[Grammar] He could of... Or couldn't he..?

[TomUK]

Quite often I read in a post in an internet forum something like "He could of..." or "I would of..." instead of "He could have..." or "I would have...". The writers of these posts are native English speakers from Britain and I wonder why they make these mistakes. Is it to do with dialects, similar pronunciation of "of" and "have" which causes the mix-up between these two words, or is it just an indication of the standard of English language teaching in the UK being on a downward sliding slope? Incidentally, recently I read in a UK based business forum employers complaining about the poor standard of English they get to read in job applications by prospective employees.

I don't even want to mention the rules of the National Lottery which seem to apply when people choose between "there", "their", and "they're".

TomUK

 

[Tdol]

It is a common mistake and I think it is because of the similarity in sound, especially in the contractions like would've.

 

[billmcd]

It is a common mistake and I think it is because of the similarity in sound, especially in the contractions like would've.

Yes, same as in the U.S. and I suspect that if you asked many/most persons who pronounce the contracted form to spell the form they would spell it as "could of", "should of" etc.

 

[emsr2d2]

In the UK for the last two decades or so, there has been no proper spelling, punctuation or grammar teaching in schools (in state schools, I mean). Many kids these days are growing up with no formal direction on spelling, so for many of them when they come to write something down for the first time, they have to guess at the spelling.

The specific example you gave does have the problem that "should've" and "would've" can sound like "should of" and "would of". Of course, if there were any grammar classes, people would know that "should of" and "would of" make absolutely no sense!

 

[5jj]

I have seen 'should of' in reports written by teachers.

 

[Barb_D]

When we're writing quickly, (at least for me), I write what my brain hears. As a result, I've written "no" instead of "know" and "hear" instead of "here" so I'm sure I've typed "could of" instead of "could've" -- not because I don't know the difference, but because my mental dictation is just going on sound. I wouldn't condemn someone who does it on a spontaneously created thing. But an editied piece is somethign else!

 

[emsr2d2]

It's not just a written problem either. There are plenty of BrE speakers who very clearly say "I could of done that", "He would of been here earlier but the car broke down". They are not saying "could've" or "would've" but they are genuinely certain that the second word is "of" and enunciate it very clearly. I spend a lot of time biting my tongue when speaking to these people! ;-)

 

[Tdol]

Maybe they think could of is more emphatic than could've.

 

[5jj]

Maybe they think could of is more emphatic than could've.

You are almost certainly right. The point is that they use a clear 'of' rather than a clear 'have'.

 

[emsr2d2]

Maybe they think could of is more emphatic than could've.

Do you mean that you think they are making a conscious choice between "could of" and "could have" or just that they happen not to be using the contraction "could've"?

 

[TomUK]

In the UK for the last two decades or so, there has been no proper spelling, punctuation or grammar teaching in schools (in state schools, I mean). Many kids these days are growing up with no formal direction on spelling, so for many of them when they come to write something down for the first time, they have to guess at the spelling.

The specific example you gave does have the problem that "should've" and "would've" can sound like "should of" and "would of". Of course, if there were any grammar classes, people would know that "should of" and "would of" make absolutely no sense!

Even without knowing any grammar rules should a native speaker not recognize that the words "have" and "of" do mean very different things? If children don't learn proper spelling, punctuation and grammar rules, are not the teachers to blame for not doing their job properly?

I have seen 'should of' in reports written by teachers.

Well, I guess if even teachers can't get it right then one can hardly expect Joe Public to know any better.

TomUK

 

[emsr2d2]

Even without knowing any grammar rules should a native speaker not recognize that the words "have" and "of" do mean very different things? If children don't learn proper spelling, punctuation and grammar rules, are not the teachers to blame for not doing their job properly?

I'm not sure what you mean by the teachers not doing their job properly. The government dictates the national curriculum which specifies what is taught (and not taught) by all teachers in all state schools. If the curriculum does not include spelling, punctuation and grammar, then the teachers not only do not have to teach it, they are actually not allowed to teach it.

 

[TomUK]

I'm not sure what you mean by the teachers not doing their job properly. The government dictates the national curriculum which specifies what is taught (and not taught) by all teachers in all state schools. If the curriculum does not include spelling, punctuation and grammar, then the teachers not only do not have to teach it, they are actually not allowed to teach it.

Obviously, I am not a teacher and I have no idea what is included in the Uk's national curriculum for English or how its contents are decided. But after having attempted to learn several languages I have never come across any language tuition where correct spelling, punctuation or grammar rules were not taught at some stage. I just fail to comprehend that in the UK English can be taught without these basics. Although Michael Swan writes in his book Practical English Usage "Grammar is not the most important thing in the world!", I see grammar rules a bit like the cement that makes the bricks in a house stick together. Maybe it is a bit naive, but I always assumed that teachers with their expert knowledge would somehow have a say in what should be included in the curriculum for their subject.

TomUK

 

[5jj]

Maybe it is a bit naive, but I always assumed that teachers with their expert knowledge would somehow have a say in what should be included in the curriculum for their subject.

This is far too big an issue to go into here. I'll just, grossly over-simplifying, say that in the English state system. from the 1950s on, many teachers seemed to feel that insistence on pupils following formal rules of presentation prevented many children from discovering how the world worked. Subject teachers felt that their responsibility was to enable children to learn about the subject; it wan't the subject teacher's responsibility to worry about spelling or grammar. Very crudely put, if a pupil wrote "to and too am for" the maths teacher would be happy that the pupil had understood the mathematics - don't inhibit children by penalising them in maths for bad English. Many teachers of English felt that their role was to enable their pupils to write creatively; insistence on correct spelling and grammar would inhibit the children.

Teachers have had a say in what should be included in the curriculum. It's just that not many have given much priority to spelling and grammar.