Can someone please help me understand this?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sparklesdust

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
Apologies for this post. I just don't understand why the following is considered correct:

You might have noticed a new face in the Payroll team. Amy Smith is interning with us as she is interested in this area of work.


I accept that it's correct, but I just don't know why. Perhaps somebody could help me understand why.

I've tried to break everything down:

the Payroll team = compound noun

Amy Smith = Subject
is interning = verbal phrase (?)
with = preposition
us = pronoun
this = adjective
area = noun

I understand that the writer has used "this area of work" instead of repeating Payroll, but Payroll isn't a noun by itself in the first sentence, is it? "The Payroll team" is a compound noun (I think). "The Payroll team" isn't an "area of work", "Payroll is an area of work". If I read the second sentence like this, it wouldn't say what the reader intended: Amy Smith is interning with us as she is interested in the Payroll team.

If someone would explain things to me, I would be eternally grateful. Thank you.
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
We simply understand that she is interning with the Payroll Team because her interest lies in the area of work known as "payroll". All the terms don't necessarily have to "agree" over two separate sentences. Some common sense is required.
 

tedmc

VIP Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2014
Member Type
Interested in Language
Native Language
Chinese
Home Country
Malaysia
Current Location
Malaysia
You might have noticed a new face in the Payroll team. Amy Smith is interning with us as she is interested in this area of work (the Payroll team is doing).

I think the description of the work in brackets is implied/understood.
 

Sparklesdust

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
We simply understand that she is interning with the Payroll Team because her interest lies in the area of work known as "payroll". All the terms don't necessarily have to "agree" over two separate sentences. Some common sense is required.

Thank you. Now I know where I was going wrong. I thought all the terms had to "agree" over the two separate sentences. I knew the writer meant that the intern's interest lies in "payroll", but I thought the second sentence might have been written incorrectly as it didn't "agree" with the first sentence.

Could "area of work" be replaced with "type of work" or "field of work"?
 
Last edited:

Barb_D

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Yes those are all fine.
 

Sparklesdust

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
All of my life, I've been thinking that sentences like the ones I posted had to "agree" with each other. Is there a guide or anything I can read on that subject?
 

Barb_D

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
Common sense. That's the guide.
 

Sparklesdust

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
AS emsr2d3 wrote, " Some common sense is required". Native speakers are not even aware of abstract rules. They simply assume that speakers are trying to convey a message, and use common sense to interpret that message.

I am a native speaker. I was trying to pull the sentences apart in an attempt to better understand sentence construction so that I could improve my writing. I just ended up confusing myself instead. Of course, common sense told me what the writer was saying, but I wanted to know if the sentences had been put next to each other in the correct way. Just out of curiosity -I know that grammarians sometimes argue over rules - do you think any grammarians would've said what I said?
 

Sparklesdust

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
No worries.

Yes, that was what I was referring too.

Thanks
 

Barb_D

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 12, 2007
Member Type
Other
Native Language
American English
Home Country
United States
Current Location
United States
A grammarian would quibble with "Hanging in the closet for a year, Lola forgot about her aqua dress."

Common sense tells you that it was the dress, not Lola, that was hanging in the closet. However there is actually grammatical rules about this construction that are violated.
In the case of your sentences, it is very clear that the type of work refers to the type of work performed by the people in the payroll group. It is not necessary to include those words; they would be redundant in that circumstance. And no rules are violated.
 

emsr2d2

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Member Type
English Teacher
Native Language
British English
Home Country
UK
Current Location
UK
Sorry, I meant 'As Barb wrote'. I have now corrected this in my original post.

Actually, you were almost right the first time. It was me (not emsr2d3 or Barb) who wrote it. Barb wrote "Common sense. That is the rule". :-D
 

Sparklesdust

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
British English
Home Country
Great Britain
Current Location
Great Britain
A grammarian would quibble with "Hanging in the closet for a year, Lola forgot about her aqua dress."

Common sense tells you that it was the dress, not Lola, that was hanging in the closet. However there is actually grammatical rules about this construction that are violated.
In the case of your sentences, it is very clear that the type of work refers to the type of work performed by the people in the payroll group. It is not necessary to include those words; they would be redundant in that circumstance. And no rules are violated.

Thanks - great example. I actually understand that the grammatical rules are violated there.
In the case of my sentences, I find it easier to comprehend if I think of "area of work" as "an area of a business", rather than a "topic".
I suspect my thinking is still wrong. But, I accept that you are all right. Maybe i'll never quite get it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top