# make sure ... that girls can go against the gender stereotypes



## raymondaliasapollyon

Hi,

The following is an excerpt from CNN. Ameera is a character in a puppet show. I'm wondering how the that-clause following the dash connects to the preceding text.

“Ameera is a really fun and cool girl,” said Deborah Marie Rodríguez García, education manager of humanitarian programs at Sesame Workshop. “She loves sports, and she loves science, technology, engineering and math. We wanted to *make sure that that is represented as well ─ that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.*”

Is the author treating the post-dash that-clause as the object of "make sure" so that he or she means the following? I don't think that's likely.

We wanted to *make sure that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases*.

I'd appreciate your help.


----------



## grassy

We wanted to make sure that that (= that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases) is represented as well.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

grassy said:


> We wanted to make sure that that (= that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases) is represented as well.



Are you sure that's how English works?

When we refer forward to a proposition, the pronoun to be used is typically "this."


----------



## grassy

Enabling girls to do sports and study science, technology, engineering and math _is_ going against stereotypes and biases.

She's just further explaining the point she made earlier.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Why not simply remove the post-dash "that" then?

We wanted to *make sure that that is represented as well ─ girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.*

Now there are two independent clauses.

The way the original is written, the post-dash that-clause is hard to accommodate in the sentence as a whole.


----------



## grassy

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> We wanted to *make sure that that is represented as well ─ girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.*


This wouldn't be an improvement. The clause after the dash sounds like a statement unconnected grammatically to anything that was said before.

The intention of the speaker was to explain _what exactly_ they wanted to make sure was represented.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

grassy said:


> This wouldn't be an improvement. The clause after the dash sounds like a statement unconnected grammatically to anything that was said before.
> 
> The intention of the speaker was to explain _what exactly_ they wanted to make sure was represented.



Grammatically, the function of the dash is quite loose. It doesn't require the two joining clauses to be in a main-subordinate relationship.

It can introduce a statement that functions as a free-standing sentence.

The real grammatical issue is how to accommodate the post-dash that-clause in the main clause.

If the sentence were the following, then the issue wouldn't arise:

We wanted to *make sure that the belief is represented as well ─ that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.*”

Here, the post-dash that-clause serves as the appositive clause to "the belief."


----------



## grassy

I can't see why the post-dash that-clause can't stand in apposition to the second 'that' in the main clause.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

grassy said:


> I can't see why the post-dash that-clause can't stand in apposition to the second 'that' in the main clause.



Are you referring to the original sentence or the new example?

I am not saying it cannot. Quite the opposite, the new example is correct. I said, "If the sentence were the following, *then the issue wouldn't arise."*


----------



## grassy

I was referring to the original sentence. Your new sentence replace$ the second 'that' with 'the belief'.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Now I see you're referring to the original:

*We wanted to make sure that that is represented as well ─ that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.”*

The problem is, if the post-dash that-clause stands in apposition to the second "that," we could derive something odd *─ * a "that" taking a that-clause!


??? That that the earth is round is taken as a fact.
Cf. The belief that the earth is round is taken as a fact.


----------



## MattiasNYC

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Why not simply remove the post-dash "that" then?



But the original is within quotes so it is attributed to a speaker, so as long as it isn't in written form CNN itself shouldn't alter the sentence but leave it standing.

I would argue that the way the sentence _sounds when read _it is idiomatic. My impression is that this way of speaking to clarify a point isn't particularly unusual.

Also:



> Ameera is a really fun and cool girl,” said Deborah Marie Rodríguez García, education manager of humanitarian programs at Sesame Workshop. “*She loves sports, and she loves science, technology, engineering and math.* We wanted to make sure that *that *is represented as well ─ that *girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.”*



The "that" in green basically refers to the previous part in green, and the part in blue in a way explains the meaning of the part in green and why it is important.


----------



## Chasint

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> “Ameera is a really fun and cool girl,” said Deborah Marie Rodríguez García, education manager of humanitarian programs at Sesame Workshop. “She loves sports, and she loves science, technology, engineering and math. We wanted to *make sure that that is represented as well ─ *


“She loves sports, and she loves science, technology, engineering and math. We wanted to make sure that* that love of sports and science etc.* is represented as well ─ [We wanted to make sure] that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.”


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Chasint said:


> “She loves sports, and she loves science, technology, engineering and math. We wanted to make sure that* that love of sports and science etc.* is represented as well ─ [We wanted to make sure] that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.”



I have no problem with "that love of sports and science, etc." 
However, "We wanted to make sure that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases" is problematic, not syntactically, but semantically.

When someone makes sure that someone else does something, he or she ensures that thing will happen.
But who is in a position to make sure that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases? Probably only government officials.

But a person involved in the making of the puppet show is not in such a position. He or she cannot achieve that ambitious goal with a puppet show.


----------



## Roxxxannne

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But a person involved in the making of the puppet show is not in such a position. He or she cannot achieve that ambitious goal with a puppet show.



The speaker could well have meant that in the context of the show she wants to make sure girls can be represented as "go[ing] against the gender stereotypes and biases."

The original sentence sounds fine to me as idiomatic spoken American English.  Spoken American English doesn't always conform to grammatical rules, even when spoken by people who are well educated and have absorbed all the rules customs of grammar at a young age.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Roxxxannne said:


> The speaker could well have meant that in the context of the show she wants to make sure girls can be represented as "go[ing] against the gender stereotypes and biases."
> 
> The original sentence sounds fine to me as idiomatic spoken American English.  Spoken American English doesn't always conform to grammatical rules, even when spoken by people who are well educated and have absorbed all the rules customs of grammar at a young age.




"We wanted to make sure that girls can be represented as going against the gender stereotypes and biases" makes sense.

But that is very different from "We wanted to make sure that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases." To use the latter to mean the former is rather sloppy; it's like something a person with senile dementia or some form of aphasia would say.


----------



## MattiasNYC

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> "We wanted to make sure that girls can be represented as going against the gender stereotypes and biases" makes sense.
> 
> But that is very different from "We wanted to make sure that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases." To use the latter to mean the former is rather sloppy; it's like something a person with senile dementia or some form of aphasia would say.



Did you read my post? I explained in that post why the paragraph makes sense semantically. And in a way so did grassy. The last part is a way of explaining the broader meaning or scope of the first part.

_“*She loves sports, and she loves science, technology, engineering and math."*_

That is basically just a list of things that she likes.

*"We wanted to make sure that that is represented"*

This section refers to the first section.

*"girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.”*

This provides a larger context and offers broader meaning to the first part. It's basically telling you that the list is just examples of things that people feel aren't a part of the stereotypical female gender, which in turn means that the list is not exhaustive. It allows the listener to draw a broader conclusion. 

I think the meaning is clear and it sounds idiomatic to me.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

MattiasNYC said:


> Did you read my post? I explained in that post why the paragraph makes sense semantically. And in a way so did grassy. The last part is a way of explaining the broader meaning or scope of the first part.
> 
> _“*She loves sports, and she loves science, technology, engineering and math."*_
> 
> That is basically just a list of things that she likes.
> 
> *"We wanted to make sure that that is represented"*
> 
> This section refers to the first section.
> 
> *"girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.”*
> 
> This provides a larger context and offers broader meaning to the first part. It's basically telling you that the list is just examples of things that people feel aren't a part of the stereotypical female gender, which in turn means that the list is not exhaustive. It allows the listener to draw a broader conclusion.
> 
> I think the meaning is clear and it sounds idiomatic to me.



Did you read my reply to grassy? That account, though intutively plausible on the semantic level, is hard to reconcile with a standard grammmatical analysis.  How does the post-dash that-clause in the original integrate into the main clause in syntactic terms?


----------



## Chasint

> We wanted to *make sure that that is represented as well ─ that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.*”



We wanted to make sure that it is represented [in our puppet show, by the puppets], that girls can ...

The puppets represent girls who are going against gender stereotypes.

I see no problem with this statement.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Chasint said:


> We wanted to make sure that it is represented [in our puppet show, by the puppets], that girls can ...
> 
> I see no problem with this statement.



Your version is okay in syntactic terms. Note that you have the dummy pronoun "it" in the  that-clause following "make sure." And the "it" refers to the that-clause beginning with "that girls can..."

However, the original version, which does not have the dummy "it" but "that," cannot be analyzed that way.

The original is as odd as "We take that for granted that the earth is round," analytically speaking.


----------



## Chasint

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> ...
> 
> The original is as odd as "We take that for granted that the earth is round," analytically speaking.


That would not be odd with added punctuation and context.

John: If the Earth is not round, then my name is not John.
Bill: We take that for granted, that the earth is round

This distinguishes between, "We take for granted that the Earth is round", and "We take for granted that your name is John"


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Chasint said:


> That would not be odd with added punctuation and context.
> 
> John: If the Earth is not round, then my name is not John.
> Bill: We take that for granted, that the earth is round
> 
> This distinguishes between, "We take for granted that the Earth is round", and "We take for granted that your name is John"



Does the following revision work?

We wanted to make sure that that is represented as well ─ the idea that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.


----------



## MattiasNYC

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Your version is okay in syntactic terms. Note that you have the dummy pronoun "it" in the  that-clause following "make sure." And the "it" refers to the that-clause beginning with "that girls can..."
> 
> However, the original version, which does not have the dummy "it" but "that," cannot be analyzed that way.



Why not? What difference does it make if the speaker uses "it" instead of "that"?



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The original is as odd as "We take that for granted that the earth is round," analytically speaking.



It isn't though. What you just wrote lacks the hyphen, that's the difference.

Again, if this is a transcription of speech you have to imagine someone speaking. Someone saying the original sentence likely won't say it the way someone would say the sentence without the hyphen. Chasint used a comma instead of hyphen and it has a similar result when spoken.

The hyphen is there for a reason.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

MattiasNYC said:


> Why not? What difference does it make if the speaker uses "it" instead of "that"?
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't though. What you just wrote lacks the hyphen, that's the difference.
> 
> Again, if this is a transcription of speech you have to imagine someone speaking. Someone saying the original sentence likely won't say it the way someone would say the sentence without the hyphen. Chasint used a comma instead of hyphen and it has a similar result when spoken.
> 
> The hyphen is there for a reason.



Could you cite an example with "that" referring forward to a that-clause in reputable sources?
The said construction is not seen in most standard grammars.


----------



## MattiasNYC

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Could you cite an example with "that" referring forward to a that-clause in reputable sources?
> The said construction is not seen in most standard grammars.



I *don't* think the word "that" in question refers forward, *it refers back to the previous sentence*.



> Ameera is a really fun and cool girl,” said Deborah Marie Rodríguez García, education manager of humanitarian programs at Sesame Workshop. “*She loves sports, and she loves science, technology, engineering and math.* We wanted to make sure that *that *is represented as well ─ that *girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.”*



I wrote: "The "that" in green basically refers to the previous part in green, and the part in blue in a way explains the meaning of the part in green and why it is important."

Think about it this way:

*"She loves sports, and she loves science, technology, engineering and math.*
We wanted to make sure that *that *is represented as well."

"Why are _those _things important?"

"Because it shows *that **girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.”*

I think "that" (green) refers back.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

MattiasNYC said:


> I *don't* think the word "that" in question refers forward, *it refers back to the previous sentence*.
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote: "The "that" in green basically refers to the previous part in green, and the part in blue in a way explains the meaning of the part in green and why it is important."
> 
> Think about it this way:
> 
> *"She loves sports, and she loves science, technology, engineering and math.*
> We wanted to make sure that *that *is represented as well."
> 
> "Why are _those _things important?"
> 
> "Because it shows *that **girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.”*
> 
> I think "that" (green) refers back.



