EATS, SHOOTS AND LEAVES – A Book Review - IELTS Reading Answers & Explanations
From IELTS Simulation Tests Academic Reading Test 03 · Part 3 · Questions 27–40
Reading Passage
You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 27–40 which are based on Reading Passage 3 below.
EATS, SHOOTS AND LEAVES - a book review
The title of Eats, Shoots and Leaves refers to a famously misplaced comma in a wildlife manual that ended up suggesting a panda rather violently "eats, shoots and leaves" instead of eating shoots and leaves. The author of this book, journalist Lynne Truss, is something akin to a militant linguist, dedicating this "zero tolerance” manifesto on grammar to the striking Bolshevik printers of St. Petersburg who, in demanding the same remuneration for punctuation as they received for letters, ended up setting in motion the first Russian Revolution.
Some of the book involves humorous attacks on erroneous punctuation. There is the confused Shakespearian thespian who inadvertently turns a frantic plea: "Go, get him surgeons!" into the cheerful encouragement of "Go get him, surgeons!" Street and shop signs have a ubiquitous presence. A bakery declares "FRESH DONUT'S SOLD HERE" and a florist curiously announces that "Pansy's here!" (Is she?). The shameless title of a Hollywood film Two Weeks Notice is reeled in for criticism-"Would they similarly call it One Weeks Notice?", Truss enquires—and sometimes, as in the case of signs promoting "ANTIQUE'S" and "Potatoe's"-one questions whether we are bearing witness to new depths of grammar ignorance, or a postmodern caricature of atrocious punctuation.
Eats, Shoots and Leaves is not just a piece of comedy and ridicule, however, and Truss has plenty to offer on the question of proper grammar usage. If you have ever wondered whether it is acceptable to simply use an "em dash" in place of a comma—the verdict from Truss is that you can. "The dash is less formal than the semicolon, which makes it more attractive," she suggests. "It enhances conversational tone; and...it is capable of quite subtle effects." The author concludes, with characteristic wry condescension, that the em dash's popularity largely rests on people knowing it is almost impossible to use incorrectly. Truss is a personal champion of the semicolon, a historically contentious punctuation mark elsewhere maligned by novelist Kurt Vonnegut Jr., as a "transvestite hermaphrodite representing absolutely nothing". Coming to the semicolon's defense, Truss suggests that, while it can certainly be over-used—she refers to the dying words of one 20th century writer: "I should have used fewer semicolons" -the semicolon can perform the role of a "a kind of Special Policeman in the event of comma fights".
Truss has come under criticism on two broad points. The first argument criticises the legitimacy of her authority as a punctuation autocrat. Louis Menand, writing in the New Yorker, details Eats, Shoots and Leaves' numerous grammatical and punctuation sins: a comma-free non-restrictive clause; a superfluous ellipsis; a misplaced apostrophe; a misused parenthesis; two misused semicolons; an erroneous hyphen in the word "abuzz", and so on. In fact, as Menand notes, half the semicolons in the Truss book are spuriously deployed because they stem from the author's open flouting of the rule that semicolons must only connect two independent clauses. "Why would a person not just vague about the rules but disinclined to follow them bother to produce a guide to punctuation?" Menand inquires. Ultimately, he holds Truss accused of producing a book that pleases those who "just need to vent" and concludes that Eats, Shoots and Leaves is actually a tirade against the decline of language and print that disguises itself, thinly and poorly, as some kind of a style manual.
Linguist David Chrystal has criticised what he describes as a "linguistic purism" coursing through Truss' book. Linguistic purism is the notion that one variety of language is somehow more pure than others, with this sense of purity often based on an idealised historical point in the language's development, but sometimes simply in reference to an abstract ideal. In The Fight for English: How Language Pundits Ate, Shot and Left, Chrystal—a former colleague of Truss—condemns the no-holds-barred approach to punctuation and grammar. "Zero tolerance does not allow for flexibility," he argues. "It is prescriptivism taken to extremes. It suggests that language is in a state where all the rules are established with 100 per cent certainty. The suggestion is false. We do not know what all the rules of punctuation are. And no rule of punctuation is followed by all of the people all of the time."
Other detractors of Truss' "prescriptivism" are careful to disassociate needless purism from robust and sensible criticism, an oppositional stance they call descriptivism. "Don't ever imagine," Geoffrey K. Pullum on the Language Log emphasises, "that I think all honest attempts at using English are just as good as any others. [Bad] writing needs to be fixed. But let's make sure we fix the right things." In other words, we do not require a dogmatic approach to clean up misused language. Charles Gaulke concurs, noting that his opposition to "prescriptivism" does not require contending with the existence of standards themselves, but questioning whether our standards should determine what works, or whether what works should determine our standards.
Ultimately, it is unlikely the purists and pedagogues will ever make absolute peace with those who see language as a fluid, creative process within which everyone has a role to play. Both sides can learn to live in a sort of contentious harmony, however. Creativity typically involves extending, adapting and critiquing the status quo, and revising and reviving old traditions while constructing new ones. Rules must exist in order for this process to take place, if only for them to be broken. On the flip side, rules have an important role to play in guiding our language into forms that can be accessed by people across all manner of differences, so it is vital to acknowledge the extent to which they can be democratic, rather than merely autocratic in function. Nevertheless, all the regulations in the world cannot stem the natural spring of language, which bursts through rivets and snakes around the dams that linguistic authorities may try to put in place. We should celebrate rather than curse these inevitable tensions.
Questions
Questions 27–32 Matching Features
Look at the following statements and the list of people below.
Match each statement with the correct person, A–E.
NB You may use any letter more than once.
A. Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
B. Louis Menand
C. David Chrystal
D. Geoffrey K. Pullum
E. Charles Gaulke
Questions 33–37 Summary Completion
Complete the summary below.
Choose NO MORE THAN THREE WORDS from the passage for each answer.
Eats, Shoots and Leaves is a book on punctuation by journalist Lynne Truss, who could be described as a 33. She dedicates the book to the Bolshevik Printers who started the 34 by protesting for better pay conditions. The book is partly a humorous criticism of incorrect punctuation. Some of the examples are so bad it is possible that they are actually a 35.
Truss also guides the reader on correct punctuation usage. She likes the em dash because it is not as 36 as the semicolon, for example, but remains a 37 of the latter due to its ability to discipline areas of text that are crowded with commas.
Questions 38–40 Three Choices
Choose THREE letters, A–G.
Answers & Explanations Summary
| # | Answer | Evidence | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q27 | D | Other detractors of Truss' "prescriptivism" are careful to disassociate needless purism from robust and sensible criticism, an oppositional stance they call descriptivism. "Don't ever imagine," Geoffrey K. Pullum on the Language Log emphasises, "that I think all honest attempts at using English are just as good as any others. [Bad] writing needs to be fixed. But let's make sure we fix the right things." | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that Geoffrey K. Pullum agrees poor writing should be corrected, but he believes it must be done in a sensible and reasonable way by fixing the things that actually matter. Answer Explanation: The answer "D" refers to Geoffrey K. Pullum, who believes that errors in language need to be corrected using practical and reasonable judgment rather than strict, extreme rules. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is D because the passage describes Geoffrey K. Pullum's stance as favoring "sensible criticism" over "needless purism." He is quoted as saying that bad writing must be corrected, but we must "make sure we fix the right things," meaning language mistakes should be corrected sensibly and reasonably. |
| Q28 | C | It suggests that language is in a state where all the rules are established with 100 per cent certainty. The suggestion is false. We do not know what all the rules of punctuation are. And no rule of punctuation is followed by all of the people all of the time | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains David Chrystal's view that it is incorrect to believe punctuation rules are totally fixed and certain, because we do not know all the rules and no rule is universally followed. Answer Explanation: The answer "C" means that David Chrystal is the person who stated that nobody can claim to be the absolute authority on punctuation rules. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is C because David Chrystal argues against strict prescriptivism in grammar and punctuation. He explains that language does not have completely fixed rules known with certainty, stating that nobody knows every punctuation rule and that no punctuation rule is followed consistently by everyone. Therefore, no single person or source has total authority over punctuation. |
| Q29 | B | Ultimately, he holds Truss accused of producing a book that pleases those who "just need to vent" and concludes that Eats, Shoots and Leaves is actually a tirade against the decline of language and print that disguises itself, thinly and poorly, as some kind of a style manual | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that Louis Menand believes the book is just an angry speech that pretends to be a helpful guide on writing rules. Answer Explanation: The answer "B" means that Louis Menand is the person who believed that the book *Eats, Shoots and Leaves* is not truly the kind of book it pretends to be. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is B because the passage states that Louis Menand reviewed the book and concluded that it is really an angry complaint about language decline, only poorly pretending or "disguising itself" to be a punctuation guide or style manual. |
| Q30 | C | Linguist David Chrystal has criticised what he describes as a "linguistic purism" coursing through Truss' book. Linguistic purism is the notion that one variety of language is somehow more pure than others, with this sense of purity often based on an idealised historical point in the language's development, but sometimes simply in reference to an abstract ideal | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that David Chrystal argues against the idea that one version of a language is purer or better than other versions. Answer Explanation: The answer "C" refers to David Chrystal, who believes it is incorrect to claim that some forms or types of language are superior or purer than others. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is C because paragraph 5 mentions that linguist David Chrystal criticises "linguistic purism." The text explains that linguistic purism is the belief or "notion that one variety of language is somehow more pure than others". Because Chrystal attacks and condemns this purist viewpoint, he matches the statement that this idea is incorrect. |
| Q31 | A | Truss is a personal champion of the semicolon, a historically contentious punctuation mark elsewhere maligned by novelist Kurt Vonnegut Jr., as a "transvestite hermaphrodite representing absolutely nothing" | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage shows that the writer Kurt Vonnegut Jr. spoke badly about the semicolon and claimed that it stands for nothing at all. Answer Explanation: The answer "A" means that Kurt Vonnegut Jr. is the person who expressed the idea that the semicolon serves no real purpose. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is A because the text mentions that the novelist Kurt Vonnegut Jr. criticized the semicolon, describing it as "representing absolutely nothing." The phrase "representing absolutely nothing" directly matches the statement that the punctuation mark "has no real purpose." |
| Q32 | E | Charles Gaulke concurs, noting that his opposition to "prescriptivism" does not require contending with the existence of standards themselves, but questioning whether our standards should determine what works, or whether what works should determine our standards | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that Charles Gaulke disagrees with overly rigid grammar rules, but he clarifies that this does not mean rejecting the need for standards altogether; instead, it is about examining whether rules should define what is effective or whether what is effective should shape our rules. Answer Explanation: The answer "E" refers to Charles Gaulke. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is E because the passage states that Charles Gaulke believes being against strict prescriptivism does not mean fighting against the very existence of standards (rules); rather, it means questioning how standards and practical effectiveness relate to each other. In other words, one can question if rules work well without eliminating or fighting against the existence of rules themselves. |
| Q33 | militant linguist | The author of this book, journalist Lynne Truss, is something akin to a militant linguist, dedicating this "zero tolerance” manifesto on grammar to the striking Bolshevik printers of St. Petersburg who, in demanding the same remuneration for punctuation as they received for letters, ended up setting in motion the first Russian Revolution | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that Lynne Truss, the journalist who wrote the book, can be compared to a "militant linguist" because of her very strict and aggressive stance on grammar rules. Answer Explanation: The answer refers to someone who is extremely strict, passionate, and aggressive about language and grammar rules. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "militant linguist" because the text directly introduces the author, Lynne Truss, by stating she is "something akin to a militant linguist". In the summary, the phrase "who could be described as a" matches the meaning of "is something akin to". |
