CLAUSE AND SENTENCE REVISITED. LUIS QUEREDA RODRÍGUEZ-NAVARRO Universidad de Granada

Transcription

1 CLAUSE AND SENTENCE REVISITED LUIS QUEREDA RODRÍGUEZ-NAVARRO Universidad de Granada The definition of the units Clause and in traditional grammar somehow overlap, which creates some problems when trying to identify them. In this paper, a new definition of clause is proposed to avoid such problems. Besides, the concepts of main and subordinate clauses are also considered. CLAUSES AND SENTENCES The terms clause and sentence in traditional grammar can be a little confusing since there is one point in which they overlap: a simple sentence is the same thing as a clause. This can be seen in the following approach taken by Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik 1985: In Chapters 10 and 11 we studied the simple sentence, a sentence consisting of a single clause in which one of its elements (subject, object, adverbial, etc.) is realized by a subclausal unit a phrase. The multiple sentence, on the other hand, consists of more than one clause [ ] The multiple sentences are the compound and the complex sentence. A compound sentence consists of two or more coordinated main clauses [ ] A complex sentence is like a simple sentence in that it consists of only one main clause, but unlike a simple sentence it has one or more subordinate clauses functioning as an element of the sentence. (Quirk et al. 1985:987) These statements suggest that the following examples: Frank burned the toast. My car had a puncture. are at the same time both a simple sentence and a clause, whereas examples such as:

2 436 LUIS QUEREDA RODRÍGUEZ-NAVARRO Frank burned the toast while he was on the phone. My car had a puncture when we were coming back from London. are usually analysed as sentences composed of two clauses, one main clause and one subordinate. Therefore, when we describe the structure of a simple sentence (such as SPO), we are also describing the structure of a clause, since a sentence is a grammatical unit that is composed of one or more clauses. The most basic kind of sentence consists of a single clause; more complicated sentences may contain multiple clauses. This approach seems mistaken in several ways. Firstly, because it does not seem appropriate to say that a simple sentence is a clause, when a simple sentence is just a (simple) sentence and, secondly and most important, because this approach suggests two problematic tenets: a) that very often sentences and clauses are at the same level of description and have the same structure and b) that sentences are realized by clauses: a simple sentence consists of a clause and a complex sentence consists of a main and a subordinate clause. s are never realized by clauses. A sentence is a unit of language characterized by the presence of certain syntactic elements, basically those of Subject and Predicate, if we understand Predicate as VP + complementation, or of Subject, Predicator, Objects, Complements and Adverbials, if we split VP and complementation. In this sense, the structure of a simple sentence and a complex sentence is always the same. They are formed by the same type of constituents. Examples such as: a 1 ) Everybody knows the news S P Od b 1 ) The boys can go under this condition S P A have the same structure as examples such as: a 2 ) Everybody knows that she is going to get married S P Od b 2 ) The boys can go if they finish it quickly S P A Examples a 1 ) and a 2 ) share the structure S P Od, whereas examples b 1 ) and b 2 ) that of S P A. The first pair of examples (a 1 and b 1 ) are simple sentences, since all their constituents are realized by phrases. In contrast, the second pair of examples (a 2 and b 2 ) are complex sentences since at least one of their constituents is realized by a clause: the Direct Object that she is going to get married in a 2 ) and the Adverbial if they finish it quicklyt in b 2 ). But if we pay close attention to

3 CLAUSE AND SENTENCE REVISITED 437 these clauses, we see that their structure is not the same as that of sentences. The structure that we have in these constituents is that of a subordinator + a sentence. The analyses of a 1 ) and a 2 ) can be done in the following way: a 1 ) a 2 ) S P Od S P Od NP VP NP NP VP Clause Everybody knows the news Subordinator S P Everybody knows that she is going to get married and the analyses of b 1 and b 2 as: S P A S P A NP VP PP NP VP Clause The boys can go under this condition Subord. S P Od A The boys can go if they finish it quickly Therefore the structure of the unit clause is not the same as that of the sentence. The structure of clauses is that of subordinator + sentence. This analysis is better than the traditional one in three ways. Firstly, the ambiguity between the term clause and the term sentence disappears. Secondly, it clarifies the different level in which clause and sentence operate. And thirdly, which is most important, it clarifies the function of the subordinator. This analysis clarifies the ambiguity between clause and sentence since in this analysis an example such as Everybody knows the news is not at the same time a sentence and a clause. An example like this is not a clause, it is simply a sentence. Whereas sentences are formed by sentence constituents, clauses are formed by a subordinator + a sentence. This analysis also clarifies the level of operation of sentence and clause since it clearly states that sentences are never realized by clauses. s are formed by syntactic elements such as Subject, Predicator, Objects, Complements

4 438 LUIS QUEREDA RODRÍGUEZ-NAVARRO and Adverbials. And it is these elements, basically the Subject, Objects, Complements and Adverbials, 1 that can be formed by a clause. Thus sentences and clauses are not at the same level of analysis. This analysis also clarifies the function of subordinators. In the traditional analysis the subordinator was treated either as an Adverbial or was left unanalysed. In an example such as I hope that you are all right, I is analysed as Subject, hope as Predicator and that you are all right as Direct Object. In this Direct Object you is the Subject, are is the Predicator and all right the Subject Complement. The function of the subordinator that is left unclarified. In an example such as The boys can go if they finish it quickly, The boys is the Subject, can go the Predicator and if they finish it quickly Adverbial. In this Adverbial, the subordinator if is either left unclarified or treated as an Adverbial. But the treatment of the subordinator as an Adverbial is definitely wrong. The function of if cannot be the same as that of quickly, which is undoubtedly an Adverbial of manner. If and quickly are elements which are not at the same level and to consider both as Adverbials is a mistake. In our proposal, the function of the subordinator is clear. The subordinator is an element which is outside sentence structure. Subordinators, like coordinators and other linkers, are not elements of the sentence. Subordinators are elements which have nothing to do with the structure of the sentence. The position of subordinators is similar to that of coordinators. An example such as: I was having breakfast and I had to go to school. is normally analysed as two clauses/sentences with the coordinator outside clause/sentence structure: Clause/ 1 Clause/ 2 [ I was having breakfast ] and [ I had to go to school ] S P Od S P A The treatment of subordinators should be likewise. The subordinator is an element which is outside sentence structure and it therefore requires a similar analysis: [ I was having breakfast ] because [ I had to go to school ] S P Od S P A Therefore, clauses and sentences are two different structures which cannot be mixed up. I was having breakfast is a simple sentence, but it is not a clause. I was having breakfast because I had to go to school is a complex sentence in 1. Relative clauses operate at a different level. They are not realizations of sentence elements. They are realizations of NP Qualifiers, so they are not sentence elements. They are phrasal elements.

5 CLAUSE AND SENTENCE REVISITED 439 which one of its elements, the Adverbial, is realised by a clause, that is, by a subordinator (because) and a sentence (I had to go to school). This analysis can be blurred in two ways. In the first place, the subordinator can be omitted. In an example such as I imagine they re having a good time, the subordinator is elliptical. However, this should not be a problem and we can analyse this sentence in the same way we are proposing. I imagine they re having a good time is a complex sentence with three syntactic elements: I is the Subject realized by an NP, imagine is the Predicator realized by a VP and they re having a good time is the Direct Object realized by a Clause. This clause has the same structure as any clause: subordinator + sentence. The subordinator has simply been omitted. This does not mean that the structure of this clause should be analysed in a different way, since we can always recover it (I imagine that they re having a good time). In the second place, and more problematic, there are cases in which there is no subordinator or at least it is not as evident as in the examples already studied. This is the case of infinitive clauses, ing-clauses and relative, wh-nominal and wh-adverbial clauses. In bare infinitive clauses and ing-clauses there is no subordinator and we cannot talk of ellipsis here. In examples such as: Help me do this. My father made them pay. I didn t like going there. He stopped loving her. me do this, them pay, going there and loving her are clauses, but there is no subordinator. In these cases, we should talk of zero subordinator and we propose the following analysis: S P Od S P Od NP VP Clause NP VP Clause Subordinator Subordinator S P P Od My father made Ø them pay He stopped Ø loving her With to-infinitive clauses and relative, wh-nominal and wh-adverbial clauses something similar occurs, though there are some small differences. In relative clauses, wh-nominal clauses and wh-adverbial clauses, the wh-word has a double function: it is at the same time the subordinator and an element of the sentence

