Entry
English is our version of written and verbal communication in the USA (for the most part). We speak it every day and most of us write in the English language every day. Yet through all the practice we mess it up constantly. Most of us here on CG review reports of one type or another. Over time I have noticed a misunderstanding of a basic English language concept, verb phrases, particularly prepositional verb phrases. It is a scourge across all levels of writers. I am even an offender of multi-word verb use.
This blog is not just about general verb use, but in particular the verb “dispose.” This is a very important word in the environmental industry, and its proper use is, at least to me, important. The on-line dictionary Dictionary.com defines “dispose” for us. In particular, look for the two definitions of “disposed of,” the first is just a definition, the second gives examples. I have debated the proper grammatical use of this word with many people over the years, so I decided to write it down this time. I hope the following helps you in your professional writing.
There are three general types of multi-word verbs. If your interested in learning more about the different types follow this link to Englishclub.com. I’m interested in discussing prepositional verb phrases and its grammatical layout.
Prepositional verb phrases have a basic formula: verb + preposition + direct object. I will use my favorite example - J - “dispose of.” Read the following few examples and guess which are correct and which are incorrect.
- The soil was disposed of in the landfill.
- After excavation activities, the soil was disposed of.
- The contractor disposed of the soil in the landfill.
- Before the project was completed, the soil was disposed.
- The soil was disposed of quickly.
Did you answer correctly? Here are the answers:
- Remember the basic equation for a prepositional verb phrase? How many prepositions are after the verb “disposed?” Two. Therefore, this example is incorrect. The correct verb phrase would have been “disposed in …”
- Again, return to the basic equation. Where is the direct object? There isn’t one. The sentence is incorrect. The correct phrase would be “… the soil was disposed.” This is not the best sentence to use. I would suggest making it a prepositional verb phrase and give it a direct object (incorporate the location where the soil was disposed), “… the soil was disposed in Timmy’s back yard.”
- We have a winner. The prepositional verb phrase has a direct object, with a bonus prepositional phrase stating where the contractor took the soil.
- Again, winner. Examples 2 and 4 also show one of my other pet peeves, starting a sentence with a preposition. It is not incorrect grammatically; however, it is not the best show of “technical writing.” I would suggest switching the main body of the sentence and the preposition, which would also create the verb phrase “… disposed before the project was completed.”
- No, sorry. An adverb is not a direct object, but drop the “of” and you have “… disposed quickly,” an intransitive verb phrase, which would be correct.
I’m going to admit, I’m not an English professional, and I do not know all the rules and exceptions in English grammar. If you can refute my examples, please do so, just provide a reference so I can review it and learn more myself.
This was just one example of many we find in technical writing. What have you found? Do you have a word phrase (verb phrase, noun phrase, or prepositional phrase) that you feel incorrect but do not know the answer? Post it, lets find out.
Scott
Comments
Thank you for the lesson. I personally have made this mistake many times!
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
Scott: After reading your references, I completely disagree with you. If one is discussing "disposed" as a verb relating to dumping contaminated media, I think it's a phrasal verb (as defined by englishclub.com). Using the word "disposed" without the "of" in the context of dumping media doesn't conform to any of the dictionary.com definitions of the word "dispose" in isolation. So it seems to me, at any event.
I'm not an English teacher either, but I'd like to hear from a grammar professional on this issue. Two intelligent technical professionals with diametrically opposite opinions ... That never happens. I'm betting, Scott, that you're a geologist. ;o)
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
No ... Engineer.
So you do not believe definition #3 "to put in a particular or suitable place," would apply? When you throw something away, you place it in a particular or suitable location in your own opinion. If I carelessly toss my trash to the ground, by my action it is in a particular place and suitable for me ... maybe not socially ... but what do I care ;) Dumping waste would also be placing material in a particular or suitable place. The definition of "dispose of" particularly defines actions of wasting, therefore your sentence structure should reflect that. I do not believe "dispose of" is the only way to reflect that action though. To drive my point, I would not want hazardous waste "discarded" as defined within "dispose of." I would much prefer if it was "to put in a particular or suitable place."
Did I follow up on your idea, or did I miss your point? I too would love to get a couple english professors to look at this.
Scott
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
Scott, I see definition 9b (in dictionary.com) as being the appropriate definition relative to the activity that is nearly synonymous with "discard," "landfill," or "dump" - so I think the "of" needs to be present after "dispose." I don't think "putting in a particular or suitable place" really captures the activity we engage in when we "dispose of" contaminated media. Historically when folks have sent stuff to the landfill, it's stuff they intended to "discard."
Just my opinion, of course. Maybe an English prof would clarify things, or maybe muddy the waters ...
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
I agree with you in general. Maybe my example was a little too limited. The definition of "dispose of" is applicable as you outlined. My point was, "disposed of" is not the only way to indicate this action, just the most common. It will completely depend on your sentence structure. As I outlined in my example 2 answer, ending a sentence with the word "dispose" is not always the best choice.
I would like to jump back to your other comment I skipped earlier. The phrase "dispose of" is a prepositional verb phrase by definition (verb + preposition). A "phrasal verb" grammatical equation is verb + adverb. The word "of" is a preposition introducing a direct object, not a adverb modifying the verb.
Scott
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
Actually, Scott, I had a conversation late last night with a college-level English teacher (my wife!) on this subject. (I had intended to keep her out of this, but the whole issue had so occupied my subconscious that I figured I'd ask her rather than waiting on another commonground member.) She informed me that "disposed of" is a phrasal (or compound) verb, and consequently the word "of" is not a preposition as used here but rather a component of the phrasal verb. So there's no need for a direct object in this case.
Complicated grammar, and not really something we learn effectively in the kind of freshman-English course that engineers and other technical folks typically take as a "terminal" course. Don't know that I've ever met an engineer, geologist or environmental scientist who took any English course (other than maybe a literature review) beyond the freshman prerequisite.
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
I've looked up compound verbs, and phrasal verbs (again), to find any reference to the grammar mechanics you mentioned. I can not seemto find any ... currently ... I will keep looking. Unfortunately, "my wife" is not a reference that has convincing weight behind it. Can you give an on-line citation or link to a website reflecting your claim. I will concede the point of my blog IF your claim can be documented.
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
Scott: I think the best case I can make is the existence of the phrasal words "unheard-of," "undreamed of" and "well-thought-of," none of which takes a direct object although the preposition "of" is at the end of each. I think in all these phrasal words, as in "disposed of," the word "of" is used as an adverb rather than a preposition. Many prepositions are also used as adverbs depending upon context, though "of" is seldom used thus. 'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'
See the online Cambridge dictionary for examples of phrasal words containing "of" - most of which, admittedly, require a direct object.
Regardless, given the paucity of alternatives to concisely describe removal for offsite disposal via landfilling (or other unspecified disposition) of contaminated media, I'll follow James J. Kilpatrick's rule (other indications being ambiguous) to find the useful phrase and just use it. If Bill Shakespeare could do it, so can I. :o)
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
Final comment here. If one perceives "disposed of" to be a phrasal verb that requires a preposition ("of") to have a direct object, that object is "soil" in each of the example sentences you provided. (The direct object need not come after the preposition.) So even if we go down that road, "disposed of" rather than "disposed" seems to me to be the correct usage in all of your example sentences.
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
I want to get back to your responses soon, I'm just slammed at work right now. But really quickly, by definition any time you use a preposition the direct object MUST come after it, that is why it is a prepositional phrase. As to the location of the direct object for a prepositional verb phrase, I believe it follows the same rule.
As for your previous examples ... I would not use any of them in technical writing. They are applicable to creative writing. I would not argue their use in that style. I also do creative writing on the side and do not follow the same stringent guidelines as I do in my technical writing. Some of my blogs (e.g. this one) are posted to clear up the blurry line between creative writing and technical writing.
I want to look into your other commentary further, I just need to find time. If that was your final comment, then I have enjoyed our discourse and hope you comment more at a later date. You have prompted me to look into the matter further.
Scott
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
"...by definition any time you use a preposition the direct object MUST come after it, that is why it is a prepositional phrase."
This is not a hard and fast rule. "There was no evidence of PCBs above the foundation slab, none within it, and none underneath." Nothing wrong with this sentence at all, though the object of "underneath" is clearly "slab."
Further, I disagree that a Phase I report (or other environmental project report) is truly "technical writing" as the term applies to a paper submitted to a refereed journal or to a dissertation. It's a business report, and consequently straddles the line between technical and casual writing (IMO). In my experience, those who treat routine client reports as "technical writing" are most likely to write stilted, hard-to-read prose.
Bottom line: our job is to communicate effectively to our clients and other project stakeholders, and that's the rule I try to follow above all else.
So I guess when I said above, "final comment here," I lied. Mea maxima culpa.
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
By definition of a prepositional verb the direct object MUST come after the verb. See link to Richard Nordquist explanation of prepositional verbs below.
