The
value of these two structures lies in the fact that both modifiers (which come
at the end of the sentence — one of the most salient positions) give a writer a
chance to emphasize an important idea in the main clause (and the important
idea comes at the end of that clause too). For example, consider this basic
sentence:
1.
Most textbooks only teach students
the basics.
Now,
sentence (1) is a complete sentence all by itself, and the writer might think,
"good enough." However, another writer might say, "I want to
emphasize that last part — the idea of basics." So, to do
that, the writer has two choices of modifiers that help emphasize the idea — to
"drive the idea home" as the expression goes — resumptive and
summative modifiers. These two sentences patterns are a touch of grace that can
add to the power and impact to the sentence's main point.
To create a resumptive modifier, we literally repeat
the main point, "basics" or "the basics" as below.
2. Most textbooks only teach students
the basics, basics that emphasize rote learning over creative
thinking.
3.
Most textbooks only teach
students the basics, the basics that emphasize rote learning
over creative thinking.
To create a summative modifier, we avoid the
repetition, and instead we try to find a noun or noun phrase that synonymizes
the important part of the sentence's message, as below.
4. Most textbooks only teach
students the basics, a
problem that will become more apparent
when those students move into business and find they lack the more advanced
skills they need.
In
(4) above, notice that I picked the noun phrase a problem as
the synonym for the sentence's main point — which I put in bold face in the
example. I do not repeat a noun from the main point of the sentence, as I did
in (2) or (3), the resumptive modifiers. That is the difference between those
two modifiers.
Both modifiers share something in common though:
both modifiers begin with nouns (basics) or noun phrases (the basics or a
problem). That is a crucial part of the structure and helps the reader
identify the writer's important point is in the original sentence.
Finally, we should note that these modifiers never
begin with a relative pronoun, like which. Relative pronouns can
create a relative clause, a different kind of modifier having a different
semantic and pragmatic function. Thus, for example, this version of sentence
(1) is using a relative clause, and not either a resumptive or summative modifier.
5. Most textbooks only teach students
the basics, which can severely limit a student's understanding of a course.
Relative
clauses, like that in (5) primarily function to add more information to the
main clause, rather than emphasize a particular part of the clause's message,
as resumptive and summative modifiers do.
Appositives as Resumptive and Summative Modifiers
Appositive is
the name that grammarians give to the structures that we are seeing in the
examples above. Appositives are nouns, noun phrases, or clauses that rename and
elaborate upon another part of a clause. Thus, appositives can be used
effectively by writers as resumptive or summative modifiers. To repeat, a
resumptive modifier repeats a key idea in the main clause and then resumes that
line of thought, elaborating on what went before. The effect is to let the
reader pause for a moment, to consider the most significant part of the
message, and then elaborate and emphasize that idea.
6. A real danger in this digital
revolution is the potential it holds for dividing society, a
society that will divide into two camps, the techno-elite and the
techno-peasants, a society where a "wired" few will
prosper at the expense of the masses. [resumptive modifiers]
7.
In the last twenty years, the world
has moved from the industrial age to the information age, a sociological event that will
change forever the way we work and think. [summative modifier]
Notice
how the writer of (6) is able to use two resumptive modifiers to highlight what
he feels are truly problems with the societal effects of the digital
revolution. If a writer picks his/her spots carefully — and not too frequently
— s/he can use resumptive and summative modifiers to highlight important ideas.
Appositive Clauses and Relative Clauses
Above, I mentioned that clauses can function as
appositives to create resumptive or summative modifiers. However, there is a
problem: appositive clauses look like relative clauses, yet the two are
different in function and (subtly) in structure. Relative clauses are
recognizable since they usually begin with a wh- word (like who, whom, whose, which or that in
place of which). The appositive clause begins with that,
but it is semantically, pragmatically, and structurally different from a
relative clause beginning with that. Let's compare (8) and (9)
below.
8.
Technological determinism suggests to
us that technology will provide all the answers to every problem. Many believe
the fallacious idea that people will happily adopt every new technology.
[appositive clause and summative modifier]
9.
Technological advancement suggests to
us that technology will provide all the answers to every problem. Many believe
the fallacious idea that is simply quite wrong. [relative clause]
I
tried to put each example into a context, hoping that the second sentence we
want to study will seem more natural.
To differentiate quickly the appositive clause in
(8) from the relative clause in (9), let's just note the following syntactic
and semantic differences:
1.
which cannot replace that in (8)
but can in (9),
2.
that functions as a subordinating conjunction of
the second clause in (8), but as the grammatical subject of the second clause
in (9), and
3.
semantically, that does
not substitute for the fallacious idea in (8) but does in (9).
References
Halliday, Michael A. K. Introduction to
Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold, 1993.
Kies, Daniel. "Some Stylistic Features of
Business and Technical Writing: Nominalization, Passive Voice and
Agency." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 25
(1985): 199-208.
Kies, Daniel. "Marked Themes with and without
Pronominal Reinforcement." In Steiner and Veltman, Pragmatics,
Discourse, and Text. London: Pinter Publishers, 1986.
Prince, Ellen. A Comparison of Wh-
Clefts and It Clefts in Discourse. Language 54
(1978): 883-906.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech,
and Jan Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language. London: Longman, 1985.
No comments:
Post a Comment