6 440 LUIS QUEREDA RODRÍGUEZ-NAVARRO (Subject, Object, Adverbial, etc.). Thus the analysis of this type of sentences is more difficult. 2 Relative clauses S P Od NP VP NP Det H Q Def. det. noun Clause Subordinator >< S P A I didn t like the boy who came with her Nominal wh-clauses S P Od NP VP Clause Subordinator >< S P I wonder who came 2. Besides, in some relative clauses the pronoun can also be omitted, as in This was something she could not at first cope with.

7 CLAUSE AND SENTENCE REVISITED 441 Adverbial wh-clauses S P Od A NP VP NP Clause Subordinator >< A S P A I was having breakfast when she came into the kitchen In to-infinitive clauses the infinitive marker to is a grammatical marker of the VP, thus a VP element. In this way, to-infinitive clauses are, like ing-clauses, clauses with Ø subordinator. However, we cannot forget that this to particle is historically a preposition, that is to say, a subordinator, and because of that we could say that the to-infinitive marker is at the same time a subordinator and an element of the VP. This double function is clearly seen in purpose clauses. Compare: She bought her some flowers to make her happier. She bought her some flowers in order to make her happier. although we can say that the to-infinitive marker is a VP constituent, we cannot say the same of in order to, which can be most easily seen as a subordinator. MAIN AND SUBORDINATE CLAUSES In traditional grammar, clauses are generally classified as either dependent or independent. An independent clause can stand alone as a complete simple sentence, whereas a dependent clause must be connected to another clause. The dependent clause is then described as subordinate to a main clause. This classification of clauses into main and subordinate ones is also quite problematic and presents many weak points. There are two main reasons why we should say that this classification is wrong. The first one is that the idea of main and subordinate clause assumes that in a complex sentence there are at least two clauses (or sentences), which is contrary to our previous analysis. We have already sustained that in a complex sentence, there is only one sentence. We have only one sentence in which at least one of its syntactic elements is realized by a clause, and this clause is not subordinate to

8 442 LUIS QUEREDA RODRÍGUEZ-NAVARRO any structure. This clause is just a syntactic element of the sentence in which is included: the Subject, the Object or the Adverbial. The second, and most important, reason why we think that this distinction is wrong is that this idea of main and subordinate clauses can only work in adverbial clauses, but it cannot be sustained in nominal and relative clauses. It may work in adverbial clauses because the Adverbial is usually an optional element in the sentence, an element that can be dropped since its meaning is not essential for the understanding of the message. Thus, in: I bought a wonderful camera on my visit to London. I bought a wonderful camera when I went to London. The Subject (I), the Predicator (bought), and the Direct Object (a wonderful camera) are elements which cannot be omitted, whereas the Adverbial (on my visit to London / when I went to London) can. The information provided by the Adverbial is not as important as that provided by the other elements, hence the idea that I bought a wonderful camera is the main clause and when I went to London the subordinate. But there are some sentences in which the Adverbial (Subject-related Adverbial Complements) is an obligatory element. In these examples, the distinction between main and subordinate clause is more problematic. In: I put the books on the table. I put the books where the children could not see them. all the elements, the Subject (I), the Predicator (put), the Direct Object (the books) and the Subject-related Adverbial Complement (on the table / where the children could not see them) are obligatory elements and the dropping of any of them will make the sentence an incorrect one. Therefore, the distinction between main and subordinate clause cannot be sustained in this type of example. Even if we could say that where the children could not see them is a subordinate clause, we would not be able to affirm that I put the books is the main clause or the main sentence. I put the books is simply a fragment of a sentence, an incomplete sentence. This is more obvious in nominal clauses, since nominal clauses realize either the Subject or the Direct Object, which are always obligatory elements that cannot be dropped. In examples such as: I hope that everything goes well. Whoever had done this wished him harm. it is obvious that I hope and wished him harm are not main clauses or even clauses. Again they are fragments of a sentence in which one element is missing. To avoid this, Quirk et al. (1985: ), like other grammarians, consider that the main clause is the whole complex sentence, that is to say, the main

