing that is a senseless jumble, hence nonsense or trash.”
4) Fiddlesticks – A fiddlestick was at first just a violin bow. (Both fiddle and violin come from the Roman goddess of joy, Vitula, who gave her name to a stringed instrument; fiddle came down to us via the Germanic languages, violin through the Romance ones.) Fiddlestick is recorded from the fifteenth century, and Shakespeare used a proverb based on it in Henry IV: “the devil rides on a fiddle-stick”, meaning that a commotion has broken out; the imagery is obviously related to the broomstick of a witch, and perhaps there’s some thought of the noise a fiddle might make if the devil got to play it. At some point in Shakespeare’s lifetime, it seems fiddlestick began to be used for something insignificant or trivial, perhaps because fiddle-playing itself was regarded as something worthless or inconsequential. It took on a humorous slant as a word one could use to replace another in a contemptuous response to a remark. George Farquhar used it in this way in his play Sir Henry Wildair of 1701: “Golden pleasures! golden fiddlesticks!”. From here it was a short step to using the word as a disparaging comment to mean that something just said was nonsense.

5) Hogwash – Two origins: First, male pigs are called swines. When they are castrated they are called hogs. The castration process required that the hogs be washed afterward. The water was tossed out as worthless. Or, it’s just the name of the swill fed to swines which really has no nutritional value at all. Today, if something is said to be hogwash, it just means talk that is stupid, invalid or illogical. In other words, it has about as much value as the nutrition in hogwash.

6) Humbug – Humbug is an old term meaning hoax or jest. While the term was first described in 1751 as student slang, its etymology is unknown. Its present meaning as an exclamation is closer to ‘nonsense’ or ‘gibberish’, while as a noun, a humbug refers to a fraud or impostor, implying an element of unjustified publicity and spectacle. The term is also used for certain types of candy.


For more information, click on the links for each word. Each of those sites are a good resource for more word origins.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine