제 3 단원 UNIT 3
Let’s start with a problem sentence that will test your understanding of what we covered in last month’s column. Can you see the problem in the following sentence?
1) xxx – Critics denounce that the majority of the film footage is devoted to tourist attractions in Hokkaido, which have little to do with the plot. –xxx
You will recall that last month’s column looked at problem sentences involving the expressions, xxx- criticize that ___ -xxx, xxx- view that ___ -xxx, and xxx- analyze that ___ -xxx. The problem in all those cases was that a transitive verb was being used incorrectly. Problem sentence #1 is yet another example of this type of problem. Denounce is also a transitive verb. We can denounce an action, a policy, an event, a situation, or a person, but the word, ‘denounce’, must have a direct object. Here are some ways of rewriting sentence #1 correctly:
1a) ok- Critics denounce the amount of footage that the film devotes to tourist attractions in Hokkaido which have little to do with the plot.
1b) ok- Critics denounce the inclusion of excessive footage devoted to tourist attractions in Hokkaido which have little to do with the plot.
1c) ok- Critics denounce the makers of the film for having devoted too much footage to tourist attractions in Hokkaido…
1d) ok- Critics denounce the film for the excessive footage devoted to tourist attractions in Hokkaido…
There are many other ways to express the same idea, but in all of them the word, ‘denounce’, takes a direct object.
Here are two different sentences illustrating one problem:
2) xxx- During the manager’s speech, several of the audiences shouted slogans and demanded that he step down. –xxx
3) xxx- Both western opera and Korean pansori have limited numbers of audiences. –xxx
I trust you have picked out ‘audience’ as the problem word. ‘Audience’ is a collective noun that refers to the collective gathering of individual spectators or listeners at a speech, performance, etc., or to the readers, hearers, or viewers reached by a publication or broadcast. So, an individual person is in an audience, is part of an audience, is a member of an audience. Understanding this, you should be able to correct problem sentences #2 and #3. Correct versions include:
2a) ok- During the manager’s speech, several members of the audience shouted slogans and demanded that he step down.
2b) ok- During the manager’s speech, several people in the audience shouted…
2c) ok- During the manager’s speech, several spectators shouted…
3a) ok- Both Western opera and Korean pansori have limited audiences.
3b) ok- Both Western opera and Korean pansori draw limited numbers of viewers. [We often use the word, ‘draw’, meaning ‘to attract’ when speaking of a performance ‘drawing’ an audience, or a concert ‘drawing’ listeners.]
If you read over those corrected versions carefully, you should get a clear picture of how ‘audience’ functions as a collective noun. There are many other collective nouns in English which frequently cause problems to Koreans. Collective nouns which figure most commonly in Korean-English problems include: ‘staff’, ‘family’, ‘vocabulary’, ‘alphabet’ and ‘faculty’.
And as long as we’re looking at problems involving incorrect use of plurals, have a look at this one, a caption under a photograph in a newspaper recently:
4) xxx – A man in full cycling gears waits for his turn to vote at a polling station in Mapo, Seoul. –XXX
Once more a problem with a collective noun. In this case the culprit is the word, ‘gear’. ‘Gear’ is a collective noun referring to the entire set of equipment, tools, paraphernalia, or (as in this case) clothes associated with a particular activity (in this case, bicycle riding). Since it is a collective noun, the plural form in problem sentence #3 is wrong. That sentence should be corrected as:
3a) ok – A man is full cycling gear waits for his turn to vote at a polling station in Mapo, Seoul.
Other correct versions include: “A man wearing a complete cycling outfit…”; and “A man dressed in cycling clothes…”.
Now here’s a sentence where the problem might be more difficult for you to spot:
4) xxx – He took note of the fact that it is difficult to obtain confessions from leftist-leaning criminals because their crimes are out of strong ideological convictions.
The problem here relates to the use of the expression, ‘out of’. This expression can be used to mean, ‘because of ___’ or ‘motivated by ____’, and that is clearly the meaning in sentence #4. However, the phrase, ‘out of ___’ functions as an adverb. In other words, it must be associated with some verb. For example, in the sentence, ‘He betrayed his comrades out of jealousy,’ the phrase, ‘out of’, is associated with the verb, ‘betray’. In the sentence, ‘he asked that question out of malice, not out of real curiosity,” the phrase, ‘out of’ is associated with the verb, ‘ask’. But in problem sentence #4, ‘out of’ is not associated with any verb. It should be corrected as:
4a) ok – He took note of the fact that it is difficult to obtain confessions from leftist-leaning criminals because their crimes are committed out of strong ideological convictions.
