Clause

src: i.ytimg.com

In grammar, clause is the smallest grammatical unit that can express a complete proposition. A typical clause consists of a subject and a predicate, the latter usually a verb phrase, a verb with objects and other modifiers. However, subjects are sometimes not said or explicit, often in a language that has no subject if the subject can be taken from context, but sometimes also occurs in other languages ​​such as English (as in imperative sentences and non-limited clauses).

Simple sentences usually consist of a finite clause with independent finite verbs. More complex sentences can contain multiple clauses. The main clause ( matrix clause , independent clause ) is a clause that can stand alone as a sentence. Subordinate clauses ( embedded clause , dependent clause ) are those that will be awkward or incomplete if they are alone.

Video Clause

Two main differences

The main division for clause discussion is the difference between the main clause (ie matrix clause , independent clause ) and subordinate clause (ie embedded clause , dependent clause ). The main clause can stand on its own, ie it can be a complete sentence by itself. Subordinate clauses (ie embedded clause ), on the contrary, depend on the appearance of the main clause; it depends on the main clause and hence the dependent clause, whereas the main clause is an independent clause.

The second major difference concerns the difference between a finite and a non-limited clause. The finite clause contains finite structural center verbs, while the structural center word of the non-finite clause is often a non-finite verb. Traditional grammar focuses on limited clauses, the consciousness of non-limited clauses has emerged later in relation to the modern study of syntax. The discussion here also focuses on limited clauses, although some aspects of the non-limited clause are considered further below.

Maps Clause

Clause based on typical syntactic features

The clauses can be classified according to the typical characteristic which is a prominent characteristic of its syntactic form. A finite verb position is one of the main features used for classification, and the appearance of a special focus word type (eg wh -word) is another. Both of these criteria overlap to some extent, which means that often there is not a single form of syntax that is always decisive in determining how the clause functions. Nevertheless, there is a strong tendency.

Standard SV-clause

Standard SV-clause (subject-verb) is the norm in English. They are usually declarative (as opposed to exclamative, imperative, or interrogative); they disclose information in a neutral way, for example

The pig has not been fed. - Declarative clause, default SV order

I'm already hungry for two hours. - Declarative clause, default SV order

... I was hungry for two hours. - Declarative clause, standard SV sequence, but serves as a subordinate clause due to subordinate appearance that

Declarative clauses like this are by far the most common type of clause in any language. They can be seen as basic, other types of clauses come from them. Standard SV-clauses can also be either interrogative or exclamative, however, given the appropriate intonation contours and/or the emergence of a question word, for example

a. Pig not yet fed? - Increased intonation on fed makes the clause a yes/no question.

b. Pig has not been fed! - Conveyed by force, this clause is very good.

c. Are you hungry for how long? - Interrogative word appearance how and rising intonation make clause a constituent question

Examples like this show how the clause function can not be known based entirely on one specific syntax criterion. SV clauses are usually declarative, but intonation and/or the emergence of a question word can make them interrogative or exclusive.

Verb first clause

The first clause verb in English usually plays one of three roles: 1. They express the yes/no-question question through the subject-helper inversion, 2. they state the condition as an inherent clause, or they express the command through the imperative mood, eg.

a. He should stop laughing. - Standard declarative SV-clause (second order verb)

b. Should he stop laughing? - Yes/no questions revealed by first order verb

c. Already he stopped laughing,... - Conditions revealed by first order verb

d. Stop laugh! - Imperative is formed in the first order verb

a. They have completed the job. - Standard declarative SV-clause (second order verb)

b. Have they done the job? - Yes/no questions revealed by first order verb

c. Have they done the job,... - The conditions expressed by the first order verb

d. Do work! - Imperative is formed in the first order verb

The first clause of the first verb is the main clause. Verbs of the first conditional clauses, however, must be classified as embedded clauses because they can not stand alone.

