 | This articleis missing information about clauses in non-English languages. Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on thetalk page.(November 2013) |
Inlanguage, aclause is aconstituent orphrase that comprises a semanticpredicand (expressed or not) and a semanticpredicate.[1] A typical clause consists of asubject and a syntactic predicate,[2] the latter typically averb phrase composed of averb with or without anyobjects and othermodifiers. However, the subject is sometimes unexpressed if it is easily deducible from the context, especially innull-subject languages but also in other languages, including instances of theimperative mood inEnglish.
A completesimple sentence contains a single clause with afinite verb.Complex sentences contain at least one clause subordinated to (dependent on) anindependent clause (one that could stand alone as a simple sentence), which may be co-ordinated with other independents with or without dependents. Some dependent clauses arenon-finite, i.e. they do not contain any element/verb marking a specific tense.
A clause that contains one or more dependent orsubordinate clauses is called amatrix clause. A matrix clause can be the main clause or any subordinate clause that itself contains one or more (additional) subordinate clauses.[citation needed]
A primary division for the discussion of clauses is the distinction betweenindependent clauses anddependent clauses.[3] An independent clause can stand alone, i.e. it can constitute a complete sentence by itself. A dependent clause, by contrast, relies on an independent clause's presence to be efficiently utilizable.
A second significant distinction concerns the difference between finite and non-finite clauses. A finite clause contains a structurally centralfinite verb, whereas the structurally central word of a non-finite clause is often anon-finite verb. Traditional grammar focuses on finite clauses, the awareness of non-finite clauses having arisen much later in connection with the modern study of syntax. The discussion here also focuses on finite clauses, although some aspects of non-finite clauses are considered further below.
Clauses can be classified according to a distinctive trait that is a prominent characteristic of their syntactic form. The position of the finite verb is one major trait used for classification, and the appearance of a specific type of focusing word (e.g.Wh-word) is another. These two criteria overlap to an extent, which means that often no single aspect of syntactic form is always decisive in deciding how the clause functions. There are, however, strong tendencies.
Standard SV-clauses (subject-verb) are the norm in English. They are usually declarative (as opposed to exclamative, imperative, or interrogative); they express information neutrally, e.g.
Declarative clauses like these are by far the most frequently occurring type of clause in any language. They can be viewed as basic, with other clause types being derived from them. Standard SV-clauses can also be interrogative or exclamative, however, given the appropriate intonationcontour and/or the appearance of a question word, e.g.
Examples like these demonstrate that how a clause functions cannot be known based entirely on a single distinctive syntactic criterion. SV-clauses are usually declarative, but intonation and/or the appearance of a question word can render them interrogative or exclamative.
Verb first clauses in English usually play one of three roles: 1. They express a yes/no-question viasubject–auxiliary inversion, 2. they express a condition as an embedded clause, or 3. they express a command via imperative mood, e.g.
Most verb first clauses are independent clauses. Verb first conditional clauses, however, must be classified as embedded clauses because they cannot stand alone.
InEnglish,Wh-clauses contain awh-word.Wh-words often serve to help express a constituent question. They are also prevalent, though, as relative pronouns, in which case they serve to introduce a relative clause and are not part of a question. Thewh-word focuses a particular constituent, and most of the time, it appears in clause-initial position. The following examples illustrate standard interrogativewh-clauses. The b-sentences are direct questions (independent clauses), and the c-sentences contain the corresponding indirect questions (embedded clauses):
One important aspect of matrixwh-clauses is thatsubject-auxiliary inversion is obligatory when something other than the subject is focused. When it is the subject (or something embedded in the subject) that is focused, however, subject-auxiliary inversion does not occur.
Another important aspect ofwh-clauses concerns the absence of subject-auxiliary inversion in embedded clauses, as illustrated in the c-examples just produced. Subject-auxiliary inversion is obligatory in matrix clauses when something other than the subject is focused, but it never occurs in embedded clauses regardless of the constituent that is focused. A systematic distinction in word order emerges across matrixwh-clauses, which can have VS order, and embeddedwh-clauses, which always maintain SV order, e.g.
Relative clauses are a mixed group. In English they can be standard SV-clauses if they are introduced bythat or lack a relative pronoun entirely, or they can bewh-clauses if they are introduced by awh-word that serves as arelative pronoun.
Embedded clauses can be categorized according to their syntactic function in terms of predicate-argument structures. They can function asarguments, asadjuncts, or aspredicative expressions. That is, embedded clauses can be an argument of a predicate, an adjunct on a predicate, or (part of) the predicate itself. The predicate in question is usually the predicate of an independent clause, but embedding of predicates is also frequent.
A clause that functions as the argument of a given predicate is known as anargument clause. Argument clauses can appear as subjects, as objects, and as obliques. They can also modify a noun predicate, in which case they are known ascontent clauses.
The following examples illustrate argument clauses that provide the content of a noun. Such argument clauses are content clauses:
The content clauses like these in the a-sentences are arguments. Relative clauses introduced by the relative pronounthat as in the b-clauses here have an outward appearance that is closely similar to that of content clauses. The relative clauses are adjuncts, however, not arguments.
Adjunct clauses are embedded clauses that modify an entire predicate-argument structure. All clause types (SV-, verb first,wh-) can function as adjuncts, although the stereotypical adjunct clause is SV and introduced by a subordinator (i.e.subordinate conjunction, e.g.after,because,before,now, etc.), e.g.
These adjunct clauses modify the entire matrix clause. Thusbefore you did in the first example modifies the matrix clauseFred arrived. Adjunct clauses can also modify a nominal predicate. The typical instance of this type of adjunct is a relative clause, e.g.
An embedded clause can also function as apredicative expression. That is, it can form (part of) the predicate of a greater clause.
These predicative clauses are functioning just like other predicative expressions, e.g. predicative adjectives (That wasgood) and predicative nominals (That wasthe truth). They form the matrix predicate together with thecopula.
Some of the distinctions presented above are represented in syntax trees. These trees make the difference between main and subordinate clauses very clear, and they also illustrate well the difference between argument and adjunct clauses. The followingdependency grammar trees show that embedded clauses are dependent on an element in the independent clause, often on a verb:[4]
The independent clause comprises the entire trees in both instances, whereas the embedded clauses constitute arguments of the respective independent clauses: the embeddedwh-clausewhat we want is the object argument of the predicateknow; the embedded clausethat he is gaining is the subject argument of the predicateis motivating. Both of these argument clauses are dependent on the verb of the matrix clause. The following trees identify adjunct clauses using an arrow dependency edge:
These two embedded clauses are adjunct clauses because they provide circumstantial information that modifies a superordinate expression. The first is a dependent of the main verb of the matrix clause and the second is a dependent of the object noun. The arrow dependency edges identify them as adjuncts. The arrow points away from the adjunct towards itgovernor to indicate that semanticselection is running counter to the direction of the syntactic dependency; the adjunct is selecting its governor. The next four trees illustrate the distinction mentioned above between matrixwh-clauses and embeddedwh-clauses
The embeddedwh-clause is an object argument each time. The position of thewh-word across the matrix clauses (a-trees) and the embedded clauses (b-trees) captures the difference in word order. Matrixwh-clauses haveV2 word order, whereas embedded wh-clauses have (what amounts to) V3 word order. In the matrix clauses, thewh-word is a dependent of the finite verb, whereas it is the head over the finite verb in the embeddedwh-clauses.
There has been confusion about the distinction between clauses andphrases. This confusion is due in part to how these concepts are employed in thephrase structure grammars of the Chomskyan tradition. In the 1970s, Chomskyan grammars began labeling many clauses as CPs (i.e. complementizer phrases) or as IPs (i.e. inflection phrases), and then later as TPs (i.e. tense phrases), etc. The choice of labels was influenced by the theory-internal desire to use the labels consistently. TheX-bar schema acknowledged at least three projection levels for every lexical head: a minimal projection (e.g. N, V, P, etc.), an intermediate projection (e.g. N', V', P', etc.), and a phrase level projection (e.g. NP, VP, PP, etc.). Extending this convention to the clausal categories occurred in the interest of the consistent use of labels.
This use of labels should not, however, be confused with the actual status of the syntactic units to which the labels are attached. A more traditional understanding of clauses and phrases maintains that phrases are not clauses, and clauses are not phrases. There is a progression in the size and status of syntactic units:words < phrases < clauses. The characteristic trait of clauses, i.e. the presence of a subject and a (finite) verb, is absent from phrases. Clauses can be, however, embedded inside phrases.
The central word of a non-finite clause is usually anon-finite verb (as opposed to afinite verb). There are various types of non-finite clauses that can be acknowledged based in part on the type of non-finite verb at hand.Gerunds are widely acknowledged to constitute non-finite clauses, and some modern grammars also judge manyto-infinitives to be the structural locus of non-finite clauses. Finally, some modern grammars also acknowledge so-calledsmall clauses, which often lack a verb altogether. It should be apparent that non-finite clauses are (by and large) embedded clauses.
The underlined words in the following examples are considered non-finite clauses, e.g.
Each of the gerunds in the a-sentences (stopping,attempting, andcheating) constitutes a non-finite clause. The subject-predicate relationship that has long been taken as the defining trait of clauses is fully present in the a-sentences. The fact that the b-sentences are also acceptable illustrates the enigmatic behavior of gerunds. They seem to straddle two syntactic categories: they can function as non-finite verbs or as nouns. When they function as nouns as in the b-sentences, it is debatable whether they constitute clauses, since nouns are not generally taken to be constitutive of clauses.
Some modern theories of syntax take manyto-infinitives to be constitutive of non-finite clauses.[5] This stance is supported by the clear predicate status of manyto-infinitives. It is challenged, however, by the fact thatto-infinitives do not take an overt subject, e.g.
Theto-infinitivesto consider andto explain clearly qualify as predicates (because they can be negated). They do not, however, take overt subjects. The subjectsshe andhe are dependents of the matrix verbsrefuses andattempted, respectively, not of theto-infinitives. Data like these are often addressed in terms ofcontrol. The matrix predicatesrefuses andattempted are control verbs; they control the embedded predicatesconsider andexplain, which means they determine which of their arguments serves as the subject argument of the embedded predicate. Some theories of syntax posit the null subjectPRO (i.e. pronoun) to help address the facts of control constructions, e.g.
With the presence of PRO as a null subject,to-infinitives can be construed as complete clauses, since both subject and predicate are present.
PRO-theory is particular to one tradition in the study of syntax and grammar (Government and Binding Theory,Minimalist Program). Other theories of syntax and grammar (e.g.Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar,Construction Grammar,dependency grammar) reject the presence of null elements such as PRO, which means they are likely to reject the stance thatto-infinitives constitute clauses.
Another type of construction that some schools of syntax and grammar view as non-finite clauses is the so-calledsmall clause. A typical small clause consists of a noun phrase and a predicative expression,[6] e.g.
The subject-predicate relationship is clearly present in the underlined strings. The expression on the right is a predication over the noun phrase immediately to its left. While the subject-predicate relationship is indisputably present, the underlined strings do not behave as singleconstituents, a fact that undermines their status as clauses. Hence one can debate whether the underlined strings in these examples should qualify as clauses. The layered structures of the Chomskyan tradition are again likely to view the underlined strings as clauses, whereas the schools of syntax that posit flatter structures are likely to reject clause status for them.
