Overseas students are better at English than the British
Home undergraduates make three times as many grammatical, punctuation and spelling mistakes
pa
Schoolchildren should have more constructive criticism of their English from primary school onwards, says Professor Lamb
British undergraduates are nearly three times more likely to make errors in English than those from overseas, according to new research.
A study of written work produced by final-year students revealed that, on average, they had 52.2 punctuation, grammatical and spelling errors per paper compared with just 18.8 for the international students.
The research is disclosed today by Professor Bernard Lamb, reader in genetics at Imperial College London, and president of the Queen's English Society, after studying the written work produced in the year by his students. It will be published in the society's journal, Quest, next month.
Spelling errors included "flourescence" for "fluorescence", "alot" for "a lot", "seperate" for "separate", "yeild" for "yield", "relevent" for "relevant", "introduications" for "introductions" and "pail vains" for "pale veins".
"There were hundreds of cases of disagreement in number between subjects and verbs (such as 'male sterility are useful', 'fertility in most breeds have low heritability')," added the research. Wrong plurals – such as varietys, two theorys and the two hypothesis – were common, it added.
Grammatical errors included "done by my partner and I" and "a women".
On punctuation, it added: "Semicolons were often used to introduce lists. Very few students used colons.
"Some never used possessive apostrophes, and there were many apostrophes used in non-possessive plurals – 'the cows rectum' and 'the harem's of seals'.
"There were incomplete sentences, lacking a finite verb or a main clause. Illogical or ambiguous statements were frequent – (such as 'Barr bodies can be used to determine sex (present in females but not in males))', 'pass their X chromosome to half their son' and 'these colonies are then cross with another yeast strain'."
The Queen's English Society blames the errors on a "widespread deterioration in standards" when it comes to promoting the English language in schools.
"We need to raise the very poor standards of English of the home students by more demanding syllabuses and exams, more explicit teaching and examining of English (including grammar, spelling and punctuation) and by consistent correction of errors by teachers of all subjects," Professor Lamb said.
In his article, he adds: "I conclude that many of our schools do a poor job of motivating their pupils to take English standards seriously and are not teaching basic topics such as grammar, spelling and punctuation effectively. Above all, they are not correcting errors. One of my final-year home students told me that I was the only lecturer ever to have corrected her English and that she was grateful for it, unlike some others. We need constructive criticism and correction from primary school onwards. We need to tell the country that good English matters."
The survey covered 28 final-year undergraduates' work – 18 of them British and 10 from overseas (five Singaporeans, four Chinese and one Indonesian). Two-thirds of the home students made more errors than the worst overseas student.
The Queen's English Society was founded in 1972 with the aim of encouraging high standards of education in English, promoting English and knowledge, understanding and enjoyment of the language. It monitors and tries to improve standards of English in the media as well as in schools and says that it will "defend the precision, subtlety and marvellous richness of our language against debasement, unintended ambiguity and lack of clarity".
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
The results of these flaws are apparent in school leavers and have been commented on many times before, by various people and organisations. I wonder how and why it happens and would hope that someone with experience of teaching English to UK school students can write a comment in this thread.
Any offers?
http://dictionary.reference.com/bro
It's always a good idea to check things like that and anyone who has access to the internet can do it without even bothering to stand up.
You can say "We drove onto the roundabout" (i.e. we entered the roundabout) or "We drove on to the roundabout" (we drove further, to the roundabout).
Love,
Starling, Dutch, and with an MA in English Language ;)
Hmmmm - surely you can do better than that !
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/1
http://live.cgcu.net/news/1562
Professor Bernard Lamb's study is clearly flawed. I would not allow even a master's-level student to base conclusions on comparison of the writing of 18 British students and 10 overseas students: a sample this small cannot possibly be representative of the larger population of students. The study wouldn't even get a look-in from a peer-reviewed journal in the field. I note too that the students in Lamb's study were all reading science subjects ? again, hardly a representative sample of undergraduates. Finally, the mistakes pointed out in the article are very much word-level and sentence-level mistakes: it might have been an idea, dare I say, to get an expert in grammar and discourse structure to do a proper analysis.
Oh, but I forgot. Everybody is an expert when it comes to English. This is such a prevalent view that I sometimes come near to despair. However, if Professor Lamb really wants to improve the use of English of British students, he might do well to call on people who know something about the subject.
Catherine Walter
Secretary of the UK Committee on Linguistics in Education
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/e
University Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, University of Oxford
http://www.education.ox.ac.uk:80/pe
Of course, foreign languages depend more on grammar so they know when they are using the genitive or nominative.
