In between practical tasks, I spend a lot of time reading. It may be emails, essays, books (fiction and non-fiction), newspapers, web-sites, scientific publications, patents, policy documents, sign posts, recipes... I could go on. The rest of the time, I seem to spend writing: all of the aforementioned! What's more, I can't think of any profession where the quality of the written word is not important. In some extreme situations, the written word may actually be critical. For example, written advice from one doctor to another may tell of a potential life threatening situation. On a wider level, some of you may remember the expression "the dodgy dossier"; a term first used widely to describe part of the the evidence, that informed both US and UK Governments in their decision to declare war on Iraq. I haven't read the document, so I can only comment second hand, but whether or not it was accurate in its assessment of the risk to National Security, the adjective "dodgy" was deliberately chosen (by Spiked magazine and thereafter by those commentators who did not think the evidence was sufficiently robust), to create a sense of unreliability. [Reading that sentence back, I think it is too long. I could improve it perhaps by making it into two?]. You see what I mean? My main point here however, is that evidence can be "spun" by the clever use of language. There is a word that I think captures this inappropriate, hijacking of language that you may have heard: it is "propaganda". Let me remind you of its roots: "propaganda" is a late Latin word that was originally used to describe the "spreading of the faith" by Catholic evangelists to non-Catholic countries in the 17th Century. In the last century, it became synonymous with "dodgy" politics. I tend to think of propaganda as a thread that runs through George Orwell's great works, Animal Farm and 1984.
I hope at this point I have persuaded you that the correct use of language is at least of some importance in everything we do. You will also appreciate (hopefully) that robust evidence in conjunction with the careful choice of words, is central to a transparent and progressive Society. The combined use of precise language with thoroughly researched and challenged evidence is the platform for communication of important matters. It may be Science, Medicine, Law, or Business. Whatever aspect of our lives we are concerned with, I believe we should insist upon, practise and embrace Precision in Language and Robustness of Evidence.[Am I allowed to use captals in this way?]
A recent conversation with a group of overseas students brought home the value of the English Language to me. Most Universities recruit a proportion of undergraduates from the "four corners of the Earth". [I use this expression to give a little "colour "to the Blog. It is of course a statement that appears in the Bible and could either refer to the 4 compass points, or the author may have still believed that the Earth was flat. Whatever the reason, it remains a commonly used phrase, even though it lacks "precision".] Getting back to my main point. Some countries have no Universities, and sponsor academically successful school students to study overseas. Other countries (including the UK) sponsor students to study overseas, recognising the value of cultural diversity in operating in an increasingly "global" society. Of course some students can pay for their own education, and may choose to study at a British or American University owing to their academic reputation. [And there, do I mean the students' reputation or the Universities'? Another lack of precision?] But perhaps the most important reason for choosing a UK, or US University is the English Language. All our (I refer here to the University of Sheffield) overseas students place a premium on total immersion in the English Language for between 3-4 years, while studying for their degree in Maths, Engineering, Sociology etc. Sometimes, it takes someone from "outside" to make you realise how fortunate you are. And this is certainly the case for me in respect of the English Language.
I recently decided to attempt an English Language IGCSE paper, under examination conditions (well, no cheating, but I did stop the clock and do other things in between). My first impressions of the paper were that it represented a challenge and that it "whetted" my appetite for having a go. Once I got stuck in, I began to realise that exam technique (something I haven't had to worry about personally, for years, but a topic I discuss frequently with my undergraduate tutees or during lectures) was something I lacked. I made a few elementary errors. I didn't answer one of the questions properly: in fact, you could say "I got hold of the the wrong end of the stick"! [Now I am thinking, should that exclamation mark be withing the quotation marks, or outside?] Having written half a side, I re-read the question, and realised I had misunderstood it. As a result, I had wasted precious exam time. All of this came home to roost when the Head of English at the North Liverpool Academy, marked my answers. I did pretty well; but she easily spotted my mistakes and, knowing the weighting that is given to answers, her advice was essentially that a good understanding isn't enough to get the top marks: technique is also important. In her feedback she pointed out that no matter how competent you are in English, "you still have some work to do in mastering
the exam technique for specific exam boards". She is absolutely right and, although I am not a great supporter of formal examinations, they are the "bread and butter" of academic evaluation, whether we like it or not.
I recently decided to attempt an English Language IGCSE paper, under examination conditions (well, no cheating, but I did stop the clock and do other things in between). My first impressions of the paper were that it represented a challenge and that it "whetted" my appetite for having a go. Once I got stuck in, I began to realise that exam technique (something I haven't had to worry about personally, for years, but a topic I discuss frequently with my undergraduate tutees or during lectures) was something I lacked. I made a few elementary errors. I didn't answer one of the questions properly: in fact, you could say "I got hold of the the wrong end of the stick"! [Now I am thinking, should that exclamation mark be withing the quotation marks, or outside?] Having written half a side, I re-read the question, and realised I had misunderstood it. As a result, I had wasted precious exam time. All of this came home to roost when the Head of English at the North Liverpool Academy, marked my answers. I did pretty well; but she easily spotted my mistakes and, knowing the weighting that is given to answers, her advice was essentially that a good understanding isn't enough to get the top marks: technique is also important. In her feedback she pointed out that no matter how competent you are in English, "you still have some work to do in mastering
the exam technique for specific exam boards". She is absolutely right and, although I am not a great supporter of formal examinations, they are the "bread and butter" of academic evaluation, whether we like it or not.
So my final thoughts on this topic, are that you should not take English Language for granted, you should respect it, master it and in doing so, I firmly belief that your prospects in your professional life will be enhanced and your leisure time will be significantly enriched. Oh, and you must follow the advice of the teachers who understand the importance of exam technique, something that will also be inavluable until you finally get that job you want!