9 CLAUSE AND SENTENCE REVISITED 443 clause includes all the clause constituents, whether they are realized by phrases or clauses. Thus the analysis of I hope that everything goes well is done in the following way: Main clause S P Od NP VP Subordinate Clause S P A I hope that everything goes well This approach avoids the problem of considering a fragment of a sentence the main clause, but it does not avoid the problem of ambiguity that we discussed at the beginning of this paper: it identifies sentence and main clause, which does not really clarify what their idea of any of these structures is. Besides, it creates another problem, in this case a terminological one. The terms main and subordinate are, in several ways, rather confusing. In the first place, it implies that they are two different clauses, which is not true. The subordinate is an element of the main clause, which is not the main clause, it is the clause, or rather, the sentence. And secondly, and most important, it implies a false idea of subordination. The idea that the subordinate clause is subordinated to the main one is rather tricky. It is difficult to assume that the syntactic elements of the sentence such as the Subject, the Direct Object or the Adverbial are subordinated elements of the sentence. In an example such as: All these books are borrowed from the public library. nobody would suggest that the Subject all these books is a subordinated element of the sentence. In the same way, it is difficult to assume that in an example such as: Whatever books I have are borrowed from the public library the Subject Whatever books I have is a subordinated clause to the main one. There is no subordination between the clause which realizes the Subject and the supposed main clause. The Subject is just an element of the clause. The same can be said of Direct Objects or Adverbials. If we cannot say that yesterday is a subordinated element of the sentence they came yesterday, we should not pretend to affirm that when they wanted is a subordinated clause to the main one They came when they wanted.

10 444 LUIS QUEREDA RODRÍGUEZ-NAVARRO Neither can we talk of main and subordinate clauses in relative clauses, since relative clauses, as seen above, are not sentence elements but phrasal ones. In examples such as: The book they bought was very expensive. I don t know the place where they want to go. it is wrong to say that the relative clauses they bought and where they want to go are subordinate to the main ones The book was very expensive and I don t know the place, because these relative clauses, if they are subordinate to anything, it is to the noun they modify, in this case, the book and the place. Therefore, we cannot talk of main and subordinate clauses. We cannot talk of main clauses, because the so-called subordinate clause is simply an element of the sentence in which they are inserted. It is hard to believe that Subjects, Objects or Adverbials are subordinate elements of a sentence. CONCLUSION Simple sentences and complex sentences consist of only one sentence, and in this sense, they are syntactically similar structures. They are units which are formed by the same syntactic elements (Subject, Predicator, Direct Object, Adverbials or Complements). However, they are formally different, since in simple sentences all their syntactic elements are realized by phrases, whereas in complex sentences at least one of their syntactic elements is realized by a clause. Thus, simple sentences never consist of a clause. They consist of a combination of syntactic constituents which are always realized by phrasal elements. In contrast, complex sentences consist of a combination of syntactic constituents of which at least one is realized by a clause. The structure of this clause is Subordinator +. The Subordinator is an element which is outside sentence structure, that is to say, it is not an element of the sentence. Sometimes the subordinator can be omitted and in some types of clauses we may have Ø Subordinator. In complex sentences we cannot talk of main and subordinate clauses. Complex sentences never consist of a main and a subordinate clause. A complex sentence is merely a sentence. REFERENCES Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.