1

I'm trying to explain how to contrast the following two sentences in a meaningful - detailed - way.

I was eating when a bee stung me.

I was eating when I was on a break.

The intention is to teach ESL learners to understand that the first as an "interruption" statement but the second is not.
I'd like to avoid saying "you just have to understand the context".
I feel like the function is different enough that maybe, maybe we can.

Is there a way to define a difference in those two
"when" clauses
to predict the function
based on the grammar of the clause or words?

  • Did this stuff come up in a lesson in a textbook? – michael_timofeev Nov 16 '15 at 13:33
  • 2
    The second is durative stative, so while can be used, while the first is punctual active, so while won't work. The punctual "interruption" sense of when can be replaced by and, because simple time order provides the same effect. – John Lawler Nov 16 '15 at 17:03
  • I would spend some attention on the word on in "on a break". On the phone, on holiday, on a break, on and on. – TRomano Nov 16 '15 at 17:56
  • @michael_timofeev -- nope :) just in class – Mike M Nov 17 '15 at 1:05
  • @JohnLawler- I appreciate those details. Rewriting with "while" certainly makes sense to prevent the question.... I'm really curious if there's any way to answer it as it is... ( I won't be surprised if there is or there isn't ) – Mike M Nov 17 '15 at 1:07
1

[1] I was eating, when a bee stung me.

[2] I was eating when I was on a break.

The when phrases are both adjuncts, but the difference is that in [1] the phrase is a supplement, and in [2] it’s a modifier.

In [2] we have a phrase that is tightly integrated into the structure of the clause, an indispensable part of it. It’s restrictive in that it denotes precisely when I was eating: I was not eating at some random time, but specifically when I was on a break.

By contrast, in [1] we have a non-integrated loosely attached phrase giving some useful but non-essential information. It doesn’t define when you were eating; rather it says that you were eating, and while you were, you happened to be stung by a bee. Loose adjuncts of this kind are called supplements. I’d recommend inserting a comma as shown to mark it as a supplement as opposed to a modifier. In speech, it would typically be marked off by what is perceived as a slight pause. By virtue of being non-integrated, it is semantically non-restrictive.

  • Thanks for all these details. I'm definitely trying to learn this terminology here. What you've done though is unexpectedly add the corollary of whether or not we can add a comma in #1 :-) My informal opinion thinks that using the comma is the answer to separating the two cases. But I didn't put it in my question because several people I've talked to in person say it isn't allowed. Can you point me to some other references that talk about using that comma? – Mike M Nov 17 '15 at 1:10
  • @MikeM the problem you are still going to run into is the valid student question about the use of the word "when." It's all fine and dandy to discuss the clauses and commas but the students are going to come from a practical standpoint and ask for a rule of some sort, or you will find that they start using "when" in ways not acceptable. I haven't had to teach this in a while but when I last did there were all sorts of valid questions about when while and during. – michael_timofeev Nov 17 '15 at 1:28
  • @michael_timofeev -- absolutely. But first things first --- can we find a rule for reading these sentences that doesn't quite depend on "just knowing". Clearly since any answer - if there is one - will be pretty exotic, it will only be useful for the 2 students that are advanced enough to have asked it. But I promised to find one, so here we are :-) – Mike M Nov 17 '15 at 8:35
  • @MikeM yes, I would love to have a generally applicable observation. Professor Lawler's answer gave me some food for thought. I'm hoping some others will comment on this question. Personally, I hate telling students something is idiomatic or you just have to be exposed enough...I prefer to give guidelines and ideas to help them see that English isn't so random and that they can speak it. – michael_timofeev Nov 17 '15 at 8:48
  • @MikeM I don't think there's any doubt that in speech the supplement would be set off by a slight pause, so there's no reason why you can't mark it in writing as a supp by popping in a comma. Most supps are set off that way. Although both when clauses are adjuncts, optional elements rather than obligatory, a pause/comma are still the best indicators here. – BillJ Nov 17 '15 at 9:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.