Teacher Discussion Forums

Today in a meeting of a United States Senate committee charged with recommending Secretary of State designate Condoleeza Rice to the full Senate for confirmation to that job, Dr. Rice said, in part of an answer to a question from a member of the committee:

"This was never going to be easy... there were always going to be problems." [A direct quote.]

She was responding to a question about some possible mistakes in the decision process relating to the U. S. led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

What interesting language! What do you all think about it?

Please allow me to issue a bit of a warning. I have no interest in engaging in a political debate here, or whether or not you personally like or dislike the American government. Let's keep it to Dr. Rice's language--the way in which she put together phrases which could be rather odd bedfellows to make sentences--, which is pertinent to us from our point-of-view as people who have somewhat heightened interests in the way English works.

So, what do you think? Do your views here have any impact on what you or other teachers might say in classrooms about English grammar?

Larry Latham

What I find interesting about her language is that it makes no reference to the current or potential future situation; not this isn't going to be easy or there are going to be problems or even This hasn't been easy. It implies that she (and, by extension, the administration she is part of) always knew it was going to be difficult. Finally, her use of a remote form could be taken to mean "that was then, this is now" as though the worst were over with, though I'd have to see the quote in context to draw any firm conclusion on that point.

This is probably about as much as I can comment while sounding politically neutral. The language of politics is more loaded than any other so it's difficult to analyse without drawing conclusions about the speakers motives, intentions, honesty etc.

Yeah, what makes it interesting to me is the juxtaposition of a remote form ("was" or "were") of (be) in the forward-looking (be) going to construction. She was, although I can't remember the context exactly, talking about the past situation of having to make decisions about what to do with the intelligence information they had in regards to Saddam and what they perceived as a growing threat from the Middle East.

I think you're right, lolwhites. Although I think I'd slightly modify your analysis, perhaps, in that I don't think she was saying they knew problems (controversies) lay ahead, but rather that the problems were hidden but there and unavoidable, though they (the decision makers) were, at the time, unsuspecting victims-to-be (and so, with this grammatical device, establishing herself and her colleagues, including the President, as "victims" of an unknowable, but nearly certain, situation).

As you said, the language of politics is extremely subtle in its implication.

Larry Latham

Surely it is more along the lines of "We made a bit of a mess of it, but that's only natural when it is so difficult". I don't see any notion of victimhood on the part of the speaker.

Perhaps you are right, woodcutter. That is also one of the fascinating things about language that doesn't get its due in the language classroom. Students are always asking, "What does this mean?" Teachers are often only too happy to oblige with a single answer, "It means blah blah blah."

Here we have a much more realistic example. Ms. Dr. Rice says blah blah blah. I interpret what she says and come up with my value of it. You hear (read) the same thing and interpret what she says and come up with your value of it. Dr. Rice has her own value of it...what she thinks she has said. Quite possibly none of the three values are the same. What it means to her, and what it means to me, and what it means to you may all be different.

The truth is, and teachers almost never touch this in class, that language is an imperfect medium (although it is usually a very good one). Misunderstanding is a frequent occurance even between native speakers. A speech act is a negotiation between speaker and listener, and the brains of two individuals are involved in that negotiation. Both brains can and do influence the outcome.

Larry Latham

I seem to have read a large number of L.L posts which assert that English native speakers have very good reasons for choosing the precise expression that they do, and talking about the strong conclusions we can draw from this. The above seems to contradict that. The above is also a creed that a language teacher cannot make much use of.

You are saying in this thread that this expression from Rice, which at the most negative interpretation is something which is supposed to focus our attention on the oh-so-heavy burden of government, is seeking to make us see the government as "victims". I submit it is the right honorable member for Dave's California, L.Latham esquire, who has the heavily loaded language, and not her!

Anyways, I always think we get the politicians we deserve. If a public would go out and vote for honest, straight-talking and rational people, that's the kind of politicians they would get.

I seem to have read a large number of L.L posts which assert that English native speakers have very good reasons for choosing the precise expression that they do, and talking about the strong conclusions we can draw from this. The above seems to contradict that. The above is also a creed that a language teacher cannot make much use of.

But woodcutter that doesn't value LL arguments, indeed, people can 'commit mistakes', a doctor can, a teacher can, our pupils can, why can't language users 'commit mistakes'? Is not only English, in every language people will have good reasons to choose one form to the detriment of the other, but sometimes due to extra-linguistics factors, they can mix up thing and change them, in Romance languages people often change genders or conjugations when speaking fast for instance. For sure I woudn't teach my pupils this, but does it(Mrs D Rice's speech) really hurt English logics? Can we see it only as unusual in the language?

José

woodcutter wrote:I seem to have read a large number of L.L posts which assert that English native speakers have very good reasons for choosing the precise expression that they do, and talking about the strong conclusions we can draw from this. The above seems to contradict that.

Not at all, woodcutter. There is no contradiction. Dr. Rice had the thoughts that she had; she chose the language that she used. It all made perfect sense to her, and as a native English speaker, she selected her language with fine precision. But exactly how that language comes across to me, or to you, or to anybody else has not only to do with her choices, but also mine or yours or any other listener's as we listen. My interpretation of the thoughts that are in her head as she speaks may not turn out to be just the same as the actual thoughts coursing through her neural networks. Your interpretation could be different from mine, and so we can argue about what she meant by what she said. Both of us may be wrong, however, in the sense that neither of us captured exactly what she wanted us to. If necessary, we also can argue about whose fault that is: hers, or ours. What I've said before is that I belive most native speakers choose their language well, and generally speaking, don't need "correction" from the likes of you and me. Instead, I think you and I ought to think more deeply about what she must have meant (according to ourselves) because of exactly what she said.

