 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004Clausal Difficulties
I'm really not happy with the definitions that I've seen for sentences, main clauses and subordinate clauses. The problems: (i) The idea that a sentence is a clause that expresses a complete idea, whereas a subordinate clause does not. This is far to vague and useless a definition for my liking. I'm sure I can come up with an example that breaks the definition. I do not want to rely on meaning to define subordination. (ii) The definition of a subordinate clause as a clause that is an adjunct to a main clause, not a part of it. This seems to make things quite messy. I'm sure it does not lead to the clearest recursive definition. I suspect that in modern grammars subordinate clauses *are* constituents of higher-level clauses. (iii) Is a conjunction a part of a clause or not? For some reason I cannot gather, co-ordinating conjunctions are considered extrinsic, subordinators intrinsic. Now, this may make identifying some subordinate clauses easier. A sentence that begins `because ...' is readily identifiable as one. But one might also view coordinators as belonging to the independent clauses that follow them. Then a clause such as `and ...' starts to look less complete and more like a subordinate clause, which it is not. (iv) What is a conjunction? One might say that it is just a word that joins clauses together. But then relative pronouns are often not classed as conjunctions, and they do perform a joining function. One might say that a clause containing a relative pronoun could, were it not placed next to a main clause, stand as a syntactically correct sentence in its own right. E.g., the `who is coming to dinner' in `I know who is coming to dinner' may occur as an interrogative sentence. But then consider `She arrived this morning when I was at work'. In such circumstances I have seen `when' described as a relative adverb. Now, one might think that relative adverbs are like relative pronouns and are not conjunctions. But `when I was at work' cannot stand alone as a sentence as could `who is coming to dinner'. We need to alter it to `when was I at work?'. To try and make things absolutely clear: in the last case I am trying to show that a given definition applying to relative pronouns is wrong because it fails when applied to relative adverbs. This relies on the assumption that a single definition must cover both cases. That is an assumption based on the idea that, for the same reason, neither relative pronouns nor relative adverbs are conjunctions. Any comments regarding this muddle much appreciated. R. > I'm really not happy with the definitions that I've seen > for sentences, main clauses and subordinate clauses. Good, because there isn't a really good definition for them. If you come up with on, call me on 555... > The problems: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > breaks the definition. I do not want to rely on meaning > to define subordination. Hmmm. This one isn't too bad, because a subordinate clause has to depend on a main clause for a large part of its meaning, but you get a point for spotting that the same effect is replicated in complete sentences by use of pronouns, and that such sentences are not called 'subordinate sentences' (and from here we go into the realm of "what is a full stop?". > (ii) The definition of a subordinate clause as a clause > that is an adjunct to a main clause, not a part of it. > This seems to make things quite messy. I'm sure it does > not lead to the clearest recursive definition. I suspect > that in modern grammars subordinate clauses *are* > constituents of higher-level clauses. Yup. Can't be any other way. > (iii) Is a conjunction a part of a clause or not? For > some reason I cannot gather, co-ordinating conjunctions > are considered extrinsic, subordinators intrinsic. Wow. I haven't debated this idea for over twenty years. Hasn't a decision been reached, yet? So much for 'bright young things'. > Now, > this may make identifying some subordinate clauses easier. > A sentence that begins `because ...' is readily identifiable > as one. ...Which brings us back to the 'subordinate sentence' problem. > But one might also view coordinators as belonging > to the independent clauses that follow them. Then a clause > such as `and ...' starts to look less complete and more > like a subordinate clause, which it is not. Joshing aside, this is one of those issues where it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Normally, a coordinating conjunction (to trim the scope a little) stands proud of the clauses which it coordinates and belongs to neither, but there's a whole fuzzy area regarding punctuation (which is not really a part of grammar) where the punctuation around coordinating conjunctions seems to insist that the conjunction /belongs to/ one clause or the other. It won't be sorted out in a day, and I don't really feel that it needs to be. Remember that language and communication are an art, not a science. What works -- what is effective -- is not necessarily subject to clinical definition or description. > (iv) What is a conjunction? One might say that it is just > a word that joins clauses together. But then relative > pronouns are often not classed as conjunctions, and they > do perform a joining function. I get the feeling that I should have read your entire posting before starting to reply (my comments about 'subjunctive sentences' would have fit better here than earlier), but you're quite right in your observations. What you have to do is stop thinking of grammar as a set of rules regarding words or parts of speech that Must Be Obeyed, and start looking at communication through language as a set of constructions that are habitually used by native speakers. There are several thousand 'habitual constructs' (some scientifically grammatical, many not), and each construct has to be accepted as a part of the standard for where it is used. > One might say that > a clause containing a relative pronoun could, were it > not placed next to a main clause, stand as a syntactically > correct sentence in its own right. E.g., the `who is coming > to dinner' in `I know who is coming to dinner' may occur > as an interrogative sentence. Erm... That 'who' is not a relative pronoun. "Who is coming to dinner" is a nominal (or a substantive, in the other main school of terminology). I ahve always found the term 'relative pronoun' to be a dangerous one, because relative clauses are too often defined in schoolbooks as being no more than adjectives, which results in massive confusion in the minds of lawyers whose names I shall abstain from mentioning. > But then consider > `She arrived this morning when I was at work'. In such [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as could `who is coming to dinner'. We need to alter it > to `when was I at work?'. I think you may be over-analysing, here. That there's a 'when' or 'where' in a sentence doesn't mean that what follows it has to be a complete sentence. Any pronoun carries a lot of baggage into the sentence/clause into which it's inserted; that's a given. Think simple. > To try and make things absolutely clear: in the last case > I am trying to show that a given definition applying [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an assumption based on the idea that, for the same reason, > neither relative pronouns nor relative adverbs are conjunctions. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. Even I have to think twice before parsing some 'when's as adverbs, conjunctions, or nouns; and I've been doing this for donkeys' yonks. Think structure by structure, not word by word -- in any other direction there be monsters. > Any comments regarding this muddle much appreciated. I'll comment that I've enjoyed your posting. Keep thinking. -- Mark Wallace ----------------------------------------------------- For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit: The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site http://earth.prohosting.com/mwal/ ----------------------------------------------------- > Hmmm. This one isn't too bad, because a subordinate clause has to depend on > a main clause for a large part of its meaning, But, equally, the main clause often depends on the subordinate clause for its meaning. Of course, it might very well be able to stand alone as a syntactically complete sequence, but that is a different matter. The `meaning' definition, as far as I can tell, leads to intractable philosophical difficulties. It is not a definition that can be practically applied. > > (iii) Is a conjunction a part of a clause or not? For > > some reason I cannot gather, co-ordinating conjunctions [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hasn't a decision been reached, yet? > So much for 'bright young things'. Bright young things with dull old books... Seriously, my problem is having been exposed to English grammars in NLP classes (PSGs etc.). When I now look at traditional grammars I find it difficult to accept them. But, unfortunately, there are many books worth reading that still adhere to the traditional approach. > It won't be sorted out in a day, and I don't really feel that it needs to > be. Remember that language and communication are an art, not a science. > What works -- what is effective -- is not necessarily subject to clinical > definition or description. To an extent I agree. But, if the language is going to be described, then at least that should be done as accurately as possible. > > One might say that > > a clause containing a relative pronoun could, were it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That 'who' is not a relative pronoun. "Who is coming to dinner" is a > nominal (or a substantive, in the other main school of terminology). I'm sorry, that was a badly chosen example. I should have suggested something like: I know the girl who is coming to dinner. To some extent this feels like a con. Perhaps one could interpret the first as the elliptical statement of the second. I have this problem with adverbial conjunctions and relative adverbs: Are not the first just cases of the second with unexpressed (indefinite) antecedents? E.g., I will do that when I'm ready = I will do that at some point in time when I'm ready Equally, with relative pronouns I know who is there = I know someone who is there But perhaps you can come up with an example where this doesn't work. > I think you may be over-analysing, here. That there's a 'when' or 'where' > in a sentence doesn't mean that what follows it has to be a complete > sentence. I agree, but often the bit of the clause that remains could be used as a sentence without alteration. There are, necessarily, many more cases to consider. What I'm trying to say is a little difficult for me. It's something like this: If the `when' forms part of a subordinate clause that can be replaced with another subordinate clause of the same meaning, and this new clause, including `when', is a sentence, then `when' is a relative adverb rather than an adverbial conjunction. I doubt if that's quite right. I need to revise my formal grammar, and then come up with a definition. R. > I'm really not happy with the definitions that I've seen > for sentences, main clauses and subordinate clauses. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > R. I was taught, long ago, to diagram sentences and I never have questions like this. Of course, we didn't use the term "relative pronoun" back then, let alone "relative adverb." IIRC, a sentence is an "_independent_ clause." An independent clause needs no other clause to help it; it has a subject and a verb (although the subject is sometimes "understood": "Sit!"). Cece This posting is too huge to deal with in one response. I'll try to respond to section (iv) here. Maybe I'll get to the others later. > (iv) What is a conjunction? One might say that it is just > a word that joins clauses together. But then relative > pronouns are often not classed as conjunctions, and they > do perform a joining function. It is practically impossible to provide good definitions of parts of speech, or of any syntactic categories, without appealing to a more sophisticated model of grammar than is available within so-called traditional grammar. Just look at the helpless gyrations of traditional grammarians trying to define 'verb'. Traditional grammarians applied the label 'conjunction' very broadly, though they excluded relative pronouns. Modern grammarians typically recognize at least four parts of speech in place of the traditional class of conjunctions: 1. True (coordinating) conjunctions: 'and', 'but', ... 2. Subordinators: 'because', 'if', 'when', 'after', 'although', ... 3. Complementizers: 'that', 'whether', ... 4. Sentence connectors: 'therefore', 'however', 'so' 'nevertheless', ... These four classes differ very substantially in their properties. > One might say that > a clause containing a relative pronoun could, were it > not placed next to a main clause, stand as a syntactically > correct sentence in its own right. E.g., the `who is coming > to dinner' in `I know who is coming to dinner' may occur > as an interrogative sentence. As Mark Wallace has already pointed out, the 'who' in this sentence is not a relative pronoun, but an interrogative pronoun. In 'I know the man who is coming to dinner', 'who' is a relative pronoun. Your example of `I know who is coming to dinner' contains no relative clause: instead, it contains an embedded question. > But then consider > `She arrived this morning when I was at work'. In such > circumstances I have seen `when' described as a relative > adverb. No; this 'when' is not a relative adverb, but a subordinating conjunction (subordinator). Here is an example of 'when' used as a relative adverb: 'I live for the day when I can retire.' Here the sequence 'when I can retire' is a relative clause attached to 'the day'. Your example involves no relative clause, since the clause introduced by 'when' is attached to no head. > Now, one might think that relative adverbs are > like relative pronouns and are not conjunctions. Relative adverbs are usually not regarded as conjunctions today. > But > `when I was at work' cannot stand alone as a sentence > as could `who is coming to dinner'. We need to alter it > to `when was I at work?'. Sorry, but this is irrelevant. This "stand alone" test is not a reliable test for anything. > To try and make things absolutely clear: in the last case > I am trying to show that a given definition applying [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > an assumption based on the idea that, for the same reason, > neither relative pronouns nor relative adverbs are conjunctions. We are not talking about pieces of truth, but about analytical convenience. Treating relative pronouns as conjunctions is a bad idea, because it introduces muddle and clarifies nothing. Larry Trask larryt@sussex.ac.uk > > `She arrived this morning when I was at work'. In such > > circumstances I have seen `when' described as a relative [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 'the day'. Your example involves no relative clause, since the clause > introduced by 'when' is attached to no head. I thought `this morning' was the head. Is it not? With regard to the other points, I'm happy to yield to your greater knowledge, but I would appreciate just a fraction more elaboration here. None of the (admittedly feeble) grammars I've consulted recently define `relative adverb' properly. Thinking about it, I wonder if the two can be distinguished by trying to replace `when' by `in/on which'. If the substitution works, then `when' might be a rel. adverb. Certainly, it works for your sentence, but not for mine. Why exactly this should be a good test, if indeed it is, I do not know. Thanks, R. > > > `She arrived this morning when I was at work'. In such > > > circumstances I have seen `when' described as a relative > > > adverb. [LT] > > No; this 'when' is not a relative adverb, but a subordinating > > conjunction (subordinator). Here is an example of 'when' used as a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 'the day'. Your example involves no relative clause, since the clause > > introduced by 'when' is attached to no head. > I thought `this morning' was the head. Is it not? No; it is not. A relative clause forms a unit (a noun phrase) with its head. In my example, 'the day when I can retire' is such a unit: the entire phrase identifies the day under discussion. This phrase can be used in other positions: 'The day when I can retire will be a great day.' But 'this morning when she arrived' is not a unit of any kind. Note in particular that it does not identify the morning under discussion. The adverb phrase 'this morning' already identifies the morning, and the clause 'when I was at work' is attached to the verb phrase 'arrived this morning'. In other words, 'when I was at work' explains when she arrived, and not which morning we are talking about. But in my example the relative clause 'when I can retire' explains what day I'm talking about, and not when I live. > With regard to the other points, I'm happy to yield to your > greater knowledge, but I would appreciate just a fraction more [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why exactly this should be a good test, if indeed it is, > I do not know. I'm not sure this test will work in every case, but it does work in many cases because 'in/on which', with the relative pronoun 'which', is another way of introducing a relative clause -- but not an adverbial clause. Larry Trask larryt@sussex.ac.uk Larry Trask escribió : >>>> `She arrived this morning when I was at work'. In such >>>> circumstances I have seen `when' described as a relative [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > my example the relative clause 'when I can retire' explains what day > I'm talking about, and not when I live. But, but, it seems to me, the difference is the same as between defining and non-defining relative clauses, only that in this case a relative adverb, "when", is used instead of a relative pronoun, isn't it?  SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I am an artist You are a Bohemian He forgot to shave this morning (Craig Brown) > >>>> `She arrived this morning when I was at work'. > > [LT] > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > non-defining relative clauses, only that in this case a relative adverb, > "when", is used instead of a relative pronoun, isn't it? No; the sentence 'She arrived this morning when I was at work' does not contain a relative clause of any kind. Here is an example of a relative clause attached to 'morning'. Suppose I normally work only one morning a week. 'Last week, the morning when I was at work was Thursday.' Clumsy, but a perfect example of a relative clause -- in this case, identifying the morning being talked about. I'm afraid I can't come up with a decent example of a non-restrictive relative clause in 'when'. But let me reiterate the fundamental point. A relative clause attached to 'morning' explains which morning is under discussion. An adverbial clause in 'when' explains when the action of the main-clause verb takes place. In 'She arrived this morning when I was at work', the 'when' clause plainly explains when she arrived, and it does not identify the morning being talked about. Larry Trask larryt@sussex.ac.uk Larry Trask escribió : >>>>>> `She arrived this morning when I was at work'. > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > No; "Mantenella y no enmedella", as the classic Spanish writer wrote in one of his writings. > the sentence 'She arrived this morning when I was at work' does > not contain a relative clause of any kind. Only because you say so. Advantages and disadvantages of being a published linguist writing in Usenet using his name answering to messages without thinking carefully about the question. Hey, I have written a sentence with five -ing words (gerunds or present participles?) > Here is an example of a > relative clause attached to 'morning'. Suppose I normally work only [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Clumsy, but a perfect example of a relative clause -- in this case, > identifying the morning being talked about. Yes, a perfect example of a defining relative clause. > I'm afraid I can't come up with a decent example of a non-restrictive > relative clause in 'when'. What about "Last Thursday, when I was at work, she arrived." > But let me reiterate the fundamental point. A relative clause > attached to 'morning' explains which morning is under discussion. An > adverbial clause in 'when' explains when the action of the main-clause > verb takes place. Again, and I'm afraid that I repeat myself, my viewpoint is that if "when" can be related to a word in the main clause, be it defining or non-defining, "when" is a relative adverb. But I am almost nobody, only a Classical philologist, not like you. An example of "when" working as a subordinating conjunction could be "When I was at work, she arrived." > In 'She arrived this morning when I was at work', the 'when' clause > plainly explains when she arrived, and it does not identify the > morning being talked about. Of course, you are right about the meaning of the sentence. It does not identify the morning being talked about because it is a non-defining relative clause. As you explain it, only defining relative clauses with "when" are, in your opinion, relative clauses. May I suggest you that you read some Latin Classical writers in order to improve your perception of complex sintactical usages? SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I am an artist You are a Bohemian He forgot to shave this morning (Craig Brown) [LT] > > the sentence 'She arrived this morning when I was at work' does > > not contain a relative clause of any kind. > Only because you say so. Really? Well, if you want to believe it does contain a relative clause, feel free. While you're at it, feel free to believe that this sentence is written in West Greenlandic Eskimo. Javi, I challenge you to find one professional linguist or English grammarian who agrees that this sentence contains a relative clause. I look forward to hearing from you. > Advantages and disadvantages of being a published > linguist writing in Usenet using his name answering to messages without > thinking carefully about the question. Javi, this is insulting, and you should be ashamed of yourself. As it happens, I did think carefully about the matter before replying. You are merely upset because I have failed to agree with your wrong-headed opinion. [LT] > > I'm afraid I can't come up with a decent example of a non-restrictive > > relative clause in 'when'. > What about > > "Last Thursday, when I was at work, she arrived." I did indeed contemplate examples of this kind. But I reached the same conclusion as John Lawler: there is no way of demonstrating that this example contains a non-restrictive relative clause rather than an adverbial clause. My native speaker's intuition leans strongly toward the adverbial analysis, but I have no evidence to offer in defense of that analysis, and that's why I declined to propose an example. [LT] > > But let me reiterate the fundamental point. A relative clause > > attached to 'morning' explains which morning is under discussion. An > > adverbial clause in 'when' explains when the action of the main-clause > > verb takes place. > Again, and I'm afraid that I repeat myself, my viewpoint is that if "when" > can be related to a word in the main clause, be it defining or non-defining, > "when" is a relative adverb. But I am almost nobody, only a Classical > philologist, not like you. You reckon? All right; try this example, from a famous advertisement: 'They laughed when I sat down.' I see no obstacle whatever to relating 'when' to the word 'laughed'. Therefore, according to you, 'when' is a relative adverb, and therefore 'when I sat down' must be a relative clause. Wrong. Dead wrong. > As you explain it, only defining relative clauses with "when" are, in your > opinion, relative clauses. I have explained that non-defining relative clauses in 'when' are elusive and doubtful. > May I suggest you that you read