is or are? 

A question for the linguists | Francesca Michalski | June 21st, 2005

Hello, Francesca (recently finished my MSc but still lurking on the list) here. I have a question from a student that I couldn't answer and was wondering if one of you might be able to give me the explanation.

My student, who works for a company named e-core, wrote:

Currently the activities that e-Core is developing for BGM are based on a project oriented approach.

I corrected: 'the activities that e-core are developing for BGM...'

My student would not agree with me, and worse still, neither would a teacher colleague of mine (Brazilian). Am I wrong? Have I been living abroad for so long that I don't know my mother tongue any more? Shouldn't the verb agree with the original subject and not the subject of the defining relative clause?  

Please help if you can!

Francesca

Re: your question | Martin Lovatt | June 21st, 2005

Hi Francesca,

I hate to say it, but I think your student is right- well, partly at least (don't worry, it happens to me all the time!). I believe this is written as a non-defining relative clause and therefore needs commas. So the sentence should have been written:

Currently the activities, that e-Core is developing for BGM, are based on a project- oriented approach.

If we broke that down into two sentences they would read:

e-Core is developing activities. The activities are based on a project-oriented approach.

As far as I know, in a non-defining relative clause the verb agrees with the subject of the clause. However, if the relative clause is a defining relative clause the sentence would read:

Currently the activities that are being developed by e-Core are based on a project-oriented approach.

I think the lack of commas and perhaps confusion on your student's part between the different kinds of relative clauses probably threw you out.

Hope this is of some help.

Best,

Martin

Re: A question for the linguists | Paul Raper | June 21st, 2005

Francesca,

It depends on whether you are referring to the company as an entity, in which case you would use "is" or if you are referring to the company as a group of people inside the company, in which case you would use "are".

It is a common problem, and I find that the easiest way to explain it. Generally if we are say referring to say the R&D department of the company we might use "are" because we want to refer to the group of people in the R&D company. But we would use singular "is" as in 'my company is located in Brazil'.

I hope that helps.

Best

Paul

Re: A question for the linguists | Joe Alvaro | June 21st, 2005

Hi, Francesca.

While doing the TDA module, quite some time is spent on the Bloors' "Functional analysis of grammar". In that book on pages 37-40 there is a bit entitled "Subject and related functions". In it, Bloor recommends a couple of 'tests' for finding the subject--or 'nominal group' (in SFG speak) of a clause.

Using the Bloors' 'question-tag test', which is a reliable way to find the subject, the sentence would read:

Currently the activities that e-Core is developing for BGM are based on a project oriented approach, aren't they?

This tells us that the subject of the sentence is 'the activities' and the agreeing verbal group is the passive clause 'are based on a project oriented approach'.

Taking the remaining part of the sentence, which is the active clause, 'that e-core is developing for BMG' , and running the same question-tag test, you would get:

'...e-core is developing for BMG, isn't it?'

This makes it clear that the subject of that clause is 'e-core' and the subject-finite agreement would make 'is developing' , the correct form.

SFG experts, I would thank you for any correction to my application of the 'question-tag test' or its resulting conclusion.

Joe

China

Re: Francesca's question | Barry Wolford | June 21st, 2005

Hi

Although a long-time lurker and currently inactive course participant, my interest was piqued by Francesca's question and the responses to it. I hope I cause no offence if I put in my two bob's worth.

I would agree with Martin's breakdown of the two clauses, and with Paul's point about treating an organisation as a single entity or as plural. The latter point can be ignored unless the agreement is inconsistent in the cotext.

However, I feel that:

1) The relative clause is defining- of the activities that e-Core is developing for BGM, as distinct from activities being developed for any other clients; But this may be a matter of context (if the activities have already been defined in a previous sentence, and the student's sentence is elaboration as to who is doing the developing, then the clause could conceivably be non-defining).

2) In the second instance David has changed the construction and thus the S-V concord:

"Currently the activities that are being developed by e-Core are based on a project oriented approach."

Here activities has been made the subject of a passive verb are being developed, whereas the student chose to use an active construction in the relative clause.

Thus I believe that the student's original sentence is correct:

Currently the activities that e-Core is developing for BGM are based on a project-oriented approach.

Independent clause, S-V: activities - are based
Dependent relative clause, S-V: e-Core - is developing.

Let's hope I'm not right off the boil here!

