From Indian English to Native English: Uncurling the Tip of Your "T" and "D"

Indian speakers of English tend to curl the tips of their tongues backwards when they make the sound “t” and "d". As a result their “t” and "d" sound a lot harder than the “t” and "d" of native English speakers. The act of curling back the tip of the tongue in the production of such sounds is called retroflexion. People who speak English as a mother tongue do not curl back the tips of their tongues in the production of "t" and "d".

To produce “t” and "d" as a native speaker of English would, one must place the tip of one’s tongue, without curling it backward, on the bony ridge-like projection just above the back of the front upper teeth. This would seal off the airflow through the mouth momentarily. It is important that the oral passage is blocked so that when the closure is released there is an explosion of air from the mouth. The “t” of British and American speakers of English is a voiceless explosive sound. A voiceless sound is one which is produced without audible vibration of the vocal cords. The Indian “t” is also voiceless and explosive, but harder than its native English counterpart on account of the curling back of the tip of the tongue. The tip that is curled back is placed against the palate (the roof of the mouth) effecting a closure of the oral tract. Then air is released with an explosion. The "d" of British and American English is a voiced explosive sound. A voiced sound is one that is produced with audible vibration of the vocal cords. The Indian "d" is also voiced and explosive, but harder than its native English counterpart as a result of the curling back of the tip of the tongue.

Essentially the difference between the “t” and "d" of native English and the Indian equivalents lies not in the manner but in the place of articulation. Both types of sounds are explosive in nature. However the tip of the tongue is placed against the teeth ridge in the production of the native English “t”, while the tip of the tongue is curled back against the hard palate (the hard front portion of the palate as opposed to the soft back portion) in the production of the Indian equivalents.

A Few Basic Distinctions in English Grammar

What is a sentence? How is it different from a clause and a phrase?

A sentence is a group of words that makes complete sense. A clause is a group of words, which may or may not make complete sense. When a clause makes complete sense, it is called the independent or the main clause. A clause that does not make complete sense is called the dependent or the subordinate clause. A phrase is a group of words, which does not make complete sense.

E.g. Sam teaches English (a sentence, and an
independent clause).
Sam loves English, which is not his first language (a sentence that consists of an independent clause, "Sam loves English", a dependent clause, "which is not his first language", and a phrase, "his first language").




How is a phrase different from a clause?


A phrase is a group of words, which makes incomplete sense. It does not contain a subject or a finite verb. A clause is a group of words, which may or may not make complete sense. It contains a subject and a finite verb.

E.g. Sam loves English, which is not his first language.
There are two clauses in this sentence, viz., "Sam loves English", and "which is not his first language". In "Sam loves English", "Sam" is the subject, and "loves" is the finite verb. In "which is not his first language", "which" is the subject and "is" is the finite verb.
There is a phrase in this sentence, viz., "his first language". It does not contain a a subject or a finite verb.





What is the distinction between a subject and a predicate?

A sentence consists of a subject and a predicate. The subject is what one speaks about. The predicate is what one says about the subject.

E.g. Sam (the subject) teaches English (the predicate).

The subject is usually a noun or a noun phrase.

E.g. Sam (noun) writes poems.
The man (noun phrase) writes poems.

The predicate is the verb followed usually by the object and the complement.

E.g. Sam writes poems regularly (verb+object+complement).




What is the difference between a subject and an object?

The subject governs the verb. The object receives the action of the verb.

E.g. The lion killed the deer.
In this sentence, "the lion" is the subject that governs the verb "killed". "The deer" is the object of the verb "killed".




How is the active voice different from the passive voice?

In the active voice, the subject performs an action. In the passive voice, the subject undergoes an action.

E.g. The lion killed the deer (the subject, "the lion" performs an action, therefore the voice is active).
The deer was killed by the lion (the subject, "the deer" undergoes an action, therefore the voice is passive).




What is the difference between a transitive verb and an intransitive verb?

A transitive verb transmits action from the subject to the object. An intransitive verb does not transmit action, as it does not have an object.