some Latin Classical writers in order to > improve your perception of complex sintactical usages? I don't normally respond to gratuitous insults, but I'll make an exception here. Javi, may I suggest that you stop pretending that English is the same language as Latin and learn some English grammar? I have just demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. And you think the examples we've been talking about are "complex", do you? Well, your threshold of syntactic complexity must be a lot lower than mine. I would say that all these examples are syntactically pretty simple, apart perhaps from the ambiguous one. Larry Trask larryt@sussex.ac.uk Larry Trask escribió : > [LT] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > grammarian who agrees that this sentence contains a relative clause. > I look forward to hearing from you. We'll see; if I have time and I feel like, I'll try, but it can take some time. Anyway, the authoritative argument is not determinant for me. I am a bit odd. >> Advantages and disadvantages of being a published >> linguist writing in Usenet using his name answering to messages >> without thinking carefully about the question. > > Javi, this is insulting, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I am blushing. I am not usually like that. My only excuse is that I wrote it under the influence. I know that I should not write when I have drunk so much, but sometimes I fail to accomplish it. My excuses. > As it > happens, I did think carefully about the matter before replying. You > are merely upset because I have failed to agree with your wrong-headed > opinion. No, I think that I wrote that because you failed to reach my expectations. Your so-called explanation was so clumsy. I really wanted to learn something new from you, a respected professor, but you failed, and being WUI ("writing under the influence", but it is not a crime, not yet), you reminded me of one or two teachers that I had at college, who were there obviously not because their mastery of the subject that they were supposedly teaching. I realize now that I was unfair to you: I have read very little from you. My excuses again. > [LT] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I did indeed contemplate examples of this kind. But I reached the > same conclusion as John Lawler: I prefer not to comment about that message from Dr Lawler. I know how the academy works. > there is no way of demonstrating that > this example contains a non-restrictive relative clause rather than an > adverbial clause. I have suggested in other message that there *may* be a way: if "when" can be replaced with a relative pronoun, then that "when" is a relative adverb, and viceversa: http://www.bartleby.com/34/2/6.html "To them is owing the sanctification of Sunday in the three kingdoms. People are there forbidden to work or take any recreation on that day, *in which* the severity is twice as great as that of the Romish Church." http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/R-5.3/text.html "Any proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction that were commenced before the 27th day of May, 1970, and that were not finally disposed of before that day, *in which* the validity of any regulation referred to in section 1 or of any order, direction, document, action or act referred to in section 2 is in issue or has been called into question, may be dealt with and disposed of in all respects ..." http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/G-10/relprov.html "Any proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction that were commenced before the day on which a bill entitled "An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and respecting certain regulations made pursuant to that Act" is first introduced in Parliament and that were not finally disposed of before that day, *in which* the validity of any regulation referred to in subsection (1), any order, direction or document referred to in subsection (2) or any action referred to in subsection (3) is in issue, may be dealt with in all respects as if this section had not come into force." There are many more examples, but I do not want to bore our audience (sorry for the legalese, but I think that official documents are better examples than informal letters), so three examples are enough. I suppose that you and any respected linguist will agree that these three examples have a non-restrictive relative clause, and that "in which" can be replaced with "when": they are stylistic variants. > My native speaker's intuition leans strongly toward > the adverbial analysis, but I have no evidence to offer in defense of > that analysis, and that's why I declined to propose an example. I am afraid that that is an authoritative argument. Or maybe in English "adverbial" does not mean "similar to, functioning as an adverb" and "adjectival" (other name for "relative" when speaking about clauses) does not mean "similar to, functioning as an adjective". > [LT] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I see no obstacle whatever to relating 'when' to the word 'laughed'. Nor do I. > Therefore, according to you, 'when' is a relative adverb, and > therefore 'when I sat down' must be a relative clause. Wrong. Dead > wrong. Certainly, in that example of yours, there is no relative clause. You have not read my messages in this thread or have not understood them: I have clearly said that "when" is a relative adverb (I think that it is more exact to call it "a relative/adjectival subordinating conjunction", but I'll stick to your usage) if it can be referred to a *noun*, and that if "when" cannot be referred to a *noun*, but can be referred to a verb, as in that example of yours, then "when" is an adverbial subordinating conjunction . It is as simple as the difference between adjectives and adverbs: adjectival clauses function as adjectives, adverbial clauses funtion as adverbs. >> As you explain it, only defining relative clauses with "when" are, >> in your opinion, relative clauses. > > I have explained that non-defining