 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006evolving change
Hello everyone. I'm a complete newbie here (and in fact haven't been to a newsgroup in years), so I hope I won't offend anyone due to lack of proper netiquette. I'd also like to apologize upfront the length of this post. I've recently been involved in a debate about the construction of a particular sentence. It is from Liden and Graen 1980 "Generalizability of the Vertical Dyad Linkage Model of Leadership" The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 451-465 (JSTOR has it, if you have access there). The sentence is from p. 455, which I believe was one question in a questionnaire: "How flexible do you believe your supervisor is about evolving change in your job duties and responsibilities?" Specifically, the debate is about the phrase "evolving change". I read "evolving" as the gerund of the verb "evolve", and "change" its object. Hence, the question is asking how flexible the supervisor is about actively effecting positive change in the subordinate's job (giving him/her bigger duties and responsibilities as the subordinate progresses through his/her career, etc.). My opponents think that "evolving" is the present participle of "evolve" and hence an adjective that modifies the noun "change". Therefore, they think that the question is asking how flexible (or perhaps "receptive" might be a better word) the supervisor is about the progressive changes that occur in the subordinate's job, with or without the intervention of the supervisor. Some think that there is no way to tell without context (see below). I believe you can. If "evolving" is an adjective that modifies "change" then "in your job duties and responsibilities" is an adjectival phrase that modifies/specifies "change." Because the question is not talking about any change or the abstract concept of change but specific "change" that occur in your job duties, I think that the phrase "evolving change" needs to be preceded by a definite article: How flexible do you believe your supervisor is about the evolving change(s) in your job duties and responsibilities? If I were an editor, I might also suggest the writer pluralize "change", but that's beside the point. Because the definite article isn't there, I would conclude that "evolving change" must be "gerund+object". What are your expert opinions? (If possible, please make up your mind for the time being right now, as I will present some context below . . . I'd like to know if/how that would make a difference). OK, for some context. The question in the questionnaire comes with a multiple choice: (1) supervisor is enthused about change (2) he is lukewarm about change (3) he sees little need to change (4) he sees no need to change Would you change your mind if you saw this? To me, this list of answers solidifies my reading, since in choices (3) and (4) it is made clear that the supervisor (he) is the subject of the action "to change" (and the object, clearly omitted, is "your job duties and responsibilities") -R > "How flexible do you believe your supervisor is about evolving change > in your job duties and responsibilities?" If it didn't evolve, there would be no change. In my humble opinion, "evolving change" is a Golgafrinchan ship 2 abbreviation for "change".  SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. > If it didn't evolve, there would be no change. In my humble opinion, > "evolving change" is a Golgafrinchan ship 2 abbreviation for "change". But aren't you assuming that "evolve" is, in this case, used as an intransitive? There is, however, a transitive form of the verb: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolve 1. to develop gradually: to evolve a scheme. So one question is, can you "evolve change" (similar to how you can "effect change")? According to Google, you can. A Search for "evolve change" will spit out c. 160,000 hits, most of them misses (e.g., "evolve, change . . ." "evolve/change", etc.), but some definite hits, e.g., ------------ from liabra.org ------------- The above I think is a brilliant explanation of what the profession of software is fundamentally about. It is in my mind about finding ways to evolve change and communicate models and to bring these models to life, even if we acknowledge that they will always be imperfect. -------------------------------------------- > So one question is, can you "evolve change" (similar to how you can > "effect change")? Presumably this means much the same as "change change". The question then arises as to how much of the observed change is due to the change that would have occurred if it had not been altered, and how much is due to the change that happened as the result of someone's altering the change. To the extent that this question is answerable at all, the answer seems to be "Who cares?" > According to Google, you can. A Search for "evolve change" will spit > out c. 160,000 hits, most of them misses (e.g., "evolve, change . . [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > imperfect. > -------------------------------------------- You can find just about any kind of PHB-speak with Google, but unfortunately Google doesn't provide translations into plain English. It would be interesting to know whether the writer of the above had any idea of what he intended to say when writing the above. I doubt that many of the readers did. I myself can't figure out what he meant. I've spent a good deal of my career finding out what the profession of software design is all about. (Let's assume that he was writing about that, for lack of better evidence. "Software" is not in itself a profession.) One of the things that most experts agree on is that clarity is an essential attribute for successful software development. I probably wouldn't trust any software designed by the person you're quoting. In summary, I believe that "evolve change" is a meaningless phrase, to be used only by those airheads who want to pretend that they have something to say when in fact they're saying nothing. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. > I've recently been involved in a debate about the > construction of a particular sentence. The sentence > is from p. 455, which I believe was one question > in a questionnaire: 1 - "How flexible do you believe your supervisor is about evolving change in your job duties and responsibilities?" 