Whose job is (it) to teach English? - Teacher Stumpers |
|
Whose job is it to teach English? Today we are going to talk about a strange situation with 'whose' that came up in one of my classes. But first, let's make sure we are clear on which 'whose' we are talking about. Whose and who's are hymonyms. Hymonyms sound the same but mean different things. For example, whose (relative possesive pronoun) I met a man whose name is Bill. (I met a man. That man has the name Bill.) who's (contraction of who and is) I met a man who's Bill's brother. (I met a man. That man is Bill's brother) Now, let's look at a seemingly innocent sentence: There is a pitcher whose job it is to strike out the batter. Why do we use 'it'? We can also say the following: There is a pitcher whose job is to strike out the batter. Let's break apart the 1st sentence into two sentences.The 1st part of the sentence is easy: There is a pitcher. In the 1st sentence whose is being used to describe an object (whose job). We need to put the object (whose job) in the right place. whose job it is to strike out the batter. (Object + Subject + Verb) So splitting the sentences apart we have two sentences: There is a pitcher. It is his job to strike out the batter. The second sentence has good form because it puts the more complicated phrase (to strike out the batter) at the end of the sentence. Putting the longer infinitive phrase at the end of the sentence makes it easier to read and understand. Let's break apart the second sentence. The 1st part is the same: There is a pitcher. In the 2nd sentence whose is being used to describe the subject (whose job). We don't need to change the clause at all: His job is to strike out the batter. Putting the two sentences together we have: There is a pitcher. His job is to strike out the batter. Now, his job is the subject. This is kind of a style issue. Should there be a possesive in the subject? I'll let you decide. For me, this sounds okay, but a little strange. I like the 1st sentence (It is his job to strike out the batter) better. So the winner (in my mind) after all this is the first sentence: There is a pitcher whose job it is to strike out the batter. Because after you break it apart it sounds better. I know that isn't very strong evidence, but it's the best I can do. What do you think? I'd like to know. In the comments below, please tell me whether the 1st or the 2nd sentence sounds better and give a reason for your judgement. 1st sentence - There is a pitcher whose job it is to strike out the batter. 2nd sentence - There is a pitcher whose job is to strike out the batter. Thanks for stopping by. If you have an idea for a Teacher's Stumpers we would like to hear from you. Please email us at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it with your ideas. |
| Last Updated on Friday, 24 April 2009 15:50 |
 Follow | |
 | |
 |  |  |
Click the image above to start speaking a language from day 1.
Comments
Maybe it's just me though, but I can actually perceive a semantic difference in the two. Was just thinking about this construction when I found your post.
My example was a bit different but to use yours:
1. There is a pitcher whose job it is to strike out the batter.
vs.
2. There is a pitcher whose job is to strike out the batter.
Case 1: You have a baseball team, with 1 member (pitcher) whose job it is to strike out the batter. The rest have other priorities.
Case 2: There are many kind of pitchers, but this particular one's job is to strike out the batter, as opposed to, say, loading the bases.
The context here makes them seem almost equal in meaning, because usually you'd think the pitcher's job is to strike out the batter, so it's the default meaning.
My example was like this:
1.But, a battle shrine maiden? A shrine maiden whose job it is to fight?
vs.
2.But, a battle shrine maiden? A shrine maiden whose job is to fight?
You may see it easier here.
Case 1: The shinto monastery has tasked their fighting tasks to a single person, who is called a battle shrine maiden. It is her job, no one else's.
Case 2: A simple explanation of the term "battle shrine maiden": a shrine maiden who fights. Maybe there's a whole bunch lot of them. And maybe there are battle monks too, for all we know.
So I see a difference in the exclusivity of the construction: case 1 tells that it is this particular person's job to do something, no one else's, while case 2 just explains what it is that this particular person does.
Please correct me if you disagree.
My first thought where that the 2nd sentence sounds better, but I it was hard to put the finger on why. The best I could come up with where that after starting with "there is a pitcher" it feels more natural for me to have his job as the subject.
But as I said, I'm not a native speaker :dry:
Any way, this is really interesting.
Thanks a lot
RSS feed for comments to this post