4b) ok - ...because their crimes are perpetrated out of strong ideological convictions.
Both of these corrected versions supply verbs which are then associated with the phrase, ‘out of’. ‘Perpetrate’ and ‘commit’ are, I think, the verbs most commonly used with ‘crimes’. Of course it would also be possible to rewrite sentence #4 without using ‘out of’ at all:
4c) ok - …because their crimes are motivated by strong ideological convictions.
As long as you have the words, ‘perpetrate’ and ‘commit’ fresh in your minds, take a look at this problem sentence:
5) xxx – It was learned that the students took the violent act in retaliation that the bus company ignored a general strike by bus drivers. –xxx
The first problem in this sentence is in the phrase, ‘took the violent act’, which refers to the stoning of a bus. Unfortunately, although we frequently use the expression, ok- ‘to take action’ (“The army plans to take strenuous action against the insurgents.”), there is no such expression as, xxx- ‘to take an act’ –xxx. But the verbs, ‘commit’ and ‘perpetrate’, which we have seen above, can be used with the noun, ‘act’, especially when the ‘act’ in question is being judged as hostile, illegal, or otherwise undesirable, as is clearly the case here. So, problem sentence #5 should be corrected as: “…the students committed the violent act…”, or “…the students perpetrated the violent act…”. If you remove the definite article and refer to the students’ behavior in a more general way (i.e. not making explicit reference to the specific act of stoning the bus), you could also say: “…the students acted violently…” or “the students took violent action…”
That correction was easy enough, but there is a much more serious problem in sentence #5. The expression, ‘in retaliation’, cannot be followed by a ‘that___’ clause. The proper structure is: ‘…in retaliation FOR + NOUN PHRASE’. For example: “Iraq’s air force bombed a port in Iran in retaliation for an Iranian attack on an Iraqi harbor.” Very commonly, the noun phrase following the expression, ‘in retaliation for…’ will employ a gerund. For example: “In retaliation for your rejecting my request, I won’t invite you to my party.”
If you understand these structures, you should be able to correct the problem in sentence #5 as: “…in retaliation for the bus company’s ignoring (of) a general strike by the bus drivers.” However, since the act of ignoring came before the act of retaliation, it would be more precise to use the past-perfect tense: “…in retaliation for the bus company’s having ignored a general strike…”. We can now give a fully corrected version of sentence #5:
5a) ok- It was learned that the students committed the violent act in retaliation for the bus company’s having ignored a general strike by bus drivers.
And still on the subject of bus strikes, consider this sentence:
6) xxx- As a result of the strike, buses did not operate on six routes in Seoul, providing citizens various inconveniences. –xxx
There is nothing wrong with the grammar of this sentence, and I think the meaning is perfectly clear to anyone who knows English. However, it sounds quite strange, and all because of one word: ‘provide’. The word, ‘provide’, means to make (something) available or to supply (something). In almost all cases, however, ‘provide’ is used to refer to supplying something which is desired and useful. But obviously ‘inconveniences’ are not useful and people do not desire them at all. A more neutral and in this case more appropriate word would be, ‘cause’:
6a) ok- As a result of the strike, buses did not operate on six routes in Seoul, causing citizens various inconveniences.
Now let’s see if you can spot the problem in this sentence:
7) xxx- Political democracy is the key to a welfare state, but a welfare state cannot be a substitute to democratization, a seminar on Korea’s social welfare was told. –xxx
For some reason, Koreans writing (and speaking) in English have problems using the word, ‘substitute’. In order to avoid those problems, the important thing to remember is that the preposition, ‘for’, is almost always associated with the word, ‘substitute’, whether ‘substitute’ is used as a noun, as a transitive verb, or as intransitive verb. Here are examples: “I used ramyon as a substitute for spaghetti in that recipe.” [noun] “I substituted ramyon for spaghetti in that recipe.” [transitive verb] “Ramyon substituted for spaghetti in that recipe.” [intransitive verb]
The key is that in all of these structures the proper preposition is ‘for’. Understanding that, you should be able to correct sentence #7 as:
7a) ok- Political democracy is the key to a welfare state, but a welfare state cannot be a substitute for democratization, a seminar on Korea’s social welfare was told.
7b) ok- …but a welfare state cannot substitute for democratization…
Another good version of this sentence can be written without using the word, ‘substitute’, at all:
7c) ok- …but a welfare state cannot take the place of democratization…