2 - "How flexible do you believe your supervisor is about the evolving change(s) in your job duties and responsibilities?" Suggestion #2 has changed the meaning of the sentence: Sentence #1 is asking about the active roll the supervisor has in influencing the changes, but sentence #2 is asking about the how flexible the supervisor is in responding to the changes, over which he has no control or influence. But this is probably just the way I am interpreting the sentence. BR H > Suggestion #2 has changed the meaning of the sentence: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But this is probably just the way I am interpreting the sentence. Yes, Harry, that's exactly my opinion. My opponents in the debate think that Sentence #1 has the same meaning as Sentence #2, i.e., that Sentence #1 is asking about how flexible the supervisor is in responding to the changes, over which he has no control or influence. So do you agree (with me) that from a grammatical viewpoint, we can unequivocally decide on the accurate meaning of the sentence (Sentence #1)? If so, would you agree with me that the deciding factor is the lack of the definite article (and possibly the usage of "change" as either a singular count noun or a non-count noun)? > Yes, Harry, that's exactly my opinion. My opponents in the debate > think that Sentence #1 has the same meaning as Sentence #2, i.e., that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lack of the definite article (and possibly the usage of "change" as > either a singular count noun or a non-count noun)? If i understand the original meaning correctly, then I would probably choose either of these alternatives: a) "How flexible do you believe your supervisor is in influencing change in your job duties and responsibilities?" b) "How flexible do you believe your supervisor is in changing in your job duties and responsibilities?" c) "How flexible do you believe your supervisor is in deciding (selecting) your job duties and responsibilities?" From a purely logical approach, I would think that c) is the original intented question. Regards H > 1 - "How flexible do you believe your supervisor is > about evolving change in your job duties and > responsibilities?" The word "evolve" is used to mean a naturally occuring event. "Evolution" cannot be steered or directed. If it is any manipulation in the evolution then there is another word for it, and that word depends upon the original meaning intended. For example: "... supervisor is about manipulating change in your duties ..." Controling the changes (dictating). "... supervisor is about influencing change in your duties ..." Directing the changes (steering). "... supervisor is about changing your duties..." Changing the duties (deciding). "... supervisor is about driving changes in your ..." Taking an active roll in the changes. The word "about" is a little strange and could be better changed. On 08 Nov 2006, RawheaD wrote -snip- > "How flexible do you believe your supervisor is about evolving > change in your job duties and responsibilities?" [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Some think that there is no way to tell without context (see > below). I believe you can. -snip analysis and multiple choice answers- I think the difficulty is that you're relying on grammar to analyse a sentence written by someone who, I strongly suspect, gave no thought to the grammar of what they wrote. The sentence is ambiguous, and structural analysis isn't really going to make it less ambiguous. My reaction is that it means what you say, and refers to initiating change rather than reacting to it. But that's based on the suspicion that the author wants to use "evolving change" as a buzz- word phrase -- "C'mon guys, we need to evolve some change here" -- rather than on grammatical analysis. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 08 Nov 2006, RawheaD wrote > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > The sentence is ambiguous, and structural analysis isn't really > going to make it less ambiguous. I agree totally with these two paragraphs. > My reaction is that it means what you say, and refers to > initiating change rather than reacting to it. But that's based > on the suspicion that the author wants to use "evolving change" > as a buzz- word phrase -- "C'mon guys, we need to evolve some > change here" -- rather than on grammatical analysis. Illiterate author, yes. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan. Unmunged email: /at/easypeasy.com "Impatience is the mother of misery." > Liden and Graen 1980 "Generalizability of the Vertical Dyad Linkage > Model of Leadership" The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Some think that there is no way to tell without context (see below). I > believe you can. This is a non-standard belief. Your specimen sentence is worded in the special disciplinary jargon of "management science:" and can be fully understood only both: (a) in that special jargon, (b) in its particular context. We know from an experience that questionnaires seldom offer appropriate context (because questionnaire writers usually seek to make every item free-standing or idependent.) The rules of everyday English offer little help because most disciplinary jargons supersede those common rules. Since this question obviously does not deal with the scientific meaning of evolution (emergence of new species), "evolving changes" means in common English "changing changes," i.e. is redundant. The phrase may have a distinct meaning in the jargon of management science but we do not know what it is supposed to be. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) Dear all, Thank you so much for your input. I won't comment on everyone's reply, mostly because I agree with most of what you all say. I'm getting a feeling that the consensus is that the author of the original article is a bad writer (or wrote badly in that particular case). Let's say for the moment that that has been established. I won't dispute it. With that said, I still want to ask: Is there another way to interpret the construction of that sentence? I.e., can you interpret that sentence as if "evolving change" is an adjective+noun, and that "change" means something that happens to the subordinate's job duties/responsibilities without the intervention of the supervisor? Or, is the most logical conclusion that, while written poorly, and probably using disciplinary jargon, "evolving change" is a gerund+object and "change" means something that the supervisor actively brings about? Hmm. Let me rephrase that. Could you forget for a moment that the particular word "evolving" is used and pretend that you see some word with an "ing" ending. You have to decide whether it's an adjective modifying the following noun "change" (which is specified by the adjectival phrase "in your job . . .") OR a gerund of the verb and that "change" is its object. What would be your logical conclusion? > Dear all, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > original article is a bad writer (or wrote badly in that particular > case). Allow me to jump on that bandwagon. But am I the only one who strongly prefers "enthusiastic" to "enthused"? > Let's say for the moment that that has been established. I > won't dispute it. With that said, I still want to ask: Is there [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > gerund+object and "change" means something that the supervisor actively > brings about? If I had to come up with an interpretation, I'd say either is possible and neither is logical. However, "flexible" suggests a response to things outside one's control, so my suspicion is that "evolving" is a participle modifying "change". I disagree with the people who say that in that case "evolving change" is redundant. Evolving change is distinct from sudden change, and the difference could affect how a manager reacts. > Hmm. Let me rephrase that. Could you forget for a moment that the > particular word "evolving" is used and pretend that you see some word > with an "ing" ending. You have to decide whether it's an adjective > modifying the following noun "change" (which is specified by the > adjectival phrase "in your job . . .") OR a gerund of the verb and that > "change" is its object. What would be your logical conclusion? In some sentences (with no article before the -ing word, and other conditions may be required), the only way to tell is semantics. He hates running races. He hates running faucets. SignatureJerry Friedman jerry_friedman@yahoo.com said: > In some sentences (with no article before the -ing word, and other > conditions may be required), the only way to tell is semantics. He > hates running races. He hates running faucets. I agree about those two sentences, but they're not quite analogous to the sentence in question, insofar as there can be two interpretations for "evolving change". And I believe there can, as is proven by Google search results for "evolve chage" -- clearly, regardless of how sound the usage is, some people believe that "change" can be the object of the transitive "evolve". Races rarely run. Faucets are more likely to be in the state of running than being run. So, a more analogous sentence might be: He hates running water. That can be interpreted either way -- he hates the act of running water / he hates looking at water that is not still. So, to make it more analogous to the sentence in question, let's put an adjectival phrase behind water: He hates running water in the back yard. Here, "in the back yard" specifies water. In my opinion, this sentence *cannot* be interpreted either way; because of the lack of the definite article, "running water" is not an adj+noun, but rather "gerund+object". That's the logic I used to interpret the sentence in question. So, is there a flaw in it? RawheaD said: > So, to make it more analogous to the sentence in question, let's put an > adjectival phrase behind water: > > He hates running water in the back yard. Oops, that's my bad. "In the bak yard" only would be an "adjectival phrase" if "running water" is adj+noun. Rephrase that: ". . . let's put a modifier phrase behind water:" > RawheaD said: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > phrase" if "running water" is adj+noun. Rephrase that: ". . . let's > put a modifier phrase behind water:" That one's ambiguous for me too. He hates to run water in the back yard, or he hates having running water in the back yard. SignatureJerry Friedman On 11月8日, 午後6:00, "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote: >That one's ambiguous for me too. He hates to run water in the back > yard, or he hates having running water in the back yard. OK, that pretty much sums it up for me. The sentence, in and of itself, is ambiguous. The choice of construction and/or words was bad. One final question: do the multiple choice answers (3) and (4) disambiguate the meaning of the sentence? I.e., in that "change" is not something that occurs naturally but something that the supervisor instigates? Just to reiterate: I'm referring to the following multiple choice answers, which followed the question/sentence in question: (1) supervisor is enthused about change (2) he is lukewarm about change (3) he sees little need to change (4) he sees no need to change >>Peter >>The only way to decide is to ask the person who wrote it what he intended to say. That is a great point, and actually I already have. I'm sorry I didn't disclose that piece of information earlier, but I wanted to ask you all how you would interpret the sentence, purely from a grammatical/analytical perspective. FYI, the first author, Dr. Liden, assured me that my reading was exactly what he intended it to be --> i.e., he used "evolving change" as a gerund+object, and he meant that the "change" is what is instigated by the supervisor. Thanks again for all your input. -R [...] > Allow me to jump on that bandwagon. But am I the only one who strongly > prefers "enthusiastic" to "enthused"? [...] No, you aren't. The transitive and intransitive verb "to enthuse" is now established, but I think it should be kept within its verbish bounds. In this case, by drawing our attention to the process of enthusing, it rather suggests that the supervisor has, perhaps recently, been _made_ enthusiastic, and I don't think that's meant. Had