 |
Daniel Kies Department of English College of DuPage |
|
 |
||
| Modern English
Grammar English 2126 |
Contact Form | |
Clause and Sentence
Current work:
Days remaining this term:
Notes:
Add Note |
Log in? | Privacy | Change Name & Email
Just as words and phrases form the constituents of the clause rank, so too clauses themselves can combine in several ways as the constituents of the sentence. The idea of the sentence, however, is a difficult one for grammar for many reasons. First, when linguists think of language, they tend to think of sound. Sound (speech) is the primary mode of communication in language. And people do not speak in sentences. People speak in words, and phrases, and clauses. Look for example at this sequence of clauses.
[¹] I got very upset [²] because they would not stop talking [³] I eventually had to leave.
Notice that in transcribing this bit of speech we have no difficulty determining the constituent words, phrases, or even the clauses that exist within this example. However, it is much more guess-work to determine the where the sentences are, especially without the aid of intonation. If we wished, we could punctuate these clauses very differently, creating different sentences:
(a) I got very upset, because they would not stop talking. I eventually had to leave.
(b) I got very upset. Because they would not stop talking, I eventually had to leave.
The idea of the sentence is a product of a tendency to think primarily of written language, where standardized writing systems articulate the conventions associated with the written sentence.
Thus, many grammarians prefer to use a more inclusive, more general term when describing the grammatical relationship that holds between two or more clauses - a clause complex. For our purposes, though, we can continue to use the term sentence as long as we remain aware of the limits and biases implied by the more common term.
Sentences are subcategorized by the number and type of clause relationships they exhibit. The first distinction we should make is between the simple and the multiple sentence. The simple sentence has but one clause; the multiple sentence has more than one clause.
The multiple sentence is further distinguished by the type of grammatical relationship that holds between the clauses. If the grammatical relationship is paratactic, the clauses are coordinated. If the grammatical relationship is hypotactic, the clauses are subordinated.
Parataxis is the grammatical arrangement of "equal" constituents, clauses in this case. The word parataxis literally means 'equal' (para) 'arrangement' (taxis). Parataxis is the hallmark of coordination. In most cases, the equality of the clauses is evident both grammatically and semantically. Coordination can link constituents at any rank. It creates parallel grammatical structures - structures that are identical in function and usually form as well. And coordination holds each of the parallel structures at the same grammatical rank (Lakoff 1971 and Martin 1983). Consider the sentences in (1) through (3) below.
(1) I have a story. This story has ruined my life.
(2) I have a story, and this story has ruined my life.
(3) I have a story; this story has ruined my life.
In sentence (1), the two simple sentences (each with one clause) are not overtly linked. Should writers wish to express the link between the two sentences - a link of addition - they can choose overt markers of coordination (such as the conjunction and) or the semicolon. The use of a conjunction (such as and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet) is called syndetic coordination, as in (2). The absence of the coordinator creates asyndetic coordination, as in (3). The use of a coordinator creates what the traditional grammars call a "compound" grammatical structure.
The sentences in (1) through (3) may seem synonymous, but there are subtle, yet significant, differences in meaning. The coordinators themselves create different semantic links between the clauses (Hoey 1986, Hoey and Winter 1986). For example, look at the sentence in (4) through (10):
(4) Sandy left early, and Liz followed. [addition]
(5) The committee felt obligated, but the chairperson did not. [contrast]
(6) The children should leave, or I will. [alternative]
(7) Emily does not want to see the doctor, nor does Liz. [negative alternative]
(8) Liz drove very carefully, for the traffic was unusually heavy. [reason]
(9) Neither side made a convincing argument, so the committee decided to postpone its decision. [result]
(10) The college anticipated the budget cuts, yet it still needed to cut several student programs. [concession]
Now some might think that asyndetic coordination, as in (3), must be identical in meaning to the use of the two separate sentences, as in (1), since no coordinator is present to add a new bit of meaning. However, the implied connections between clauses that are juxtaposed can be just as significant. Consider Caesar's famous use of asyndetic coordination when he juxtaposed these three short clauses and in the process gave us an insight into the egomaniacal soul:
(11) veni, vidi, vici ("I came, I saw, I conquered.")
By the use of asyndetic coordination, Caesar can suggest that the effort he expended on conquering of his territories and enemies was no greater than the effort he expended on simply arriving and observing. Coordination suggests parallelism, an idea that could not be conveyed by three separate, independent sentences in (11).
Hypotaxis, on the other hand, is the arrangement of "unequal" constituents. The word hypotaxis literally means 'beneath' (hypo) 'arrangement' (taxis), and hypotaxis forms the basis of subordination. The inequalities between hypotactic clauses are evident both grammatically and semantically. The subordinate structure takes on the grammatical function of subject, object, complement, or adverbial in the main clause. The subordinate clause is overtly marked as a subordinate structure, often with a subordinator like if, since, that, when, whatever, while, who, whoever, etc.
The subordinate clause is itself divisible into phrases having grammatical functions at the clause rank (subject, verb, object, complement, or adverbial). And the subordinate clause assumes a 'part-to-whole' relationship within its main clause, becoming only one part of the whole sentence.
Subordinate clauses can be further subcategorized by their form and function. Subordinate clauses take the form of either 'full' clauses or 'reduced' clauses.
Full subordinate clauses often exhibit an overt subordinator, and the grammatical functions we discussed earlier for constituents at the clause rank, like subject, object, complement, or adverbial.
(12) A subordinate clause functioning as subject Whoever wants that book can have it. Subordinate Clause Subject Verb Object Main Clause
(13) A subordinate clause functioning as object I know that you lied. Subordinate Clause Subject Verb Direct Object Main Clause
(14) A subordinate clause functioning as complement Liz can be whatever she wants to be. Subordinate Clause Subject Verb Complement Main Clause
(15) A subordinate clause as adverbial Since we can't go you can have the tickets Subordinate Clause Adverbial Subject Verb Object Main Clause To illustrate the fact that each subordinate clause is still a "clause," we can take the subordinate clause (the adverbial clause above for example) and subdivide it into its clause level constituents, as in (16).
(16) The adverbial subordinate clause further subdivided into its functional constituents Since we can't go you can have the tickets. Subordinator Subject Verb Subordinate Clause Adverbial Subject Verb Object Main Clause Reduced subordinate clauses are missing many or most of those constituents, usually the subordinator, the subject, and the finite part of the verb. (The finite part of the verb, remember, is the part of the verb phrase that is marked for tense, such as the -ed past tense inflection.)
Consider (17), an example of a full subordinate clause functioning as the object of its main clause, and (18), a reduced subordinate clause also functioning as the object of its main clause:
(17) An example of a full (finite) subordinate clause (that you lied) functioning as direct object in a main clause I know that you lied. Subordinator Subject Verb Subordinate Clause Subject Verb Direct Object Main Clause
(18) An example of a reduced (nonfinite) subordinate clause (to be alone) functioning as direct object in a main clause I want to be alone. Infinitive Verb Complement Subordinate Clause Subject Verb Direct Object Main Clause The part of the verb that remains in the reduced subordinate clause is the nonfinite constituent, the participle, the verb that is not marked for tense. Consequently, reduced subordinate clauses are often called 'nonfinite' clauses. Like full subordinate clauses, the reduced subordinate clause can assume a variety of functions at the clause rank. In (18), we have seen a reduced subordinate clause functioning as direct object. In (19) and (20), we have examples of the same infinitive clause functioning as subject and complement.
(19) An example of a reduced (nonfinite) subordinate clause functioning as subject of the main clause To be alone can be very sad. Subordinate Clause Subject Verb Complement Main Clause
(20) An example of a reduced (nonfinite) subordinate clause functioning as complement of the main clause I seem to be alone. Subordinate Clause Subject Verb Subject Complement Main Clause Finally, on the basis of their potential function, we distinguish several major functional categories of subordinate clauses - nominal, adverbial, relative, and comparative.
We can present these various distinctions graphically as follows:
Take Note! | Table of Contents | Syllabus | eForum | Search
The HyperTextBooks | The English Main Page | The Composition Links
