be made "ing"

Hi, Deepcosmos,

@deepcosmos posted:

We very often see the pattern - "be made ~ing" such in "The movie was made using  a lot of special effects.".

Which will be the correct analysis for this pattern in the following s ?;

1) The movie was made when using  a lot of special effects. (a kind of adverbial clause with the conjunction - 'when' left out)
2) The movie was made of using  a lot of special effects. (the preposition 'of' has been left out, which shows the construction material)
3) The movie was made by means of using  a lot of special effects. (the phrase - 'by means of' has been left out)

In the pattern "be made + V-ing" as in "The movie was made using a lot of special effects," the participial phrase is to be understood as an adverbial of manner (How was the movie made?):

4) The movie was made by using a lot of special effects.

If you want to use only a preposition, you can use "with":

5) The movie was made with  a lot of special effects.

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

Hi, Deepcosmos,

In the pattern "be made + V-ing" as in "The movie was made using a lot of special effects," the participial phrase is to be understood as an adverbial of manner (How was the movie made?):

4) The movie was made by using a lot of special effects.

If you want to use only a preposition, you can use "with":

5) The movie was made with  a lot of special effects.

Hi, Gustavo, appreciate your comment.

About your 4) The movie was made by using a lot of special effects. can I paraphrase it into, "(By) using a lot of special effects, the movie was made."? Then can we say, the verb 'using' in the free adjunct denotes an action to bring about a result described in the main clause like an adverbial clause(a participle clause)?

And the 'by' in this pattern is allowed to be left out freely in any context?

@deepcosmos posted:

We very often see the pattern - "be made ~ing" such in "The movie was made using  a lot of special effects.".

Which will be the correct analysis for this pattern in the followings?;

1) The movie was made when using  a lot of special effects. (a kind of adverbial clause with the conjunction - 'when' left out)
2) The movie was made of using  a lot of special effects. (the preposition 'of' has been left out, which shows the construction material)
3) The movie was made by means of using  a lot of special effects. (the phrase - 'by means of' has been left out)

Hi, Deepcosmos and Gustavo—I think it's important to note that the sentence "The movie was made using a lot of special effects" is in the passive voice, and that the sentence can be transformed to the active voice as follows:

• They made the movie using a lot of special effects.

Even though it is possible to parse "using a lot of special effects" there as a postmodifier of "movie" ("the movie that used a lot of special effect"); however, we know that that parsing does not accord with the intended meaning.

The sensible way to parse "They made the movie using a lot of special effects" is with "using a lot of special effects" as an participial adverbial adjunct modifying "made the movie." Here is how I would paraphrase the sentence:

• They used a lot of special effects in making the movie.

As for the passivized version ("The movie was made using a lot of special effect"), I parse "using a lot of special effects" as an participial adverbial adjunct modifying "was made."

As Gustavo says, the participial phrase answers the question "How did they make the movie." While we can posit a deleted preposition like "by," I don't think the syntax requires it.

@David, Moderator posted:

Hi, Deepcosmos and Gustavo—I think it's important to note that the sentence "The movie was made using a lot of special effects" is in the passive voice, and that the sentence can be transformed to the active voice as follows:

• They made the movie using a lot of special effects.

Even though it is possible to parse "using a lot of special effects" there as a postmodifier of "movie" ("the movie that used a lot of special effect"); however, we know that that parsing does not accord with the intended meaning.

The sensible way to parse "They made the movie using a lot of special effects" is with "using a lot of special effects" as an participial adverbial adjunct modifying "made the movie." Here is how I would paraphrase the sentence:

• They used a lot of special effects in making the movie.

As for the passivized version ("The movie was made using a lot of special effect"), I parse "using a lot of special effects" as an participial adverbial adjunct modifying "was made."

As Gustavo says, the participial phrase answers the question "How did they make the movie." While we can posit a deleted preposition like "by," I don't think the syntax requires it.

Hi, David, you did answer to me, thanks a lot!

I've come to understand what you mean. I prefer the active version to the passive one, since I assume in the passive one - "The movie was made using a lot of special effect" there happens 'misrelated participles' because the subject of the main clause and the implied subject of the participle clause do not match.

Anyhow, always and really appreciate your great helps.

@deepcosmos posted:

I assume in the passive one - "The movie was made using a lot of special effect" there happens 'misrelated participles' because the subject of the main clause and the implied subject of the participle clause do not match.

I don't think that David implied that "using a lot of special effects" was a dangling participle when he stated:

@David, Moderator posted:

As for the passivized version ("The movie was made using a lot of special effect"), I parse "using a lot of special effects" as an participial adverbial adjunct modifying "was made."

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

I don't think that David implied that "using a lot of special effects" was a dangling participle when he stated:

Hi, Gustavo,

This pattern - 'be made using' looks very simple externally but does rather complicated internally to EFL learners.

I think the 'misrelated participles' happened by chance while he intentionally converted the original passive voice into the active one and vice versa in order for me to understand the construction.

Hi, David and Gustavo,

1) The movie was made using  a lot of special effects.

2) Using a crowbar, Hal pried open the top of the crate. (which I think is almost the same with 'Hal pried open the top of the crate using a crowbar.')

When I saw today above sentence 2), by intuition I felt the two '-ing's look similar but have different functions, and the 'Using a crowbar' in 2) could smoothly be paraphrased into 'By using a crowbar', which denotes an action to bring about a result described in the main clause.

Please kindly correct this assumption, if anything wrong.

@deepcosmos posted:

1) The movie was made using  a lot of special effects.

2) Using a crowbar, Hal pried open the top of the crate. (which I think is almost the same with 'Hal pried open the top of the crate using a crowbar.')

When I saw today above sentence 2), by intuition I felt the two '-ing's look similar but have different functions, and the 'Using a crowbar' in 2) could smoothly be paraphrased into 'By using a crowbar', which denotes an action to bring about a result described in the main clause.

I think that, though dangling in a strict sense, participles are not so objectionable if used to describe the method in which things are or were done:

1.a) The movie was made (by) using a lot of special effects. (The use of a lot of special effects made it possible to make the movie.)

2.a) The top of the crate was pried open (by) using a crowbar. (The use of a crowbar made it possible to open the crate.)

@Gustavo, Co-Moderator posted:

I think that, though dangling in a strict sense, participles are not so objectionable if used to describe the method in which things are or were done:

1.a) The movie was made (by) using a lot of special effects. (The use of a lot of special effects made it possible to make the movie.)

2.a) The top of the crate was pried open (by) using a crowbar. (The use of a crowbar made it possible to open the crate.)

Hi, Gustavo, appreciate on your additional comment.