"subjects ? again" - needs a bit of brushing up (was your contribution peer reviewed?).
Orwell was very anti the semi-colon, as I recall, so perhaps it is something of a matter of taste. However, there is no excuse for using it to introduce a list for which the colon is correct.
While you're here, is it "in two months time" or "in two month's time" or "in two months' time"?
I don't understand your comment about 'subjects ? again', unless my dash came out as a question mark on your browser. It's a dash on mine.
As to peer review: yes, I sent my contribution to the members of the Committee on Linguistics in Education and to a selection of other expert colleagues.
I suspect that a semicolon for a colon in the Lamb data might, at least sometimes, be a typographical error rather than a conscious mistake: the semicolon is what you get if you are trying for the colon and don't hold the shift key down far enough.
As for your question: it's 'in two months' time': the Saxon genitive of regular plural nouns in English is formed by putting the apostrophe after the plural form. In case you're interested in following this further, I've just checked the Wikipedia entry on the rules for the Saxon genitive, and it's pretty good.
Your dash did appear as a question mark. I must admit to not liking dashes in text.
Some of the other errors were typical of poor typing (letter a coming out of sequence is quite common for two finger typists).
And I am delighted the public is paying academics to peer-review each others' letters to newspapers.
Yes, I did know where the apostrophe went, but I doubt that most UK educated genetic undergraduates would ever realise there was an issue.
Enough said.
It really irks me, when my tutors use poor English in their feedback and make appalling mistakes in spelling, yet have the audacity to nit pick through my work... I had one who did not know the difference between 'was' and 'were' and regularly misspelled 'commodification' with only one 'm'. Small things really, but the irritation builds up over time...
I am of course one of those ghastly foreign undergraduates. I find it arrogant beyond comprehension, that anyone considered 'a native speaker', grants themselves the right to criticise anyone who is not, on their use of English language.
Unfortunately, my choice of location is limited by the fact, that I am married to a British person and have my home and family here.
I was only using 'tutors' as example, to highlight what I think is an oddity in this country, where non-native speakers are expected to be more fluent than those who really ought to be, - the natives.
That is all a sample of 28 can prove. But then, it was obvious in the first place.
The intent is good - let's all learn more good things, grammar and spelling among them.
Peace.
I am currently studying law, as a mature student, in a class of people all of whom are more or less half my age. They all, as far as I know, were born here in the UK and their standard of English is absolutely horrifying. They struggle to concentrate for longer than an hour at a time, they struggle to read more than a side of A4 in one go. They complain about working, they complain about being told that swanning in 30 minutes late is unacceptable.
We sat around while the schools were turned into machines for producing correctly thinking drones, whilst academic standards were allowed to plummet. Year on year we have the evidence of this before our eyes, but it's so much easier to sit on your arse and hope someone else sorts it out. So we relied on those who caused the damage to make it good.
And now here we are...
Palestinian schoolchildren should learn about the Nazis' slaughter of Europe's Jewish population during the Second World War as part of a curriculum component based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UNRWA says
A string walks into a bar with a few friends and orders a beer. The bartender says, "I'm sorry, but we don't serve strings here."
The string goes back to his table. He ties himself in a loop and messes up the top of his hair. He walks back up to the bar and orders a beer.
The bartender squints at him and says, "Hey, aren't you a string?"
The string says, "Nope, I'm a frayed knot."
YOUR AGE BY CHOCOLATE MATH:
Don't tell me your age; you'd probably lie anyway-but the Hershey Man will know!
YOUR AGE BY CHOCOLATE MATH
This is pretty neat.
DON'T CHEAT BY SCROLLING DOWN FIRST!
It takes less than a minute .
Work this out as you read .
Be sure you don't read the bottom until you've worked it out!
This is not one of those waste of time things, it's fun.
1. First of all, pick the number of times a week that you would like to have chocolate (more than once but less than 10)
2. 3. Add 5
3. 4. Multiply it by 50 -- I'll wait while you get the calculator
4. 6.. Now subtract the four digit year that you were born.
5. You should have a three digit number
6. The first digit of this was your original number
(i.e., how many times you want to have chocolate each week).
7. The next two numbers are
YOUR AGE! (Oh YES, it is!!!!!)
THIS IS THE ONLY YEAR (2009) IT WILL EVER WORK, SO SPREAD IT AROUND WHILE IT LASTS.
Chocolate
Calculator.
My intellect as well as my instincts lead me to the conclusion that men have a positive yearning to be good.
-- Albert Rosenfeld
Read More Thoughts On Goodness
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
You can at
www.queens-english-society.com
Ken