Wh -clauses

Wh -claus contains the word wh . Wh - words often work to help reveal constituent questions. They are also prevalent, though, as relative pronouns, in which case they serve to introduce relative clauses and are not part of the question. The words wh focus on a particular constituency and most of the time, it appears in the starting-clause position. The following examples illustrate interogative standards wh -clauses. The b-sentence is a direct question (main clause), and the c-phrase contains an appropriate indirect question (embedded clause):

a. Sam likes his flesh. - Declarative SV-standard clause

b. Who likes meat? - Interrogative matrix wh -clause focus on subject

c. They ask who likes meat . - Embedded interrogation wh -clause focus on subject

a. Larry sent Susan to the store. - Declarative SV-standard clause

b. Who sent Larry to the store? - Interrogative matrix wh -clause that focuses on the object, the supplementary-supporting inversion

c. We know who Larry sent to the store . - Embedded wh -clause that focuses on the object, additional inversion subject does not exist

a. Larry sent Susan to the store. - Declarative SV-standard clause

b. Where did Larry send Susan? - interrogative matrix wh -clause focus on oblique object, additional-support inversion subject

c. Someone wonder where Larry sent Susan . - Embedded wh -clause that focuses on the oblique object, no additional-subject inversion

One important aspect of the wh -clauses matrix is ​​that the extra-subject inversion is mandatory when something other than the subject is focused. When it is the subject (or something embedded in the subject) that is focused, however, additional inversion-the helper does not occur.

a. Who contacted you? - Subject focused, no additional-subject inversion

b. Who do you contact? - Object focus, subject-inquiry inversion occurs

Another important aspect of wh -clauses concerns the absence of additional-inversion of the subject in an embedded clause, as illustrated in the c-example just generated. Subject-auxiliary inversion is required in the matrix clause when something other than the subject is focused, but never occurs in an embedded clause regardless of the focused constituency. Systematic differences in word order appear throughout the wh -clauses matrix, which can have a VS sequence, and embed wh -clauses, which always retains the SV sequence, ie.

a. Why do they do that? - The result of Subject-inversion aids in the order VS in the wh -clause matrix.

b. They told us why they did that . - Inverted subject-topics not in embedded wh -clause.

c. * They told us why they did it . - Inverted subject-topics are blocked in embedded wh -clause.

a. Who is he trying to avoid? - The result of Subject-inversion aids in the order VS in the wh -clause matrix.

b. We know who he is trying to avoid . - Subversion-auxiliary inversion does not exist in the embedded wh - clause.

c. * We know who he is trying to avoid . - Inverted subject-topics are blocked in embedded wh -clause.

Relative clause

Relative clauses are mixed groups. In English they can become standard SV-clauses if they are introduced by the or less relatively full pronouns, or they can be wh -making if they are introduced by wh - words that serve as relative pronouns.

a. Something happened twice. - Declarative SV-standard clause

b. something that happens twice - Relative clauses introduced by relative pronouns that and modify indefinite words something

a. I know everybody. - Declarative SV-standard clause

b. everyone I know - Relative clause is less fully pronouns and modifies indefinite words everyone

a. They leave early - Standard declarative clauses

b. time when they leave early - Relative clauses introduced by relative proform when and modify the noun time

a. The woman sang a song. - Declarative SV-standard clause

b. the woman sang the song . - Relative clauses introduced by relative pronouns that and modify noun women

As an embedded clause, relative clauses in English can not display the subject's inversion of distinction.

The specific type of wh -related clauses is what is called the free-to-free clause . Relatives usually serve as arguments, eg

a. What he did was unexpected. - Free relative clauses function as subject arguments

b. He will flatter anyone present . - Free relative clauses function as object arguments

This relative clause is "free" because it can appear in various syntactic positions; they are not limited to appearing as nominator modifiers. The -ever suffix is ​​often used to create standard relative pronouns as pronouns that can introduce relatively free clauses.

src: i.ytimg.com

The clause based on the semantic-predicate function

The attached clause can be categorized according to its syntax function in the form of predicate argument structure. They can serve as arguments, in addition, or as predictive expressions. That is, a pinned clause can be a predicate argument, an addition to the predicate, or (part of) the predicate itself. The predicate is usually a matrix predicate of the main clause, but embedding predicate is also common.

Argument clause

A clause that serves as a given predicate argument is known as the clause argument . Clause arguments can appear as subjects, as objects, and as obliques. They can also modify predicate nouns, in which case they are known as clause content .

That they really help is greatly appreciated. - SV-clause functions as subject argument

They mentioned that they really helped . - SV-clause functions as an object argument

What he said is ridiculous. - Wh -clause functions as subject argument

We know what he said . - Wh -clause functions as an object argument

He talks about what he says . - Wh -clause functions as an oblique object argument

The following example illustrates the argument clause that provides the content of a noun. The clause of such argument is the content clause:

a. claim that it will change it - Clause argument that provides the content of a noun (ie content clause)

b. claims which he declares - Additional clauses (relative clauses) that modify the noun

a. idea that we should change the law - clause argument that provides the content of the noun (ie the content clause)

b. ideas - Additional clauses (relative clauses) that modify the noun

The clause of such content in sentences is an argument. The relative clause introduced by the relative pronoun that as in b-clauses here has an outward appearance very similar to the content clause. Relative clause is additional, but not an argument.

Additional clause

Additional clauses are embedded clauses that change the structure of whole predictions. All types of clauses (SV-, first verb, wh - ) may function in addition, although the additional stereotypical clause is SV and introduced by subordinators (ie subordinate conjunctions, eg after , because , before , when , etc.), for example

a. Fred arrived before you did . - Modify clause modifying matrix clause

b. After Fred arrives , the party begins. - Modify clause modifying matrix clause

c. Susan missed eating because she was fasting. - Modify clause modifying matrix clause

This additional clause modifies the entire matrix clause. Thus before you do in the first instance modifying the matrix clause Fred arrives . Additional clauses can also modify nominal predicates. A common example of this additional type is relative clauses, e.g.

a. We love the music you bring . - Relative clause works as an addition that changes the music

b. People who bring music are singing loudly. - Relative clause works as an addition that changes the person

c. They wait for some food that will not come . - Relative clause works as an addition modifying the food

Predictive clauses

Embedded clauses can also serve as predictive expressions. That is, it can form (part of) the predicate of a larger clause.

a. That's when they laugh . - Predicative SV-clause, ie clause that serves as (part of) main predicate

b. She becomes what she always wants to be . - Predicative wh -clause, i.e. wh -clause that serves as (part of) main predicate

This predictive clause works like any other predictive expression, e.g. the predictive adjective ( That nice ) and the predicative nominee ( That is truth ). They form a matrix predicate along with copula.

src: www.wikihow.com

Represents clause

Some of the differences presented above are represented in the syntax tree. These trees make the distinction between the main and subordinate clauses very clear, and they also illustrate well the differences between arguments and additional clauses. The following dependent grammatical tree indicates that the embedded clause depends on the element in the main clause, often on the verb:

The main clause covers the whole tree at a time, whereas the attached clause is inside the main clause. These two embedded clauses are arguments. Embedded wh -clause what we want is the object argument from predicate know . The embedded clause that it gets is the subject argument from the predicate motivates . Both clauses of this argument directly depend on the main verb of the matrix clause. The following trees identify additional clauses using the end of the arrow dependency:

These two embedded clauses are additional clauses because they provide in-depth information that changes the higher expression. The first is dependent of the main verb of the matrix clause and the second is dependent of the object's noun. The edge of the arrow dependency identifies them in addition. The arrow points away from the addition to the governor to show that semantic selection goes against the direction of syntactic dependence; addition is to choose the governor. The next four trees illustrate the above-mentioned differences between the wh -clauses and embedded wh -clauses

Embedded wh -clause is the object argument every time. The wh position in all the a-tree clauses and the b-tree clause captures the differences in word order. The wh -clauses matrix has the wording of V2, while the embedded wh-clause has (how many) the wording of V3. In the matrix clause, the word wh depends on the finite verb, whereas it is the head above the finite verb in the embedded wh mark.

src: i.ytimg.com

Clause vs. phrase

There is confusion about the difference between clause and phrase. This confusion is partly due to how these concepts are used in the phrase grammar of the Chomsky tradition. In the 1970s, Chomskyan's grammar began labeling many clauses as CP (ie complementary phrases) or as IP (inflection phrases), and then later as TPs (tense phrases), etc. The selection of labels is influenced by the internal-theory of the desire to use labels consistently. The X-bar scheme recognizes at least three levels of projection for each lexical head: minimum projection (eg N, V, P, etc.), Projection between (eg N ', V', P ', etc.), And projection of phrase level eg NP, VP, PP, etc.). Extending this convention to the clause category occurs in the interest of consistent label usage.