| Q34 | first Russian Revolution | dedicating this "zero tolerance” manifesto on grammar to the striking Bolshevik printers of St. Petersburg who, in demanding the same remuneration for punctuation as they received for letters, ended up setting in motion the first Russian Revolution | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that Lynne Truss dedicated her book to the printing workers (Bolshevik printers) who went on strike for fair pay, an action that started the first Russian Revolution. Answer Explanation: The answer refers to the historical event known as the "first Russian Revolution". Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "first Russian Revolution" because the passage states that the striking Bolshevik printers of St. Petersburg set in motion this historical event when demanding equal pay (remuneration) for punctuation. In the summary, "started" matches the phrase "setting in motion" from the text. |
| Q35 | postmodern caricature | and sometimes, as in the case of signs promoting "ANTIQUE'S" and "Potatoe's"-one questions whether we are bearing witness to new depths of grammar ignorance, or a postmodern caricature of atrocious punctuation | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that when looking at certain badly written signs, people might wonder if the errors are genuine mistakes caused by lack of knowledge, or if they are an exaggerated parody ("postmodern caricature") of terrible punctuation. Answer Explanation: The answer refers to an exaggerated, humorous imitation or parody made in a modern style. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "postmodern caricature" because the summary discusses how some terrible punctuation examples might actually be intentional mockeries or parodies rather than real mistakes. In paragraph 2, the text gives examples of very bad punctuation on signs (like "ANTIQUE'S" and "Potatoe's") and notes that one might wonder whether they represent extreme ignorance or a "postmodern caricature of atrocious punctuation." |
| Q36 | formal | "The dash is less formal than the semicolon, which makes it more attractive," she suggests | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that Lynne Truss finds the dash appealing because it is more relaxed and less formal than the semicolon. Answer Explanation: The answer "formal" means serious, official, or following strict, traditional rules of writing. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is "formal" because the summary discusses why Lynne Truss likes using the em dash instead of the semicolon. In the passage, Truss is quoted as saying that "The dash is less formal than the semicolon", which directly matches the summary's phrasing "not as formal as the semicolon". |
| Q37 | personal champion | Truss is a personal champion of the semicolon, a historically contentious punctuation mark elsewhere maligned by novelist Kurt Vonnegut Jr., as a "transvestite hermaphrodite representing absolutely nothing" | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that Lynne Truss is a strong defender and supporter of the semicolon, even though other writers have heavily criticized this punctuation mark. Answer Explanation: The answer "personal champion" refers to someone who strongly supports, defends, or advocates for a particular thing—in this case, the semicolon. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is supported by the third paragraph, which discusses Lynne Truss's stance on the semicolon compared to other punctuation marks. While she notes that the em dash is less formal, she strongly supports the semicolon. The text directly states that "Truss is a personal champion of the semicolon", meaning she acts as a dedicated defender of it. |
| Q38 | — | — | |
| Q39 | — | — | |
| Q40 | B / D / F | On the flip side, rules have an important role to play in guiding our language into forms that can be accessed by people across all manner of differences, so it is vital to acknowledge the extent to which they can be democratic, rather than merely autocratic in function. Nevertheless, all the regulations in the world cannot stem the natural spring of language, which bursts through rivets and snakes around the dams that linguistic authorities may try to put in place. We should celebrate rather than curse these inevitable tensions | Excerpt/Passage Explanation: The passage explains that language rules are useful because they allow diverse people to understand each other, and it concludes that we should welcome and appreciate disagreements about grammar rules instead of complaining about them. Answer Explanation: The answer choices B, D, and F represent ideas included in the author's final conclusion. Reason For Correctness: The correct answer is supported by the final paragraph of the text, where the author wraps up the discussion about language rules and creativity. The author explains that rules are beneficial because they help make language accessible to everyone in a democratic way rather than just strictly commanding how people write. The author also concludes that we should celebrate the conflicts and disagreements between strict rule-followers and flexible language users rather than see them as something bad. |