0
Jooney Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
Fused relative
Hi,
ex1) But by the mid-1990s, even as she was moving into acting with films like “The Bodyguard” and “The Preacher’s Wife,” she became what she described, in a 2009 interview with Oprah Winfrey, as a “heavy” user of marijuana and cocaine.
ex2) Ms. Houston arrived at the hotel with what Lieutenant Rosen described as an entourage of friends and family, some of whom were in the hotel suite at the time.
ex3) Lieutenant Rosen said that detectives had arrived to conduct what he said was a full-scale investigation into the death.
The parts in red bold are examples of fused relative clauses. The sentences in which the fused relatives are embeded are derived from the following procedures:
ex1)
A: She became someone.
B: She described someone as a heavy user of marijuana and cocaine.
1. Combining these two sentences into one with the relativised element being "someone" gives you:
She became someone that she described as a heavy user of marijuana and cocaine.
2. Now replacing the "someone that" part with "what" gives you:
She became what she described as a heavy user of marijuana and cocaine, which is the final outcome.
Q1) Did I get that right? (I won't do the rest of the examples since the procedures are nearly identical)
Q2) As for examples 1 and 2, do the parts that come right after "as" represent the words actually said by Ms. Houston and Lieutenant Rosen, respectively?
I notice that in the fused relative phrase of example 1, the quotation marks were put around the word "heavy".
Q3) Is there a reason for doing this?
Q4) As for example 3, isn't it true that the fused relative phrase is somewhat redundant? Couldn't the whole sentence have been written as the following?
Lietenant Rosen said that detectives had arrived to conduct a full-scale investigation into the death.
I don't know why the writer had to emphasize that "a full-scale investigation into the death" was the actual wording of Rosen when you already know the "that-clause" is an indirect reported speech. Does it have something to do with the fact that an indirect reported speech isn't necessarily a representation of someone's actual wording?
I'd appreciate your help.
ex1) But by the mid-1990s, even as she was moving into acting with films like “The Bodyguard” and “The Preacher’s Wife,” she became what she described, in a 2009 interview with Oprah Winfrey, as a “heavy” user of marijuana and cocaine.
ex2) Ms. Houston arrived at the hotel with what Lieutenant Rosen described as an entourage of friends and family, some of whom were in the hotel suite at the time.
ex3) Lieutenant Rosen said that detectives had arrived to conduct what he said was a full-scale investigation into the death.
The parts in red bold are examples of fused relative clauses. The sentences in which the fused relatives are embeded are derived from the following procedures:
ex1)
A: She became someone.
B: She described someone as a heavy user of marijuana and cocaine.
1. Combining these two sentences into one with the relativised element being "someone" gives you:
She became someone that she described as a heavy user of marijuana and cocaine.
2. Now replacing the "someone that" part with "what" gives you:
She became what she described as a heavy user of marijuana and cocaine, which is the final outcome.
Q1) Did I get that right? (I won't do the rest of the examples since the procedures are nearly identical)
Q2) As for examples 1 and 2, do the parts that come right after "as" represent the words actually said by Ms. Houston and Lieutenant Rosen, respectively?
I notice that in the fused relative phrase of example 1, the quotation marks were put around the word "heavy".
Q3) Is there a reason for doing this?
Q4) As for example 3, isn't it true that the fused relative phrase is somewhat redundant? Couldn't the whole sentence have been written as the following?
Lietenant Rosen said that detectives had arrived to conduct a full-scale investigation into the death.
I don't know why the writer had to emphasize that "a full-scale investigation into the death" was the actual wording of Rosen when you already know the "that-clause" is an indirect reported speech. Does it have something to do with the fact that an indirect reported speech isn't necessarily a representation of someone's actual wording?
I'd appreciate your help.
Top answer
jooney Q1) Did I get that right? (I won't do the rest of the examples since the procedures are nearly identical) Your approach seems reasonable to me. jooney Q2) As for examples 1 and 2, do the parts that come right after "as" represent the words actually said by Ms.
- jooney Q1) Did I get that right?
- (I won't do the rest of the examples since the procedures are nearly identical) Your approach seems reasonable to me.
- jooney Q2) As for examples 1 and 2, do the parts that come right after "as" represent the words actually said by Ms.
- Houston and Lieutenant Rosen, respectively?
- No, but they are probably quite close.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
6 Answers
0
jooneyQ1) Did I get that right? (I won't do the rest of the examples since the procedures are nearly identical)Your approach seems reasonable to me.
jooneyQ2) As for examples 1 and 2, do the parts that come right after "as" represent the words actually said by Ms. Houston and Lieutenant Rosen, respectively?No, but they are
00
Great! It's very clear now why the writer wrote it that way. Thank you very much for the help, CJ.
00
Q1) I would just call the red parts noun clauses.
ex1) But by the mid-1990s, even as she was moving into acting with films like “The Bodyguard” and “The Preacher’s Wife,” she became what she described, in a 2009 interview with Oprah Winfrey, as a “heavy” user of marijuana and cocaine.
In the fol
ex1) But by the mid-1990s, even as she was moving into acting with films like “The Bodyguard” and “The Preacher’s Wife,” she became what she described, in a 2009 interview with Oprah Winfrey, as a “heavy” user of marijuana and cocaine.
In the fol
00
Thank you for your answer, Astars.
But, the writer does not want to say that directly, because it was the actress's opinion or self-assessment from 2009, not the direct knowledge of the writer. So, the object "user" is replaced by a noun clause.
"what she described as a 'heavy' user...."
Q1) So in e
But, the writer does not want to say that directly, because it was the actress's opinion or self-assessment from 2009, not the direct knowledge of the writer. So, the object "user" is replaced by a noun clause.
"what she described as a 'heavy' user...."
Q1) So in e
00
Q1) So in essence, the writer used the fused relative or the noun clause, if you will, to emphasize that it was Houston that said those words or something very close to those words. Correct?
Yes, if Houston is the unidentified actress in the sentence.
Q2) Can I look at it this way? The exact wording of Rosen might have been as follows:
Yes, if Houston is the unidentified actress in the sentence.
Q2) Can I look at it this way? The exact wording of Rosen might have been as follows:
00
Related Questions