a look at the Greek original, and while a case could be made for "enthuse", it looks as though a more regular Anglicising would be "enthusiate". I pass. SignatureMike. > Hmm. Let me rephrase that. Could you forget for a moment that the > particular word "evolving" is used and pretend that you see some word > with an "ing" ending. You have to decide whether it's an adjective > modifying the following noun "change" (which is specified by the > adjectival phrase "in your job . . .") OR a gerund of the verb and > that "change" is its object. What would be your logical conclusion? In a clearly-written piece, context provides the answer, because the context will show that only one of the two possibilities makes any sense. I accept your analysis that there are two possible interpretations, but it is impossible by syntactical analysis alone to decide which of the two was intended. The required context is missing, meaning that there are still two possible interpretations. The only way to decide is to ask the person who wrote it what he intended to say. Ten to one, the answer will be that he wasn't sure what he intended to say, because he used a buzzword without thinking about what it meant. This might at least lead him to discover that designing questionnaires is not one of his strong points, and that he should move into a job (e.g. management or politics) where vagueness and ambiguity (i.e. saying things without revealing any information) are positive assets. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. > Hello everyone. I'm a complete newbie here (and in fact haven't been to > a newsgroup in years), so I hope I won't offend anyone due to lack of [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > progressive changes that occur in the subordinate's job, with or > without the intervention of the supervisor. I read it the way you do. IOW, you're right. Adrian > "How flexible do you believe your supervisor is about evolving change > in your job duties and responsibilities?" I must admit that, on first reading, I took it to be a misuse of "evolve", when "initiate" was meant, but I can see how it could be an adjective. Of course, the whole sentence is NewSpeak. How can my supervisor be flexible about change in my duties? By putting up with changes I make, or by introducing pointless and random changes of his/her own out of sadism? Pure Dilbert. SignatureRob Bannister > > "How flexible do you believe your supervisor is about evolving change > > in your job duties and responsibilities?" > Of course, the whole sentence is NewSpeak. How can my > supervisor be flexible about change in my duties? By putting up with > changes I make, or by introducing pointless and random changes of > his/her own out of sadism? Pure Dilbert. I had interpreted the question as a tool seeking my opinion as to how I believe my supervisor is amending/modifying my work assignments, in order to suite new (non-stated) conditions (such as my abilities/disabilities, customer requirements, my home-life eg. picking the kids up from school, visits to my brain analyst, state of alcoholic intoxication, etc.). Ok, the way I derive the "intended meaning" from the sentence is: The sentence begins by for asking my opinion of a statement. The statement is: "your supervisor" is "flexible" at "evolving changes" to "your job". I don't know about "NewSpeak", but I see the sentence formulation as just another example of "CorpoCrapp". On 11月9日, 午前2:23, "Harry Lethall" <oei...@NOSPAAM.hotmail.com> wrote: > I had interpreted the question as a tool seeking my opinion as to how I > believe my supervisor is amending/modifying my work assignments, in order to > suite new (non-stated) conditions (such as my abilities/disabilities, > customer requirements, my home-life eg. picking the kids up from school, > visits to my brain analyst, state of alcoholic intoxication, etc.). That's exactly how I interpreted the sentence. I don't know about "NewSpeak" or "CorpoCrapp" but being that this is from an academic journal on management science, I did have an inkling that "evolving change" was some kind of technical (disciplinary) jargon. > That's exactly how I interpreted the sentence. I don't know about > "NewSpeak" or "CorpoCrapp" but being that this is from an academic > journal on management science, I did have an inkling that "evolving > change" was some kind of technical (disciplinary) jargon. Science! I should have guessed that when I saw the word "evolving". Don't listen to them scientists, they talk a lot of rubbish. That's why we stopped using the term "creation science". We didn't want anyone confusing us clean-living intelligently designed folks with scientists. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >On 11?9?, ??2:23, "Harry Lethall" <oei...@NOSPAAM.hotmail.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >journal on management science, I did have an inkling that "evolving >change" was some kind of technical (disciplinary) jargon. The problem is when - as I think in this case - you're communicating with "ordinary" people. Had the sentence about "evolving change" been in the technical publication it wouldn't be *too* bad. The thing is, it was used in a questionnaire given to people asking them about their supervisors. We've now spent several days arguing about what it means. Anyone out there have any confidence that the results of the questionnaire have any value at all? SignatureOn-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon >>On 11?9?, ??2:23, "Harry Lethall" <oei...@NOSPAAM.hotmail.com> >>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >there have any confidence that the results of the questionnaire have any >value at all? Not me. I'd have confidence in the value of the results. I would probably have no more confidence even if the meaning of the question had been clear. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>On 11?9?, ??2:23, "Harry Lethall" <oei...@NOSPAAM.hotmail.com> >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Not me. I'd have confidence in the value of the results. I would Curses! "no confidence". >probably have no more confidence even if the meaning of the question >had been clear. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.