E.g. I laid the book on the table (the verb "laid" transmits an action from the subject "I" to the object "the book", therefore it is transitive).
I lay in bed all day (the verb "lay" transmits no action, therefore it is intransitive).




What is the difference between a main verb and an auxiliary verb?

The main verb is the final verb in a verb phrase. The verb phrase is the sequence of an auxiliary verb and a main verb. The auxiliary verb helps the main verb.

E.g. Sam has taught English before ("has taught" is the verb phrase, "has" is the auxiliary verb, and "taught" is the main verb).




What is the difference between a finite verb and an infinitive?

The finite verb shows tense, and agrees in person and in number with the subject. It could be a single verb or a verb phrase. The infinitive does not show tense, and remains unaffected by person and number. The infinitive is a sequence of "to" followed by the base form of a verb. The base form of a verb is one which has not changed according to tense, number and person.

E.g. Maria loves to sing ("loves" is the finite verb, "to sing" is the infinitive).

When the finite verb in the previous example changes in tense, and in number, and in person, as in the following examples, the finite verb reflects these changes, while the infinitive does not.

E.g. Maria loved to sing.
They love to sing.
I loved to sing.




What is the distinction between the present participle and the gerund?

Both the present participle and the gerund are "-ing" forms of a verb. The present participle is used to form continuous tenses, and to act as an adjective. The gerund is used in the place of a noun.

E.g. He was walking towards me ("walking" is a present participle in the verb phrase, "was walking", which is in the past continuous tense).
After the accident, I had to use a walking stick ("walking" is a present participle, which functions as an adjective, which qualifies the noun "stick").
Walking is a good exercise ("walking" is a gerund, as it functions as a noun, which governs the verb "is").

My Approach to AWA on the GMAT : Analysis of an Argument

AWA is Analytical Writing Ability. The GMAT is the Graduate Management Admissions Test. The aim of AWA is to test specific writing skills. There are two tasks in AWA: Analysis of an Issue and Analysis of an Argument.

The Analysis of an Argument requires the test taker to criticize a given argument and expose its flaws, with a view to remedying those flaws.

What follows is my approach to the Analysis of an Argument.

This is the argument:

“The owners of the Cumquat Cafe evidently made a good business decision in moving to a new location, as can be seen from the fact that the Cafe will soon celebrate its second anniversary there. Moreover, it appears that businesses are not likely to succeed at the old location: since the Cafe’s move, three different businesses - a tanning salon, an antique emporium, and a pet-grooming shop - have occupied its former spot.”

This is the question:

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyse the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

Step One: What am I supposed to do?

I am supposed to point out the flaws in this argument. I have to do this in order to show how the argument could be made convincing by remedying these flaws. To do all this, I should examine the line of reasoning involved in arriving at the conclusion (what the argument is trying to make me believe). This means that I should find out whether the premises (the stated reasons) are adequately in support of the conclusion. I should also find out whether the assumptions (the implied reasons) are properly made to arrive at the conclusion.

In this case, the conclusion of the argument is that the owners of the Cumquat Café have made a good business decision in moving to a new location.

The premises in support of the conclusion are that 1) the Café will soon celebrate its second anniversary at the new location and that 2) three businesses have failed at the old location.

The assumptions are that 1) celebrating a second anniversary is definitely indicative of success and that 2) the three businesses that moved out of the old location have done so only because of business failure and that 3) those three businesses despite being dissimilar can be compared, and that one may generalise based on that comparison.

The flaws in reasoning arise from inadequate evidence. Some crucial facts are missing, viz., 1) details or statistics regarding the performance of the Cumquat Café at the new location vis-à-vis those of the Café at the old location,
2) information about why the old location was unfavourable to business and 3) the rationale for comparing three dissimilar businesses and generalising based on that comparison.

Step Two: How do I write this down?

At the outset I should state that the argument is unconvincing as it is not well reasoned. (One paragraph)

Then I must point out the flaws in the argument. I will begin by attacking the line of reasoning. This is equal to saying that I will start by attacking the assumptions first. (Two or three paragraphs)

I will then attack the premises. (One paragraph)

Finally I will suggest how the flaws in the argument may be remedied by adding vital pieces of evidence. (One paragraph)

I will indent my paragraphs

I will remember to use verbal signposts to facilitate reading. Verbal signposts are words that act as clues to the reader, by helping him guess what is coming next. (E.g. First, second, third, hence, therefore, in addition to, nevertheless, however, etc.,)

I will take the time to edit my essay.

