Syntatic Analysis

Question

The same thing occurred during the country's previous two cycical recoveries, when increased government spending, tax cuts and exports provided the fuel for rallies that proved to be short-lived.

1. What does 'increased' function? Is 'when the government spending was increased' the original sentence? If yes, I'd say 'increased' functions as a past-participle that modify the compound noun 'government spending.' Am I on the right track?

2. Does the underlined part "provided the fuel for rallies" modify "tax cuts and exports"?
3. I get lost at the end of the sentence. What does 'that' function?

Many largest companies have become serious about improving their performance, simultaneously reducing their debt and increasing the operating profits needed to pay interest.

'needed' is a past-participle, it modifies the previous noun 'profits.' Right?

Except in rhetoric, improving efficiency by enchancing competition has not been a prioruty.

1. Can I replace "in" with "for" or leave it out?
2. Can I replace "efficiency" with "effectiveness"? How could one tell from the slightest nuance?

I'm looking forward to your answers.

Pastel

Miriam · Accepted Answer

Hi, Pastel

"The same thing occurred during the country's previous two cycical recoveries, when increased government spending, tax cuts and exports provided the fuel for rallies that proved to be short-lived."

1. You're not just on the right track; you're 100% right in that "increased" is a premodifier of "government spending".

2. You're not so right here!

There is an adverbial clause of time in your sentence ("when... short-lived"). The subject of the clause is "increased...exports"; and "when" and the construction "provided... short-lived" form the predicate.
Within the predicate of the dependent clause, "provided" is the main verb, and what scomes after it, until the full stop is the direct object of that verb.
So no, "provided" is not modifying "tax cuts and exports". Rather, "provide" the fuel dor something is what "increased government spending, tax cuts and exports" did.

3. "That" is a relative pronoun here. It introduces the restrictive relative clause "that proved to be short lived" as postmodifier of the noun "fuel". In this clause, which is within the direct object I mentioned in 1., "that" is the subject (it refers to "the fuel for rallies"). The rest of the clause is the predicate ("proved to be short-lived").

"Many largest companies have become serious about improving their performance, simultaneously reducing their debt and increasing the operating profits needed to pay interest."

You're right again.

"Needed" is a past participle with adjectival function in this sentence and it is part of the reduced relative clause "needed to pay interest". So, the modifier of "profits" is not just "needed", but the whole construction up to the end of the sentence. As a reduced clause, it is a non-finite clause in which "needed" is the head.

"Except in rhetoric, improving efficiency by enchancing competition has not been a priority."

1. I don't think you should replace "in" with "for" in this sentence. "Except in rhetoric" gives the idea that "improving efficiency by enchancing competition hasn't been a priority in other fields, but it has been in rhetoric".

2. "Efficiency" and "effectiveness" have different meanings, they are not words you can used interchangeably.
"Efficient" has to do with the actions, the skills, the processes or the potential involved/needed for achieving a desired result.
"Effective" refers to the actual results.

For a more accurate definition, and if you don't have a dictionary, you can have a look at this page (it's from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Towards the end of the page, under the heading "synonyms", you'll find the differences between both words: [url="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=effectiveness"] effectiveness[/url]

Miriam

PASTEL · Answer

Dangling clause

There has to be a way to lose weight while still being able to eat for pleasure.

There has to be a way to lose weight while we are still able to eat for pleasure.
'We are' is omitted in an adverbial time clause to form a dangling clause. Is that right?

Pastel

Miriam · Answer

Pastel,
You say that "'We are' is omitted in an adverbial time clause to form a dangling clause."

A dangling clause -more formally called "misrelated participle"- is not something you'd use on purpose. Rather, it is a mistake, and a very common one, unfortunately. I'm saying this because I got the impression, when reading your post, that you meant that making a clause a "dangling" clause is something one does deliberately. Please correct me if I got that wrong?

Now, the sentence you chose is ugly... but then, you usually choose ugly sentences! ~laughs~
I've read it several times and I don't think there is a dangling clause there.

Let me know if you are still online? I think I have an idea! (i)

Miriam

PASTEL · Answer

Horray! I'm on the forum with you right now. If I have any problem, I'll let you know. Thank you, Miriam.

PASTEL · Answer

There comes another taxi while we are waiting for the bus.

To form dangling participle, here are the steps that I have applied.
1. The subject in the main clause is different from the subject in adverbial time clause, so subject disagreement makes it misrelated.
2. Omit the subject and be verb in adverbial time clause, and delete the conjunction 'while' to from a present participle clause.

Ooops, I think I am totally on the wrong track.

Waiting for the bus, there comes another taxi. This is misrelated participle.

PASTEL · Answer

Could you give me a hint about the ugly sentence? I've got lost when I was trying to analyse the adverbial time clause. [:^)]

CalifJim · Answer

Pastel,

The expression is "How does X function?", not "What does X function?"

____

The same thing occurred during the country's previous two cyclical recoveries, when increased government spending, tax cuts and exports provided the fuel for rallies that proved to be short-lived.

The same thing occurred during the country's previous two cyclical recoveries,
when {[greater] government spending [i.e., increases in government spending]}, {tax cuts}, and {exports} [all three] provided the fuel for short-lived rallies. [All three created the preconditions for quick improvements in the indices by which the economy is measured. As we eventually found out from the evidence, none of the [three] improvements lasted for a long time.]

