What is your reading?

Status
Not open for further replies.

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
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.


1. human contact = providing students with ongoing daily interaction with teachers

or

2. a noted merit of traditional education = providing students with...

or

3. traditional education = providing students with...

IMO the red part is just a side note, an interpolated part, that does not bind with the rest of the sentence. I would go for #1. You?
 

Johnson_F

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Member Type
Academic
Native Language
English
Home Country
England
Current Location
England
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 ...
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
The second one is my choice as well (the first one doesn't make all that much sense):


1. ? ...lack of human contact,...,providing students with ongoing daily interaction with teachers.

2. ..., as opposed to a noted merit traditional education, providing students with ongoing daily interaction with teachers.
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
:-(

The drawback of virtual school is lack of human contact. [STRIKE]as opposed to a noted merit of traditional education[/STRIKE], (Human contact in school is about) providing students with ongoing daily interaction with teachers.

Still no #1?
36.gif
 

Frank Antonson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
1. human contact = providing students with ongoing daily interaction with teachers

or

2. a noted merit of traditional education = providing students with...

or

3. traditional education = providing students with...

IMO the red part is just a side note, an interpolated part, that does not bind with the rest of the sentence. I would go for #1. You?[/QUOT

Well, I would prefer the sentence to be punctuated as "...education's providing..." I think the intent of the writer would be more clear that way.

"Providing" would clearly be a gerund and not a participial phrase.
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
:-(

The drawback of virtual school is lack of human contact. [STRIKE]as opposed to a noted merit of traditional education[/STRIKE], (Human contact in school is about) providing students with ongoing daily interaction with teachers.

Still no #1?
36.gif
Nope. Sorry.

The problem I see with reading #1 is this. The phrase 'human contact' is housed within a larger phrase, one headed by (or introduced by) 'lack', which is what our modifying phrase is attracted to, or rather sees. That is, it sees the entire phrase, not the structure within. Evidence for this is the negation expressed by 'lack':


4. The drawback of virtual school is lack of human contact, [that is], not providing students with daily ongoing [face-to-face] interaction with teachers. :tick:



Omit the adverb 'not' and the resulting sentence is illogical: lack of human contact [is about] providing students with daily ongoing interaction with teachers.



Our original sentence follows the same parsing rule: the modifying phrase is attracted to the entire phrase, not the structure within:


2. The drawback of virtual school is lack of human contact, as opposed to a noted merit of traditional education, [that is], providing students with daily ongoing [face-to-face] interaction with teachers. :tick:

__________
Does anyone else see the ambiguity in the word "interaction" here, 'providing students with daily ongoing interaction with teachers'?


  • Virtual school provides students with daily ongoing interaction with teachers. Our teachers are available online all day. :tick:
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
I agree. I was wrong with my first interpretation. Thanks for the comments. There must have been a blackout in my head. :oops:
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
Nope. Sorry.

The problem I see with reading #1 is this. The phrase 'human contact' is housed within a larger phrase, one headed by (or introduced by) 'lack', which is what our modifying phrase is attracted to, or rather sees.

The modifier only sees the head: I first heard it put it this way from Casiopeia, a former moderator at UE, also one of the most brilliant syntacticians besides you and some others, from whom I have learnt a lot.


That is, it sees the entire phrase, not the structure within. Evidence for this is the negation expressed by 'lack':


4. The drawback of virtual school is lack of human contact, [that is], not providing students with daily ongoing [face-to-face] interaction with teachers. :tick:​


Yes. Do appositions modify? If I rename something, or further elaborate on something, do I modify something? What does "modify" mean for a grammarian?

If I say the cat is black, does the predicate adjective modify the cat? I think so. If I say my cat is this, does 'this' modify 'cat'? I think it identifies my cat but it does not modify it. What is "modify"? Was bedautet es?

Our original sentence follows the same parsing rule: the modifying phrase is attracted to the entire phrase, not the structure within:

Renaming can mean modifying?

Look at this sentence, lauralie, Please. Concentrate on how this abides by what you said above. You wrote:

The phrase 'human contact' is housed within a larger phrase, one headed by (or introduced by) 'lack', which is what our modifying phrase is attracted to

one = a larger phrase
PP= within a larger phrase

llack = which
PP = by lack

Now it seems as if the modifying phrase is attracted in either case [STRIKE]to the entire phrase, not[/STRIKE] to the structure within.​
 

Frank Antonson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
I am rather glad that I am not deeply involved in this thread.
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
What does "modify" mean for a grammarian?
I can't speak for grammarians, but to me, and in the simplest terms, it tells us more, such as the appositive 'Max' in my sister's husband, Max, fixed the sink, which serves to narrow down the semantic scope of the phrase 'my sister's husband'. (How is this question related to your original question?)


If I say the cat is black, does the predicate adjective modify the cat? I think so.
If that's how you would like to use the word 'modify'. (How are copular constructs related to your original question?)


Look at this sentence, lauralie, Please. Concentrate on how this abides by what you said above. You wrote:
The phrase 'human contact' is housed within a larger phrase, one headed by (or introduced by) 'lack', which is what our modifying phrase is attracted to​
Now it seems as if the modifying phrase is attracted in either case...to the structure within.
The modifying phrase (one headed by...) tells us more about the NP 'a larger phrase', not the head (or introductory element) 'within', a preposition. (Your logic fails me.)

How is this line of questioning helping you?
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
How is this question related to your original question?

In no way, whatsoever. Why? ;-)

The phrase 'human contact' is housed within a larger phrase, one headed by (or introduced by) 'lack', which is what our modifying phrase is attracted to, or rather sees. That is, it sees the entire phrase, not the structure within.

Look at this sentence, lauralie, Please. Concentrate on how this abides by what you said above. You wrote:

The phrase 'human contact' is housed within a larger phrase, one headed by (or introduced by) 'lack', which is what our modifying phrase is attracted to

one = a larger phrase
PP= within a larger phrase

llack = which
PP = by lack

Now it seems as if the modifying phrase is attracted in either case [STRIKE]to the entire phrase, not[/STRIKE] to the structure within.

What do you think, lauralie?
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
In no way, whatsoever. Why? ;-)



Look at this sentence, lauralie, Please. Concentrate on how this abides by what you said above. You wrote:



one = a larger phrase
PP= within a larger phrase

llack = which
PP = by lack

Now it seems as if the modifying phrase is attracted in either case [STRIKE]to the entire phrase, not[/STRIKE] to the structure within.

What do you think, lauralie?
Again, your logic fails me.
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
We have this sentence:
The drawback of virtual school is lack of human contact, not providing students with ongoing daily interaction with teachers.

You wrote:
The phrase 'human contact' is housed within a larger phrase, one headed by (or introduced by) 'lack', which is what our modifying phrase is attracted to, or rather sees. That is, it sees the entire phrase, not the structure within.

According to this, the present participle clause (not providing...) stands in non-restrictive apposition with "lack of human contact" and not with "human contact" because the modifying phrase cannot see the inner structure of the phrase it modifies, only the whole NP and the head.

Now let us take a look at what modifies what in this sentence:
The phrase 'human contact' is housed within a larger phrase, one headed by 'lack'.

In this sentence, 'one' hinges on 'a larger phrase', which is part of a prepositional phrase: it is a prepositional complement.

because the modifying phrase cannot see the inner structure of the phrase it modifies, only the whole NP and the head


Can never?
Apparently, the modifying phrase can see the inner structure here:

The phrase 'human contact' is housed within a larger phrase, one headed by (or introduced by) 'lack'...

'(O)ne' sees the complement (a larger phrase) of the prepositional phrase (within a larger phrase).
 

Frank Antonson

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
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.

Wouldn't an " i.e." after "education" solve the problem and make it clear, of course standing for "that is".

I still think that "education's" would do the trick, maybe with the additional change of "a merit" to "the merit".

In any case, it seems to be an awkward sentence.
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
The problem I see with reading #X is this. The phrase 'x' is housed within a larger phrase, one headed by (or introduced by) 'y', which is what our modifying phrase is attracted to, or rather sees. ... it sees the entire phrase, not the structure within.

1. I crossed swords with [Mr. Smith, who is a well-respected teacher].

In the sentence above, the adjectival postmodifier (nonrestrictive relative clause) is attracted to the prepositional complement of the prepositional phrase "with Mr. Smith". The postmodifier sees [STRIKE]the entire phrase, not[/STRIKE] the structure within.


Why can't be the case the same in the sentence below: the postmodifier sees [STRIKE]the entire phrase, not[/STRIKE] the structure within?

2. The drawback of virtual school is lack of [human contact, providing students with ongoing daily interaction with teachers].
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
1. I crossed swords with [Mr. Smith, who is a well-respected teacher].


2. The drawback of virtual school is lack of [human contact, providing students with ongoing daily interaction with teachers].
Ah, you mean:


  • ...Mr Smith who is...
    • ...Mr Smith, a well-respected teacher :tick:
      • NP, NP
  • ...human contact which is...
    • ...human contact, providing... :cross:
      • NP, not NP

Do you see the problem now?
 

corum

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Hungarian
Home Country
Hungary
Current Location
Hungary
Do you see the problem now?

27.gif


From your comments I infer this:

In weak apposition, where two syntactic units belong to different syntactic classes (NP, -ing clause), the -ing clause can see the entire apposed NP, but not the structure within.

In full apposition, the second NP can see the structure of the preceding NP.

Is this the case, IYO? Why do -ing clauses have poorer eyesight?
 

lauralie2

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Member Type
Retired English Teacher
Native Language
English
Home Country
Canada
Current Location
China
..., the -ing clause can see the entire apposed NP, but not the structure within.
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). The head of our phrase is a noun (lack), which is what the modifier sees:




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




In (3.), the closest noun, from a non-linear view, is 'lack', not 'human contact'. That noun resides inside a larger phrase (lack of human contact), and so the modifier (providing students...) sees only the head noun (lack) and is not privy to the information housed within that phrase. In other words, it cannot see the noun 'human contact' and so cannot modify it. If it were to do so, then it would be able to modify either noun (lack & human contact), which would result in ambiguity, not to mention awkward readings. But we know that it doesn't result in ambiguity as evidenced by reversing the order here:


Lack of human contact, providing students with daily ongoing interaction with teachers, is a drawback to virtual school. :cross:


To fix the problem with, I suggest adding 'not':



4a. Lack of human contact, not providing students with daily ongoing interaction with teachers, is a drawback to virtual school. :tick:


4b. The drawback of virtual school is lack of humancontact, not providing students with daily ongoing interaction with teachers. :tick:



Note that, because of the copular structure, 'drawback' also plays a role:

5. The drawback is providing students with interaction. :cross:
<this is not the intended meaning>

6. The drawback is not providing students with interaction. :tick:
<this is the intended meaning>


By the way, the meaning expressed by '(not) providing students with daily ongoing interactions with teachers' weighs heavier semantically than the meaning expressed by the noun 'human contact. That is, on its own the noun 'human contact' does not mean providing students with daily ongoing interactions with teachers. It's the meaning housed within the larger phrase 'lack of human contact' that is being defined here:


7. The drawback of virtual school is lack of human contact, which means not providing students with daily ongoing interaction with teachers.

8. The drawback of virtual school is lack of human contact, meaning not providing students with daily ongoing interaction with teachers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top