Author Topic: Grammar poll on a contentious subject-verb agreement disagreement  (Read 11715 times)

Joe Carillo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Karma: +208/-2
    • View Profile
    • Email
I would like to share with members of the Forum the recent exchange of e-mail below between me and a well-respected English professor and writer in the Philippines regarding the following sentence construction:

“Many people discover to their dismay that their many years of formal study of English has not given them the proficiency level demanded by the job market, by the various professions, or by higher academic studies.”


It is the first sentence of an online ad for my third English-usage book, Give Your English the Winning Edge.

The English professor, whose identity I will keep in strict confidence here, e-mailed the following response to the circulation department of The Manila Times:

“Oops!  Please correct the verb in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the ad!”

The e-mail was forwarded to me and I e-mailed this response to the English professor:

“The marketing group of The Manila Times has alerted me about your feedback to the first sentence of the online ad for my book Give Your English the Winning Edge
 
“No, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with my use of the singular verb form ‘has’ in the following sentence:
 
“‘Many people discover to their dismay that their many years of formal study of English has not given them the proficiency level demanded by the job market, by the various professions, or by higher academic studies.”
 
“Since English-language experts like you and [name withheld] think otherwise and have called my attention to the seemingly wrong verb usage, I have made a full-length explanation on this page at Jose Carillo’s English Forum. Please click the link to read it and do let me know what you think. I’m willing to be overruled—and will rewrite the sentence in question if need be—if you and an overwhelming majority aren’t convinced by my explanation.
 
“Thanks and have a nice day!”

The English professor then e-mailed me this response:

“Sorry, but you’re not right. The word that can be removed in sentences of this sort.  (I know you’re right = I know that you’re right.)  If you remove that, you will see that your argument falls apart. The real direct object of discover is the entire clause ‘their many years of formal study of English have not given them etc.’ Years is the subject of the verb have in the clause.”

I responded by e-mail as follows:

“You seem to have a point when you convert my sentence into its ‘that’-less form, but look at this other sentence whose construction is every bit similar:
 
“‘She is convinced that her 20 years of teaching experience [is, are] a big plus to her credentials.’

“And see what happens when you convert that sentence into its ‘that’-less form:
 
“‘She is convinced her 20 years of teaching experience [is, are] a big plus to her credentials.’
 
“I wonder if you’d still insist on the plural ‘are’ for both constructions. I think it’s clearer here that the relative noun phrase ‘that her 20 years of teaching experience’ is, in fact, both grammatically and notionally singular, don’t you agree?”

His response:

“Not really. The linking verb has to agree with either or both subject and/or predicate. Example: Many years is one thing, but all your years is another. You used to have, which has to agree only with the subject.”

I have not yet answered this last e-mail by the English professor. Since the matter has remained contentious and has not had a satisfactory closure, I have decided to make this grammar poll among members of the Forum.

Please let me know whether you are in favor of the English professor’s contention or of mine, and provide a justification for your choice. To ensure confidentiality, please don’t post your response directly on the Forum; send it to me by private e-mail at j8carillo@yahoo.com. I can then publish your response in the Forum without identifying you as its source and without embarrassing anybody in this academic exercise about English usage.

As I promised in my initial response to the English professor, I’m willing to be overruled—and will rewrite the sentence in question if need be—if you and an overwhelming majority disagree with my choice of verb form in that sentence in question.

Thank you and have a nice day!

Joe Carillo
« Last Edit: May 21, 2022, 03:59:39 PM by Joe Carillo »

maxsims

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 436
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Grammar poll on a contentious subject-verb agreement disagreement
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2009, 03:35:55 PM »
Joe,

You don't need a viewers' poll.  What you need is the courage of your conviction that you are right - as you undoubtedly are.

Be not overruled.   Rely instead of your succint, accurate and eminently logical explanation published within this forum.

You will recall that I once held a similar view to the dissenting professor's.    I was as wrong then as he is now!

Joe Carillo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Karma: +208/-2
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Grammar poll on a contentious subject-verb agreement disagreement
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2009, 08:23:45 PM »
Joe,

You don't need a viewers' poll.  What you need is the courage of your conviction that you are right - as you undoubtedly are.

Be not overruled.   Rely instead of your succint, accurate and eminently logical explanation published within this forum.

You will recall that I once held a similar view to the dissenting professor's.    I was as wrong then as he is now!

Being a former journalist, Max, I really don't take hard-line positions on matters that I know are essentially fleeting, subject to the whimsy of the so-called great majority. Instead, I enjoy the clash of opinions even on not-so-crucial matters--even on those that I'm supremely confident about. The responses to my poll have not been quick in coming, but I already have four very interesting ones. Someday soon, I'll release them and be done with the matter for good. Watch for my findings!   

maxsims

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 436
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Grammar poll on a contentious subject-verb agreement disagreement
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2009, 04:15:08 PM »
Still watching...!

madgirl09

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Grammar poll on a contentious subject-verb agreement disagreement
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2009, 08:28:04 PM »
That is the problem with "counting" the subject of the verb literally, and we stop thinking further what the actual meaning of the word really is. There are special nouns that look plural but actually thought as one whole thing...like this whole experience of "many years". Sometimes, there is more than just looking at the final letter of the word; the meaning of the word should count too. In college, there were lots of tricky questions like this, and arguments, of course would make the class really alive. At one glance, I'd say, it should be "have", but further analysis makes me vote for a "has". If some of my colleagues would challenge me with my answer, I would also be ready with future lengthy discussions ;D.

madgirl09

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Grammar poll on a contentious subject-verb agreement disagreement
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2009, 08:36:32 PM »
Hey, let me open this example to our Grammar class when we talk about S-V agreement. I have 14 classmates: 4 British, 1 Canadian, 4 Americans, 4 Japanese, 1 Russian. Our teacher is American. I'll let you know of the outcome  8).

madgirl09

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Grammar poll on a contentious subject-verb agreement disagreement
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2009, 08:16:10 AM »
Luckily, I found one reference that could support this choice (has). In Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman's "The Grammar Book", Reid (1991) warned ESL/EFL learners and even native speakers of English that there are some " overtly plural subjects" that could be interpreted as a singular lump sum, and there could be "some overtly singular subjects interpreted as plural entity". The example above could be a good case of a structurally plural subject that's interpreted as one lump sum.

When there is a problem determining the number of the subject by just its structural, morphological and functional construction, the next rule must apply: FORM follows MEANING. Reid emphasizes the fact that "form follows meaning".

The author of the "problematic phrase-many years", deciding on its meaning and determining the number as singular, went through a complex process and many choices. Reid states that "subject-verb agreement rule is not grounded in syntactic automaticity" (just what I can understand from the critic professor's explanation), " but that, its use reflects a series of semantic choices and decisions made by the speaker/writer". So this means, it's the writer who determines the correct number.

As I gather, that phrase could be singular, or could be plural depending on the meaning perceived by the very author of the text. If the writer says that the idea he meant was a "singular subject", then that's it (end of discussion ;D). Likewise, if the critic would use the same term in his discourse at a different context and make it "plural", there should also be no question  ::).

But there would be another problem if the author's explanation is not available to us bewildered readers. What if Sir Joe never explained his choice of a singular subject? Well now, how do we employ the suprasentential usage of the term? How about coherence and analysis of the overall discourse presentation?




maxsims

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 436
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Grammar poll on a contentious subject-verb agreement disagreement
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2009, 10:01:08 AM »
"...Well now, how do we employ the suprasentential usage of the term? How about coherence and analysis of the overall discourse presentation?.."

We might begin by employing simple, clear English!

 :)