Scott
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
"In a prepositional verb the direct object MUST come after the verb." Now that's a definitive comment I can't really believe in.
:o)
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
Normally I dissuade anyone from using definitives [believe it or not : )], but I was emphasizing the definition of prepositional verb phrases.
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
I'll clarify my statement, for a prepositional phrase the object MUST come directly after the preposition; however, as I indicated in answer 4 a preposition can begin a sentence, and yes, it can end a sentence also. I do not believe this is the best practice in technical writing though. I would have ended your example "... underneath it," with "it" as the object referring back to "the slab."
In accordance with "The Elements of Technical Writing" by Gary Blake and Robert W. Bly, technical reports include (but are not limited to) periodic reports, progress reports, research reports, field reports, recommendation reports, and feasibility reports. Based on the descriptions of each, most of us on CG write progress reports, field reports, recommendation reports, and feasibility reports.
Most reports are bland and boring. Hard-to-read comes across in your capabilities as a writer and your ability to organize and explain data, and sumarize it consicely. It is not determined by your report style.
I do agree with you in the end though, "our job is to communicate effectively to our clients and other project stakeholders, and that's the rule I try to follow above all else."
I contacted Richard Nordquist, Ph.D. for a response on "dispose of," see below.
--------------
Hi Scott. Do you mind if I fuel the discussion rather than attempt to resolve it?
I'd encourage folks to check out the difference between a phrasal verb (http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/phrasalverbterm.htm) and a prepositional verb (http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/prepverb.htm). They look alike but function a bit differently. At the end of the entry for phrasal verb, note the distinction drawn by R.L. Trask. Also, keep in mind that "on" may function either as a particle or a preposition: that is, you'll find "on" attached to both phrasal verbs and prepositional verbs.
Here's my selfish motive. If it turns out that a couple of savvy engineers can't reach an agreement after reading the two glossary items, I'll know that my pages need to be clarified if students are ever to make any sense out of them.
----------------------
Richards home page at About.com com is below:
http://grammar.about.com/bio/Richard-Nordquist-22176.htm
Scott
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
I am going to weigh in with a different approach. I am an engineer, but with a bit of english education beyond the freshman year The grammar of this is so obscure, that it is unlikely that any member of your audience without a PhD in English is going to care at all. Furthermore, grammatical rules are created by actual usage, not English PhDs, so whatever will clearly convey your meaning and "sound right" to your audience is correct.
Regardless of what type of phrase it is, the term "disposed of" is found in RCRA regulations as part of the definition of solid waste, which is "Materials are solid waste if they are abandoned by being disposed of; or..." Therefore it is correct usage for our work, where we are not just conveying technical information, but also demonstrating legal compliance.
Second, the use of the passive tense is discouraged in standard english but encouraged in technical english because the action is usually emphasized over agent. Any of the sentences except 4 could be correct, depending on what you want to tell your audience. If you want to tell them where the soil is, use 1. Who put it there? Use 3. When did it happen? Use 2 or 5, or add "of" to the end of 4. But as Scott said, sentence 4 sound more clear if it is turned around.
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this
Thanks for the comment Danzw. I will agree this discussion does not change any major outlook. I agree, however you use "dispose of," as long as your audience understands, you have met your objective.
This post in not about if you can convey your point, but looking into the mechanics of a specific phrase commonly used in our field. Though our clients may not care, as a reviewer I try to improve my own English skill, and those I review. As I said in the original post "I am not an English professional ... refute my examples ... just post a reference ..." Though grammar can be "obscure" at times, there are defined rules for many parts of English sentence mechanics.
As for regulation language ... I understand your point and I concede it is legally defensible. However, I would not base my professional style on wording presented in regulations ... just my view.
As for passive vs. active, I will agree and disagree (as much as the oxymoronic statement will allow). Historically most technical writing was passive in nature. However, recently you will find more professionals writing in the active tense (still in the minority in general, but the percentage is growing). Active tense brings confidence to your report. It is a subtle approach at confirming to your client that you know what your talking about, instead of sounding wishy-washy. It is only a subtle technique that can not counter gross error. A passive report presenting all data accurately will always be better than an active report with errors (obviously). It comes into play when two accurate reports stand side by side. Who would your client go with? The one that presents data confidently or the one that sounds a little wishy-washy (we're assuming you and the other guy have equal relations with the client of course).
Thank you for sharing your perspective Danzw.
Scott
Reply to this Comment
Be the first to rate this
|
Sign in to rate this