On BBC News, there was news about royal wedding preparations. During the coverage, the text at the bottom of the screen was as follows:

"Rehearsals have taken place in Windsor for wedding."

When I read it, it seemed a little bit odd to see "...for wedding" at the very end of the sentence. The expression "For wedding" belongs to "Rehearsal", but it seems very much separated from what it is connected.

To sum up, why is it not

"Rehearsals for wedding have......"?

Would it not have been the correct sentence structure, if they had not disconnected "Rehearsals" and "for wedding" so far apart?

  • 1
    Because style. There are many different ways to say the same thing in English. Some are stylistically better than others, perhaps, but the matter can be quite subjective. (Also note that it would always be the wedding.) – Robusto May 17 '18 at 17:12
  • Because it's bad writing style. You are correct, and a good editor should have caught and fixed the sentence. However, as Robusto says, this is subjective and someone may be of a different opinion. – Andrew May 17 '18 at 17:23
  • You shouldn't concern yourself too much with the syntax of things like this, because it's "headlinese" (which doesn't always bother with "correct" grammar). And in fact there's nothing whatsoever wrong with putting for wedding at the end of the utterance, but by focusing on that "non-issue" you've failed to notice (and indeed, repeated in your own text) what would be a glaring error anywhere except a headline or similar context. In normal contexts only non-native speakers would omit the article in rehearsals for the wedding. – FumbleFingers May 17 '18 at 17:33
  • @Andrew: So far as I can see, the only "bad writing style" of the cited text is the missing article before wedding, which actually isn't bad style in the specific context, quite apart from the fact that OP doesn't seem to have noticed that anyway. You shouldn't encourage OP (or other learners) to believe that just because they might struggle with certain perfectly natural constructions, this is somehow the fault of the text itself. – FumbleFingers May 17 '18 at 17:38
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers Sorry, I'm sticking to my guns on this one, but it's just my opinion. English learners can surely benefit knowing that there are different opinions on what is good and bad English style, don't you think? – Andrew May 17 '18 at 18:26

The live subtitle text at the bottom of the screen on the BBC News channel and possibly other TV news providers, that scrolls horizontally, is created by a speech recognition system and may contain transcription*, spelling and grammatical errors, sometimes unintentionally humorous or embarrassing. Brevity is more important than grammatical correctness. The text is intended for viewers with hearing difficulties or where a TV screen is displayed with the sound turned off, e.g. in public waiting areas in hospitals, airports, rail stations, etc.

...as the likes of newsreaders and presenters talk on TV, one of the designated 200 English-speaking subtitlers from across the globe will sit in front of a microphone repeating whatever’s said on air.

Doing this means a clear voice, free of any background noise, can be processed by specialised audio recognition software that generates captions on the screen. It’s a hybrid system – one that relies on a computer and subtitler.

So, if Matt Baker says “Hello and welcome to The One Show” amongst a backdrop of applause, there’ll be a single subtitler somewhere clearly repeating “Hello and welcome to The One Show” into a microphone. And, without the noise of the clapping, the computer can produce the caption “Hello and welcome to The One Show” on screen.

How do TV Subtitles work? (BBC)

*BBC rugby bosses have had to correct an unfortunate subtitling error after the words 'Nigel Owens is a gay' was brandished across TV screens during their high-profile England versus Scotland coverage at the weekend.

WalesOnline readers picked up on the gaffe which appeared after 65 minutes when the world's number one referee yellow carded England flanker Sam Underhill at Murrayfield.

The subtitle explanation of the decision, captured in the screen-shot, read: 'Yellow card. Nigel Owens is a gay penalty and yellow card.'

The Beeb quickly corrected it to read: ' Nigel Owens is saying penalty and yellow card'.

A BBC Spokesperson said: “Our live subtitling service produces accuracy levels in excess of 98% but, as with all broadcasters, there are instances - particularly during live broadcasts - when mistakes happen.

"On this occasion the voice recognition subtitling software made an error which was spotted and corrected immediately."

Wales Online

  • 1
    I'm be prepared to bet any money that such "ticker tape" text is never "created by a speech recognition system". These are not real-time subtitles reflecting actual words being read out by the newscaster. – FumbleFingers May 17 '18 at 17:40
  • You think I made it up? – Michael Harvey May 17 '18 at 17:48
  • This makes sense, if there is a live broadcast with the text scrolling underneath, it would be speech recognition, uncorrected, which did not pick up the s on weddings. I really do not know why this was downvoted. All sorts of questions are asked here re grammar that make no distinction between spoken English versus written English and things like speech recognition. Many questions are distorted, therefore, because the OPs are not aware of these issues than may arise in particular speech act situations. Transcriptions is another place with "issues". – Lambie May 17 '18 at 20:57
  • @Michael: I watch BBC News24 practically every day. In principle you can turn on subtitles, but the "Headline Ticker-tape" isn't like that - it's just headline text created by the news team. – FumbleFingers May 18 '18 at 12:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.