Step Three: Writing the essay

The argument that the owners of the Cumquat Café made a good business decision in moving to a new location is unconvincing, as it is not soundly reasoned.

First the argument assumes that completing two years at the new location is indisputably indicative of the Café’s success. This cannot be ascertained without statistics that attest to the good performance of this establishment. One can cite quite a few companies that have completed two years at a certain location without being particularly successful. In this case, one cannot tell how well the Café has performed at the new location without comparing that performance with the performance at the old location.

Second, the argument assumes that the old location is unfavourable to business, as the three businesses that succeeded the Café at the old location have moved supposedly on account of poor performance. However this move cannot be said to definitely indicate failure, as establishments move for several reasons, one of which is lacklustre performance. For instance these businesses may have moved so that they could do even better than they did at a previous location, or they may have moved, as they wanted to diversify their operations and as a result needed more space.

Third, the argument assumes that the move of three dissimilar businesses such as a tanning salon, an antique emporium, and a pet-grooming shop is attributable to a common cause viz., poor performance. It is not easy to understand how such disparate businesses with possibly disparate clientele and disparate strategies could have somehow been vulnerable to the common problem of the unsuitability of a particular location for business. It seems more likely that each of the three left the old location for a reason peculiar to the nature of their business.

The premises are incomplete. They do not provide any evidence for the fact that the Cumquat Café had improved its performance at the new location. Also there is no indication as to why the old location is inimical to business. There is also no rationale provided for why the three dissimilar businesses could be compared, and why a generalisation can be justifiably made from such a comparison.

However including the vital missing evidence that was indicated in the earlier paragraph may rectify the flaws in the argument. Statistics indicating the improved performance of the Cumquat Café at the new location is the only way to validate the conclusion. More information as regards the unsuitability of the old location as a centre of business is crucial to prop up the premise that the old location is indeed the reason for the failure of the Café and other businesses.

My Approach to AWA on the GMAT : Analysis of an Issue

AWA is Analytical Writing Ability. The GMAT is the Graduate Management Admissions Test. The aim of AWA is to test specific writing skills. There are two tasks in AWA: Analysis of an Issue and Analysis of an Argument.

The Analysis of an Issue requires the test taker to justify his position with regard to a subject on which there are conflicting views.

What follows is my approach to the Analysis of an Issue.


This is the topic:

In some countries, television and radio programs are carefully censored for offensive language and behavior. In other countries, there is little or no censorship.

This is the question:

In your view, to what extent should government or any other group be able to censor television or radio programs? Explain, giving relevant reasons and/or examples to support your position.

Step One: What am I supposed to do?

I am supposed to react to this issue. An issue is something on which there are two conflicting opinions. In this case these are the conflicting opinions: 1.A government or any other group should be able to censor television or radio programs. 2. A government or any other group should not be able to censor television or radio programs. I will have to support one of these positions with reasons and examples based on my experience and reading. This must be expressed in educated formal English.


Step Two: What is my position?

I agree that there is a need for censoring television and radio programs, and that a government or any other group should be able to do this censorship.

Step Three: What are my reasons?

1. Television and radio programs are received by all including young children, who need to be shielded from objectionable content.
2. People hail from different ethnic backgrounds, nationalities, religions and cultures. A particular program could be acceptable to one section of society, and objectionable to the other. Therefore a board of censors must decide whether such programs should be aired or not.
3. Some truths in their purest form could be inflammatory in nature. So they must be watered down or censored, to avoid potential chaos.

Step Four: How do I express my position along with my reasons?

I should put down all of this in the form of an essay. Traditionally an essay has an introduction, a body and a conclusion.

Step Five: What should I say in the introduction?

I should clearly state my position in the introduction. However I need not give the reasons for my position now.

