Have a look at this sentence from Wednesday's post:
The work of the symbolic in institutional processes is embodied in shared sociolinguistic meanings and practices.
it is in the passive voice (to be + past particple of embody) and notice that* both its subject (the work of the symbolic in institutional processes) and its object (shared sociological meanings and practices) are named by rather complex constructions.
Can we give the subject and object of this sentence simpler names?
Institutional symbolism is embodied in shared meanings and practices.
This is still in the passive voice, however. Perhaps, we canLet's try to use "works" instead of "is embodied".
Institutional symbolism works through processes that are embodied in shared meanings and practices.
Was "sociolinguistic" contributing anything? Well, it is hard to imagine unshared sociolinguistic meanings and practices or nonlinguistic meanings or linguistic practices without meaning. So we could probably say:
Institutional symbolism works through processes that are embodied in sociolinguistic practices.
And is there any important difference here between "sociolinguistic practices" and "processes that are embodied in sociolinguistic practices"? Probably not. So we have:
Institutional symbolism works through sociolinguistic practices.
I'm still not entirely sure what I'm looking for. I am trying to demonstrate, however, that the work of understanding a sentence—thinking about what is says—can be supported by the act of editing it—by constructing other sentences. We will continue on Monday.
*See comments. I have made (and Jonathan has corrected) this mistake before.