The use of this label should not be confused with the actual status of the syntactic unit embedded in the label. A more traditional understanding of clauses and phrases states that phrases are not clauses, and clauses are not phrases. There are developments in size and status of syntactic units: words & lt; phrase & lt; clause . The typical clause, ie the existence of the subject and the verb (up to), is not in the phrase. The clause can, however, be embedded in the phrase.

src: newtechtimeline.com

Non-restricted clause

The central word of a non-to-normal clause is usually a non-finite verb (as opposed to finite verb). There are various types of non-to-acceptable clauses based partly on the type of non-finite verbs at hand. Gerunds are widely recognized for forming non-limited clauses, and some modern grammars also rate many to -infinitives to be the structural locus of the non-limited clause. Finally, some modern grammars also recognize so-called small clauses, which often lack a verb at all. It should be clear that the non-limited clause is an attached clause (in general).

Gerund clause

The underlined words in the following example are considered non-to-clauses, e.g.

a. Bills stopping a project is a big disappointment. - Drop unlimited bound

b. Bill stopped the project was a big disappointment. - Gerund with nomenclature

a. We've heard about Susan trying the solution . - Drop unlimited bound

b. We've heard about Susan's efforts to find a solution. - Gerund with nomenclature

a. They mentioned he had an affair in the test . - Drop unlimited bound

b. They mentioned their cheating in the test. - Gerund with nomenclature

Any gerund in sentences ( stopping , trying , and cheating ) is a non-limited clause. The predicate relation of a subject that has long been considered a characteristic of a fully defining clause is present in sentences. The fact that the b-phrase is also acceptable describes the mysterious behavior of gerund. They seem to straddle two categories of syntax: they can function as non-finite verbs or as nouns. When they function as nouns as in the b-sentence, it can be argued whether they are clauses, since nouns are generally not considered constitutive of clauses.

to -a positive clause

Some modern syntactical theories require much to -infinitive to be constitutive of the non-finite clauses. This attitude is supported by a clear predicate status from many to -infinitives. However, it is challenged by the fact that to -infinitive does not take an overt subject, e.g.

a. He refused to consider the matter .

a. He tries to to explain his worries .

to -infinitives to consider and to explain clearly qualify as a predicate (because it can be negated). However, they do not take the subject openly. The subject he and he is the dependent of the matrix verb refuse and try , respectively, not from to -infinitive. Such data are often discussed in terms of control. The predicate matrix refused and attempted is the control verb; they control the embedded predicate consider and explain , which means they specify which argument serves as the subject argument of the embedded predicate. Some syntax theories put the subject of zero PRO (ie pronoun) to help overcome the facts of construction control, for example

b. He declined the PRO to consider the matter .

b. He tried PRO to explain his worries .

With the presence of PRO as a null subject, to -infinitives can be interpreted as a complete clause, since subjects and predicates exist.

However, it should be remembered that PRO theory is specific to one tradition in the study of syntax and grammar (Theory of Government and Binding, Minimalist Program). Other syntax and grammatical theories (eg Grammar-Based Grammar Structure, Grammar of Construction, dependency grammar) reject the presence of zero elements such as PRO, which means they tend to reject the to - infinitive attitudes as clauses.

Small clause

Another type of construction that some syntax and grammar schools as a non-up clause is the so-called small clause. Typical small clauses consist of noun phrases and predictive expressions, for example

We think it is a joke . - Small clause with predicate noun phrase joke

Something makes him angry . - Small cliches with predicative adjectives angry

He wants us to stay . - Small clauses with non-up to to -instant to

The subject predicate relationship is clearly present in the underlined string. The expression on the right is a predication of the noun phrase immediately to the left. While the subject predicate relationship is undeniably present, the underlined string does not behave as a single constituency, a fact that undermines their status as a clause. Therefore one can argue whether the strings underlined in these examples must qualify as clauses. The layered structure of the chomsky tradition is likely to see strings underlined as clauses, whereas syntax schools that place flat structures tend to deny clause status to them.

src: i.ytimg.com

See also

• Adverbial clause
• The dependent clause
• Relative clause
• Sentences (linguistics)
• T-unit
• Thematic equations
• Balancing and grasping

src: i.ytimg.com

Note

src: study.com

References

• Crystal, David (1997). Linguistic and phonetic dictionary . fourth edition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
• Kroeger, Paul R. (2005). Analyze Grammar: An Introduction . Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Timothy Osborne; Thomas Gross (2012). "Construction is catenae: Grammar Construction meets Grammar Dependence". Cognitive Linguistics . 23 (1): 163-214. doi: 10.1515/cog-2012-0006.
• Radford, Andrew (2004). English syntax: Introduction . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Source of the article : Wikipedia