I think that maybe 'clinical trials indicate' is indeed parenthetical (although I can say it either way, with or without parenthetical intonation). For me, that might be part of why I find the first version to be slightly more interesting and engaging. There are a few reasons why it's effective. Firstly it builds through three successively more interesting and more dramatic propositions. While doing this, the reader is always aware that there is more information coming in the sentence, and they are not disappointed by the finale, which is aptly more dramatic and interesting than the preceding clauses. So in some sense the reader is kept in suspense as the sentence develops. This sense of anticipation is aided by the parenthetical 'clinical trials indicate' in the first relative clause and the interpolated 'by pharmaceutical companies such as Lilley', in the second, which both serve to delay the arrival of the anticipated key information. This is reinforced by the fact that this effect is duplicated across the two relative clauses. For me, the delayed 'this is the “beginning of the end” of Alzheimer’s' in the first formulation is a fitting crescendo, a decisive and final flourish at the end of the sentence. This effect is missing, I feel, from the reformulation. Whether the second benefits more from the point of view of simplicity and clarity is, perhaps, a matter of opinion. However, I'd argue that in the first the writer gives a clear indication of the relative importance of the information in the three clauses, something missing from the second.
I like the rewritten version better, as well. I believe I used to write a lot in the style of the original Alzheimer's paragraph, and have lately been trying to compress my writing away from tricky relative clauses. This makes me wonder: do you believe relative clauses were very popular among writers of classic literature? Reading the original Alzheimer's paragraph gave me that "feel."
Non-native speaker intuition: the original sentence sounds more cohesive. Your paraphrase introduces “clinical trials” as a topic, whereas it plays a minor role in the original sentence, which is all about the two new treatments.
Could you point me to some literature that discusses the parenthetical vs pushdown distinction here?
Thank you—that was fascinating! But how about sparing a thought for those already afflicted with intellectual decrepitude? 😊 (Keeping track of all those relative pronouns reminded me of thimblerig.)
Applying Steve Krug’s ‘Don’t Make Me Think’ approach led me to…
For instance, the past couple of years have seen the development of two new treatments for Alzheimer’s (donanemab and lecanemab)—treatments that clinical trials indicate slow down the progression of the disease. The results of these trials have led to bold claims by pharmaceutical companies, such as Lilly, that the new treatments mark the ‘beginning of the end’ of Alzheimer’s.
For the original version couldn't we indicate an appositive simply by adding a dash in front of the first relative clause (- which clinical trials indicate slow down the progression of the disease – )?
My own problem with it is the weakness of the verbs in the first two clauses: 'seen' and 'led', while the dynamic activity has been bundled off into static noun phrases 'the development' and 'bold claims'.
For instance, the past couple years two new treatments for Alzheimer’s (donanemab and lecanemab) have been developed. Clinical trials indicate that these slow down progression of the disease. Pharmaceutical companies, such as Lilley, boldly claim this is the “beginning of the end” for Alzheimer’s.
I'm experimenting with Richard Lanhams 'Paramedic Method', so I'd be very interested to know what you think - I proofread and copyedit for an audience which may not speak English natively.
I've enjoyed your analysis as always. The original sentence reads as idiomatic to me, if not exactly fluid, and bundles a complicated set of claims together in a semantically useful way. You could cut a few words by using an appositive and a participial phrase instead of the two nonrestrictive "which" clauses:
"For instance, the past couple years have seen the development of donanemab and lecanemab, two treatments which have slowed down the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in clinical trials, leading to bold claims by pharmaceutical companies such as Lilley that this is the 'beginning of the end' of Alzheimer’s."
I process the first relative clause in the original sentence as a reconfigured "clinical trials indicate [that these slow down]" rather than "which, as clinical trials indicate, slow down," but you have me wondering about that.
(An odd thing that's not perfectly on topic: I don't know why "Lilley" is spelled with an "e" if Eli Lilly is the company in question. The same author refers to "Lilley" in another Guardian article that links to a press release on the Lilly investors site. I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if The Guardian is.)
The original phrasing is a little awkward, but I believe its meaning is fairly clear. The biggest problem with the sentence, for me, is that it's just too darn long. It would definitely benefit from being split up.
The question then becomes: just how do we do that? Any change, it seems to me, involves trade-offs.
I'd be cautious about adding "as" to the sentence, because it subtly changes the meaning. The original phrasing tells you that *trials indicate* a slowing down of the progression of the disease. If you change the wording to "which, as clinical trials indicate, slow down the progression of the disease", you're effectively making a definitive statement ("the past couple years have seen the development of two new treatments for Alzheimer’s (donanemab and lecanemab), which ... slow down the progression of the disease") and supporting that with the bit about trials.
As far as the rewritten version goes... it's okay, but I believe you've introduced two new problems:
1. In making "For instance, the past couple years have seen the development of two new treatments for Alzheimer’s (donanemab and lecanemab)" a sentence of its own, you've divorced it from the point the author was trying to make: two new treatments have been developed *that appear to slow down the progression of the disease*. It wasn't simply that two new treatments have been developed. Again, this is subtly different.
2. Your second sentence is unfortunately still rather wordy. Effectively, you've replaced one slightly rambling construction with another.
If I were to rewrite it, I'd try something a bit more creative:
For instance, clinical trials indicate that two new treatments for Alzheimer’s (donanemab and lecanemab), both developed in the past couple years, slow down the progression of the disease. The findings have led to bold claims, by pharmaceutical companies such as Lilley, that this is the “beginning of the end” of Alzheimer’s.
I'm still not 100% happy with it, though. There's probably still room for improvement.
Wonderful article! CaGEL seems to view it as a case of unbounded dependency(henceforth UD).
I have two questions:
In' I am really thrilled to be here today, and very excited, [as I know all of you must be], that Mrs. Gorbachev could join us.' is this also a case of UD,but in comparative clauses?
Also,you seem to suggest that 'clinical trials indicate' is not part of the whole relative clause(as do Quirk et.al),but does CaGEL also think so with the UD analysis?I don't know too much about their analysis
This example of a tricky relative clause reminded me of an exchange I had a few days ago with a journalist.
She wrote, of a fictional character, that he was '... the beleaguered antihero whom we like to think lives in all of us'. I pointed out that 'whom' should be 'who', because the words 'we like to think' are a parenthetical addition to the main structure of the sentence, '... the beleaguered antihero who lives in all of us'. Nobody would think 'who' should be 'whom' there.
If I am right in seeing the parallel, 'clinical trials indicate' functions in the same way as 'we like to think'. And the journalist's words could be recast as two sentences: he was '... the beleaguered antihero. We like to think that such a person lives in all of us.' I have to say that, in this case and possibly in the clinical trials case, I prefer the single sentence as being more direct and rather punchier.
(Incidentally, the journalist checked her original copy and found that she had used 'who' not 'whom'. The hypercorrection came from a sub-editor.)
Yes, I agree that in your example the relative pronoun should be 'who', because it is the Subject of 'lives'. And yes, the structure is similar to my original sentence, though I would argue that 'we like to think' is somewhat more integrated here, such that we interpret '[who] lives in us all' as the Object of 'think'. Quirk et al. (1985: 821, 1298) call this phenomenon 'pushdown'.
Thank you for your quick reply! This reminds me of what The Cambridge Grammar calls the “evidential use” of present tense. The matrix clause is backgrounded, and only provides evidence for the subordinate clause.
I think that maybe 'clinical trials indicate' is indeed parenthetical (although I can say it either way, with or without parenthetical intonation). For me, that might be part of why I find the first version to be slightly more interesting and engaging. There are a few reasons why it's effective. Firstly it builds through three successively more interesting and more dramatic propositions. While doing this, the reader is always aware that there is more information coming in the sentence, and they are not disappointed by the finale, which is aptly more dramatic and interesting than the preceding clauses. So in some sense the reader is kept in suspense as the sentence develops. This sense of anticipation is aided by the parenthetical 'clinical trials indicate' in the first relative clause and the interpolated 'by pharmaceutical companies such as Lilley', in the second, which both serve to delay the arrival of the anticipated key information. This is reinforced by the fact that this effect is duplicated across the two relative clauses. For me, the delayed 'this is the “beginning of the end” of Alzheimer’s' in the first formulation is a fitting crescendo, a decisive and final flourish at the end of the sentence. This effect is missing, I feel, from the reformulation. Whether the second benefits more from the point of view of simplicity and clarity is, perhaps, a matter of opinion. However, I'd argue that in the first the writer gives a clear indication of the relative importance of the information in the three clauses, something missing from the second.
I like the rewritten version better, as well. I believe I used to write a lot in the style of the original Alzheimer's paragraph, and have lately been trying to compress my writing away from tricky relative clauses. This makes me wonder: do you believe relative clauses were very popular among writers of classic literature? Reading the original Alzheimer's paragraph gave me that "feel."
I'm not sure about the answer to your question. It would make for an interesting research project!
Non-native speaker intuition: the original sentence sounds more cohesive. Your paraphrase introduces “clinical trials” as a topic, whereas it plays a minor role in the original sentence, which is all about the two new treatments.
Could you point me to some literature that discusses the parenthetical vs pushdown distinction here?
'Pushdown' is really only used by Quirk et al. in their 1985 Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. You may find some pointers there.
Thank you—that was fascinating! But how about sparing a thought for those already afflicted with intellectual decrepitude? 😊 (Keeping track of all those relative pronouns reminded me of thimblerig.)
Applying Steve Krug’s ‘Don’t Make Me Think’ approach led me to…
For instance, the past couple of years have seen the development of two new treatments for Alzheimer’s (donanemab and lecanemab)—treatments that clinical trials indicate slow down the progression of the disease. The results of these trials have led to bold claims by pharmaceutical companies, such as Lilly, that the new treatments mark the ‘beginning of the end’ of Alzheimer’s.
For the original version couldn't we indicate an appositive simply by adding a dash in front of the first relative clause (- which clinical trials indicate slow down the progression of the disease – )?
My own problem with it is the weakness of the verbs in the first two clauses: 'seen' and 'led', while the dynamic activity has been bundled off into static noun phrases 'the development' and 'bold claims'.
For instance, the past couple years two new treatments for Alzheimer’s (donanemab and lecanemab) have been developed. Clinical trials indicate that these slow down progression of the disease. Pharmaceutical companies, such as Lilley, boldly claim this is the “beginning of the end” for Alzheimer’s.
I'm experimenting with Richard Lanhams 'Paramedic Method', so I'd be very interested to know what you think - I proofread and copyedit for an audience which may not speak English natively.
I've enjoyed your analysis as always. The original sentence reads as idiomatic to me, if not exactly fluid, and bundles a complicated set of claims together in a semantically useful way. You could cut a few words by using an appositive and a participial phrase instead of the two nonrestrictive "which" clauses:
"For instance, the past couple years have seen the development of donanemab and lecanemab, two treatments which have slowed down the progression of Alzheimer’s disease in clinical trials, leading to bold claims by pharmaceutical companies such as Lilley that this is the 'beginning of the end' of Alzheimer’s."
I process the first relative clause in the original sentence as a reconfigured "clinical trials indicate [that these slow down]" rather than "which, as clinical trials indicate, slow down," but you have me wondering about that.
(An odd thing that's not perfectly on topic: I don't know why "Lilley" is spelled with an "e" if Eli Lilly is the company in question. The same author refers to "Lilley" in another Guardian article that links to a press release on the Lilly investors site. I'm not sure if I'm missing something or if The Guardian is.)
I don't think there's a "right" answer to this.
The original phrasing is a little awkward, but I believe its meaning is fairly clear. The biggest problem with the sentence, for me, is that it's just too darn long. It would definitely benefit from being split up.
The question then becomes: just how do we do that? Any change, it seems to me, involves trade-offs.
I'd be cautious about adding "as" to the sentence, because it subtly changes the meaning. The original phrasing tells you that *trials indicate* a slowing down of the progression of the disease. If you change the wording to "which, as clinical trials indicate, slow down the progression of the disease", you're effectively making a definitive statement ("the past couple years have seen the development of two new treatments for Alzheimer’s (donanemab and lecanemab), which ... slow down the progression of the disease") and supporting that with the bit about trials.
As far as the rewritten version goes... it's okay, but I believe you've introduced two new problems:
1. In making "For instance, the past couple years have seen the development of two new treatments for Alzheimer’s (donanemab and lecanemab)" a sentence of its own, you've divorced it from the point the author was trying to make: two new treatments have been developed *that appear to slow down the progression of the disease*. It wasn't simply that two new treatments have been developed. Again, this is subtly different.
2. Your second sentence is unfortunately still rather wordy. Effectively, you've replaced one slightly rambling construction with another.
If I were to rewrite it, I'd try something a bit more creative:
For instance, clinical trials indicate that two new treatments for Alzheimer’s (donanemab and lecanemab), both developed in the past couple years, slow down the progression of the disease. The findings have led to bold claims, by pharmaceutical companies such as Lilley, that this is the “beginning of the end” of Alzheimer’s.
I'm still not 100% happy with it, though. There's probably still room for improvement.
Like I said, there's no right answer.
Very thoughtful! I totally agree that there is no right answer.
Wonderful article! CaGEL seems to view it as a case of unbounded dependency(henceforth UD).
I have two questions:
In' I am really thrilled to be here today, and very excited, [as I know all of you must be], that Mrs. Gorbachev could join us.' is this also a case of UD,but in comparative clauses?
Also,you seem to suggest that 'clinical trials indicate' is not part of the whole relative clause(as do Quirk et.al),but does CaGEL also think so with the UD analysis?I don't know too much about their analysis
I think the first example is a case of parenthesis, but I'm not sure whether Huddleston and Pullum would treat the second case as UD.
This example of a tricky relative clause reminded me of an exchange I had a few days ago with a journalist.
She wrote, of a fictional character, that he was '... the beleaguered antihero whom we like to think lives in all of us'. I pointed out that 'whom' should be 'who', because the words 'we like to think' are a parenthetical addition to the main structure of the sentence, '... the beleaguered antihero who lives in all of us'. Nobody would think 'who' should be 'whom' there.
If I am right in seeing the parallel, 'clinical trials indicate' functions in the same way as 'we like to think'. And the journalist's words could be recast as two sentences: he was '... the beleaguered antihero. We like to think that such a person lives in all of us.' I have to say that, in this case and possibly in the clinical trials case, I prefer the single sentence as being more direct and rather punchier.
(Incidentally, the journalist checked her original copy and found that she had used 'who' not 'whom'. The hypercorrection came from a sub-editor.)
Yes, I agree that in your example the relative pronoun should be 'who', because it is the Subject of 'lives'. And yes, the structure is similar to my original sentence, though I would argue that 'we like to think' is somewhat more integrated here, such that we interpret '[who] lives in us all' as the Object of 'think'. Quirk et al. (1985: 821, 1298) call this phenomenon 'pushdown'.
Why do they call this phenomenon 'pushdown'? This term is a little obscure
I agree. In some ways the relative pronoun is best described as having been 'pushed up'.
Question from a non-native speaker: As for the paraphrase, would you read aloud “Clinical trials indicate” with a lower pitch and a pause”?
No, not in the case of the paraphrase.
Thank you for your quick reply! This reminds me of what The Cambridge Grammar calls the “evidential use” of present tense. The matrix clause is backgrounded, and only provides evidence for the subordinate clause.