relative clauses in 'when' are > elusive and doubtful. No, you have stated that, but you have not explained it, at least not convincingly for me. But, please, do not feel obliged; we can let it go. >> May I suggest you that you read some Latin Classical writers in >> order to improve your perception of complex sintactical usages? > > I don't normally respond to gratuitous insults, but I'll make an > exception here. Thank you. > Javi, may I suggest that you stop pretending that > English is the same language as Latin and learn some English grammar? Of course, I have never pretended that. My point is that, as adjectives and adverbs are categories functioning similarly in Latin and English, "adjectival" and "adverbial" are also similarly defined in Latin and English. They are not very different languages. But maybe I am wrong. I look forward to being enlightened. > I have just demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking > about. No, you have said so, but have demonstrated little. > And you think the examples we've been talking about are "complex", do > you? Well, your threshold of syntactic complexity must be a lot > lower than mine. I would say that all these examples are > syntactically pretty simple, apart perhaps from the ambiguous one. I was being sarcastical. But my excuses again; I'll try not to ansswer to your messages when under the influence (well, now I am a bit, but not so much as I was last Saturday) SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I am an artist You are a Bohemian He forgot to shave this morning (Craig Brown) > Javi, I challenge you to find one professional linguist or English > grammarian who agrees that this sentence contains a relative clause. So it's all decided by consensus is it? You have to make the case. It's really not good enough to come up with half an argument and then say, in effect, it's correct because we all agree. I don't know if you have any students, but if you do, I doubt they would pass their exams by saying `this is the case because my nice tutor Mr Trask says so'. Anyway, how about this: When not at work I remembered last Friday, when I was at work. I'm not sure about the comma. If `when I was at work' qualifies `I remembered' and not `last Friday', we have a contradiction. Moreover, `when I was at work' does not define the day. I concede, semantics has entered into the analysis here. It might be that there are no purely syntactic means of determining whether `when' is a relative (non-defining) adverb or an adverbial subordinator. R. rolleston escribió : >> Javi, I challenge you to find one professional linguist or English >> grammarian who agrees that this sentence contains a relative clause. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > `when' is a relative (non-defining) adverb or an adverbial > subordinator. You are getting it. As I have said in other messages, I agree with you in your analysis. I can add that there are no purely syntactic means of determining it: semantics is determinant. You seem to believe that syntax can be detached from semantics; most times, it cannot. Many times, even semantics is not sufficient and adding another layer is necessary: pragmatics. As you seem to be a young student, I suggest that you read about pragmatics: if linguistics is going to advance beyond its current point, it will be in this field. As I said, you seem to be getting it, but, please, do not get too excited about it. Don't let your blood be up. Making a full-blooded attack against a respected professor is not the best way to progress in the academic world. I am old (well, forty something) and I do not have ambitions in the academy, but it might not be your case. You might not want a respected professor going after your blood. I see that you insist on your point starting a new thread. I'm afraid that you will not get more answers in that new thread than you will get in this thread. The people here who could have said something interesting have declined the offer. Probably, they have their own good reasons. I recommend you that you do not insist. Instead, use your head, draw your conclusions and act consecuently. You seem clever. SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) > As I said, you seem to be getting it, but, please, do not get too excited > about it. Don't let your blood be up. Making a full-blooded attack against a > respected professor is not the best way to progress in the academic world. I > am old (well, forty something) and I do not have ambitions in the academy, > but it might not be your case. You might not want a respected professor > going after your blood. Usually I wouldn't write something like that. But I am disappointed with the feebleness of the argument he has given. I would expect better of someone in his position. I admire the quality of a person's arguments, not their academic position. If even someone of his standing is unwilling to provide a compelling argument, what hope is there of anything constructive happening here? R. > Javi, I challenge you to find one professional linguist or English > grammarian [who agrees that this sentence contains a relative clause]. Between the brackets. Daniel. Daniel escribió : >> Javi, I challenge you to find one professional linguist or English >> grammarian [who agrees that this sentence contains a relative >> clause]. > > Between the brackets. Witty. SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) > > > I'm afraid I can't come up with a decent example of a non-restrictive > > > relative clause in 'when'. There are hundreds to choose from. For example: I shall mention last year, when Trask talked sense. The when-clause cannot be adverbial because the tense forms clash. The subordinate clause can sensibly only modify `last year', but it does not define it. Who knows, this type of relative adverb may even be syntactically identifiable. > > Again, and I'm afraid that I repeat myself, my viewpoint is that if "when" > > can be related to a word in the main clause, be it defining or non-defining, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > therefore 'when I sat down' must be a relative clause. Wrong. Dead > wrong. You have misinterpreted Javi's point. If you have read his other messages you should have spotted this: > From my viewpoint, that is the crucial point: when one > subordinated clause makes reference to some noun in the main clause, ^^^^ That is surely what he meant, i.e., he meant noun, not word. R. > I'm afraid I can't come up with a decent example of a non-restrictive > relative clause in 'when'. Do they exist? R. >> I'm afraid I can't come up with a decent example of a non-restrictive >> relative clause in 'when'. >Do they exist? More interestingly, could they be distinguished from adverbial phrases? Javi suggests elsewhere in this thread: Last Monday, when I was at work, she arrived. This when-clause can reasonably be called either a non-restrictive relative or an adverbial clause. Are there any tests that might distinguish between them, and if not, is there any difference between the two clause types? For my money, there's no difference. Non-restrictive relatives seem to me to be rooted in different performatives, so that they function parasitically, like adverbs, in their sogenannte Main Clause; but they mimic relative clause structure (though not all of it) because they share reference to some noun. In cases like 'when' and 'where' (but not 'why' or 'how', which don't form relatives and thus can't mimic them), the relative mimicry is less successful, and the case for adverbiality can be made much more strongly. For other mimicry examples, see http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/mimicry.pdf -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics ---------------------------------------------------------------- "The relation between having a language and a set of sentences is not unlike the relation between having a car and a set of trips to the supermarket." -- James D. McCawley John Lawler escribió : >>> I'm afraid I can't come up with a decent example of a >>> non-restrictive relative clause in 'when'. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to me to be rooted in different performatives, so that they function > parasitically, like adverbs, in their sogenannte Main Clause; Some adjectives also function "parasitically", in the same sense as non-restrictive relative clauses: in "the white snow", the adjective "white" does not add anything to the meaning of the noun "snow". Can we infer from this that "white" sometimes is not an adjective? > but > they mimic relative clause structure (though not all of it) because > they share reference to some noun. From my viewpoint, that is the crucial point: when one subordinated clause makes reference to some noun in the main clause, the subordinated clause is a relative clause (defining or non-defining). As I learnt it, a relative clause is *always* an adjectival clause. In the same sense that adjectives can be defining (example: "the red ship") or non-defining (example: "the white snow"), adjectival clauses can be defining or non-defining. > In cases like 'when' and 'where' > (but not 'why' or 'how', which don't form relatives and thus can't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is not unlike the relation between having a car and a set of > trips to the supermarket." -- James D. McCawley SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I am an artist You are a Bohemian He forgot to shave this morning (Craig Brown) John Lawler escribió : >>> I'm afraid I can't come up with a decent example of a >>> non-restrictive relative clause in 'when'. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > distinguish between them, and if not, is there any difference between > the two clause types? Maybe. If "when" can be changed for a relative pronoun, then it is a relative clause. The problem is that most times the change makes the sentence non-idiomatic in English: Last Monday, when I was at work, she arrived. Last Monday, in which I was at work, she arrived. It is easier to explain what I mean with examples in other languages, as Spanish and Latin, in which the change of "when" for a relative pronoun is idiomatic, but, as this is AUE, I will not do it. > For my money, there's no difference. Non-restrictive relatives seem > to me to be rooted in different performatives, so that they function [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (but not 'why' or 'how', which don't form relatives and thus can't > mimic them), Hmmm. I am thinking of sentences as "this is the reason why I do not agree" or "this is the way how I explain it". I have the feeling that in these examples "why" and "how" are relative adverbs. How are they explained by English grammars? > the relative mimicry is less successful, and the case > for adverbiality can be made much more strongly. As I see it, the main difference between adjectives and adverbs is the kind of word that they modify: nouns in the case of adjectives, verbs and adjectives in the case of adverbs. So, if the subordinate clause makes reference to a noun, it is a relative (also called "adjectival") clause, but if it makes reference to a verb, then it is an adverbial clause. Do you find strong objections against my viewpoint? > For other mimicry examples, see > http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/mimicry.pdf I have to read it. Thank you for the link. SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I am an artist You are a Bohemian He forgot to shave this morning (Craig Brown) > I'm afraid I can't come up with a decent example of a non-restrictive > relative clause in 'when'. How about: "My busiest day of the week is Tuesday, when I have five consecutive hours of classes." > But let me reiterate the fundamental point. A relative clause > attached to 'morning' explains which morning is under discussion. Doesn't this fundamentally exclude non-restrictive relatives? -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom Aaron J. Dinkin escribió : >> I'm afraid I can't come up with a decent example of a non-restrictive >> relative clause in 