Maybe "refer" as it is used in post #24 is not a proper word.
I should have phrased my statement more carefully: Have you seen any instances of "that" connected *forward *to a that-clause like " that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases" in standard written sources?


----------



## MattiasNYC

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Maybe "refer" as it is used in post #24 is not a proper word.
> I should have phrased my statement more carefully: Have you seen any instances of "that" connected *forward *to a that-clause like " that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases" in standard written sources?



If that's not how the word is used here then there is no reason to discuss it.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

MattiasNYC said:


> If that's not how the word is used here then there is no reason to discuss it.



There is. The reason for discussing it is the *grammatical mechanism *for linking "that" with a following that-clause, a phenomenon that is not acknowledged in (most) standard reference works and thus merits scholarly attention.


----------



## MattiasNYC

You originally asked:



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> *Is the author treating the post-dash that-clause as the object of "make sure" so that he or she means the following? *I don't think that's likely.
> 
> We wanted to *make sure that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases*.



I think "we" answered that question "no". We also explained how we interpret the paragraph. 

It now looks as if you want to argue why the interpretation we _don't _have is wrong. I see no point in that.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

MattiasNYC said:


> You originally asked:
> 
> 
> 
> I think "we" answered that question "no". We also explained how we interpret the paragraph.
> 
> It now looks as if you want to argue why the interpretation we _don't _have is wrong. I see no point in that.




The sentence involves more than one facet. It seems that you overlook the very beginning of the question:

The following is an excerpt from CNN. Ameera is a character in a puppet show. *I'm wondering how the that-clause following the dash connects to the preceding text.*

Answering "no" to "We wanted to *make sure that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases" *by no means addresses how the grammatical mechanism works.

Any serious pursuit of language learning involves grammar. There's simply no way to shun it.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

A native speaker commented on the original as follows:


*It could be better worded. *_An example: "Ameera loves sports, and she loves science, technology, engineering, and math. We wanted Ameera to represent that - the idea that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases"._

Why did he say, "It could be better worded"? This seems to be a suggestion that the original sentence is somewhat *sloppy*.


----------



## MattiasNYC

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> A native speaker commented on the original as follows:
> 
> 
> *It could be better worded. *_An example: "Ameera loves sports, and she loves science, technology, engineering, and math. We wanted Ameera to represent that - the idea that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases"._
> 
> Why did he say, "It could be better worded"? This seems to be a suggestion that the original sentence is somewhat *sloppy*.



Even in the rewritten sentence you just quoted the word "that" refers/connects _back _to what came before it. *If* it didn't do that and instead referred/connected 'forward' then you wouldn't need the word at all: 

_We wanted Ameera to represent that - the idea that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases". 
We wanted Ameera to represent the idea that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases". _



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The sentence involves more than one facet. It seems that you overlook the very beginning of the question:
> 
> The following is an excerpt from CNN. Ameera is a character in a puppet show. *I'm wondering how the that-clause following the dash connects to the preceding text.*



I've answered that three times.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

MattiasNYC said:


> I've answered that three times.



*Grammatically speaking*, not even once.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

MattiasNYC said:


> Even in the rewritten sentence you just quoted the word "that" refers/connects _back _to what came before it. *If* it didn't do that and instead referred/connected 'forward' then you wouldn't need the word at all:
> 
> _We wanted Ameera to represent that - the idea that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases".
> We wanted Ameera to represent the idea that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases". _



The version with a cross next to it (retaining the "that" that has been struck through by you) is supplied by a native speaker. Do you think he is unrepresentative of the average native speaker?

The version with a check next to it is unremarkable. What deserves to be disccussed, as I have repeated over and over, is *the grammatical mechanism that links the "that" to the post-dash that-clause in the original.*

Why are you shunning it?


----------



## MattiasNYC

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The version with a cross next to it (retaining the "that" that has been struck through by you) is supplied by a native speaker. Do you think he is unrepresentative of the average native speaker?



No he probably isn't unrepresentative and I'm not arguing that the sentence couldn't have been written better. I'm just telling you that what he wrote doesn't change the way the sentence's word "that" functions, because if it did then my version would be more concise and neat (the one with the check mark).