Best regards,

Barry

Re: A question for the linguists | Colin Graham | June 21st, 2005

Hi Francesca,

I wouldn't disagree with anything anyone has said so far on the is/are dichotomy, but I have a further point to add. As a user of British English I would say that both you and your student are correct. It is my understanding that for users of American English, you would be incorrect in that American English does not allow for the pluralized view of a group.

Examples:

The government is introducing a new economic policy- acceptable in both

The government are introducing a new economic policy- only ok in UK

I'm not sure about Oz, NZ, Singapore, India etc., but I suspect they would follow the British format... or maybe I'm just being an imperialist ;-)

Both of my Canadian colleagues were undecided about using "are" in Canadian English.   They said they would use "is" but would know what I was getting at if I used "are".

Hope this doesn't confuse things further!

Colin

\(^_^)/
Banzai!

Re: A question for the linguists | Sue Garton | June 21st, 2005

Hi Francesca and everyone else,

You're all on the right track, but Joe, you're spot on with your SFG analysis. The relative clause post-modifies 'activities' and is defining (and therefore a 'rankshifted clause' in Halliday's terms):

Currently the activities [[that e-Core is developing for BGM]] | are based on a project oriented approach

The subject of 'is developing' is 'e-Core', and 'activities' is the Subject of 'are based'. 

Here is a full SFPCA analysis:

Hope that helps.

Best,

Sue

Re: A question for the linguists | Sarah Booker | June 21st, 2005

Nice to see this argument that comes up in my brother's household constantly- he is an avid Chelsea supporter and a Brit living in LA. 'Chelsea are great' he as a Brit maintains whilst his American EFL teacher wife says no 'Chelsea is great'. He has interestingly always argued that Chelsea is great would apply to the place and the use of are distinguishes his team and of course there really isn't any argument for him. They ARE great!

Sarah

Using tag-questions to test for subjects | Colin Graham | June 21st, 2005

Hi Joe,

One problem with the tag test is that it presupposes background knowledge about the subject in terms of its pronominalization.

You said:

Taking the remaining part of the sentence, which is the active clause, 'that e-core is developing for BMG', and running the same question-tag test, you would get:

'...e-core is developing for BMG, isn't it?'

which makes it clear that the subject of that clause is 'e-core' and the subject-finite agreement would make 'is developing', the correct form.

This is true only if you know e-core is an "it". If I work for e-core as a member of the department I could just as easily say:

  '... e-core are developing for BMG, aren't we?'

Which is where discourse, schema, context, worldview and all that other AWD (ex-TDA) stuff comes into its own...   exit Chomsky stage left.

I think the problem Francesca experienced comes from an incongruent view of "e-core" as an entity i.e. she was looking as it as a group of individual things- hence "are"- and her student was looking at it as a thing alone- hence "is".

Over to you Francesca :-)

Colin

\(^_^)/

Banzai!

Re: A question for the linguists | Ramesh Krishnamurthy | June 21st, 2005

Hi all

I analysed the problem in a slightly different way, resulting in two separate issues:

1. Currently the activities that e-Core is developing for BGM are based on a project oriented approach. =

(a)  e-Core is developing activities for BGM [so 'activities' is the direct object of 'develop', not the subject; so the 'is/are developing' choice is not based on 'activities']

(b) (The activities) are (currently) based on a project-oriented approach. ['activities' is the subject here, so the (auxiliary) verb is plural: 'are based']

2. e-Core i s/are developing (activities)... : here I agree with previous contributors: this choice is a matter of focus (organization=singular; people in the organization=plural); there may be British-American usage differences; etc

Hope this helps.

Ramesh

Thanks to the linguists | Francesca Michalski | June 21st, 2005

Thanks for so many helpful responses. I actually realised just after sending the email that the problem lay in the singular / plural nature of e-core as a company. This realisation made me quite happy as it left my colleague, student, and myself correct. My student, who is a Portuguese speaker, only has the singular concept for an organisation, which explains why he chose it and contested it with such vigour. I wasn't aware that the Brits favour the plural or 'group of individuals' perspective, although it's certainly what I did.

Once again many thanks,

Francesca

Re: Using tag questions to test for subjects | Joe Alvaro | June 22nd, 2005

You are absolutely right, Colin.

e-core can be interpreted as singular or plural, depending on whatever factors, and the tag question test can be used to justify both.

I suppose the question of 'correct or not correct' came up as a response to Francesca's student's usage of 'is developing' instead of 'are developing'.

In fact, he needed no correction, because he was right.

...living with ambiguity. A skill to be nurtured, isn't it?

Joe

 

Archive Categories