标题: which的指代问题，独立主格？同位语？一点小小的自己整理 [打印本页] 作者: lan0604 时间: 2012-3-3 11:40 标题: which的指代问题，独立主格？同位语？一点小小的自己整理 http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/og-sc-105-t1277.html 中： Originally developed for directing air pollutants, a technique called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destorying it, is finding uses in medicine, archaelogy, and criminology.
(A) Originally developed for detecting air pollutants, a technique called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it, (B) Orignially developed for detecting air pollutants, having the ability to analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it, a technique called proton-induced X-ray emission (C) A technique originally developed for detecting air pollutants, called proton-induced X-ray emission, which can quickly analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance without destroying it (D) A technique originally developed for detecting air pollutants, called proton-induced X-ray emission, which has the ability to analyze the chemical elements in almost any (E) A technique that was originally developed for detecting air pollutants and has the ability to analyze the chemical elements in almost any substance quickly and without destroying the substance, called proton-induced X-ray emission,
The correct answer is (A) OG explanation
解释：ron： I can see what you're saying here, but nouns that are modified by prepositional phrases can still be the referent of 'which' even if they are a few words distant from it. This usually happens when the immediately preceding noun is grammatically incompatible with the verb after "which".
For example: "The picture of my brothers, which was taken last year in Mexico, is one of my favorites."
You might object to this sentence on the grounds that 'which' might be taken to modify 'brothers'. And, in a strict sort of way, you'd be right. But here's the catch: There's really no other reasonable way to write this sentence. You just can't get 'picture' next to the 'which' clause without creating total nonsense, or splitting the sentence into 2 smaller sentence-ettes. plus, 'brothers' is plural, and is incompatible with 'which WAS'.
Scientists have observed large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits in the upper twenty centimeters of Baltic Sea sediments, which are consistent with the growth of industrial activity there.
A. B. Baltic Sea sediments, where the growth of industrial activity is consistent with these findings C. Baltic Sea sediments, findings consistent with its growth of industrial activity D. sediments from the Baltic Sea, findings consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area E. sediments from the Baltic Sea, with the growth of industrial activity there
解释：'the last thing in the independent clause' is allowed to comprise a noun along with an entire prepositional phrase describing that noun. That's exactly what happens here: 'the last thing' happens to be the ENTIRE PHRASE 'large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits in the upper 20cm of sediments from the Baltic Sea'. Notice in particular that ALL of the words after 'concentrations' are prepositional phrases, and are therefore acceptable as portions of 'the last thing'.
This idea can be frustrating, because it lends ambiguity - after all, it's also possible that the 'last thing' could be the Baltic Sea itself.
Incidentally, the fact that the referenced post contains a 'which' clause, whereas this sentence contains an appositive (a modifier that's just a noun phrase), is irrelevant - the 'last thing' concept is equally applicable to both. http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/og-verbal-ed-11th-sc-q-79-t1560.html作者: baixuefei0524 时间: 2012-4-14 16:39
先顶一个。对于第二个问题，RON的意思似乎是说finding是large concentrations 的同位语。按照他的说法，which也可以修饰finding，A选项的错误就只要there 太模糊了。不过OG 说 which has no logical referent. 还有，不少朋友认为finding 和large concentration 不是一个东西 。
这个是独立主格。findings和large concentrations 不是一个东西，不可以说Scientists have observed findings，所以不是同位语。
-- by 会员 maotian (2010/10/16 18:06:37)
先回答你第一个问题。我觉得是独立主格 manhattan里对于独立主格的解释是Absolutephrase do not have to modify what they touch; rather, they modify the mainclause in some way. 这边的逻辑关系应该是重金属含量的增加归咎于大量工业的增加。 -- by 会员 若雪 (2011/6/8 1:58:56) [/quote]
I consider 'findings' apposition...
-- by 会员 aeoluseros (2010/11/6 14:19:23)
[quote] 本质上，独立主格是伴随作用，同位语是解释作用。
-- by 会员 aeoluseros (2010/11/6 14:23:55
求教各位
作者: baixuefei0524 时间: 2012-4-14 16:40
我本人也倾向于是独立主格结构作者: HyeHye 时间: 2013-5-29 05:20
Scientists have observed large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits in the upper twenty centimeters of Baltic Sea sediments, which are consistent with the growth of industrial activity there.
A. Baltic Sea sediments, which are consistent with the growth of industrial activity there.
B. Baltic Sea sediments, where the growth of industrial activity is consistent with these findings
C. Baltic Sea sediments, findings consistent with its growth of industrial activity
D. sediments from the Baltic Sea, findings consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area
E. sediments from the Baltic Sea, with the growth of industrial activity there
我个人认为 A选项的问题是which是指代 Baltic Sea sediments,那么可解释为: Baltic Sea sediments(沉积物)和the growth of industrial activity(工业成长历程)是一致的。是不是觉得有点逻辑不同哦么？C选项中, findings(所发现的--指前面谈到的Scientists have observed ... )与the growth of industrial activity(工业成长历程)是一致的。 这里用了独立主格结构(少了系动词be)。
个人拙见