And for the record: I've lived in the US since 1996 and started studying English in school back in 1981. I'm probably more fluent in US English than Swedish at this point. You wouldn't know that of course but it seems prudent to point that out now.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> What deserves to be disccussed, as I have repeated over and over, is *the grammatical mechanism that links the "that" to the post-dash that-clause in the original.*



Why does it deserve to be discussed when that's not what the word in the sentence is doing? You seem intent on discussing the justification for how a word _doesn't _function in a sentence. The "that" doesn't link to the "post-dash that-clause", it links to what preceded it. You even argued that if it 'connects forward' the sentence seems "odd" to you. The solution to the sentence seeming "odd" to you isn't to try to find a justification for that oddness but rather to just see the sentence as I did, as "that" referring backward.

Roxxxannne's reply bears repeating.



Roxxxannne said:


> *The original sentence sounds fine to me as idiomatic spoken American English.  Spoken American English doesn't always conform to grammatical rules, even when spoken by people who are well educated and have absorbed all the rules customs of grammar at a young age.*



Anyway, good luck finding an answer.


----------



## Roxxxannne

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Hi,
> 
> The following is an excerpt from CNN. Ameera is a character in a puppet show. I'm wondering how the that-clause following the dash connects to the preceding text.
> 
> “Ameera is a really fun and cool girl,” said Deborah Marie Rodríguez García, education manager of humanitarian programs at Sesame Workshop. “She loves sports, and she loves science, technology, engineering and math. We wanted to *make sure that that is represented as well ─ that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.*”
> 
> Is the author treating the post-dash that-clause as the object of "make sure" so that he or she means the following? I don't think that's likely.
> 
> We wanted to *make sure that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases*.
> 
> I'd appreciate your help.


The em dash is crucial.  It represents a break with the syntax of 'that is represented as well.'   Everything after the em dash is a restatement of "make sure that that is represented as well."  
The sentence is spoken, on-the-fly English.  The speaker may be picking up a subtle cue from the interviewer and realizing she needs to wrap up the sentence in a punchier way that she was about to.  She's revising in midsentence which, I think, is perfectly normal.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

MattiasNYC said:


> No he probably isn't unrepresentative and I'm not arguing that the sentence couldn't have been written better. I'm just telling you that what he wrote doesn't change the way the sentence's word "that" functions, because if it did then my version would be more concise and neat (the one with the check mark).



I don't see why you put a cross next to his sentence.
There is something different in the way he cast his sentence. "the idea that ..." is a *noun phrase* that enters into an appositive relation with the pronoun _that_.

_We wanted Ameera to represent that - the idea that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases"._

A noun phrase appositive to a pronoun is definitely okay:

He, *a retired solder who fought in the Gulf War*, is now a farmer.

On the other hand, the original sentence, with "that" and the post-dash that-clause connected in some way, is not any type of construction that has been discussed in any reference works. I am not saying it's incorrect, but it's dubious as it is.



MattiasNYC said:


> Why does it deserve to be discussed when that's not what the word in the sentence is doing? You seem intent on discussing the justification for how a word _doesn't _function in a sentence. The "that" doesn't link to the "post-dash that-clause", it links to what preceded it. You even argued that if it 'connects forward' the sentence seems "odd" to you. The solution to the sentence seeming "odd" to you isn't to try to find a justification for that oddness but rather to just see the sentence as I did, as "that" referring backward.



Well, you are operating with an assumption that is very different from grammarians' or linguists'. As long as the post-dash that-clause is there and related to *any part of the sentence prior to the dash*, it needs to be accounted for in syntactic terms.  How is it represented in a tree diagram, for example? Is it an appositive, an adjunct, etc.?

You just can't ignore those things.



MattiasNYC said:


> Roxxxannne's reply bears repeating.



In matters about such peripheral structures, it is always important to consult more than one native speaker's judgment. Another AmE speaker says:

_But "We wanted to make sure that this is represented as well ─ that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.", _*can sound a bit off.*


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Roxxxannne said:


> The sentence is spoken, on-the-fly English.  The speaker may be picking up a subtle cue from the interviewer and realizing she needs to wrap up the sentence in a punchier way that she was about to.  She's revising in midsentence which, I think, is perfectly normal.



I agree that people (who speak any language natively) may revise what they are saying in midsentence. That's perfectly normal behavior. But whether the resulting sentence is perfectly normal is a separate matter.


----------



## boozer

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> But whether the resulting sentence is perfectly normal is a separate matter.


The resulting sentence _is_ perfectly normal and, more importantly, understandable. The second 'that' refers to 'the fact that...', as explained later.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

boozer said:


> The resulting sentence _is_ perfectly normal and, more importantly, understandable. The second 'that' refers to 'the fact that...', as explained later.



Upthread, I offered the following version, which is similar to your suggestion that "The second 'that' refers to 'the fact that..."

We wanted to *make sure that the belief is represented as well ─ that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.*”

So, your version, realized with "the fact that," makes sense syntactically, but it's different from the original sentence in respects I find curious.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

boozer said:


> The resulting sentence _is_ perfectly normal and, more importantly, understandable.



"Understandable" is something I would not stress, since many ungrammatical sentences are understandable.
If it's "perfectly normal," could you cite one example or two from reputable written sources?


----------



## boozer

Your own source is not written and how reputable the source is is a questionable affair. It is a transcription of what someone said in a strictly speaking environment. As such, it has been argued by many, myself included, that it covers basic grammar standards and certainly conveys the message accurately.

That a that-clause can be a sentence subject is an undeniable fact.

That a 'that' can refer to anything, including a that-clause that follows, is also clear enough.

That you should find any of that strange is strange in itself.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

boozer said:


> Your own source is not written and how reputable the source is is a questionable affair. It is a transcription of what someone said in a strictly speaking environment. As such, it has been argued by many, myself included, that it covers basic grammar standards and certainly conveys the message accurately.



I agree how reputable the original sourice is is a questionable affair. That echoes my assertion that I find it dubious.
Please also note that whether a sentence conveys a message accurately is a separate matter from whether it is grammatical.



boozer said:


> That a that-clause can be a sentence subject is an undeniable fact.



Agreed, but that's not a bone of contention.



boozer said:


> That a 'that' can refer to anything, including a that-clause that follows, is also clear enough.



Only partially true, I'm afraid. Your statement is true if the that-clause and "that" are separated by a period (or other punctuation marks that establish a proper clausal boundary) or a conjunction,  and they undergo proper syntactic operations. But within a sentence itself, the reference could provoke concerns about combinatorics when the aforementioned devices/operations are not available.



boozer said:


> That you should find any of that strange is strange in itself.



That assertion is true only if you can produce a legitimate example from reputable sources.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Your interest in finding a reputable source suggests that you might think the speaker in the OP is not a reputable source for spoken English.
Deborah Marie Rodríguez García has, according to her impressive LinkedIn profile, "a Masters in International Development from the University of Edinburgh's School of Social and Political Science and a Masters in Modern Languages from Georgia Southern University." She earned her undergraduate degree summa cum laude. She has an impressive professional background, too.
What about her suggests that she is not a reputable source?  Just wondering.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Roxxxannne said:


> Your interest in finding a reputable source suggests that you might think the speaker in the OP is not a reputable source for spoken English.
> Deborah Marie Rodríguez García has, according to her impressive LinkedIn profile, "a Masters in International Development from the University of Edinburgh's School of Social and Political Science and a Masters in Modern Languages from Georgia Southern University." She earned her undergraduate degree summa cum laude. She has an impressive professional background, too.
> What about her suggests that she is not a reputable source?  Just wondering.



The linguist Noam Chomsky once said human speech is full of slips of the tongue, faulty repairs, etc.
For example, when speaking my native language,  I often find myself saying things that I instantly find less than perfect.  Our minds recognize those utterances as faulty, as distinct from grammatically well-formed ones.

The speaker of the OP sentence may have superb credentials, but she is also subject to the demands placed on instantaneous speech, and thus it's not impossible that the utterance may be one of those faulty repairs, etc.


----------



## Roxxxannne

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The linguist Noam Chomsky once said human speech is full of slips of the tongue, faulty repairs, etc.
> For example, when speaking my native language,  I often find myself saying things that I instantly find less than perfect.  Our minds recognize those utterances as faulty, as distinct from grammatically well-formed ones.
> 
> The speaker of the OP sentence may have superb credentials, but she is also subject to the demands placed on instantaneous speech, and thus it's not impossible that the utterance may be one of those faulty repairs, etc.


Agreed, but what did you mean by a "reputable source"?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Roxxxannne said:


> Agreed, but what did you mean by a "reputable source"?



I prefer written sources, because people have more time to plan what they want to say and avoid slips of the tongue, etc.
But then some written sources can be highly unnatural and depart wildly from what's normal, I have to say.


----------



## Roxxxannne

Yes, I agree and have been aware for decades in my teaching and editing career "that written sources can be highly unnatural and depart wildly from what's normal."


----------



## MattiasNYC

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I don't see why you put a cross next to his sentence.



I explained why. I used the word "If" for a reason. Re-read the post and you'll see why that cross is there.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> you are operating with an assumption that is very different from grammarians' or linguists'. As long as the post-dash that-clause is there and related to *any part of the sentence prior to the dash*, it needs to be accounted for in syntactic terms.  How is it represented in a tree diagram, for example? Is it an appositive, an adjunct, etc.?
> 
> You just can't ignore those things.



I don't think a linguist would interpret the sentence any differently than us here in this thread. 



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Another AmE speaker says:
> 
> _But "We wanted to make sure that this is represented as well ─ that girls can go against the gender stereotypes and biases.", _*can sound a bit off.*



Nobody claimed the sentence was "perfectly" formed or was optimal. What we said was that it was fairly clear what it meant and sounded idiomatic.

It seems you just want to convince the rest of us of something, and at this point I don't even know what it is. I don't think you'll find an answer here that you like so perhaps you should find an actual linguist and ask them (?).


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

MattiasNYC said:


> I explained why. I used the word "If" for a reason. Re-read the post and you'll see why that cross is there.



You said the following:

"I'm just telling you that what he wrote doesn't change the way the sentence's word "that" functions, because if it did then my version would be more concise and neat (the one with the check mark)."

However, that has nothing to do with a cross, which is used to signal the sentence in question is wrong in some way. (Linguists would have used an asterisk for that purpose.)




MattiasNYC said:


> I don't think a linguist would interpret the sentence any differently than us here in this thread.



Interpretation is one thing. Structure is another. It's the latter that engages my interest.




MattiasNYC said:


> Nobody claimed the sentence was "perfectly" formed or was optimal. What we said was that it was fairly clear what it meant and sounded idiomatic.



boozer claimsed it's "perfectly normal." 
"Sounded idiomatic" often implies it's correct. If you agree that the sentence is somewhat faulty (or dubious at least), you could have indicated that much earlier.



MattiasNYC said:


> It seems you just want to convince the rest of us of something, and at this point I don't even know what it is. I don't think you'll find an answer here that you like so perhaps you should find an actual linguist and ask them (?).



How could you not know what it is? It is how to anayze the said sentence in syntactic terms.


----------



## Cagey

The topic question has been thoroughly discussed.  People have done their best to explain how they understand the structure of the sentence and why they do not think it faulty. 

You object to the use of 'that' to refer to what follows, but none of the respondents have done objected to that 'that'.  You reject their view, as you are welcome to do.  The people who answer questions in this forum acquired their knowledge of English in various ways-- by formal study, by experience, or a combination of these. If you prefer the authority of written sources, I suggest that in the future you consult them. 

This thread is closed. 

Thank you to everyone who took time to think about the question and respond. 

Cagey, 
moderator


----------

