0

He also forecast the usefulness of the medium for graphic artists in a letter.

From that sentence, 'for graphic artists' modifies 'the usefulness of the medium' or ' the medium' ?

And it seems that definitely 'in a letter' do not modify 'graphic artists'.

Why sometimes prepositional phrases are modifying the words just before them. And sometimes do not?

And how to we can identity them?

Improve this question
1
  • 1
    This is a matter of judgement, not syntax (the for- clause is inherently ambiguous in such contexts). To the extent that there is a "default interpretation", it's that the [syntactically optional] prepositional phrase refers back to the nearest credible preceding noun phrase, which in this case would be the medium (specifically the one used by graphic artists), rather than the usefulness (of the medium, specifically to graphic artists). But in fact that "default" isn't likely for this exact text, whereas the second interpretation makes perfect sense.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Feb 4, 2022 at 13:22

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
0

In general, modifiers affect the thing nearest to them. For instance, “of the medium” modifies “usefulness”, and “for graphic artists” modifies “medium”, or it might be a second modifier for “usefulness”; I don’t see a useful distinction there.

The problem is “in a letter”. The nearest thing to modify is “artists”, but that makes no sense. So you try “medium” and then “usefulness”, which also don’t make much sense. Finally, you try “forecast”, which does make sense and is therefore probably what was meant. (If it didn’t, you’d try “he”, which gives the same meaning.)

Here are some other arrangements:

  • He also forecast in a letter the usefulness of the medium for graphic artists.
  • He also in a letter forecast the usefulness of the medium for graphic artists.
  • He in a letter also forecast the usefulness of the medium for graphic artists.
  • In a letter, he also forecast the usefulness of the medium for graphic artists.

Note that the closer “in a letter” is to “forecasts”, the less ambiguity there is about what it modifies.

Note that if you put it in these two places, it radically changes the meaning of the sentence because the nearness rule’s effect on the other modifiers:

  • He also forecast the usefulness in a letter of the medium for graphic artists.
  • He also forecast the usefulness of the medium in a letter for graphic artists.
Improve this answer
1
  • Strictly speaking, the PPs "of the medium" and "for graphic artists" are complements of "usefulness", not modifiers.
    – BillJ
    Commented Aug 15, 2020 at 6:44
0

He also forecast the usefulness of the medium for graphic artists in a letter.

The NP "the usefulness of the medium for graphic artists" is direct object of "forecast", in which the PPs "of the medium" and "for graphic artists" are complements of "usefulness"

The PP "in a letter" is an adjunct in clause structure.

You have to look at the phrases as a whole to determine what is modifying or complementing what.

Improve this answer
1
  • Re your question below: Not quite: the relative clause modifies “French artists” (no “the”). The normal position for a relative clause is immediately after the antecedent, but it is also possible for the relative clause to occur in postposed position, at the end of the clause containing its antecedent. For example: “A stranger came into the room who looked just like Uncle Oswald".
    – BillJ
    Commented Aug 15, 2020 at 6:27
0

Why sometimes prepositional phrases are modifying the words just before them. And sometimes do not?

Because

  1. context is "king" and can overrule almost anything in English, and

  2. things that are adverbs (adverbs tend to answer the question how?) tend to be flexible where they appear in a sentence.

Two possible ways this sentence can be split and understood is:

{He also forecast {the usefulness {of the medium {for graphic artists {in a letter} } } } }.

{He also forecast {the usefulness {of the medium {for graphic artists} } } {in a letter} }.

So ...

  • Context--graphic artists existing physically in a letter doesn't make sense, and
  • the fact that "in a letter" can answer the question how?--which is a strong signal of an adverb/adverbial phrase ...

are the only reason why we'd choose to interpret things the second way.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .