LaMelange
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2012
- Member Type
- Interested in Language
- Native Language
- Tamil
- Home Country
- India
- Current Location
- India
Hello teachers,
I have a question regarding the use of commas before coordinating conjunctions joining two predicates.
Here are some sentences:
1. The candidate up to this point has provided only minimal backchannels, and has not indicated at this point in the task-framing process that she is confused about what the task is going to be. (retain the comma because one predicate is positive and the other is negative?)
2. The correlation between fully framed tasks and inter-rater reliability has to date never been fully examined, and indeed would be a worthy object of the kind of research on interview discourse called for by Chauloub-Deville and Fulcher. (retain the comma because the tenses are different in both the predicates)
3. This is done when the interviewer does not immediately start the task, but rather uses a few pre-sequences to draw the candidate’s attention and focus to the upcoming topic. (retain the comma because the second predicate is a contrast?)
4. Such analyses are essentially interpretive, and may well be subject to selection bias unless the excerpts of different tasks framed by different interviewers are randomly sampled. (retain the comma because the tenses are different in both the predicates?)
5. In contrast to the fourth interviewer, the fifth interviewer is far less inclined to accommodate proactively, and thus does much less to co-construct the interaction with the candidate. (retain the comma because the action in the second predicate is the result of the action in the first one?)
6. In such circumstances, indirect and semi-indirect testing methods have been deployed, and have been the primary alternative to interviews for a limited number of languages. (I have no idea either way!)
7. The sixth and seventh interviews in the series also resulted in 1+ ratings, and suggest that even though there was considerable variation in the real-time diagnosis of the candidate’s base level of proficiency, as well as variation in the degree of the interviewers’ co-constructive interactivity with the candidate, the majority of the second ratings consistently arrived at the same conclusion—that the candidate was, even with seven opportunities to learn from experience, consistently speaking at the ILR 1+—the threshold of limited working proficiency. (retain the comma because the tenses are different and the second predicate is complex?)
Source: Interviewing for Language Proficiency, by Steven J. Ross
Here is another one from a different book:
8. Put simply, Jefferson indeed acted in direct violation of his philosophy of government, and was attacked for that violation. (retain the comma because the voices in the predicates are different?)
The author had used commas in all the above sentences. Could you please tell me whether the use is right or wrong in each sentence? I would really appreciate it if you could give me the reasons for your answers.
Thank you very much for your patience and help!
I have a question regarding the use of commas before coordinating conjunctions joining two predicates.
Here are some sentences:
1. The candidate up to this point has provided only minimal backchannels, and has not indicated at this point in the task-framing process that she is confused about what the task is going to be. (retain the comma because one predicate is positive and the other is negative?)
2. The correlation between fully framed tasks and inter-rater reliability has to date never been fully examined, and indeed would be a worthy object of the kind of research on interview discourse called for by Chauloub-Deville and Fulcher. (retain the comma because the tenses are different in both the predicates)
3. This is done when the interviewer does not immediately start the task, but rather uses a few pre-sequences to draw the candidate’s attention and focus to the upcoming topic. (retain the comma because the second predicate is a contrast?)
4. Such analyses are essentially interpretive, and may well be subject to selection bias unless the excerpts of different tasks framed by different interviewers are randomly sampled. (retain the comma because the tenses are different in both the predicates?)
5. In contrast to the fourth interviewer, the fifth interviewer is far less inclined to accommodate proactively, and thus does much less to co-construct the interaction with the candidate. (retain the comma because the action in the second predicate is the result of the action in the first one?)
6. In such circumstances, indirect and semi-indirect testing methods have been deployed, and have been the primary alternative to interviews for a limited number of languages. (I have no idea either way!)
7. The sixth and seventh interviews in the series also resulted in 1+ ratings, and suggest that even though there was considerable variation in the real-time diagnosis of the candidate’s base level of proficiency, as well as variation in the degree of the interviewers’ co-constructive interactivity with the candidate, the majority of the second ratings consistently arrived at the same conclusion—that the candidate was, even with seven opportunities to learn from experience, consistently speaking at the ILR 1+—the threshold of limited working proficiency. (retain the comma because the tenses are different and the second predicate is complex?)
Source: Interviewing for Language Proficiency, by Steven J. Ross
Here is another one from a different book:
8. Put simply, Jefferson indeed acted in direct violation of his philosophy of government, and was attacked for that violation. (retain the comma because the voices in the predicates are different?)
The author had used commas in all the above sentences. Could you please tell me whether the use is right or wrong in each sentence? I would really appreciate it if you could give me the reasons for your answers.
Thank you very much for your patience and help!
Last edited:
