Reading an NHK Easy news article today, I came across the following sentence (emphasis mine):


Which I have interpreted to mean

Various companies are coming up with new technologies using images to prevent the spread of novel coronavirus and prevent people from gathering (into groups).

However, my interpretation requires a leap of faith, as I cannot explain why the 〜て phrase (describing manner of action) appears between the two 〜ように clauses while applying to both, nor why this is a valid way to join two clauses (eg why not 〜ようにして。。。〜ようにする or 〜ようにしたり。。。ようにしたりする or similar).

Is this an acceptable/typical placement of a 〜て phrase, or is my interpretation simply off the mark?

1 Answer 1


The sentence sounds quite natural. I'm not really sure about why you're confused, so I'll just break down the sentence into the basic parts. First, the basic sentence here is:

A lot of companies are thinking about new ways/techniques.

This clause:

Use videos so that people do not gather.

is describing what comes after it, which in this case is 技術. So when you put these together, you get:

A lot of companies are thinking about ways (of using videos so that people do not gather).

The part of the sentence in parenthesis is the relative clause describing 技術. This is the second dependent clause in the sentence:

So that the coronavirus does not spread.

You can also add this to the basic sentence, which you get:

A lot of companies are thinking (about new techniques) so that the coronavirus does not spread.

Here, the ように is describing 考えています. The companies are thinking so that the coronavirus does not spread. You can then put all these clauses together to again get the full sentence.

So that the coronavirus doesn't spread, a lot of companies are thinking of new techniques that use videos.

I hope this helps. The first ように and second ように are not related. 使って is just part of the clause that is created by the second ように.

  • I had been operating under the impression that ように。。。ようにする functioned similar to たり。。。たりする, which I now see was incorrect. When looking at the meaning of the two clauses separately, it becomes clear. Thanks!
    – frog
    Commented Oct 12, 2020 at 18:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .