CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………...2
Chapter I. Definition of Clause in English Grammar…………………...……5
1.1 Defining the Clause Structure of the English Language……………………….5
1.2 Subordination and Coordination in Clause Structures …………………...……7
Chapter II. Structure of English Clauses……………………………………...21
2.1 Subject and Predicator……………………………………………………….21
2.2 Object and Complement…………………………………………………….25
2.3 Adverbial Clauses…………………………………………………………...33
Chapter III. Sentence Connectors – Functions, Uses and Positions………….45
3.1 Defining Sentence Connectors ……………………………………………….45
3.2 Structural Relations between Clauses………………………………………...46
3.3 Logical Relations between Clauses…………………………………………...53
3.4 Position of Sentence Connectors...……………………………………………59
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………..62
LIST OF USED LITERATURE..................................................................…....64
2
INTRODUCTION
The topic of this thesis is the Analysis of English Clause Structure. I chose
this topic because I am interested in this field of linguistics. Understanding the
sentence structure is significant at every stage of learning a language and therefore,
acquiring some further knowledge is a necessary part of this activity. However it is
not just this reason, as I am interested in the evolution of the English language
itself. Following the development of a language from the very beginning is very
interesting for me.
Understanding the sentence structures is essential, and therefore basic
theoretical knowledge will be provided in this thesis. Moreover, Sentence structure
in English is relatively fixed. Word order in sentences varies only little, therefore
syntactic analysis stands for the main point in overall English grammar.
Topicality of the research. With the improvement of Uzbekistan's global
relations with foreign nations sizeable consideration is being paid to educating and
learning English. Showing English has turned out to be one of the strategies of
administration of Uzbekistan. New schools, lyceums and colleges with
specialization on teaching foreign languages are being built in our country. English
has turned out to be one of the basic parts of scholarly projects of each instructive
foundation. In this way, etymologists and methodologists of our nation are
examining the most essential issues of arranging language teaching. As many
language teaching specialists suggest the most significant and contemporary
complications of language teaching is the problem of understanding the English
clause structure sufficiently. The given qualification paper is devoted to the study
of theoretical principles of English clause structure so as to assist language learners
to grasp ample understanding of the subject matter.
The aim of the research is to study theoretical background of English
clause structure and practical principles for raising learners’ knowledge.
3
The tasks of the research. On the basis of the main purpose of the
qualification paper I put the following tasks before the work:
- to review literature on theoretical explanations of English clause
structure;
- to study types of English clauses;
- to study the ways of connecting English clauses;
- to review literature on principles of English clause structure;
Scientific scrutiny of the research question. The issue of English clause
structure is one of the long lasting debates in the methodology of language
teaching and language learning.
The characteristic features of English clause structure was studied by such
linguists as Lang, Ewald, the structure of discourse and subordination was
scrutinized by Matthiessen, Christian and Sandra A. Thompson.
The object of the research is the Analysis of English Clause Structure.
The subject of the research is the most common factors that influence the
general knowledge of language learners correlated to the subject matter.
The methods used in the research include the method of literature review
and particular examples based on certain scholars’ opinion.
The novelty and results of the qualification paper. The novelty of the
qualification paper is in that the work comprises of valuable theoretical material on
English clause tructure and significantly clarifies key issues of the topic. The work
likewise condenses the methods for creating English sentences in view of the
linguistic principles. All through the work I endeavored to survey whatever
number materials as could be allowed on English sentence structures. The work
fuses dependable and worthwhile materials on English clause structure.
Practical value of the qualification paper. Qualification paper is a useful
resource for students who are studying the course of language teaching
methodology. The beneficial material that is typically apposite for language
learners who possess an excellent aspiration to amply advance their overall level of
4
English is generated to assist language learners to attain the highest level of
achievement in acquiring reasonable knowledge related to the written style. The
results of the work can also be utilized by English teachers who are searching new
ways of teaching English sentence structure.
The structure of the qualification paper. The overall structure of the study
takes the form of three chapters, including this introductory, conclusion and
reference part.
The introduction gives short information on characteristics of the
qualification paper, its aims, tasks, value and results.
The first chapter of the main body is dedicated to the review of literature on
the definition of English structure and gives deep explanation, opinions of
language teaching scholars.
The second chapter of the qualification paper analyzes the structure of
English clauses by way of clarifying certain syntactic figures such as subject,
predicator, object and so on.
The third chapter is concerned with the sentence connectors and their
functions, usages and positions.
Finally, the conclusion gives a brief summary of the qualification paper .
5
Chapter I. Definition of Clause in English Grammar
1.1 Defining the Clause Structure of the English Language
It is generally accepted that the sentence is the basic unit of communication
in English. Clauses and phrases are the sub-units of a sentence. The basic and
traditional recognition of clause elements considers the subject and the predicate.
The subject identifies the topic of the sentence. The predicate comments on the
topic. The subject must include a noun, or a phrase or clause acting as a noun. The
predicate must include a verb.The predicate can be broken down into a verb phrase
and completer, which is represented by objects, complements (subject and object
predicative) and adverbials.
Clause is one of the basic terms in grammar and yet its definition is
complex. Crystal 1 points out that every sentence is created according to a system
of rules. Further, “sentences are the largest construction to which the rules of
grammar apply” and once we are acknowledged with basics of English grammar
we are able to identify them. Further characteristic is a notion that sentences are
pieces of language which can be used and understood on their own. This is not
applicable in all cases. For example, an utterance containing deixis requires either
another sentence or given context to explain it. Identifying sentences according to
the last characteristic is probably most problematic in conversation, where the
actual boundaries of sentences are unclear. However, in any kind of discourse
sentence is constructed according to grammatical principles.
There are those who say that clause structure in English is relatively fixed.
Word order in sentences varies only little, therefore syntactic analysis stands for
the main point in overall English grammar.
Clauses are basic for several reasons. First, you need only one of them to
make a sentence, though, of course, sentences may consist of an indefinite number
of clauses. Second, in actual communication, shorter utterances are usually
1
Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.2005.p.215
6
reconstructed and understood by reference to clauses. For instance, over here might
be understood as I’m over here or Shine the light over here. The grammatical
importance of clauses probably reflects the fact that the clause most directly
represents the most fundamental structure of meaning—the proposition. It does not
make much sense to say that a clause represents a complete thought, as school
grammars often do, unless we know what a complete thought is. A proposition is
the best model of a complete thought that we have. For the present, we will
proceed on the assumption that the sense of clausehood is intuitive, based on our
competence as native speakers and perhaps on our status as human makers of
meaning, although students may need practice in identifying clauses.
Of the many reasons why we should know about clauses, we will briefly
discuss just four. First, clauses are an important punctuation unit. When a clause
constitutes a whole sentence, in written English it must begin with a capital letter
and end in a period or its equivalent. When multiple clauses combine to constitute
a sentence, the individual clauses may require special punctuation, such as
separation by commas. Certainly, the single-clause sentence is the best unit to
begin teaching punctuation with.
Second, and relatedly, writing teachers are concerned about sentence
fragments, that is, non-sentential units improperly punctuated as sentential
Delahunty and Garvey units. As we noted earlier, fragments are typically internally
grammatical, that is, they are well-formed phrases or clauses. Students must learn
the differences between clauses and their constituent units and between clauses and
sentences in order to learn to punctuate appropriately.
Third, a developed writing style requires control of a range of sentence
types, from sentences with just a single clause through sentences with an indefinite
number of clauses. A traditional technique for helping student
writers expand their repertoires is sentence combining, or more accurately,
clause combining. Teachers wishing to create clause combining exercises
for their students must know about clauses, especially if they want to tailor
7
the exercises to their students’ actual needs.
Fourth, an important aspect of standard English grammar is subject-verb
agreement. That is, the subject and verb of a clause must grammatically
agree with each other in person and number. In order to be able to teach subjectverb agreement, teachers must know about subjects, verbs, and clauses. And, while
the general agreement principle is quite simple, it is quite intricate in its details.
1.2 Subordination and Coordination in Clause Structures
Coordination and subordination are well-established grammatical terms, but
like many other linguistic terms with a long history, they are somewhat fuzzy, both
being used in a variety of – mutually related – senses depending on the theoretical
context. This holds for other, closely related notions such as parataxis and
hypotaxis as well. Thus Lehmann2 observes in a paper on the typology of clause
linkage: The term subordination is applied, in different schools of linguistics, to
different kinds of phenomena. In the broadest use, which may be found in certain
trends of European structuralism, the size and nature of the subordinate element is
of no concern. Here subordination practically means the same as dependency. In
the most narrow use, characteristic of classical philology, only finite clauses can be
said to be subordinate. Here subordination practically means the same as
hypotaxis; and consequently the two latter terms are mostly used interchangeably.
In what is probably their most widespread application, ‘subordination’ and
‘coordination’ – along with their adjectival cognates ‘subordinate’, ‘coordinate’,
etc. – are syntactic notions denoting relations between parts of a complex syntactic
unit. That is, they concern the structure of sentences or clauses and their parts.
Subordination is an asymmetric relation – both in linguistics and in everyday
life – and by that token intimately correlated with the notion of hierarchical
structure: If A is subordinate to B, then B cannot be subordinate to A; but B may,
2
Lehmann, Christian. Towards a Typology of Clause Linkage.2008. p.42
8
in its turn, be subordinate to a third entity C, and so on. This means that B has a
‘higher’ position in the domain structured by subordination, i.e. it is nearer to the
‘topmost’ element of that structure, which is conventionally identified with an
element that is not subordinate to any other element within the domain. In social
hierarchies, this kind of asymmetry is typically correlated or associated with
(social) ‘importance’, ‘prominence’ and the like. Similarly, the subordinate clause
in clausal subordination is often said to contain less prominent or salient
information, to have less communicative than the ‘superordinate’ clause. However,
while importance and prominence may be quite transparent concepts with respect
to social hierarchies, it is far from clear how the functional notions of prominence,
salience or communicative weight can be mapped onto specific structural-syntactic
categories as defined by the grammars of different languages.
The literature on the syntax, semantics and pragmatics of coordination –
clausal or not – is extensive so we shall confine ourselves to issues of immediate
interest in the present context.
As a syntactic relation, coordination (or conjunction, as it is often called3) is
traditionally said to hold if the units in question are syntactically ‘equivalent’,
‘have the same status’, ‘play the same role’ in the given syntactic context.
Haspelmath 4, for instance, proposes the definition in (a) below, which he later
refines as in (b), leaving out the reference to relative salience, on the one hand, and
stressing the semantic nature of ‘sameness’ of type, on the other. This in its turn
distinguishes Haspelmath’s second proposal from Lehmann’s definition in (c).
(a) A construction [A B] is considered coordinate if the two parts A and B
have the same status (in some sense that needs to be specified further), whereas it
is not coordinate if it is asymmetrical and one of the parts is clearly more salient or
important, while the other is in some sense subordinate.
3
4
Cormack & Smith. Who distinguish notionally between Conjunction and Coordination. 2005.p.396.
Haspelmath, Martin.Coordinating Constructions: An Overview. 2004.p.5
9
(b) The term coordination refers to syntactic constructions in which two or
more units of the same type are combined into a larger unit and still have the same
semantic relation with other surrounding elements.
(c) Coordination is a relation of sociation combining two syntagms of the
same type and forming a syntagm which is again of the same type.
In his pioneering work on the semantics of coordination, Lang
5
explicitly
distinguishes between genuine “coordinate conjoining” and “subordinate
conjoining”, stressing that the conjuncts have to fulfil both the grammatical
condition of “homogeneousness” and semantic conditions concerning the relation
between conjunct meanings in order for the construction to qualify as (acceptable)
“coordinate conjoining”.
The coordinated entities may be clauses in a broad sense, i.e. finite or nonfinite verb phrases or full clauses, or they may be lower-level categories. In this
qualification paper, we shall predominantly be concerned with the former variety,
i.e. clausal coordination (including verb phrase coordination).
Coordination,6 as traditionally understood, is signalled by a coordinating
connective (‘conjunction’, e.g. and, or, but), which in the languages studied here
introduces non-initial constituents of coordinating constructions; that is,
coordination represents a syndetic variety of paratactic clause combining. The
archetypical coordinating conjunction is and together with its counterparts in other
languages – the general terms ‘coordination’ and ‘conjunction’ are, in fact, often
used in the restricted default sense of and-coordination/-conjunction. And this is
how they will be used in this introduction, as in most of the individual
contributions, if nothing is said to the contrary.
Coordination is a symmetric relation in the formal sense: if A is coordinated
to B, then B is also coordinated to A. However, in the literature on coordination the
term ‘symmetric’ often seems to be used in a less formal sense, referring to the
5
Lang, Ewald. The Semantics of Coordination. Authorized English Translation from Lang. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.2004.p.23
6
Lehmann, Christian. Towards a Typology of Clause Linkage.2008. p.32
10
criterion that the coordinated entities must be of the same type and must have the
same relation with surrounding elements. In yet other contexts symmetry is related
to the permutativity property of logical conjunction and other operators that are
taken to represent the meaning of and, depending on the semantic nature of the
conjuncts7. However, the symmetry condition, in one sense or the other, is not
always met by constructions that are yet classified as coordinative according to
diagnostic coordination tests, as summarized e.g. by Lang, Haspelmath and Reich.
In other words, the concept of coordination – like subordination and many other
traditional grammatical notions – has prototype structure: In addition to ‘canonical’
or ‘standard’ coordination, which is symmetric by definition, the literature has
registered an impressive variety of asymmetric construction types.
Opinions vary somewhat as to where exactly one should draw the borderline
between coordination and subordination in the continuum represented by noncanonical varieties of these categories, i.e. and-constructions exhibiting crucial
subordinate properties on the one hand, and coordination-like clause combining
formally marked as subordinating, on the other hand. At the other end of the
continum we find what Zifonun
8
call Quasikoordination: “adjacent conjuncts”
that do not form a single orthographic sentence or a single “intonation unit”, i.e.
cases where a clause containing a coordinating connective follows a major
boundary mark in written or spoken language. So-called (and-) parenthetical
coordination represents yet another non-canonical variety of coordination that we
cannot take up here.
Asymmetry in coordination has been an object of much theoretical
discussion, and, as far as clausal coordination is concerned, certain types of
asymmetry, in fact, occur so frequently that what is called canonical coordination
may seem an abstract ideal rather than a ‘real’ prototype.
7
Partee, Barbara H. and Rooth, Mats. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity.2003.p.370.
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger, Strecker, Bruno et al. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache Bd. 1-3.
Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.2007.p.23-62.
8
11
Thus it has been repeatedly observed that clausal coordination in
practiceoften deviates from standard logical conjunction by being sensitive to
permutation of the conjuncts, i.e. that the interpretation may change with the order
of the conjuncts, even if overt anaphoric dependences between the second and the
first conjunct are adjusted; cf. (1)-(2), taken from Levinson 9 respectively.
(1)
John turned the key and the engine started.
(The engine started and John turned the key.)
(2)
She [[jumped on the horse] and [rode into the sunset]].
(She rode into the sunset and jumped on the horse.)
Here the conjuncts are ‘equal’ at the syntactic level, they are full clauses of
the same ‘type’ in (1) and verb phrases in (2); that is, the asymmetry concerns the
level of interpretation alone. This phenomenon of conjunction buttressing can be
explained as pragmatic enrichment based on the principle of informativeness
which allows the hearer/reader to choose the strongest interpretation coherent with
what is explicitly said: conjunction is ripe for I-enrichment: when events are
conjoined, they tend to be read as temporally successive and, if at all plausible, as
causally connected.
Asymmetries of this semantic-pragmatic kind have played a prominent role
in Relevance Theory as an argument for the central distinction between what is
said and what is implicated. In his contribution to the present volume, Solfjeld
exploits certain aspects of the relevancetheoretic approach to clausal coordination
to account for a characteristic translation strategy in Norwegian translations from
German.
Other asymmetries in clausal coordination overtly concern morphosyntactic
aspects of the initial and non-initial conjuncts: asymmetries with respect to
syntactic category, type of clause, choice of verb form, extraction and binding
phenomena, gapping, etc. Some examples are seen in (3) - (5):
(3)
9
a. Give me your address, and I’ll see what I can do.
Levinson, Stephen C. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.2000.p.121.
12
b. Give me your money, or I’ll shoot.
(4)
Gestern [hat er wieder verschlafen und ist zwei
Yesterday has he again overslept and is two
Stunden zu spät gekommen]. hours too late come.
‘Yesterday he overslept again and arrived two hours late.’
(5)
Here is the whisky which I [went to the store and bought].10
In (3) an imperative and a declarative clause are coordinated, and in the
German example (4) the second conjunct has a subject gap which must be
interpreted as co-referential with – or bound by – the overt subject of the first
conjunct. The fronted temporal adverbial gestern ‘yesterday’ can, from a semantic
perspective, be analysed as ‘common’ to both conjuncts, i.e. as standing outside
the coordinate construction. (5) is a ‘classical’ example of asymmetric extraction
leaving an object gap in the second conjunct alone and thus violating the so-called
Coordinate Structure Constraint. Asymmetries in clausal coordination are the
subject of Franke’s and Reich’s contributions 11.
To conclude our discussion of asymmetries in clausal coordination,
the following points should be made:
(i) On the surface, clauses may be represented as rather simple syntactic
structures, depending on syntactic theory. However, from a semantic perspective,
they must be conceived as multi-level or multilayered structures: a full sentence
contains a series of nested operators or modifiers – polarity, aspect, tense,
modality, illocutionary force – above the predicate expressed by the lexical (main)
verb and head of the clause. In the case of clausal coordination, then, it has to be
decided at which semantic level the second conjunct attaches to the first – and
whether it does in fact constitute a full independent clause from a semantic point of
view or rather a semantically reduced clausal variant, i.e. a more or less
10
Johannessen, Janne Bondi. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008.p.19
Kehler, Andrew.Coherence, Reference and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford:
publications.2002.p.3
11
CSLI
13
‘desententialized’ entity in the sense of Lehmann12. For this reason the difference
between full clausal and verb phrase coordination should probably be taken more
seriously than has hitherto been the case.
(ii) It is by now generally acknowledged that semantic interpretation is more
flexible and that pragmatics plays a more prominent and pervasive role in
interpretation than was envisaged some decades ago. Against that background it is
conceivable that a semantically adequate conjunctive interpretation may be
extracted from what seems somewhat ‘odd’ on the surface. At some level the
conjuncts must be interpreted as semantic objects of the same type if the meaning
of the coordinator is as presumed; otherwise the interpretation would break down.
(iii) Since the first conjunct necessarily precedes and is not structurally
subordinated to or embedded in the second conjunct, anaphoric elements occurring
in the second conjunct – including zero anaphors – may find their antecedents in
the first conjunct. More generally stated: the first conjunct is an accessible context
when the second is processed, but not the other way round. Consequently,
permutativity between conjuncts is to be expected only in the – presumably quite
rare cases – where the second conjunct is not linked, explicitly or implicitly, to the
first in any other way than by being conjoined with it.
(iv) As argued e.g. by Lang, Carston, Blakemore & Carston and Jasinskaja,
coordination itself can be taken to signal that the conjoined clauses are more tightly
linked than a corresponding sentence sequence. The coordinating connective has a
“procedural” or “operational” meaning triggering the construction of a what Lang13
terms a “common integrator”, i.e. “a conceptual entity which encompasses the
conjunct-meanings”, on the basis of the conjunct meanings themselves, the
linguistic and situational contexts and extralinguistic knowledge systems etc. That
is, the coordinator following the first conjunct makes clear that the sentence is not
12
Lehmann, Christian. Towards a Typology of Clause Linkage.2008. p.26
Lang, Ewald. The Semantics of Coordination. Authorized English translation from Lang. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.2004.p.86
13
14
yet finished but that more ‘of the same kind’ as the structure processed thus far
will have to be integrated in the interpretation.
(i) – (iv) go a long way towards explaining why syntactic-semantic
mismatches may occur in natural language coordination and why they are
interpreted as they are. But (i) – (iv) cannot, of course, account for languagespecific restrictions on syntactic-semantic asymmetry.
For the reasons mentioned above, canonical symmetric coordination is
probably the exception rather than the norm in language use. (6) and (7) are cases
in point.
(6)
Tom did his homework and Anna went to the cinema.
(7)
I had a paper to finish and my parents needed help.
Here the conjuncts can hardly be understood as connected in any other way
than as partial – and jointly exhaustive
14
– answers to a given ‘Question under
Discussion’12 like What did the children/ Tom and Anna do last night? for (6) and
Why didn’t you join us? for (7). That is, unlike the asymmetric examples discussed
above, the coordinate constructions in (6) and (7) cannot be interpreted as selfcontained coherent texts. The conjuncts are not linked at the level of eventualities
(causally or otherwise); the relation between them is of a purely rhetorical nature.
In symmetric coordination, the order of the conjuncts has no bearing on truth
conditions. However, this is not to say that the order is arbitrary or irrelevant in
general. There may be other reasons for the speaker/writer to prefer one order over
the other, e.g. relative importance or salience from a psychological/emotional – or
rhetorical – point of view: Only the second, or last, conjunct or the whole
coordinate sentence may function as an attachment point for a subsequent
sentence; the first conjunct is blocked.
Like sentence interpretation in general, the interpretation of coordinate
constructions interacts with information structure at sentence level
14
15
. In spoken
Jasinskaja, Ekaterina. Pragmatics and prosody of implicit discourse relations: The case of restatement.
PhD dissertation, University of Tübingen. 2006.p.45
15
Krifka, Manfred. Basic notions of information structure. Potsdam University 2007.p.98.
15
language prosody and intonation play a prominent role in this respect. To our
knowledge, however, coordination, in written language at least, has not been
investigated specifically from that perspective, except for symmetric coordination
exhibiting the characteristic pattern of parallel and contrast seen in (6). The
interplay between information structure/prosody and subordination/coordination in
a historical language is central in the contribution by Lühr 16.
As above mentioned, the term subordination – like coordination –may be
used in a general sense, as defined e.g. by:
(a) A grammatical relation R connecting syntagms X and Y is a relation of
dependency iff X occupies a grammatical slot of Y or vice versa. In a dependency
relation, Y depends on X iff X determines the grammatical category of the
complex and thus its external relations. Embedding is the dependency of a
subordinate syntagm17.
But often – as will be the case here – ‘subordination’ is applied in the
restricted sense of clausal subordination, as the asymmetric counterpart of clausal
coordination: A clause b is subordinate to another clause a if the former is
syntactically dependent on the latter but not vice versa. In traditional structural
terms dependency can be conceived as structural embedding: the subordinate
clause b is embedded into the superordinate or matrix clause a with a specific
syntactic function (complement, adverbial, attribute, etc.) at some level of that
clause. Other definitions of clausal subordination rest more directly on the
functional
properties
of
the subordinate
clause.
Cristofaro
presents
a
comprehensive typological study of subordination in 80 different languages based
on what she terms the Asymmetry Approach. She defines subordination in terms of
the cognitive-linguistic notion of ‘profiling’, explicitly equating (non-)profiling
with (non-) assertion:
16
Abraham, Werner. Topic, focus and default vs. contrastive accent: typological differences with respect
to discourse prominence.2006.p.74.
17
Lehmann, Christian. Towards a Typology of Clause Linkage.2008. p.39
16
(b) We are now in a position to propose a functionally based definition of
subordination, resting on cross-linguistically applicable and consistent criteria. By
subordination will be meant a situation whereby a cognitive asymmetry is
established between linked States of Affairs, such that the profile of one of the two
overrides that of the other. This is equivalent to saying that the dependent States of
Affairs is non-asserted, while the main one is asserted18.
In practice Cristofaro’s investigation seems to support approaches that
consider subordination to be a multidimensional phenomenon.
The definition in (c) below represents a third variant, based primarily
on the notion of prominence:
(c) In a general sense, if an element a is subordinate to an element b, it is less
prominent than b and usually a is dependent on b. It is a defining characteristic of
subordination that the subordinate element is syntactically at a lower level in the
overall structure than the element or string it is subordinate to19.
As is well known, subordinate clauses in the canonical sense of complement,
adverbial and relative clauses tend to exhibit specific formal characteristics:
constraints on verb form or word order, the presence of specific subordination
markers
–
complementizers,
subordinating
connectives
(subordinating
conjunctions, subordinators, subjunctions), relativizers – etc.
(8)
She doubted that she would gain access.
(9)
If you can’t beat them, join them!
(10) Keiner, der es gesehen hat, wird es je vergessen.
‘Nobody who has seen it will ever forget it
Hence the term ‘subordinate’ is sometimes also used with reference to
clauses having the relevant formal properties without being syntactically embedded
in the strict sense suggested above, i.e. without apparently having the function that
is typically associated with those properties. So-called ‘supplementary’ or
18
Cristofaro, Sonia. Subordination. Oxford University Press.2003.p.23.
Abraham, Werner. Topic, Focus and Default vs. Contrastive Accent: Typological Differences with
Respect to Discourse Prominence.2006.p.95.
19
17
‘sentential’ relative clauses and resultative clauses introduced by so that are cases
in point; cf. (11) and (12) from Huddleston & Pullum20.
(11) We called in to see Sue’s parents, which made us rather late.
(12) Most primary teachers are women so that suitable ‘role’
models, to use the trendy phrase, are more abundant for girls
than for boys.
Clauses having subordinate form may even be used as independent
sentences with a marked illocutionary function, and conversely: clauses may be
structurally subordinated
without being formally marked as subordinate. Such
mismatches between form and function have given rise to much discussion – and
terminological confusion – in particular, it seems, with respect to German. They
are, however, clear indications of the multidimensionality of the notion of clausal
subordination. This is the issue addressed in the paper by Holler. In what follows,
we shall use the term ‘subordinate clause’ to refer to clauses that are formally
characterized as such, irrespective of whether they are properly embedded or not.
From a semantic point of view complement clauses, being arguments of
predicates, represent a very different case from adverbial and relative clauses;
since none of the papers in this volume is concerned with this category we shall
not dwell on it here. Adverbial and relative subordinate clause types are often
subsumed under the notion of (syntactic) adjuncts, together with e.g. non-clausal
adverbials and attributive adjectival phrases21. Semantically, such adjuncts are –
grosso modo – said to modify clauses and noun phrases (including determiner
phrases), respectively. As for adverbial clauses, this modification can occur at
various levels and in various dimensions. These variations give rise to a
categorization of adverbial clauses and a subcategorization according to a range of
relations within these dimensions, depending on the subjunction.
20
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.
Cambridge University Press.2002.p.94
21
Austin, Jennifer R., Engelberg, Stefan and Rauh, Gisa. Adverbials. The Interplay between Meaning,
Context, and Syntactic Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.2004.p.65.
18
Modification often amounts to restricting the denotation of the modified
constituent. Thus the noun phrase student that passes the exam denotes a proper
subset of the set denoted by the head noun student, i.e. the property of being both
a student and passing the exam – but with priority assigned to the head noun
property22. Similarly, the temporal clause in (13) restricts the temporal frame
denoted by the future tense of the main clause.
(13) I’ll leave when you arrive.
This means that adjunction, including clausal adjunction, may involve the
same type of semantic operation as coordination, viz. logical conjunction and
related operations, but ‘asymmetrically’ restricted to the domain of the modified
entity, i.e. semantically ‘downgraded’.
In addition to restrictive relative clauses we find non-restrictive
(parenthetical, supplementary, appositive) relative clauses as exemplified in
(11) above and (14):
(14) Dr. Brown, who lives next door, comes from Australia23.
However, while there seems to be general consensus as to the
syntacticsemantic analysis of the canonical restrictive relative clause this, to the
best of our knowledge, does not hold for the non-restrictive varieties. It is not quite
clear what their syntactic status is, e.g. whether they should be considered adjuncts
to the noun (or determiner) phrase or to the matrix clause itself, nor is it clear how
their semantic contribution should be accounted for compositionally.
For adverbial clauses we can similarly distinguish between, on the one hand,
canonical varieties that are properly integrated into their matrix clause as modifiers
at various levels, on a par with ordinary non-clausal adverbials, and, on the other
hand, ‘non-restrictive’ varieties having a more supplementary relation to the
subordinate clause, like (12) above and (15):
22
Bierwisch, Manfred, Heads. Complements, Adjuncts: Projection and Saturation. 2003.p.124.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. A Comprehensive Grammar
of the English Language. London: Longman.2012.p.290.
23
19
(15) White motorists make up 78 per cent of Maryland highway traffic, while
black drivers account for about 17 per cent.
Integration as a dimension structuring the subordination-coordination
continuum is discussed in detail in the paper by Holler. However, subordinate
clauses that are not properly integrated into their matrix clause, e.g. as a temporal
or causal modifier, are ‘less subordinate’ and ‘more coordinate’
than canonical
restrictive varieties. This makes this type of clause linkage particularly interesting
in the present context: In order to understand the rationale behind such
‘intermediate’ patterns of clause combining we have to transgress the sentence
level and investigate their use, i.e. how they function in natural discourse and
across languages.
Being non-integrated or somehow detached from the rest of the sentence is a
property that certain subordinate clause types share with e.g.
parenthetical
constructions, appositions and various ‘dislocated’ elements at the sentence
periphery. The discourse-structural functions of right dislocation are the topic of
Averintseva-Klisch’s contribution24
In restricting our use of the term subordination to clausal subordination we
deviate terminologically from Lehmann who uses hypotaxis and parataxis for the
clausal varieties of coordination and subordination in the more general sense. In
Matthiessen & Thompson25 on the other hand, ‘hypotaxis’ and ‘hypotactic clause
(combining)’ refer to a subclass of what is traditionally subsumed under
subordination, viz. subordinate clauses that are not embedded (or integrated).
Matthiessen & Thompson even suggest that there is no advantage to postulating a
grammatical category of ‘subordinate’ clause; rather the grammar of English at
least, and perhaps of other grammars as well, suggests that a distinction between
what we have been calling ‘hypotaxis’ and embedding is crucial.
Dehé, Nicole and Kavalova, Yordanka (eds). Parentheticals. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
2007.p.29.
25
Matthiessen, Christian and Sandra A. Thompson. The Structure of Discourse and
Subordination.2008.p.327.
24
20
It is, however, not quite clear how embedding is defined in their theoretical
framework. In practice, the notion seems to subsume complement clauses and
clauses functioning as restricting modifiers in noun phrases. This leaves us with
hypotaxis covering the heterogeneous group of adverbial clauses in the broadest
traditional sense, whether semantically restrictive or not, as well as non-restrictive
or ‘appositive’ noun-modifying clauses. It is far from evident that hypotaxis, thus
understood, is a natural category. So we prefer equating hypotaxis etc. with
subordination etc. in the general sense; parataxis, then, could be a cover term for
explicitly marked coordination, as it is understood here and mere juxtaposition of
mutually independent clauses.
But on the whole, we refrain from using these terms. It should be noted,
however, that terminology varies somewhat in the present volume as a whole. Thus
coordination in the paper by Cosme is used in the broad sense of Lehmann26,
covering syndetic paratactic clause combining as well as asyndetic juxtaposition of
independent clauses or sentences.
26
Lehmann, Christian. Towards a Typology of Clause Linkage.2008. p.54
21
Chapter II. Structure of English Clauses
2.1 Subject and Predicator
It is generally believed that there are many definitions for definig Subject
and Predicator. There are those wo say that the Subject is the syntactic function
identified by the features of position, concord, pronominalisation and reflection in
question tags. Semantically, almost all participant roles can be associated with the
subject. Cognitively, it is that element which has the highest claim to function as
Topic in a specific clause in
context. Syntactically, it is prototypically realized by a nominal group, but can also
be realized by a wide variety of groups and clauses. The Predicator is the syntactic
function that determines the number and type of Objects and Complements in a
clause. It is identified syntactically by position and concord.
Evidence for this is provided by Angela Downing and Philip Locke27. They
claim that “Traditionally, the single independent clause (or simple sentence) is
divided into two main parts, subject and predicate. Semantically and
communicatively, the Subject encodes the main participant (the plane/Tom) in the
situation represented by the clause and has the highest claim to the status of topic.
The predicate can consist entirely of the Predicator, realised by a verbal group, as
in 1 below, or the Predicator together with one or more other elements, as in 2:
Subject
Predicator
1.
The plane
landed
2.
Tom
disappeared
suddenly after the concert”.
It is the predicator that determines the number and type of these other
elements. Syntactically, the Subject (S) and the Predicator (P) are the two main
functional categories. For the purpose of analysing and creating discourse it is
helpful to see how the predicate is made up, since this tends to be the most
informative part of the clause. A first distinction can be made between elements
27
Angela Downing and Philip Locke. English Grammar, A University Course, Second Edition.2001.p.73
22
that are essential and elements that are usually optional. This can be seen by
comparing 1 and 2.
With the purpose of sufficiently fathom out the principal essesnce of the two
essentials, one ought to try to grasp them one by one.
Firstly, The Subject is that functional category of the clause of which
something is predicated. The prototypical subject represents the primary
participant in the clause and has the strongest claim to the cognitive status of Topic
– who or what the clausal message is primarily about. This means that in basic
clauses (that is: finite, active, declarative clauses) of ‘doing’, the subject aligns
with the semantic function of Agent, the one who carries out the action. If there is
an agent in the event expressed by such a clause, that element will be the subject.
However, the subject can be associated with almost every type of participant
role. The following examples that are expounded by Downing and Philip Locke
illustrate some of the possible roles aligned with the subject:
Jones kicked the ball into the net. (Agent )
The ball was kicked into the net. (Affected in a passive clause)
Tom saw a snake near the river. (Experiencer in a mental process)
The secretary has been given some chocolates. (Recipient in a passive clause)28
The Subject is that syntactic function which, in English, must be present in
declarative and interrogative clauses, but is not required in the imperative. In
discourse, when two or more conjoined clauses have the same subject, all but the
first are regularly ellipted.
He came in, sat down and took out a cigarette.
A clear and easy criterion is the question tag. The Subject is that element
which is picked up in a question tag and referred to anaphorically by a pronoun:
Your brother is a ski instructor, isn’t he?
Susie won’t mind waiting a moment, will she?
28
Angela Downing and Philip Locke. English Grammar, A University Course, Second Edition.2001.p.46
23
The Subject is placed before the finite verb in declarative clauses, and in whinterrogative clauses where the wh-element is Subject:
Unfortunately, everyone left early.
Who came in late last night?
It is placed after the finite operator in yes/no interrogative clauses, and in
wh-interrogative clauses in which the wh-element is not Subject:
Are you pleased with the result?
Did everyone leave early?
What film did you see last night? (What film is Object)
When did Sylvia get back? (When is Adjunct)29
When pronouns are used, the pronominal forms – I, he, she, we and they –
are used to realise subject function, in contrast to the objective forms me, him, her,
us and them, which are used for Objects. You and it are the same for both.
Possessive forms may stand as subject:
Yours was rather difficult to read.
Jennifer’s got lost in the post.
Subjects determine the concord of number (singular or plural) and person
with the verb. Concord is manifested only in those verb forms that show
inflectional contrast:
The librarian/he/she/has checked the book.
The librarians/I/you/we/they have checked the book.
Where is my credit card? Where are my credit cards?
With verb forms that show no number or person contrast – such as had, in
the money had all been spent – we can apply the criterion of paradigmatic contrast
with a present form such as has (the money has all been spent).
When the Subject is realised by a collective noun, concord depends on how
the referent is visualised by the speaker:
The committee is sitting late. (seen as a whole)
29
Angela Downing and Philip Locke. English Grammar, A University Course, Second Edition.2006.p.47
24
The committee have decided to award extra grants. (seen as a number of
members)
Subjects determine number, person and gender concord with the Subject
Complement, and of reflexive pronouns at Cs, Oi and Od:
Jean and Bill are my friends.
She cut herself on a piece of broken glass.
Why don’t you give yourself a treat?
Seconly, we use the term Predicator for the clause element present in all
major types of clause, including the imperative clause (in which the subject is not
usually present in English). The predicator is the clause function that largely
determines the remaining structure of the clause, by virtue of being intransitive,
transitive or copular. As seen in the example, the predicator may constitute the
whole of the predicate, as in The plane landed, or part of it, as in The plane landed
on the runway. The predicator is identified by position in relation to the subject.
The predicator function is realised by both finite (e.g. waits) and non-finite
(waiting) lexical and primary verbs. Functionally, finiteness is often carried by an
auxiliary verb – such as is, was – to specify tense (past/present) and voice (be + en), and is then followed by the predicator (is making, was made).
Semantically, the predicator encodes the following main types of ‘process’:
• material processes of ‘doing’ with verbs such as make, catch, go;
• mental processes of ‘experiencing’, with cognitive verbs of perception (e.g. see),
cognition (know), affectivity (like) and desideration (hope); and
• relational processes of ‘being’ with verbs such as be and belong. 30
2.2 Object and Complement
In other cases the predicate consists of the Predicator followed by one or
more central constituents that complete the meaning. The two main functional
30
Angela Downing and Philip Locke. English Grammar, A University Course, Second Edition.2006.p.61
25
categories which occur in post-verbal position are the Object (O) as in 3 and the
Complement (C) as in 4:
S
3.
The students
4.
Jo
P
O
carried
backpacks
is
S
a student
P
C
Without these, each of the above clauses would be incomplete both
semantically and syntactically: [*The students carried] and [*Jo is], respectively.
There are two main types of Object, the Direct Object (Od) as in 5, and the Indirect
Object (Oi) as in 6, the indirect object preceding the direct object.
S
P
5.
All the men
wore
6.
Tom
sent
Oi
Od
dark suits
an email 31
me
Semantically, the objects encode the key participants in the event other than
the subject: dark suits, an email (Od) and me (Oi) in these examples. Note that
participants include not only human referents, but inanimate things and
abstractions.
Complements encode constituents that, semantically, are not participants but
are nevertheless normally required both syntactically and semantically.
There are two main types of Complement, the Complement of the Subject
(Cs) (Subject Complement) as in 7a and 8a, and the Complement of the Object
(Object Complement) (Co), as in 7b and 8b:
7a.
7b.
31
S
P
Cs
That map
was
useful
S
P
Od
Co
We
found
that map
useful
Bolinger, D. Meaning and Form. London: Longman.2000.p.12
26
8a.
8b.
S
P
Cs
Ken Brown
is
President
S
P
Od
They
made Ken Brown
Co
President32
The Subject Complement and Object Complement do not encode a different
kind of participant. Rather, they characterise or identify the Subject or the Object,
respectively.
After the subject and the predicator, the direct object is the most central of
all clause constituents. It is characterised by the following features:
• It occurs only in transitive clauses with transitive verbs such as hit, buy, send.
• It is placed immediately after the predicator, but follows an indirect object, if
there is one –
I have sent the invitations (Od).
I have sent everyone (Oi) an invitation (Od).
• It is typically realised by a NG, as in I saw the burglar (NG), but may also be
realised by embedded clauses, as in I saw what he did (cl.).
• It can generally be ‘promoted’ to become subject in a corresponding passive
clause –
The invitations (S) have been sent. (corresponding to the Od in I have sent
the invitations)
• Direct objects can be tested for, by questions beginning with Who(m)? What?
Which? How much/ many? and by wh-clefts.
What did you send?
What I sent were the invitations (wh-cleft)
• Semantically, a prototypical direct object occurs in a high-transitivity situation –
that is, in a process of ‘doing’ in which the referent’s state or location is affected in
some way, as in the first example below.
32
Bolinger, D. Meaning and Form. London: Longman.2000.p.16.
27
However the Od is associated with a wide variety of semantic roles in which
‘affectedness’ is not a feature, and with many types of verbs, some of which are
illustrated in the following examples:
He headed the ball into the net. (Affected)
The burglars used an acetylene lamp to break open the safe. (Instrument)
I felt a sudden pain in my arm. (Phenomenon: i.e. that which is experienced)
He gave the door a push. (Range: i.e. the nominalised extension of the verb)
He swam the Channel. (Affected locative)33
The highly non-prototypical Range Ods include have a rest/ smoke/ drink;
take a sip/nap, give a kick/nudge, do a dance, and many others. The NG in these
cases is a deverbal noun (i.e. derived from a verb) which follows a verb that is
‘light’ in semantic content such as have. Such combinations are very common. The
Channel in swim the Channel is a direct object, whereas in swim across the
Channel it is the NG complement of a prepositional phrase functioning as Adjunct.
The difference is that the Od version is more integrated within the clause, and
perhaps for this reason appears to present the event as more of an achievement.
The same difference is present in climb Everest and ride a horse vs climb up
Everest and ride on a horse, respectively. The achievement is clearly completed in
the former case, but leaves open the possibility of incompletion in the latter.
Speech act deverbal nouns such as promise and warning are commonly used as
Ods, in some cases following a light verb (make), in others a specific verb (issue):
He made a promise
He issued a warning34
The indirect object occurs only with verbs which can take two objects such
as give, send. Its position in clause structure is between the verb and the direct
object:
I sent them a fax.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd edn, revised by Christian M.I.M.
Matthiessen. London: Arnold.2004.p.84
34
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, S. and E. Finegan. Longman Grammar of Spoken
and Written English. London: Longman.1999.p.103
33
28
It is typically realised by a NG, but occasionally by a wh-nominal clause. As
a pronoun, it is in the objective case.
The indirect object is associated with two semantic roles, Recipient (the one
who receives the goods or information), and the Beneficiary or ‘intended
recipient’. The differences between the two are reflected in the syntax.
A subsidiary type of Object is that which is mediated by a preposition. We
will call this the Prepositional Object (Op) – Oblique Object is another term – as
in:
Jo looked after my cat.
You can rely on Jane in an emergency.
The other kids all laughed at Amy when she got her face dirty.35
Many commentators are of the view that there are two main types of
Complement: that which complements the Subject (Cs) and that which
complements the Object (Co). The Subject Complement completes the predicate
after a copular verb by specifying an Attribute of the Subject or its identity. No
passivisation is possible. The Subject Complement can be realised by AdjGs, by
definite and indefinite NGs, and by clauses.
The Object Complement (Co) completes the predicate with an AdjG or a NG
following a direct object. The Direct Object, but not the Complement, can
become subject in a passive clause. The Co is realised by AdjGs, definite and
indefinite NGs and clauses.
When the Cs is a pronoun, use is divided between the subjective and the
objective case. The Co pronoun is always objective.
The Subject Complement is the obligatory constituent which follows a
copular verb and which cannot be made subject in a passive clause:
Who’s there? It’s me/It’s I.
She became a tennis champion at a very early age.
Feel free to ask questions!36
35
Langacker, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.2007.p.90
29
The Subject Complement does not represent a new participant, as an Object
does, but completes the predicate by adding information about the subject referent.
For this reason the Subject Complement differs from the Object in that it can be
realised not only by a nominal group but also by an adjectival group (Adj.G), as
illustrated in the previous examples.
The objective case (me) is now in general use (It’s me) except in the most
formal registers, in which the subjective form (it’s I) or (I am he/she) are heard,
especially in American English.
As well as be and seem, a wide range of verbs can be used to link the subject
to its Complement; these add meanings of transition (become, get, go, grow, turn)
and of perception (sound, smell, look) among others, and are discussed above. The
constituent following such verbs will be considered Subject Complement if the
verb can be replaced by be and can’t stand alone, without a change of meaning:
I know it sounds stupid, but . . . (= is stupid) cf. - I know it sounds.
That looks nice. (= is nice) . - That looks.37
More problematic is the constituent following other verbs that could be used
intransitively with the same meaning, as in:
Saint Etheldreda was born a Saxon princess. (she was born)
He returned a broken man. (he returned)
He died young. (he died)38
We shall consider such constituents as Complements on the strength of the
possible paraphrase containing be (When he returned he was a broken man; When
he died he was young).
There is, typically, number agreement between the subject and its
Complement, and gender agreement with a reflexive pronoun at complement, as in
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, S. and E. Finegan. Longman Grammar of Spoken
and Written English. London: Longman.1999.p.105
37 Bloor, T. and M. Bloor, The Functional Analysis of English. A Hallidayan Approach. London:
Edward Arnold.2004.p.234
38
Austin, L.J. How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2000.p.213
36
30
Janet isn’t herself today. There are, however, several common exceptions to
number agreement:
Joan and Lionel make a good couple.
My neighbour’s cats are a nuisance/a joy.
Are these socks wool? No, they’re cotton.
The twins are the same height.39
Complements of the type a good couple in Joan and Lionel make a good
couple are explicable on semantic grounds, couple being inherently plural in
meaning. Semantic criteria may also be invoked to explain the use of a nuisance/a
joy in My neighbour’s cats are a nuisance/a joy, since abstractions such as these
are equally applicable to singular or plural subjects.
A third type, exemplified by expressions such as wool, cotton, rather an odd
colour, the same height/length/shape, etc., can all be paraphrased by a PP with of
(of wool, of rather an odd colour, of the same height, etc.), which formerly had
greater currency. They all express qualities of the subject, and in present-day
English the NG form without a preposition is the more common.
Copular verbs predict meanings of being something, describing or
identifying the subject referent. The Subject Complement completes the predicate
by providing information about the subject with regard to its Attributes or its
identity. The identifying type is typically reversible, the attributive is not:
The concert was marvellous. (attributive) - Marvellous was the concert.
The concert was a great success. (attributive) - A great success was the concert.
The orchestra was the London Philharmonic. - (The London Philharmonic was
(identifying) the orchestra.)40
When be is followed by an expression of location in space or time (in the
garden, at 10 o’clock), this Complement is analysed as locative. Sometimes a
Brazil, D. A Grammar of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2007.p.54
46. Cole, P. and J. Morgan, Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic
Press.2005.p.84
39
31
circumstantial expression (e.g. out of work) is semantically equivalent to an
attributive one (e.g. unemployed).
The Object Complement is the constituent that completes the predicate when
certain verbs such as find, make and appoint lead us to specify some characteristic
of the Direct Object. The Co is normally placed immediately after the direct object:
You (S) are making (P) me (Od) angry (Co).
You (S) aren’t going to like (P) me (Od) angry (Co).41
There is typically number agreement between the Direct Object and the
nominal group realising the Object Complement, as in: Circumstances (S) have
made (P) the brothers (Od) enemies (Co). But there are occasional exceptions –
expressions of size, shape, colour, height, etc. – which are to be explained in the
same way as those seen in the syntactic and semantic features of the complement
of the subject:
You haven’t made the sleeves the same length.42
The Object Complement can characterise the direct object by a qualitative
attribute or by a substantive attribute expressing the name or status of the object
referent.
Police found the suspects unwilling to cooperate. (qualitative)
They have elected Ken captain of the golf club. (substantive)
The burglars left the house in a mess. (circumstantial)43
Sometimes a Co realised by a prepositional phrase (The burglars left the
house in a mess) is similar in meaning to an adjectival complement (The burglars
left the house untidy). We can distinguish its status as Complement from the
superficially similar realisation by an optional Adjunct (in five minutes in The
burglars left the house in five minutes) by the intensive relationship linking the Od
and its complement. This can be tested by paraphrase with be (The house was in a
mess; - The house was in five minutes). The two meanings are dependent on the
Eggins, S. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics, London: Pinter.2002.p.145
42 Hopper, P.J. and S.A.Thompson. ‘Transitivity in grammar and discourse, Language’.2000.p.251
43
Bloor, T. and M. Bloor, The Functional Analysis of English. A Hallidayan Approach. London:
Edward Arnold.2004.p.176
41
32
related meanings of leave: ‘leave something in a state’ and ‘go away from’,
respectively.
2.3 Adverbial Clauses
This sub-chapter intends to discover what the term “adverbial clause”
means as a grammatical phenomenon in a complex sentence. In addition to that,
semantic and syntactic functions are scrutinized. Lastly, the various structures and
Types of Adverbial clauses are expounded.
1.Term adverbial clause and its distinctive qualities. There are manifold
views on Adverbial clauses to define. For instance, Quirk et al.44 explain the
adverbial clause as: “The adverbial clauses express the syntactic realization of
adverbial as they substitute this sentence element”.
Likewise, Eastwood pursues a congruent approach claiming: “An adverbial
clause plays the same part in a sentence as other adverbials do”.
He provides an example indicating the function of the adverbial phrase in
comparison to the adverbial clause:
(9)
I listen to music in the car.
(10) I listen to music while I'm driving.45
The example (9) illustrates the adverbial phrase. It consists of the
preposition (in) and the noun (car). Contrariwise, the example (10) demonstrates
the adverbial clause comprising the subordinator (while), the subject (I) and the
verb (be driving). But considering the function, both examples have the same –
adverbial, which is one of the sentence elements. Put it intelligibly, as explained in
the previous chapter, the subordinate clause usually has a function of the sentence
element and generally, the adverbial clause has a function of adverbial.
The adverbial clauses have typical distinguishing characteristic features
helping to recognize them in a sentence. Some scholars state that adverbials in
44
45
Quirk, R., et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 2011. p.245
Eastwood, J. Oxford Guide to English Grammar. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2004, p. 327
33
general are not limited to the position in the clause (sentence). They may take both
initial and final placement. Another property of the adverbial clauses is that they
are characterized by a subordinator, which signifies the relationship to the main
clause.
Leech adds a more distinctive and fundamental quality of the adverbial
clause declaring that it modifies the main clause and it attaches supplementary
information concerning the time, place, condition, result, etc. Basically, it
determines the circumstances drawn in the main clause.46
It is clarified that the adverbial clause has a same function in a sentence as
the adverbial has in a clause. The clauses are frequently introduced by
subordinators, which make them recognizable in the sentence. Their position in the
sentence is not inherently limited.
2.Structural types of adverbial clauses. The adverbial clauses as well as all
subordinate clauses are realized in three structural types:
a) finite clauses
b) non-finite clauses
c) verbless clauses.
a) Finite clauses. There are those who say that a finite clause possesses a
main verb. Downing and Locke interpret this information more specifically telling
that these clauses are indicated by either tense or modality (but not both). Modality
is denoted by the modal verbs (e.g. can, may).47 Biber comments on the position of
finite adverbial clauses in the sentence describing that these clauses as distributed
in different positions as opposed to nonfinite clauses.
(11) He won‘t be back until ten, because he’s working late.48
The example indicates that the verb (to work) takes a form of present
continuous tense and due to this fact, it is the finite structure.
46
Leech, G. Introducing English Grammar. London: Penguin English, 2002, p.124
Downing, A., Locke, P. English Grammar. A University Course. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2006.
p.12
48
Leech, G. – Svartvik, J. A Communicative Grammar of English. 3rd ed. London: Longman, 2003.p.195
47
34
b) Non-finite clauses. Again, a simplified explanation of non-finite clause is
given by Eastwood: “A non-finite clause has an infinitive or a gerund or a
participle”49.
This summary is expanded by Quirk who state that the non-finite clauses are
absent of tense, modal indicators, often also of the subordinating conjunctions and
person and number distinctions, because these clauses lack the subject. They notify
that condensation of subject may be problematic within the meaning of ambiguity.
Some scholars incorporate information concerning the position of non-finite
adverbial clauses telling that the majority of these clauses appear in a final
position.
As mentioned above, there are three basic forms of non-finite clauses. The
infinitive may alter to two forms (to infinitive and bare infinitive), participle
consists of two forms (–ing participle, –ed participle).
(12) Covered with confusion, I left the room.50
The example demonstrates –ed participle (covered) in the clause without a
subject. A reader has to realize that the subject is provided by the main clause (I).
c) Verbless clause. The verbless clause is the last cited structure. This clause
holds no verb element and it often lacks a subject. The excluded verb is mainly a
form of the verb to be and it is recoverable from the background context.
Many scholars are of the view that the verbless clauses are used usually in
the written register and they indicate information as less important in
communication. For easier comprehension see the example:
(13) Book your tickets well in advance, whenever possible.
It is noticeable that the subject and the verb element of the subordinate
clause are missing but they are recoverable from the context. It may be rewritten as
whenever it is possible.
3.Syntactic function of adverbial clauses.The syntactic function reveals a
sentence element in which the subordinate clause operates. As already known, the
49
50
Eastwood, J. Oxford Guide to English Grammar. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2004, p. 319
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S. A University grammar of English. Harlow: Longman, 2010. p.311
35
adverbial clauses have the function of adverbials in the sentence. Adverbials are
further classified into four groups: adjuncts, disjuncts, subjuncts and conjuncts,
whereas the adverbial clauses primarily fulfill the function of adjuncts and
disjuncts.
Actually, Quirk is the only author focusing on adjuncts and disjuncts in the
adverbial clauses. Other authors convey only general views on adjuncts and
disjuncts as adverbials, however, these two attitudes are brought together and
presented in this chapter.
Quirk declares that concerning the semantic viewpoint, adjuncts express
circumstances of the situation described in the main clause. As for the syntactic
viewpoint, the position of adjunct clauses may be both initial and final51.
Radford52 shares a corresponding idea that adjunct is an element serving to
provide supplementary information about time or place of an activity or an event
interpreted in the main clause.
Relating to disjuncts, it is explained that the function of disjuncts is to make
a comment on the style, form or content of what is being said in the main clause.
Börjars and Burridge53 describe disjuncts as attitude markers as they express
the speaker‘s attitude towards what is being said and they comment on the whole
sentence itself.
Generally speeaking, the adverbial clauses fulfill the function of either
adjuncts, describing the circumstances of the situation stated in the main clause, or
disjuncts, providing the specific comment on style or content in the main clause.
51
Quirk, R., et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 2011. p.212
Radford, A. An Introduction to English Sentence Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2009. p.8
53
Börjars, K. – Burridge, K. Introducing English Grammar. 2nd ed. New York: Hodder Education, 2010,
p.97
52
36
Chapter III. Sentence Connectors - Functions and Uses
3.1 Defining Sentence Connectors
Sentence connectors are words and expressions that link clauses and
sentences together. The connectivity between clauses is established by means of
structural and semantic relationships. Sentence connectors can therefore be
considered from two perspectives. On the one hand, there is the grammatical
distinction, that is, they can be classified according to their syntactic functions. On
the other hand, sentence connectors can be classified according to their semantic
properties, that is, the logical relations they indicate.
Due to their various functions, sentence connectors are also referred to as
’logical connectors’, ’(logical) conjunctions’ and ’conjunctive expressions’,
’linking signals’, or simply by the more general expressions ’connectors’ and
’connectives’ in recent grammars and literature. In the present paper, the terms
’sentence connectors’, ’connectors’ and ’connectives’ are used synonymously to
refer to any of the clause-linking devices examined in this study.
Obviously, clause - as opposed to single words and phrases - represents a
distinguishing feature in the description of sentence connectors. According to
Biber54 et al., a clause is a unit structured around a verb phrase. It is composed of a
subject and a predicate, semantically corresponding to a topic and a comment.
Together, these elements express a proposition. For the purpose of this study,
clause is also defined as grammatical unit corresponding to one of the two parts of
a connective relation.
3.2 Structural Relations between Clauses
Structural Relations incorporate four essential sides:
 Coordination
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, S. and E. Finegan. Longman Grammar of Spoken
and Written English. London: Longman.1999.p.106
54
37
 Subordination
 Adverbial Link
 Overlap of Suntactic categories.
This sub-chapter will try to expound such essesntials one by one.
The first way of putting clauses together is subordination. Grammar provides
several ways of linking clauses and sentences together. First of all, clauses can be
coordinated by a small set of coordinating conjunctions, such as and, or and but.
Coordination is a relationship of equality, that is, the conjoined elements are of
equal importance. Moreover, it is often “a ’looser’ connection than the others,
because it is more vague and less emphatic. It is more characteristic of informal
than of formal style”. Besides clause-level coordination, coordinating conjunctions
are also used to link words and phrases. This is mostly the case for such correlative
coordinators as both...and, either...or and not only...but also. For the study of
sentence connectors, however, coordinators are only relevant if they link clauses or
sentences, as the ones in bold in the examples below (square brackets indicating an
independent clause):
(1) [A lot of different and very powerful systems have been developed.]
But [these systems normally tend to be large and expensive.]
(2) When a voltage, V, is applied between the conductor and insulator [an
electric charge is created] and [this alters the surface free energy balance].
In (1), the second sentence is linked to the previous one by means of the
sentence connector but. The coordinating conjunction and, however, only links two
adjectives in both of the sentences. In this case, it is not considered as a sentence
connector. The same is true for the first and in (2), linking the nouns conductor and
insulator. In contrast, the second and clearly connects two independent clauses and
therefore acts as a sentence connector.
Furthermore, when coordinated clauses share elements with a preceding
clause, the element is generally not repeated in the second clause. Ellipsis, “the
38
omission of elements which are precisely recoverable from the linguistic or
situational context”55, is very common for coordinated clauses.
(3) This converted NO to NO2 at ambient temperatures but <this> allowed
unhindered passage of NO2.
Example (3) illustrates the ellipsis of the subject this, which can easily be
recovered from the context and has therefore been left out in the second clause.
There are elliptical versions, however, creating much more confusion in
determining the clausal elements:
(4) The amount of the thermal flux depends not only on the distance between the
tip and the sample but also on the local thermal properties of the sample surface.
With regard to example (4), there are two ways of analyzing the
coordination of the clause constituents56. One possibility is to examine the
construction as a reduced version of clause coordination in which both the subject
(The amount of the thermal flux) and the predicate (depends) have been omitted. A
reconstruction of the sentence would then look as follows (ellipted material
indicated in <>, square brackets indicating an independent clause):
(4a) [The amount of the thermal flux depends not only on the distance between
the tip and the sample] but [<it> also <depends> on the local thermal properties of
the sample surface].
Linking two independent clauses, the coordinating conjunction but would in
this case clearly represent a sentence connector.
Another possibility, however, is to examine the construction as a single
clause containing two coordinated prepositional phrases (indicated in brackets):
(4b) The amount of the thermal flux depends [not only [on the distance between
the tip and the sample] but also [on the local thermal properties of the sample
surface]].
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, S. and E. Finegan. Longman Grammar of Spoken
and Written English. London: Longman.1999.p.107
56
Greenbaum, S. Quirk, R. Student’s Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 2008.
p.42
55
39
Here, the correlative coordinator not only...but also would not connect two
clauses, but simply conjoin phrasal material, not meeting the conditions for being
regarded as a sentence connector.
In the present study, equivocal sentence constructions like these are not
included in the analysis. This means, if coordinated clauses have been reduced to
words and phrases by means of ellipsis, the linking words are not considered as
sentence connectors.
Another way of putting clauses together is subordination. In subordination,
the clauses are in a relationship of inequality, that is, a dependent clause is
subordinated to an independent or another dependent clause. Most subordinating
conjunctions, such as if, although, because and while, introduce an adverbial
clause. The subordinate adverbial clause often contains information which is
already known or expected by the reader, while the main clause introduces new
ideas. The information in the adverbial clause also becomes less salient than that in
the main clause: “Putting an idea in a main clause is like shining a spotlight on it;
putting it in a subordinate clause [...] is like placing it in the shadow” 57. Note, for
example, the shift in importance in the following complex sentence
(5a) Although there is much work left to be done to rival nature, there are
several significant testing differences that account for the orders of magnitude
difference in adhesion strength.
(5b) Although there are several significant testing differences that account for
the orders of magnitude difference in adhesion strength, there is much work left to
be done to rival nature.
By shifting the subordinating conjunction although from one clause to the
other, not only the sentence structure has been changed in (5b), but also the
emphasis of its ideas. Subordination, therefore, seems to be more explicit and
emphatic than coordination in that the importance of a proposition can be more
clearly specified.
57
Leech, G., Deuchar, M., and Hoogenraad, R. English Grammar for Today. Palgrave Macmillan.2006,
p.198
40
Furthermore, subordinating conjunctions may introduce finite (6), non-finite
(7) or verbless clauses (8):
(6) While this approach is appropriate for a high-volume production device, it
requires many additional masking levels and processing steps to accomplish.
(7) The pattern of the silicon dioxide platform can be modified to further
enhance surface compliance while maintaining structural stability.
(8) Our filter design, while significantly different from previous reported
designs, operates in this range.
Some subordinators are bound to the use in finite clauses (e.g., as, because,
in order that and so that), while others can be used in both finite and non-finite
(verbless) clauses (e.g., although, if, since, while and when). Their use in verbless
clauses, however, must not be confused with so-called formulaic expressions, such
as if necessary, if so or if possible. In contrast to formulaic expressions, a verbless
clause can usually be related to a finite clause with the verb be, and it has the same
subject as the main clause
In addition to coordination and subordination, clauses can be joined together
by use of linking adverbials, such as therefore, however and nevertheless. The
primary function of linking adverbials is to state the speaker/writer’s perception of
the relationship between two units of discourse . Thus, in contrast to function
words such as conjunctions, linking adverbials establish connections between
clauses by means of their semantic properties rather than through syntactic
binding. In contemporary grammar books, they are also referred to as linking
adjuncts, sentence adjuncts, sentence adverbials conjuncts
and conjunctive
adjuncts58
Unlike conjunctions, whose position is limited to the clause boundary,
adverbials are mobile and can occupy several positions in a sentence, e.g.:
(9a) Nevertheless, work is going on to smooth out the lower shoulder of the
resist profile.
58
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.Cohesion in English. Longman.2008, p.74
41
(9b) Work is going on, nevertheless, to smooth out the lower shoulder of the
resist profile.
(9c) Work is going on to smooth out the lower shoulder of the resist profile,
nevertheless.
Typically, linking adverbials are also orthographically separated from the
rest of the clause, that is, they are often marked off by commas (as in (9a)-(9c)).
Furthermore, they generally connect longer passages of text which themselves
might contain complex coordinate and subordinate structures:
(10) The highest values are reached [when [all the dipoles are aligned along the
same direction] and [have the same polarity]], thus contributing with the same sign
to the net piezoelectric response.
In example (10), a complex and a simple clause are joined together by the
linking adverbial thus. The first part of this connection represents itself a complex
sentence consisting of an independent clause and two coordinated subordinate
clauses being linked together by the coordinating conjunction and, and introduced
by the subordinating conjunction when.
Finally, linking adverbials can be realized by various syntactic structures. In
addition to such simple adverbs as thus, though and however, they can be
composed of adverb phrases (e.g., even so, more precisely), prepositional phrases
(e.g. in addition (to), as a result (of)), finite clauses (e.g., that is (to say)) and nonfinite clauses (e.g., added to that), and often occur in combination with
conjunctions (e.g., and therefore, and/but also, but instead).
As has been shown in the previous sections, sentence connectors can be
drawn from different syntactic categories. These include coordinating and
subordinating conjunctions as well as sentence adverbials which might themselves
include various word classes such as nouns, verbs and prepositions. One difficulty
in determining sentence connectors lies in the overlap of connective expressions
and other syntactic categories. Thus, several conjunctions, such as after, as, before,
but and since, can also function as prepositions, as illustrated below:
42
Preposition:
(11) Since the invention of the scanning probe techniques several types of
probes have been employed for imaging of thermal material properties in a
scanning thermal microscope
Conjunction:
(12) Since this filter design is self priming, it can be operated in two modes.
Moreover, there are words and expressions that belong to more than one
syntactic category, both syntactic forms serving as clause-linking devices. Though,
so, yet and neither, for example, can link clauses and sentences as either a
conjunction or a linking adverbial. As a subordinator, though is closely related to
although and even though introducing a concessive circumstance clause, while as a
linking adverbial it is similar to however in signaling a contrastive relationship
between two propositions. “So, yet, and neither are like coordinators in that they
are fixed at the clause boundary [...] but they are like linking adverbials in that they
easily combine with coordinators (and so, and yet, but neither)”59
In addition, so seems to be a particularly problematic case, because it is also
closely related to the complex subordinator so that. As Greenbaum and Quirk
point out, “the subordinator so is indistinguishable from the conjunct so in
asyndetic coordination, but if and is inserted so is unambiguously the conjunct”.
Asyndetic coordination means that the coordinator (in this case and) is not present,
but could be inserted, as indicated in the following example:
(13) The oscillator frequency is in the megahertz region, <and> so the electronic
control is fast enough to regulate environmental stimulation.
Likewise controversial are the syntactic roles of for and so that, which,
according to Greenbaum and Quirk60, are “on the gradient between ’pure’
coordinators and ’pure’ subordinators (in the meaning ’with the result that’)”
59
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. Longman Grammar of Spoken and
Written English. Longman.1999.p.80
60
Greenbaum, S. and Quirk, R. A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Longman.2008.p.57
43
Finally, linking adverbials often overlap with other adverbial classes. This is
also the case for thus and further, which can function as both linking and
circumstance adverbials, sometimes even implying both functions at the same
time:
Linking Adverbial:
(14a) It is further possible to build an array of sensor elements that are
modulated with different frequencies.
(14b) Further, it is possible to build an array of sensor elements that are
modulated with different frequencies.
Circumstance Adverbial:
(15) The pattern of the silicon dioxide platform can be modified to further
enhance surface compliance while maintaining structural stability.
Linking and Circumstance Adverbial:
(16) Each of these different corrections is performed on an identical challenging
test pattern, thus creating a set of proximity corrected pattern sites that differ only
in the values of the parameters used for the correction process.
The two uses of further (examples (14) and (15)) are easy to recognize:
While the linking adverbial can be shifted to sentence initial position (14b), the
circumstance adverbial is bound to the verb it qualifies (15). In (16), however, thus
can be interpreted in two ways: On the one hand, it is linking two clauses together
by indicating that the event in the second clause is the result of the event in the
first. On the other hand, it is used as a circumstance adverbial implying the
meaning ’in this way’.
3.3 Logical Relations between Clauses
Sentence connectors, such as conjunctions and linking adverbials, can
indicate a wide range of logical relations. By explicitly signaling the connections
between clauses, sentences and even larger parts of text, they serve as important
44
cohesive devices. In fact, conjunctive elements are cohesive not in themselves but
indirectly, by virtue of their specific meanings. Though they are grammatical
categories in the first place, it is their lexical meaning that makes them signal
certain relationships between the components of a text. According to Halliday and
Hasan61, there are four main types of logical relation:
1. Additive: and, also, furthermore, in addition
2. Adversative: but, although, however, nevertheless
3. Causal: since, because, therefore, as a result
4. Temporal: first, second, then, finally
This distinction is rather broad and more specific meaning relations, i.e.
cause, result and purpose, are subsumed under one of the four main categories, that
is in this case the causal relation. Due to the complexity of semantic relationships,
there are numerous other ways of categorizing meaning relations. Several English
Grammars are dealing with each of the specific subrelations individually using a
diversity of different terms and classifications. Enumerative connectors (first,
second, next), for example, are treated under the category of ’ordering points’ by
Sinclair, ’listing and adding’ by Leech and Svartvik and ’enumeration and
addition’ by Biber et al., rather owing to their additive character, whereas Halliday
and Hasan prefer to cover them under the category of temporal connectors as they
are used to list events or steps of a process chronologically in time. Though all
these categorizations seem to be eligible, the study in hand is based on the
semantic categorizations as suggested by the latter.
Halliday and Hasan also draw a distinction between external and internal
conjunction: External connectors are expressions that refer to external phenomena
that language is used to talk about, whereas internal connectors refer to relations
inherent in the communication process, in terms of interaction between reader and
writer. The external/internal distinction applies to each of the types of logical
61
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. Cohesion in English. Longman.2008, p.76
45
relation, but is not always clear-cut. In the present study, a differentiation between
external and internal relations is only made where relevant.
The additive relation is used to signal the addition of some extra
information. By using additive connectors such as and, also, besides and
furthermore, “the [writer] wants [two utterances] to be as it were added together
and reacted to in their totality”. Information can also be added, however, by giving
an alternative (using the coordinating conjunction or), by indicating similarity
between two propositions, or by exemplification. Similarity can be signaled by
sentence connectors such as equally, likewise and similarly. Exemplificatory
expressions, such as that is, for example or in other words, are used to add more
specific information on a subject:
Addition:
(17) The ceramic material titanium diboride is primarily known for its extreme
hardness and its chemical stability even at high temperatures. Furthermore is an
excellent conductor of electricity and heat, a property very rare among ceramic
materials.
Exemplification:
(18) The use of surface micromachining circumvents the design limitations of
conventional bulkmicromachined resonators. For example, the straight-forward
integration of a dual resonator configuration can reduce the sensitivity of the
pressure sensor to variations in both temperature and packaging stress and
electrical crosstalk.
The adversative relation is used to signal contrast implying the meaning
’contrary to expectation’62. Contrastive sentence connectors like but, in contrast,
while and whereas basically indicate that the ideas connected are incompatible
with each other, while concessive connectors (e.g. although, still, however,
nevertheless) express a certain reservation about claims being made in the
preceding clause:
62
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. Cohesion in English. Longman.2008, p.89
46
Contrast:
(19) The triple layer results are approximately four times the single-layer results,
whereas simple theory would predict three times.
Concession:
(20) Resonant pressure sensors consist of a resonant element attached to one or
more diaphragms, although the integration of the diaphragm and resonator into a
single element is possible.
Moreover, adversative connectors such as instead, rather and on the contrary
can signal a correction in the sense of ’as against what has just been said’, whereas
dismissive expressions (e.g. all the same, at any rate, in any case) presuppose that
“some circumstances have been referred to which are then dismissed as irrelevant either because it does not matter whether they obtain or not [...] or because it does
not matter which of the given set of circumstances obtains”63.
The causal relation is used to establish a cause-and-effect relationship
between two propositions. While causative conjunctions and adverbials, such as as,
since, for, because and in that indicate the reason for what was stated before,
resultative connectors (e.g. hence, thus, therefore, consequently, as a result)
introduce effects, results and consequences of the facts and events in the preceding
clause. In addition, causal connectors can express the logical relations of purpose
(e.g. in order to, so that, for this purpose) and condition (e.g. if, as long as, unless,
otherwise). The specific meanings, however, are not always clear-cut. So, the
linking adverbial so can be equally used in the sense of ’as a result of this’, ’for
this reason’ and ’for this purpose’, and the subordinating conjunction so that can
initiate a resultative clause and a purpose clause as well:
Effect/Result:
(21) In our case, the radius of curvature of the fluid in the exit area was several
millimeters, so that [For this reason/As a result] the pressure due to the surface
tension was negligible.
63
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. Cohesion in English. Longman. 2008, p.91
47
Purpose:
(22) It also needs to be reusable, so that [in order that/for the purpose that]
clogging should be minimized and reversible.
The temporal relation is used to express sequence in time, that is, one event
is subsequent to the other. In the case of sentence connectors like next, then, later
and afterwards, the temporal relation is paralleled by the sequence of the sentences
themselves: the second sentence refers to a later event. Other connectors initiate a
proposition or an event that is simultaneous or previous in time (e.g. meanwhile,
simultaneously and at the same time, and earlier, before and previously,
respectively).
There are also sentence connectors that are temporally cohesive “not because
[they stand] in some particular time relation to the presupposed sentence but
because [they mark] the end of some process or series of processes”64. Expressions
like this are used to signal conclusion (e.g. finally, at last, eventually) and
summary (e.g. altogether, in brief, to sum up). In addition, the temporal relation
can occur in a correlative form, “with a cataphoric time expression in one sentence
anticipating the anaphoric one that is to follow” (ibid.), as, for example,
first...second...third, first...then and at first...in the end.
Finally, care must be taken with the use of temporal expressions like now,
up to now, at this point and in future. These expressions are not cohesive but
deictic if used in their external function to refer to the ’here and now’ of reality. If
used internally to refer to a particular stage of the discourse in the sense of ’here
and now in the text’, however, then they are cohesive and serve as clause-linking
devices:
Deictic:
(23) Electron optical design has now improved so that beam diameters of 20 nm
are possible even for electron energies of 10 eV and below.
Cohesive:
64
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. Cohesion in English. Longman.2008.p.37
48
(24) We now suggest the following model to explain our results.
The four main types of logical relation are generally easy to recognize. This
is especially true for sentence connectors containing the intended meaning as a
lexical component, such as in addition, in contrast, consequently and as a result.
There are connective expressions, however, that have ’multiple semantic roles’,
that is, they can express more than one semantic relationship65. This is the case for
some of the most common subordinators, namely as, since, when and while. All of
these conjunctions can be used to indicate a temporal relation. In addition to this,
when can have a conditional connotation and while can be used to signal contrast
or concession. Since can also indicate reason, and, apart from time, as is used to
express reason or manner:
Time:
(25) The flow enters in the middle of the channel and splits into two symmetric
streams as [the moment that] it goes over the electrodes.
Reason:
(26) It also gives good repeatability as [because] no bonding layer is required.
Manner:
(27) A two-layer actuator was printed with gold electrodes, and polarised, as [in
the manner as] described earlier.
It has to be noted here, that the subordinating conjunction as in (27)
introducing an adverbial clause of manner has no cohesive function, and is
therefore not regarded as a clause-linking device. The whole phrase ’as described
earlier’, however, has a textstructuring function in that it refers to a previous part
of the text.
The different uses of as, as illustrated above, are rather obvious. Sometimes,
however, the intended meanings of connective expressions with multiple semantic
roles are not that easy to distinguish:
65
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. Longman Grammar of Spoken and
Written English. Longman.1999.p.36
49
(28) The seismic mass is set to a bias voltage of 2 V while the stator combs are
virtually connected to ground via the I–V converter stages.
In this example, it cannot be clearly determined whether the conjunction
while introduces a contrastive or a temporal clause. In fact, the clauses seem to
blend semantic roles: two processes carried out at the same time are contrasted
with each other. The replacement of while with contrastive and, otherwise,
temporal connectors clearly shows that both
meaning relations are appropriate:
Contrast:
(28a) The seismic mass is set to a bias voltage of 2 V. In contrast, the stator
combs are virtually connected to ground via the I–V converter stages.
Time:
(28b) The seismic mass is set to a bias voltage of 2 V. Meanwhile, the stator
combs are virtually connected to ground via the I–V converter stages.
3.4 Position of Sentence Connectors
Connective expressions and the position they occupy within clauses,
sentences and paragraphs can reveal important information about their syntactic
and semantic functions, as well as about the register they are used in. Coordinating
and subordinating conjunctions generally occur in clause-initial position as they
are syntactically restricted to the clause boundary. Linking adverbials, in contrast,
are more mobile than other syntactic categories. They can be placed in initial,
medial or final position, though some adverbials are only suitable for one of these
positions. Moreover, “their positions are determined to a larger extent by textual
and pragmatic factors than the positions of other clause elements, which are more
determined by syntax”66.
66
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. Longman Grammar of Spoken and
Written English. Longman.1999. p.131
50
According to a study by Biber et al., in academic prose, the overwhelming
majority of linking adverbials is used in initial (50 percent) and medial (40 percent)
position, while the final position is rare (10 percent). This is not surprising as
sentence connectors “have an important role in letting us know what to expect at
each step of a discourse. This is one reason they tend to come at or near the start of
each sentence in English”67. Some researchers, however, suggest that the position
of logical connectors might also implicate differences in meaning. Celce-Murcia
and Larsen-Freeman68, for example, refer to a study of connector mobility
conducted by Salera reporting that the adversative connectors however,
nevertheless and instead would be used:
1. Clause initially to indicate an emphatic, contrary-to-expectation expression,
e.g.,
(29a) However, measurements showed that the sensor inductance is distributed
around a statistic average interval.
2. Clause medially to indicate a contrastive relationship that is not counter to
expectation or one that expresses some reservation about the preceding clause, e.g.,
(29b) Measurements showed, however, that the sensor inductance is distributed
around a statistic average interval.
3. Clause finally to indicate a contrastive comment of afterthought that is
less important than what went on before, e.g.,
(29c) Measurements showed that the sensor inductance is distributed around a
statistic average interval, however.
Similarly, they point to meaning differences depending on clause ordering,
i.e. whether the subordinate clause comes first (subordinating connector in
sentence-initial position) or whether the main clause precedes the subordinate
clause (subordinating connector in inter-clausal position), concluding that “one
67
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause.
Continuum.2003.p.128
68
Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D.The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. Heinle
& Heinle.2004. p.91
51
should look to the discourse context in order to understand why speakers sequence
the clause joined by a logical connector in the order they do”69
Additionally, the position of sentence connectors is sometimes associated
with certain registers. Thus, the use of coordinating conjunctions in sentence-initial
position is rather unusual in formal writing, but more often occurs in informal
contexts and conversation. Coordinators can be used in the beginning of a sentence
“to make the sentence seem more dramatic or forceful”70, but, as Biber et al. point
out, there is a well-known prescriptive reaction against beginning an orthographic
sentence with a coordinator. Nevertheless, investigating informal elements in
academic English, Chang and Swales found out that “sentenceinitial conjunctions
have already been ’legitimized’ in English scientific/academic writing”. This
seems to be especially true for the use of but, while initial and is still being
regarded as ’strange’ and ’risky’ by students and professors alike. In the end, the
main difficulty with sentence-initial conjunctions might be, (not) to know “when
might be an appropriate moment to begin a sentence with [’and’ or] ’but’ 71
Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course.
Heinle & Heinle.2004.p.40
70
Sinclair, J., editor. Collins Cobuild English Grammar. Collins.2000, p.376
71
Chang, Y. and Swales, J. M.Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities
for advanced non-native speakers. Longman.1999, p.162
69
52
CONCLUSION
The main purpose of this study is to develop an understanding of the
Analysis of English Clause Structure. Moreover, this study provides an exciting
opportunity to advance our knowledge of English sentence structure as a whole.
For the duration of my qualification paper I attempted to scrutinize widely spread
definitions of the sentence structure of English. And I tried to expound the subject
matter from three different angles.
In the first place, I provided the general definition for English clauses as
well as subordination and coordination. What is more, I demonstrated the principal
fundamental characteristics of subordination and coordination in clause structures:
Coordination is two or more complete ideas or thoughts are combined that
could each stand alone as independent clauses or simple sentences (each containing
a subject + predicate).
Subordination is two or more ideas or thoughts are combined that could not
stand alone as independent clauses (if the subordinating conjunction begins the
first clause). Sometimes sentences are combined so that one clause is dependent
upon another clause or phrase. In other words, because of its structure and
correlation to another sentence, a dependent sentence cannot stand alone.
In the second place, I indicated the general overview of the structure of
English clauses. In this case, I attempted to make use of certain figures that are
correlated to the English syntax such as Subject and Predicator, Object and
Complement, Advebial Clauses. I also put more effort into their significant
features that might commonly occour in the English clause system. Moreover, I
clarified these essentials in a categorical way:
The subject in a simple English sentence is the person or thing about whom
the statement is made. Traditionally the subject is the word or phrase which
controls the verb in the clause, that is to say with which the verb agrees.
The predicate in traditional grammar is inspired by propositional logic of
antiquity. A predicate is seen as a property that a subject has or is characterized
53
by. The predicate is one of the two main parts of asentence (the other being
the subject, which the predicate modifies). The predicate must contain a verb, and
the verb requires or permits other elements to complete the predicate, or it
precludes them from doing so.
Traditional grammar defines the object in a sentence as the entity that is
acted upon by the subject. There is thus a primary distinction between subjects and
objects that is understood in terms of the action expressed by the verb. Traditional
theories of sentence structure divide the simple sentence into a subject and
a predicate, whereby the object is taken to be part of the predicate.
Complement or complementation that exists in grammar that is recognized
as the part of the sentence which follows the verb and which therefore completes
the sentence.
Adverbial clause that exists in a clause composition which functions as an
adverb.
In the third place, I tried to explain one of the most cardinal factors that
possess the necessary position in taking place in forming sentence. They are
famous for the name Sentence Connectors. And I made an effoert to study them
from three different perspectives which are called Structural relations, Logical
relations and finally Position of sentence connectors.
As a final point, I can definitely say that studying this qualification paper
gave me a chance that is ample to be able to fathom out the principal essence of the
subject matter. Thus, It is my firm belief that this study will also assist to other
teachers to understand the beneficial features of this subject to facilitate their
students’ learning process properly.
54
LIST OF LITERATURE USED
1.
Abraham, Werner. Topic, focus and default vs. contrastive accent: typological
differences with respect to discourse prominence.2006, p.74.
2.
Alexander, L.G. Longman English Grammar. 12th impression. London :
Longman, 2003, p.29
3.
Angela Downing and Philip Locke. English Grammar, A University Course,
Second Edition.2001, p.73
4.
Austin, Jennifer R., Engelberg, Stefan and Rauh, Gisa.
Interplay
between
Meaning,
Context,
and
Adverbials. The
Syntactic
Structure.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.2004, p.65.
5.
Austin, L.J. How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.2000, p.213
6.
Biber et al. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow:
Pearson ESL,2009, p.194
7.
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, S. and E. Finegan. Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.1999, p.103
8.
Bierwisch, Manfred, Heads. Complements, Adjuncts: Projection and
Saturation. 2003, p.124.
9.
Bloor, T. and M. Bloor. The Functional Analysis of English. A Hallidayan
Approach. London: Edward Arnold.2004, 176
10. Bolinger, D. Meaning and Form. London: Longman.2000, p.12
11. Börjars, K. – Burridge, K. Introducing English Grammar. 2nd ed. New York:
Hodder Education, 2010, 328 p.
12. Brazil, D. A Grammar of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2007, p.54
13. Chang, Y. And Swales, J. M. Informal elements in english academic writing:
Threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers. London.1999,
p.162
55
14. Celce-Murcia, M. and Larsen-Freeman, D.The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL
Teacher’s Course. Heinle & Heinle.2004, p.91
15. Cole, P. and J. Morgan, Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York:
Academic Press. 2005, p.84
16. Cormack & Smith. Who distinguish notionally between Conjunction and
Coordination. 2005, p.396.
17. Cristofaro, Sonia. Subordination. Oxford University Press.2003.p.9-33.
18. Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.2005, p.215
19. Dehé,
Nicole
and
Kavalova,
Yordanka
(eds).
Parentheticals.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2007, p.29.
20. Downing, A. Locke, P. English Grammar. A University Course. 2nd ed.
London: Routledge, 2006, p.12
21. Eastwood, J. Oxford Guide to English Grammar. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2004, p.327
22. Eggins, S. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics, London:
Pinter.2002, p.145
23. Fabricius-Hansen,
Cathrine.
Subordination.
Berlin/New
York:
de
Gruyter.2002, p.458-483.
24. Greenbaum, S. Quirk, R. Student’s Grammar of the English Language.
London: Longman, 2008, p.42-98
25. Greenbaum, S. The Oxford English Grammar. London: Oxford University
Press, 2006, p.52
26. Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R.Cohesion in English. Longman.2008, p.76
27. Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd edn, revised
by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen. London: Arnold.2004, p.84
28. Haspelmath, Martin.Coordinating Constructions: An Overview. 2004, p.3-34.
29. Hopper, P.J. and S.A.Thompson. ‘Transitivity in grammar and discourse,
Language’. 2000, p.251
56
30. Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. The Cambridge Grammar of
the English Language. Cambridge University Press.2002, p.94
31. Jasinskaja, Ekaterina. Pragmatics and prosody of implicit discourse relations:
The case of restatement. PhD dissertation, University of Tübingen. 2006, p.45
32. Johannessen, Janne Bondi. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2008, p.19
33. Kehler, Andrew.Coherence, Reference and the Theory of Grammar. Stanford:
CSLI publications.2002, p.3
34. Krifka, Manfred. Basic notions of information structure. Potsdam University
2007, p.98.
35. Lang, Ewald. The Semantics of Coordination. Authorized English translation
from Lang. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.2004, p.23
36. Langacker, R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical
Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.2007, p.90
37. Leech, G. – Svartvik, J. A Communicative Grammar of English. 3rd ed.
London: Longman, 2003, 440 p.
38. Leech, G. Introducing English Grammar. London: Penguin English, 2002,
p.124
39. Leech, G., Deuchar, M., and Hoogenraad, R. English Grammar for Today.
Palgrave Macmillan.2006, p.198
40. Lehmann, Christian. Towards a Typology of Clause Linkage.2008, p.42
41. Levinson, Stephen C. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.2000, p.121.
42. Martin, J. R. and Rose, D.Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the
Clause. Continuum.2003, p.128
43. Matthiessen, Christian and Sandra A. Thompson.The Structure of Discourse
and Subordination.2008, p.275-329.
44. Noonan, Michael. Complementation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.2005, p.42-140.
57
45. Partee, Barbara H. and Rooth, Mats. Generalized conjunction and type
ambiguity.2003, p.361-386.
46. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S. A University grammar of English. Harlow:
Longman, 2010, 245.
47. Quirk, R., et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language.
London: Longman, 2011, p.142
48. Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.2012,
p.290.
49. Radford, A. An Introduction to English Sentence Structure. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009, p.8
50. Sinclair, J., editor. Collins Cobuild English Grammar. Collins.2000, p.376
51. Sperber, Dan and Wilson, Deirdre. Relevance: Communication and
Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. 2nd edition, 2011, p.34
52. Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger, Strecker, Bruno et al. Grammatik der
deutschen Sprache Bd. 1-3. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.2007, p.2362.
53. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4176946
54. http://www.en.wikipedia.org
55. http://www.R-project.org/.
56. http://www.rbelina@ou.edu
57. http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gmhwww/511/text.htm
58. www.grammaticalfeatures.net.
58