What is your reading?

[corum]

Allow me to explain.

Sentence 2., as we know, is an example of a reduced relative clause, the relative pronoun (who) and its verb (is) having been omitted:

1. ...with Mr Smith who is a well-respected teacher.
2. ...with Mr Smith, a well-respected teacher. :tick:


​

The resulting modifying phrase 'a well-respected teacher' sees into the PP (with Mr Smith) and modifies the NP (Mr Smith), and not the P (with), because relative adjectival clauses, even reduced ones, modify nouns, and that, by the way, is the problem with our original sentence (3. below).

How is [the fact that reduced adjectival clauses stick to nouns] a problem in the sentence below?

3. The drawback of virtual school is lack of human contact (which is) providing students with daily ongoing interaction with teachers. :cross:
​

The head of our phrase is a noun (lack), which is what the modifier sees:

There are two NPs, one placed inside another. At this point, what I suspect is this: the reduced relative hinges on a NP. Which one? Find the closest NP which is not built into a bigger NP. Find the head of this phrase and we have arrived. Correct?

In (3.), the closest noun, from a non-linear view,

What does non-linear view mean?

Note that, because of the copular structure, 'drawback' also plays a role:
5. The drawback is providing students with interaction. :cross:

Fair enough.

謝謝

 

[Frank Antonson]

Would R-K help this?

 

[konungursvia]

I go for no. 2. That appears to me to be the most logical reading. The noted merit of traditional education is that of providing students ...

To me this seems definitely correct: reading 2 is right.

 

[corum]

Hello Peter!

What would be your reading in this case?

The drawback of virtual school is lack of human contact, as opposed to a noted merit of traditional education, not providing students with ongoing daily interaction with teachers.

Hello Frank!

My diagram goes like this:

 

[lauralie2]

How is [STRIKE][[/STRIKE]the fact that reduced adjectival clauses stick to nouns[STRIKE]][/STRIKE] a problem in the sentence below?

3. The drawback of virtual school is lack of human contact (which is) providing students with daily ongoing interaction with teachers. :cross:​

The main problem is in the assumption that 'providing students with...' modifies 'human contact'. It doesn't. If it did, the resulting meaning wouldn't make sense, as in (3b.):

3b. ?Lack of human contact is a drawback of virtual school because students are provided with daily ongoing interaction with teachers.


3c. Lack of human contact is a drawback of virtual school because students are not provided with daily ongoing interaction with teachers. :tick:

​

There are two NPs, one placed inside another. At this point, what I suspect is this: the reduced relative hinges on a NP. Which one? Find the closest NP which is not built into a bigger NP. Find the head of this phrase and we have arrived. Correct?

Yes. You have it.

What does non-linear view mean?

Exactly what you said, "Find the closest NP which is not built into a bigger NP." The easiest way for me to explain the meaning of a 'non-linear view' is to use an analogy: an onion. The outer layer is the 'bigger NP' (lack of human contact), the second layer is the PP (of (human (contact))), the third layer is the NP ((human) (contact)), and so on. When you look at an onion, you see its outer peel, the 'bigger NP' (lack of human contact), not its inner peels (of (human contact)). The inner peels are 'built in', hidden from your view. Does that help any?


____________
不客气

 

[Frank Antonson]

I guess if I R-K that sentence, I am going to have to think about it. At first glance, I think I like Corum's second option. I'll have to wait until I get home from school to look closer.

It still seems to me that the problem is generated by bad composition.

 

[corum]

Yes. You have it.

不客气

=

EDIT: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/不客氣

--------------------
Thanks for your explanations, lauralie!

 

[corum]

I guess if I R-K that sentence, I am going to have to think about it. At first glance, I think I like Corum's second option. I'll have to wait until I get home from school to look closer.

It still seems to me that the problem is generated by bad composition.

No, the first dia is

 

[corum]

 

[Frank Antonson]

Again, I'll have to wait until I can look at home. Here in my school, your images are blocked.

 

[Frank Antonson]

 

[corum]

The drawback of virtual school is lack of human contact, as opposed to a noted merit of traditional education, providing students with ongoing daily interaction with teachers.

The relationship of the appositives looks like this:
lack of human contact = -1*(a noted merit of traditional education = providing students...)

-1 = as opposed to

The phrase in brackets defines the opposite of the phrase on the left hand side in the equation, right? In other words, the definer defines the opposite of the defined on the left hand side. This is a minus-apposition, a term I have just invented. What do you think, Frank? :multi:
I have left unresolved so far the function of "as opposed to". Sto eto? Was ist das? What is that? Que es eso? Vad är det?

IMO it is this: explicit indicator of minus-apposition.

"We have normal indicators of apposition, e.g., for example, to wit, that is, namely, in other words, etc.
"(A)s opposed to" is a not normal indicator. It indicates the "minus one times" idea of the preceding appositive.

The participle clause is in normal apposition to "a noted merit of trad. edu."
What we have in this sentence is "more than two units in apposition".

 

[Frank Antonson]

In MY diagram I treated "providing" as a participle that modifies. I don't really like that, but I keep returning to the need for "-''s" on the end of "education" to clarify that "providing" is a gerund.

The idea that "as opposed to" can be a phrasal preposition is, I don't that, that far out. It can function like "unlike".

I guess your diagram works, but I hate to see the necessity of inventing new symbols.

This is a poorly constructed sentence.

 

[5jj]

In MY diagram I treated "providing" as a participle that modifies. I don't really like that, but I keep returning to the need for "-''s" on the end of "education" to clarify that "providing" is a gerund.

The presence or absence of "-'s" is not necessary for 'providing' to be be considered a gerund. There have been arguments for a century about whether the possessive form is necessary or not with a gerund.

I don't go for the gerund interpretation myself in the sentence under discussion, but for different reasons.

This is a poorly constructed sentence.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you on that.

 

[Frank Antonson]

I know about those arguments.

I fall on the side of the possessive's being useful for clarity. (!)