Is it the use of "proved to be" that causes trouble?

The task was difficult.
The task proved to be difficult.
= As we found out by trying to do it, the task was difficult.
= The evidence points to the difficulty of the task.

The experiment was a success.
The experiment proved to be a success.
= As we found out by doing the experiment, it was a success.
= The evidence points to the success of the experiment.

_____

Many large companies have become serious about improving their performance, simultaneously reducing their debt and increasing the operating profits needed to pay interest.

Many large companies have become serious about improving their performance, [as shown by the fact that they are] simultaneously 1) {reducing their debt} and 2) {increasing the operating profits [which are] needed to pay interest}.

In 2) you have an example of "Whiz Deletion" (deletion of "which is" or any other combination of "which" with a form of "to be").

Are you sure "largest" was used? If so, it should have been "many of the largest ...".

____

Except in rhetoric, improving efficiency by enhancing competition has not been a priority.

Improving [market] efficiency by enhancing competition has not been a priority [IN (terms of) practice, but it *** been a priority] IN (terms of) rhetoric [i.e., in theoretical discussions].

Many people have been saying that the priority should be to enhance competition because it will improve market efficiency. In actual fact, nobody really pays attention to this. The result is that this way of improving market efficiency is not a priority.

"Market efficiency" is a technical term in economics. So "effectiveness" won't work here, regardless of how appropriate it may seem.

By the way, efficient describes the way work is done (without wasting any time or effort), effective describes the suitability of the result of work (the desired result was obtained).

Suppose I need eggs from the supermarket and shampoo from the drugstore.

If I drive to the supermarket, buy the eggs, then drive home, drive to the drugstore, buy the shampoo, drive home again, I end up with the eggs and the shampoo. The process was effective at obtaining the things I wanted. But was it very efficient? No! I might have saved time, effort, and (gas) money by planning a single trip to include both places.

If I drive to the supermarket, buy some oranges, drive to the drugstore, buy mouthwash, then drive home again, I have been much more efficient. I saved time, effort, and money by making a single trip. But was that trip very effective? Well, the result I wanted was eggs and shampoo, and all I have as the result of the trip is oranges and mouthwash, so the trip was not at all effective.

I leave it to you to describe the two other scenarios: efficient AND effective, and NEITHER efficient NOR effective!
____

There has to be a way to lose weight while still being able to eat for pleasure.

There has to be a way for a person to lose weight while that person is still able to eat for pleasure.

The FOR portion of a FOR ... TO ... clause is often omitted when the noun after FOR is as general as "a person", "one", "people".

It is possible to lose weight. (It is possible for a person to lose weight.)

Likewise for the WHILE clause. Once you remove "that person", you're left with an "is" which must be changed to a "being".

Yes, "while being" is ugly. But "with ... being" is ugly, ugly, ugly, ugly!!!

The children all filed in with little Robert being first. (UGLY)

Tomorrow will be sunny with temperatures throughout the region being much higher. (UGLY)

And yet with "while":

Is there a way to study English while (still) remaining sane? (Not so ugly. No "being".)

It's impossible to pat your head while rubbing your stomach! (Not at all ugly.)

I hope to earn money while studying abroad. (Not at all ugly.)
(Here the "I" signals *"I hope for ME to earn money while I study abroad". Dropping the FOR phrase obligatory after "hope".)

And with "without", very common, not at all ugly.

Can you read all these jokes without laughing?
I did all my exercises without pausing once.

"without being" is not really ugly, but can border on ugliness.

I can barely think about the accident without being angry all over again.
Could you say that again without being so sarcastic?

There's nothing dangling that I can see in the previous examples -- only the deletion of subjects in the subordinate clauses, which then requires the verb to be in the "ing" form.

Here are some real "danglers". Dangling thises and thats are not necessarily ugly; they are often comical -- and to be avoided for the reason that they "don't say what they mean".

Looking through a microscope, the butterflies were quite beautiful.
We slowly made our way to the old shack fatigued by the storm.

Jim

Miriam · Answer

Hi, Pastel.

Sorry abput earlier. I lost my connection and couldn't come back online (it's been happening too often lately!).

I think I should first offer clarification about my use of "ugly" when I speak of "ugly" sentences. I don't mean that the sentences are necessarily wrong, but that they may be somewhat difficult to analyse.
On the other hand, whenever I think a sentence is wrong, or perhaps simply awkward, I will not use "ugly" to describe the sentence in question.

So your sentence "There has to be a way to lose weight while still being able to eat for pleasure" is "ugly" in my own sense of ugly, so to speak.

I had thought of a slightly different analysis from that of Jim's, but I guess his will work. And then, mine was more complicated perhaps, so you can take his word. The conclusion, again, is that there is no dangling clause in that sentence. It is a matter of "subjects", to make what could have been a long explanation short.

Now, your "taxi" question definitely has a misrelated participle... unless the taxi was actually waiting for the bus, that is. ~winks~

One example of misrelated participles I tend to use often ~~because I love it~~ is:
"When walking up the stairs, my pen fell off my pocket."

I find it funny!

Miriam

Syntatic Analysis

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions