 |
Daniel Kies Department of English College of DuPage |
|
 |
||
| Modern English
Grammar English 2126 |
Contact Form | |
Clause and Sentence
Coordination and Subordination
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:
Forms of Subordinate Clauses
To illustrate the various forms of the subordinate clause, let's look at several examples. In each example, we will keep the grammatical function constant (making all of the subordinate clauses function as adverbials in the main clause) so that we can concentrate on the changes in form:
(21) Since he arrived, she left early. [full clause]
(22) Shocked by the news, she left early. [-ed clause]
(23) Hearing the news, she left early. [-ing clause]
(24) Her hearing the news, she left early. [absolute clause]
(25) To hear the news, she left early. [infinitive clause]
(26) Anxious and fretful, she left early. [verbless clause]
Some of the hallmarks of the full subordinate clause are its subordinator (Since), its own subject (he), and its own finite verb (arrived). The other clauses, in (22) through (26), are all reduced subordinate clauses with nonfinite verbs.
The -ed clause is marked by the presence of the nonfinite -ed verb form at the beginning of the subordinate clause. Likewise, the -ing clause and the infinitive clause are marked by the presence of an -ing or infinitive verb form, respectively, in clause-initial position. (An -ing clause functioning as the subject of the sentence, as in Swimming in this lake is not allowed, is often called a "gerund" in traditional grammars.) The absolute clause is much like the -ing clause; however, the absolute clause begins with a pronoun in the genitive or objective case that seems to function as the 'subject' of the -ing verb. Finally, verbless clauses, as their name suggests, are notable for their lack of any verb form (although one can easily imagine that the verbless clause is a reduced form of a full subordinate clause something like Since she was anxious and fretful, ....).
Lastly, relative clauses are recognizable by their distinctive structures: first is the relative pronoun (a wh- word like who, whom, whose, which or the word that) often occurring in clause-initial position; second is the fact that the relative pronoun has the potential to assume many different functions within the relative clause. For example, some of the most common functions for the relative pronoun are subject, object, or complement:
(27) A relative pronoun as subject of relative clause I know who has the book now. Subject Verb Object Adverbial (relative pronoun) Relative Clause Subject Verb Object Main Clause (28) I know whom you wish to see. [relative pronoun as object of relative clause]
(29) I know who you are. [relative pronoun as complement of relative clause]
Functions of Subordinate Clauses
When a subordinate clause assumes the grammatical function of a noun phrase, that clause is said to be functioning as a nominal subordinate clause. Noun phrases, remember, can function as subject, object, complement, or even occasionally as adverbial. Some examples of nominal subordinate clauses we have studied already are in examples (12), (13), (14), (17), and (18).
Very often, a relative clause is embedded in a noun phrase, functioning as a postmodifier. As noted above, the relative clause is also marked by its distinctive formal characteristics. We have studied relative clauses already in of noun phrase postmodification (see example h) in the noun phrase section. Relative clauses in English may also assume a nominal function, as we have already seen in examples (12), (27), (28), and (29) above.
When a subordinate clause functions like an adverbial, that clause is said to have adverbial function. Sentences (21) through (26) all contain examples of different forms of subordinate clauses functioning as adverbials.
Finally, when a subordinate clause functions to compare one element of a clause with another, that clause is said to have a comparative function. Consider (30) for example.
(30) An example of a comparative clause Emily is not as tall as Liz is Subordinator Subject Verb Comparative Clause Main Clause Subordinate Clause Clause Complex At this point in the discussion of the clause complex, it is not unusual for one's head to spin. There are after all so may different forms, and each form can serve so many distinct functions.
What we need to remember at times like these is that language is our primary means of social interaction; that we are complex creatures filled with ideas and dreams. So too our language through which we express our thoughts must be just as rich as we are ourselves. Although the initial impression appears to be one of confusion, we should console ourselves by observing that the problem is, at its heart, a really quite ordinary human problem. When we think about this problem in its most general terms, we realize that each of us human beings (a "form" so to speak) serves several roles (or "functions") in our lives. In short, we humans are multi-faceted, so it is no wonder that each part of our language is multi-faceted too.
A FORM serves several FUNCTIONS in different CONSTITUENT GROUPS. a human child parents mother/father children wife/husband spouse colleague co-workers friend acquaintances teacher students employee employer citizen local & national governments etc. ... On a much smaller scale, we can see a similar multiplicity of roles is served by each constituent in every human language. The noun phrase, for example, has multiple roles. We have seen noun phrases work as subjects, objects, adverbials, and complements of both the clause and the prepositional phrase.
(31) The council voted to defeat the amendment. [noun phrase as subject]
(32) Citizens then petitioned their representatives. [noun phrase as object]
(33) The citizens are the taxpayers after all. [noun phrase as complement of the clause]
(34) The council capitulated to the wishes of the voters. [noun phrase as complement of preposition]
(35) The next day, the council reversed itself. [noun phrase as adverbial]
However, it is not just elements at the word or phrase rank that must serve many functions in different contexts. So too each clause serves many different functions simultaneously.
REFERENCES
Hoey, Michael.
1986 "Overlapping Patterns of Discourse Organization and Their Implications for Clause Relational Analysis of Problem-Solution Texts." in Studying Writing: Linguistic Approaches, pp. 187-214, Charles Cooper and Sidney Greenbaum (eds). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hoey, Michael and Eugene O. Winter.
1986 "Clause Relations and the Writer's Communicative Task." in Functional Approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives, pp. 120-41, Barbara Couture (ed.), Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Lakoff, Robin.
1971 "If's, And's, and But's about Conjunctions." in Studies in Linguistic Semantics, pp. 114-49, Charles J. Fillmore and D. Terence Langendoen (eds.), New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
Martin, Jim R.
1983 "Conjunction: The Logic of English Text." in Micro and Macro Connexity of Texts, pp. 1-72, J. S. Petofi and E. Sozer (eds.), 1-72. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
Winter, Eugene O.
1982 Towards a Contextual Grammar of English, London: George Allen & Unwin.
Take Note! | Table of Contents | Syllabus | eForum | Search
The HyperTextBooks | The English Main Page | The Composition Links