Step Five: What should I say in the body?

I should present the reasons for my position. Each of these reasons should be explained and supported by examples from my experience and reading.

Step Six: What should I say in the conclusion?

I should restate and reinforce my position with a quote or a punch line.

Step Seven: What should I ensure while writing?

I should write as much as possible, as the desirable length of an essay could be between 300 and 500 words.

My paragraphs should be indented.

I should structure my essay with verbal signposts that facilitate reading.

I should not forget to edit my essay, as I could have made mistakes while typing. Also this could be the time to add some information that did not occur to me before.



Step Eight: Writing the Essay

Some people believe that a government or any other group should censor television and radio programs that contain material, which could be objectionable to some sections of the society. Others strongly object even to the concept of censorship as that violates the basic right to express oneself. They object even more when a government or any other group is responsible for such censorship, as that may involve vested interest and hidden political agenda. Nevertheless, despite these undesirable possibilities one would have to insist that there is an urgent need to censor television and radio programs that have the potential to stir up trouble in communal life.

First, television and radio programs find a large audience, a section of which are young children. Below the age of thirteen, a child is highly impressionable and gullible. Therefore he needs to be shielded from all unwholesome adult content that television and radio sometimes provide. Offensive language and objectionable storylines involving salacious and vulgar content should not be made accessible to him. Thus there is a need for censoring programs that children tend to watch, and may inadvertently watch. Consequently a board of censors should take a hard look at programs that are likely to be viewed by children, in addition to those programs that are made for children. Besides adult-oriented material, violence, especially that of a gratuitous nature, should be a target for censorship. The undesirable consequences of children carrying guns to schools and involving in sexual relationships at an untenably young age in developed countries have been attributed to their exposure to such programs. So the object of censorship must be to sanitize all programs that are aired on television and radio except during the late night hours, when allowances may be made for the adult-oriented content of the nature described above.

Second, the people who watch television and listen to the radio are as diverse and fragmented as people are in general. Hailing from different ethnic, national, religious, social and cultural backgrounds, they may not always agree on everything. In fact there is a likelihood that they will disagree on some issues, and that such conflicts could be severe. Some television and radio programs could transmit potentially inflammatory content targeting a certain section of society. This could result in acrimonious divisions among viewers, and these divisions could escalate into communal strife and violence. Consider the 1992 Los Angeles race riots in America following the highly televised beating of the African-American Rodney King by white LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department) policemen. To avoid such situations a board of censors should ensure that the programs relayed on television and radio do not violate the sensibilities of any section of the society, and should consequently expurgate material of that kind.

Last, some truths are better not told, as they have the potential to cause great discomfort. People in their daily lives water down or even avoid telling certain truths with the intention of preserving harmonious relationships with others. Some programs on the television and the radio are determined to discover some uncomfortable truths that challenge existing beliefs. Despite its intellectual merit, an inquiry of this nature has the potential to disturb the equilibrium that people find in commonly held notions. Therefore a great deal of caution must be exercised in broadcasting such material. It is true that Man cannot intellectually progress without reconsidering existing beliefs and practices. Still not all men and women are equal to the task of reckoning with notions that radically revise earlier beliefs. A judicious decision must be made whether to censor such programs or not, and as to what extent these may be censored. That some truths are better not told is relevant in the context of a recent outburst by Michael Richards, a three-time Emmy winning comedian from America and a member of the cast of the sitcom Seinfeld. Unleashing the “n” word in the most unapologetic manner, Richards revealed the cracks in the supposed racial harmony of America. Broadcast on the Internet, the tirade of Richards against a black member of the audience at the club where the former was performing his stand-up comedy routine shook American complacency about race relationships. One can imagine how much greater the impact of such an outburst would have been if Richards’ act had been broadcast on television.

Thus, there is an urgent need for censoring television and radio programs that have the potential to cause undesirable reactions. However censorship of such programs by a government or a select board of censors should be carried out without bias and ignorance. To remove potentially harmful material from television screens and radio receivers, there must be an informed decision as to what is harmful and what is not. That involves a high degree of collective awareness and responsibility, not to mention honesty.