This is a question from 日本城郭検定 in 2015:

> 今回の指定は、城が完成した年を裏付ける祈祷札の **再発見による所が大きい** 。この祈祷札に書かれていた年号はどれか。

And this is the same question in 2017 edition of the test:

> 2015年の松江城の国宝指定は、城の完成した年を裏付ける祈祷札が **再発見されたことが大きい** 。祈祷札に書かれていた年号はどれか。

i am perfectly fine with the first question: "the designation was largely
influenced by the discovery ...", however I cannot make sense of what happened
in the latter form.

Is it a simple mistake (i.e. it should be in fact 再発見されたことによる所が大きい), or does
the latter question make sense?

And if it is correct and makes sense, why?

By " **why** " I mean: please provide references or examples of the usage of
this form. I can't find any.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-26T22:59:20.467
52713
2017-08-28T23:55:00.863
2017-08-26T23:33:07.007
11104
11104
question
grammar
Is ことが大きい a synonym of による所が大きい?
The latter sentence also makes sense perfectly to me. The second sentence
merely paraphrased the first sentence. It would be easier for you to
understand if you paraphrase 指定は to 指定には.

> 指定は、 **祈祷札の再発見** による所が大きい。

The designation was largely influenced by/contributed by/due to the discovery
of the 祈祷札."

> 指定(に）は、 **祈祷札が再発見された** ことが大きい。

To have been discovered the 祈祷札 is **a big thing/point** regarding the
designation.

This is merely my guess, but the writer basically just wanted to edit 今回の指定 to
2015年の指定, but as he was proceeding to type, he just typed 祈祷札が instead of
祈祷札の. So he had to change the noun 再発見 to the verb 再発見された, and had to change
the rest of the part as well.

> 指定は、 **祈祷札が再発見された** ことによる所が大きい。

This is also grammatically correct, but it seems redundant. So he would have
choose the shorter version.

If you search Google, entering ["ことが大きい。"], you can get a lot of sentences to
use it. This is the evidence that native speakers use this expression,
although you don't think it is correct because there is no explanation by
dictionaries.

In my opinion, ことが大きい may be a little childish than 寄与している所が大きい or some other
"sophisticated" expressions, but it's simple and fundamental, jut like " **a
big thin** g" in English.

Hope this helps.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-26T23:29:49.570
52716
2017-08-26T23:37:52.707
2017-08-26T23:37:52.707
52713
answer
The second example is correct, too.

The first example includes an expression that clearly stands for causal
relationship between the "re-discovery" and the "designation" i.e 再発見によるところ.

On the other hand, the second one apparently lacks it. However, it's natural
for the こと as in 再発見されたこと, especially combined with が大きい, to be interpreted as
a "factor" rather than a mere "thing". In other words, 再発見されたことが大きい can be
translated into "the fact that it was re-discovered was big" or "it being re-
discovered was a major factor".
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-27T00:53:13.803
52719
2017-08-28T23:55:00.863
2017-08-28T23:55:00.863
4092
52713
answer