The grammatical function of "With"

[ian2]

In the following paragraph, what does the preposition "with" in "with increased market access..." mean? In other words, what is the relation between "are phased in over..... period of time" and the "with" phrase? To me, "with" seems to indicate the same time, as in "This wine improves with age" or even to indicate cause, as in "With John away there is more room in the house." Or the above interpretation is not right. Thanks.


"In each case, the U.S. has achieved commitments that address the principal barriers to American products; are highly specific and fully enforceable; are phased-in over a relatively short period of time, with increased market access in every area as of day one of China's ultimate accession; do not offer China special treatment; and meet or exceed commitments made by many present WTO members."

[David L.]

"In each case, the U.S. has achieved commitments that address the principal barriers to American products; are highly specific and fully enforceable; are phased-in over a relatively short period of time, with increased market access in every area as of day one of China's ultimate accession; do not offer China special treatment; and meet or exceed commitments made by many present WTO members."

'with' : together with - there will be a phasing-in period, and as well, from day One of this (the day of China's accession) America will be permitted increased access to markets.

[ian2]

Originally Posted by David L.

"In each case, the U.S. has achieved commitments that address the principal barriers to American products; are highly specific and fully enforceable; are phased-in over a relatively short period of time, with increased market access in every area as of day one of China's ultimate accession; do not offer China special treatment; and meet or exceed commitments made by many present WTO members."

'with' : together with - there will be a phasing-in period, and as well, from day One of this (the day of China's accession) America will be permitted increased access to markets.

Thanks. But how can I express a subordinate relation in the context? If we use "and as well", it is basically a coordinate relation. I thought the commitments can be phased in simply because the market access will be increased. In other words, if we don't have the increased market access, there won't have phase-in. So if I change the sentence into:

"are phased-in over a relatively short period of time, with market access increased in every area as of day one of China's ultimate accession;"

could it mean what I originally thought it to mean?

Thank you again.

[David L.]

The U.S. has achieved commitments that will double the markets available for American products. With this increased market access, American manufacturers will need to phase in a program of staff recruitment to oversee the expanding...

To use 'with' in the sense you mention, then logically it needs to precede the main clause.
It has the meaning of a combination 'because of/pari passu'

[ian2]

Originally Posted by David L.

The U.S. has achieved commitments that will double the markets available for American products. With this increased market access, American manufacturers will need to phase in a program of staff recruitment to oversee the expanding...

To use 'with' in the sense you mention, then logically it needs to precede the main clause.
It has the meaning of a combination 'because of/pari passu'

But do we have the clause to be modified by "with phrase" here? Of course, it is not before, but after the clause. I take apart the long sentence like this:

Original:
"In each case, the U.S. has achieved commitments that address the principal barriers to American products; are highly specific and fully enforceable; are phased-in over a relatively short period of time, with increased market access in every area as of day one of China's ultimate accession; do not offer China special treatment; and meet or exceed commitments made by many present WTO members. "


the U.S. has achieved commitments that address the principal barriers to American products;


the commitments that are highly specific and fully enforceable; are phased-in over a relatively short period of time, with increased market access in every area as of day one of China's ultimate accession;


the commitments that do not offer China special treatment;


and the commitments that meet or exceed commitments made by many present WTO members.

I understand that the main clause here is "The US has achieved commitments" and all the following clauses are subordinate to the main clause. But the "with" phrase we are talking about is one level lower than the that clause. "With" phrase can't modify the main clause, but it does modify the "that" clause, which to me is "main" clause, as "with" phrase is one level lower. This is just like we can say:

These are the problems that will be gradually solved, with the funding gradually increased in the coming years.


The above is a sentence I made up, which may not be a good one, but I think you know my point. I may be totally wrong. Please advice again.



Thank you so much for your time and attention.

[David L.]

In other words, if we don't have the increased market access, there won't have phase-in. So if I change the sentence into:

"are phased-in over a relatively short period of time, with market access increased in every area as of day one of China's ultimate accession;"

NO. As it stands, your sentences mean:
These commitments will be/are to be phased - in
These commitments will increase market access.

To give your meaning as above, the 'market access' is the crux and should go first, as 'phasing-in' is dependent on it. BUT HOW CAN THAT LOGICALLY BE!
Commitments have been made. Period.
These commitments will not be implemented overnight, but gradually phased in. As they are phased in, then market access will increase.
Until these commitments start to take effect (= are phased in, whether quickly or gradually) then these commitments can have no effects AT ALL. IT WOULD BE AS IF NO COMMITMENTS HAD BEEN MADE.It is only when they are implemented that any benefits, such as increased market access, can follow!!
You are suggesting that after market access increases (and why should it?) THEN it will allow these commitments to be phased in. The whole point of these commitments, which will be phased in, is so that they will have favourable OUTCOMES such as increased market access.

[ian2]

Originally Posted by David L.

In other words, if we don't have the increased market access, there won't have phase-in. So if I change the sentence into:

"are phased-in over a relatively short period of time, with market access increased in every area as of day one of China's ultimate accession;"

NO. As it stands, your sentences mean:
These commitments will be/are to be phased - in
These commitments will increase market access.

To give your meaning as above, the 'market access' is the crux and should go first, as 'phasing-in' is dependent on it. BUT HOW CAN THAT LOGICALLY BE!
Commitments have been made. Period.
These commitments will not be implemented overnight, but gradually phased in. As they are phased in, then market access will increase.
Until these commitments start to take effect (= are phased in, whether quickly or gradually) then these commitments can have no effects AT ALL. IT WOULD BE AS IF NO COMMITMENTS HAD BEEN MADE.It is only when they are implemented that any benefits, such as increased market access, can follow!!
You are suggesting that after market access increases (and why should it?) THEN it will allow these commitments to be phased in. The whole point of these commitments, which will be phased in, is so that they will have favourable OUTCOMES such as increased market access.

Thanks a million. That is very clear.