Language and style

SAMPLE I: “Akingbola further argued that by the purpose of the amendment, the EFCC was pursuing a peace meal prosecution to his detriment. He contended that the prosecution’s conduct in prosecuting the case in bits and pieces was improper and aimed at manipulation of criminal process so as to take advantage of him... Rather than move his motion for stay, Obia urged the judge to avail him with records of proceedings to enable the prosecution to perfect its appeal”. (How EFCC’S Tardiness’ Aided Dismissal of Akingbola’s Case, The Nation Tuesday April 24, 2012).

I draw reader’s attention to one outrageously outlandish word, one that can only be inspired by the combined forces of pernicious ignorance and mindless haste. Actually, the reference here is to a lexical item which the writer has split into two words, which splitting has further damaged the identity of the original item. The item is “peace meal” occurring in the structure “the EFCC was pursuing a peace meal prosecution”. How are we to construe the expression, “peace meal”?

A meal taken as a token of reconciliation of feuding parties? Or a meal offered to pacify an angry deity? Whatever way we may wish to interpret the expression, we must take into account its two parts: the “peace” part and the “meal” part.

These speculative attempts to interpret the expression go to indicate the extent to which the writer could have misled the reader. The word that has suffered distortion at the hands of the writer is piecemeal, having host two of its natural qualities. First, a single word has become two, and second, the morpheme piece has been transformed into peace, no thanks to the common tendency of some Nigerians to confuse piece with peace and vice-versa. The only explanation for this tendency is that the two words (peace and piece) have similar pronunciation.

At any rate, the word that is known to the English lexicon is piecemeal, a word that can be used both adjectivally and adverbially. How can we be so sure that this is the word that is meant for the context, in view of the distortion we have identified and described above? Even though he has offered a wrong form in the place of the legitimate word, the reporter has a clear idea of the meaning. This he provides in the sentence that succeeds the one in which the infamous form occurs: “He contended that the prosecution‘s conduct in prosecuting the case in bits and pieces was improper and aimed at manipulation of criminal process...” The specific part of the sentence that offers the writer’s meaning of the word (or words courtesy of his erroneous splitting of the word) is “bits and pieces”.

Yes, as he has accurately indicated, the word piecemeal is about bits and pieces. Having secured the meaning of the word, we are now in a position illustrate its usage: (1) The piecemeal introduction of the difficult subject is suitable for this elementary level of education. (2) The government official frowned on the piecemeal execution of the job, and threatened to revoke the contract if the contractor did not change his approach.

(3) This sluggish, piecemeal development will not serve the interest of Nigeria. (4) Revolutions that are worth that name are not carried out piecemeal; they are usually sudden, violent and thoroughgoing. (5) Fractured bones don’t heal rapidly; they heal in a piecemeal fashion.

Next, let’s pay attention to the expression avail with which occurs in the context, “Obla urged the judge to avail him with records of proceedings”. The first problem with this expression is the particle with. That particle does not go with the verb avail. The particle that goes with the verb is of. People are said to avail themselves of an opportunity.

Besides, even when the appropriate particle is used, the expression is not appropriate to the context. What about “make available to”?: “Obla urged the judge to make available to him the records of proceedings”.

Sample II: “This came as a result of the incidence, which happened barely two weeks ago, where a man in protest of non-payment of the debt allegedly owed him by the vice-president Atiku Abubakar, another incidence occurred recently at Atiku’s Kaduna residence... It was not clear what the intruder’s motives were, but according to the press release, the former vice president expressed embarrassment at the two events, which has happened within a week and was worried if it was just a coincidence or a ploy to defraud and embarrass him” (Conmen Embarrassing Me, Atiku Cries Out The Daily Sun, Wednesday, 21 March, 2012).

We focus attention on the word incidence which occurs twice as follows: “This came as a result of the incidence which happened barely two weeks ago, and another incidence occurred recently at Atiku’s Kaduna residence”. Contexts do indicate that each of the events recorded here occurred at a specific time and in a particular location. If that is the case as it obviously is, then the word incidence is a misnomer in the context. Single and separate occurrences of any significance are normally referred to as incidents and not incidence: (1) The chairman’s house was burgled, and the incident led to the arrest of five suspected criminals. (2) Would you describe the rape of a nine-year old girl as minor incident? (3) Apart from the burglary, no other ugly incident has been reported in the neighbourhood. (4) After the fracas, two other violent incidents have occurred. (5) Factional clashes and similar incidents are a common experience in the lorry stations.

What about the noun incidence? A single event or occurrence such as a burglary, a violent clash, rape, etc. cannot be referred to as incidence. No. The word incidence is employed to refer to the cumulative effects of incidents or experiences that are negative in nature. It is used to refer to the degree or extent to which something evil or negative effects a population or a section of it. Separate incidents are evaluated over time and described as incidence: (1) The Sector Commander of the Road Safety Commission has claimed in a recent interview that the incidence of road traffic accidents has decreased in the last one year. (2) The incidence of teenage pregnancies is higher among the poor and the vulnerable. (3) The former Inspector-General of police was relieved of his post because of the rising incidence terrorism. (4) The Minister of Education decried the increasing incidence of examination malpractices. (5) The EFCC chairman said his organisation was prepared to bring down the incidence of fraud in the banking sector. (6) The incidence of maternal mortality is still a cause for concern in many African nations

It should be clear from the discussion and illustrations that the word incident should replace incidence in the two contexts under examination.

Next consider this: “the former president expressed embarrassment at the two events, which has happened within a week”. Please note that the verb has is not only in its present form, it is also in its third person singular form. In view of the fact that two events are under reference, we would say, “two incidents... have happened.” But we should say, “An incident... has happened....”

However, the sentence under review is a reportorial sentence and as such all the verbs must be in their past form. Consequently, the verb has should be changed to its past form – had.

Next we pay attention to the segment “and was worried if it was just a coincidence”. The specific point of interest is “was worried if”. I think it should read better as follows: “and wondered if it was just a coincidence”.

Sample III: “This has been interpreted in some circles that the authorities had indeed made up its mind concede to the agitators of revocation... Sources indicated that all the parties had also been engaged in serious squabbles and arm-twisting that has seriously impeded on the progress of work... The latest of such correspondences from the office of the Public Private Partnership Department... (Much Ado Over Road Concession, The Saturday Tribune, 3 March, 2012)

First this: “the authorities had indeed made up its mind”. Please note that the noun authorities is in its plural form, and compare that with the possessive word its in the phrase “its mind”. It is illogical for the writer to retain authorities in its plural form and keep its in its singular form. It is better as: “the authorities had indeed made up their mind”.

Next, let’s note the particle on in the phrase “impeded on the progress of the work”. Where did the reporter find the particle that he dragged into the context? No particle is required at all: “impeded the progress of the work”.

The expression conceded to is not appropriate. In its place we should have: “agreed with the agitators of the revocation”/”acceded to the request of the agitators”.

The word correspondence is an uncountable noun and its plural form in the context is anomalous. We should therefore have: “The latest of such correspondence from...”  Notice that we have dropped the final -s in correspondence .

Finally, the form has in “serious squabbles and arm-twisting that has...” should be changed to had.