Linda,

 

I'm with both Craig and Robert on this.  I like to look at a language as
an ecology, rather as in zoology.  There is nothing in that ecology that
doesn't have its niche, its role that nothing else can do quite as well.
So English has developed expletives and existential for good reason,
usually to allow the speaker to place new information in focus position.
Since English is one of those languages that doesn't allow null
subjects, it has to fill the subject position with something, and
expletive "it" and "there" do the job well.  Existentials also allow us
to avoid indefinite subjects, which tend not to be comfortable in
English.  "A new new message is in your mailbox" doesn't work as well as
"There's a new message in your mailbox."  Existential and extraposed
sentences are great ways to introduce new information, which typically
requires the indefinite.

 

That said, both constructions get overused and reduce the effectiveness
of one's writing, and you're right to alert your students to that risk.
However, banning constructions like these or the passive, or
artificially restricting "that" and "which," are rather like using broad
spectrum weed killer on your front yard ecology.

 

Herb 

 

From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Hancock
Sent: 2008-03-10 09:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Expletives

 

Linda,
   My cat-skinning sentence is better understood as "existential"--my
error--similar to "It is raining" or "There is plenty of food." We seem
to have a resistance to "be" as intransitive. "More than one good way to
skin a cat exists" would be an alternative. 
   I think if I were trying to improve writing in a one-day workshop,
wordiness is something I would target. But we do have to be careful
about it. There are very good functional reasons for extraposition. And
I would caution against revising sentences outside the context of their
place in a text and outside the discourse context. Robert's points seem
largely on target.
   The larger point I was hoping to make is that we we need a functional
understanding of language, not just a formal one. We also need goals
that are larger than reducing wordiness. Less wordy texts are often
clearer because we have (to quote the late great Don Murray) "gotten the
static out". But that raises clarity to a goal and makes cutting words a
means and not an end. 
   The operative question might be "What knowledge about language helps
a writer accomplish his or her own goals." We have to yank the attention
away from "what forms are correct." 
   
Craig

Linda Comerford wrote: 

Craig,
 
Regarding one of my pet peeves, "it" and "there" expletives, I'm
wondering
if you would accept "Loving you is easy" as a more streamlined way of
saying, "It is easy to love you"?  I'm fine with your cat-skinning
"there"
expletive.
 
As I believe you can see from my posts, I try to give those in my
one-day
classes information to help them make informed decisions about their
writing
afterwards.  If I received 50 cents every time I see folks write
sentences
like, "There are many reasons why the cafeteria should remain open
beyond
2:00," in my 20+ year career, I'd be rich!  To me, such sentences are
the
equivalent of starting a sentence in a presentation with "uh" or "um."
My
theory about expletives is that they start so many sentences because
their
writers often don't know where they want their sentences to go.  Writing
is
discovery, so those lead-in words give them time to get to their point.
But
if they keep the expletive, they often delay the subject until the
middle of
the sentence where their readers are more likely to miss it.  Instead, I
offer them the option to start with the subject as in this re-write:
"The
cafeteria should remain open beyond 2:00 for many reasons."  Writers and
readers alike appreciate such streamlined clarity.
 
That's when my "save 50 cents a word" editorial tip comes into play.  My
participants not only resonate to it but remember it.  I've encountered
folks from one of my classes over 10 years ago tell me they draft
without
regard to wordiness but then revise with that 50-cent idea in mind.
Maybe
with inflation I should up it to $1.00....
 
Linda
 
 
 
Linda Comerford
317.786.6404
[log in to unmask]
www.comerfordconsulting.com
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

 

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

 


To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/