My point above is merely that meaning is not fixed. It is somewhat misleading to tell students that such and such means so and so. True, there is a generalized meaning--the kind found in dictionaries--that you can pin on a particular word or phrase, but this is not the same as what it may mean when it is used in a genuine speech act. What teachers ought to do more of, I think, is point out what they think a certain word or phrase means here, which is to say, in the particular place in which it is encountered. Of course it may not always be possible to do that, as, for example when considering lists of words for a vocabulary lesson. (Which is one reason why lists of vocabulary words should be rare occurrences.) But where students inquire about the meaning of bits of English as given in a context, then teachers should carefully make clear what it seems to mean in that context, and point out to the students that the context has a lot to do with what they (teachers) think it means. There are several different facets to meaning, and we should not treat it as if it were a fixed quantity. Dictionaries are not the final word on what words mean. The meaning can be twisted and moulded, in the hands of a skillful user, and is often negotiated with the listener or reader.

Larry Latham

Yet you claimed previously that we can draw major conclusions from such minor differences such as the speakers choice of have to/must. I agree with what you seem to be saying here - we can't!

I think that what utterances mean in context does not need a lot of teaching, in general. For example, "It's a nice day" has a literal meaning, that we need to teach, but it may be used as a greeting, or blurted out as a signal that the subject should be changed. For the most part human interaction works in a similar way in every place, and common sense will dictate how this and various other things are being used in context. It had better, for contexts are infinitely varied, and thus we cannot prepare our students for each one.

Yet you claimed previously that we can draw major conclusions from such minor differences such as the speakers choice of have to/must. I agree with what you seem to be saying here - we can't!

Aaaccchh!!! I guess I'm failing to make myself clear here, woodcutter. I do not agree with this. Quite the opposite, in fact. Choice of details like must/have to do have a precision that we can bring to bear on our efforts to interpret what people really mean. Nothing I have said here contradicts that as far as I can see.

Perhaps an(other) illustration is in order here. It seems to me like I am beating this point to the ground, but so far it doesn't seem to be germinating, or at least not surviving to maturity.

Richard Dawkins is a name that many of you Europeans will know. He is an Oxford professor and author of several award-winning books in the natural sciences. His specialty is evolutionary biology, and, if my memory serves me properly, he was recently described as the most popular public scientist in Britain (from his writings). He certainly is a very smart man. My youngest son and I had the pleasure of attending one of his many public lectures a couple of months ago here in California at CalTech in Pasadena. Without question, he knows how to use English to good effect, as anyone who has read any of his books can testify.

In his book River Out Of Eden, published in 1995 by BasicBooks, on p. 53-54, Dawkins is discussing "Mitochondrial Eve", sometimes called "African Eve", the single female who is a recent ancestor of all humans alive in the world today. At this point in the book, he is concerned with some peoples' mistaken impression that she was the first person, the only person alive in her time. He says [and I quote the next paragraph from his book]:

"The "Eve" sobriquet has had unfortunate consequences. Some enthusiasts have run away with the idea that she must have been a lonely woman, the only woman on Earth, the ultimate genetic bottleneck, even a vindication of Genesis! [LL: Note the "...must have been" in the last sentence.] This is a complete misunderstanding. The correct claim is not that she was the only woman on Earth, nor even that the population was relatively small during her time. Her companions, of both sexes, may have been both numerous and fecund. ...The correct claim is only that Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent woman of whom it can be said that all modern humans are descended from her in the female-only line. There has to be a woman of whom this claim can be made...[emphasis his, not mine, in this last sentence]." [He goes on to explain the way that mitochondria, which we all must have to be alive, are passed from our mothers, and only from our mothers, which makes his claim necessarily true.]

Now, look carefully at the context and the cotext. In the earlier (must have been) sentence, notice that he is disputing the claims made by those who feel that "she must have been a lonely woman." The only reason he can do that is that he frames it so that it is the enthusiasts themselves claiming the necessity that M.E. was alone. The necessity was generated by the enthusiasts, not by the logic of the situation. Conversly, later on, when Dawkins asserts that it is the situation, and the structural logic that follows, and not Dawkins himself, that makes it necessary that M. E. actually lived, he uses (and emphasizes) has to to communicate that logical necessity. He could not have used "must have been" in that place with the same force of meaning. The choice between must have been and has to be has a huge effect on his ultimate meaning. It is the farthest thing from a "minor difference."

Larry Latham

Hey all!

Nice example there, Larry. CONTEXTMAN would be proud of you, were he not on vacation!

peace,
revel.

I don't really see why. Still, my mind is still spinning from reading Hamster and Metal play Ezra Pound vs Samuel Beckett on another thread.

I did think about the "This was always going to be difficult" a bit though, and decided that if a teenage girlfriend killer said that about the decision he made, then it would sound like he was playing the victim. It depends on the listeners view of the nature of the decision, as you say. Was it really a tough decision, or was it a criminal act of recklessness? However, I still don't see why you launched the thread. Ms.Rice views the Iraq war (or whatever it was) as a tough decision that needed to be made. Or let's hope so - whether we agree with her or not............

I'm not too sure what point you are making about Dr. Rice's diction; apart from it skillfully using distancing to evade responsibility.

and not Dawkins himself, that makes it necessary that M. E. actually lived, he uses (and emphasizes) has to to communicate that logical necessity. He could not have used "must have been" in that place with the same force of meaning. The choice between must have been and has to be has a huge effect on his ultimate meaning. It is the farthest thing from a "minor difference."

And I understand you even less here. The choice isn't between has to be and must have been but between has to be and must be.

The choice isn't between has to be and must have been but between has to be and must be.

All right, Stephen, has to be and must be. Does that change the argument

Larry Latham

The point is that must be can substitute has to be with little or no change in meaning.