'when'. > > How about: "My busiest day of the week is Tuesday, when I have five > consecutive hours of classes." Good. >> But let me reiterate the fundamental point. A relative clause >> attached to 'morning' explains which morning is under discussion. > > Doesn't this fundamentally exclude non-restrictive relatives? Certainly. And, if that "fundamental point" were correct, sentences as http://www.bartleby.com/34/2/6.html "To them is owing the sanctification of Sunday in the three kingdoms. People are there forbidden to work or take any recreation on that day, *in which* the severity is twice as great as that of the Romish Church." would not contain a relative clause. How would Mr Trask explain them? I am afraid that we will never know the answer. Maybe he meant it literally, that is, that only "morning" cannot have a non-defining relative clause. I haven't yet (not that I have devoted much time to looking for them) found a non-defining relative clause with "when" attached to "morning" in a formal source, but I believe that there are. SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I enjoy a drop You never say no He is an alcoholic (Craig Brown) > How would Mr Trask explain them? > I am afraid that we will never know the answer. Not a whisper from him lately. I wonder why... Daniel. > But let me reiterate the fundamental point. A relative clause > attached to 'morning' explains which morning is under discussion. An > adverbial clause in 'when' explains when the action of the main-clause > verb takes place. Ok, try this: I remembered last Friday, when I was at work. Is that `when' a non-defining relative adverb? Note, the when-clause is not to be interpreted as explaining when the act of remembering took place, nor does it define the day, it merely tells us what kind of day that Friday was. R. >> > > 'I live for the day when I can retire.' > > > > > > Here the sequence 'when I can retire' is a relative clause attached to > > > 'the day'. Your example involves no relative clause, since the clause > > > introduced by 'when' is attached to no head. Another possible test: if the when-clause can be shifted back without any apparent effect on the meaning, and the result is grammatically complete, `when' is not a relative adverb (note: this is not necessarily an if-and-only-if test): When I can retire, I live for the day. This barely seems to work. The grammar is doubtful. Suppose you had written: I live for the day when I retire. Applying the same transformaton: When I retire, I live for the day. The grammar here is nearer acceptability. But the sense has changed. `when I retire' is now more closely associated with `live' than with `the day'. In the original sentence the connection to `live' was indirectly made through `the day'. This approach is less likely to work for non-defining relative adverbs. If the time is fully specified without the when-clause, then moving that clause will tend to have less of an effect on the meaning in many cases. But I think I have an example that may work: I will go shopping on Tuesday, when I happen to have some time off work, or on Saturday. Let's try shifting the commenting when-clause: When I happen to have some time off work, I will go shopping on Tuesday or on Saturday. The meaning has changed. I think this example may be subject to the same criticism as my previous `this morning' sentence. I hope not. I have noticed that most relative pronouns tend to occur fairly soon after their antecedents. It is with that in mind that I suggested this approach. As always, I don't know what I'm talking about, R. rolleston escribió : [snip] > I have noticed that most relative pronouns tend to occur > fairly soon after their antecedents. In English and other lenguages in which syntax is based on word order and have the same relative pronoun for masculine/femenine, singular/plural, etc., it is as you say. In other languages, as Latin and Greek, it is not necessarily so. >It is with that in > mind that I suggested this approach. > > As always, I don't know what I'm talking about, But you try. That's good. Some day you will have a clearer picture of the mattter. SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I am an artist You are a Bohemian He forgot to shave this morning (Craig Brown) > > > > `She arrived this morning when I was at work'. > > > No; this 'when' is not a relative adverb, but a subordinating > > > conjunction (subordinator). Here is an example of 'when' used as a > > > relative adverb: > > > > > > 'I live for the day when I can retire.' > No; it is not. A relative clause forms a unit (a noun phrase) with > its head. In my example, 'the day when I can retire' is such a unit: > the entire phrase identifies the day under discussion. It does seem curious to me that `the day when I can retire' is, if I understand you correctly, a noun phrase whereas `this morning when I was at work' is not. Both seem to consist of similar syntactical parts: Determiner: the/this Noun : day/morning ? : when/when Pronoun : I/I Vb. Phrase: can retire/was I'm not sure if the `at work' in my example is the crucial difference here. I could just as well have suggested: She arrived this morning when I was working. I feel sure you would criticize this in the same way. One approach would be two make incremental changes to both examples, yours and mine, to bring them as close to one another as possible. It might be clearer then what the difference in syntax is. I am assuming, as I think I can, that you are not just using semantics to separate the two cases. R. rolleston escribió : >>>>> `She arrived this morning when I was at work'. > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > difference in syntax is. I am assuming, as I think I can, > that you are not just using semantics to separate the two cases. I agree with your analysis: 'I live for the day when I can retire' and 'she arrived this morning when I was at work' are both composed of a main clause and a defining relative clause. Mr. Trask said that "when I was at work" does not identify the morning in cuestion, because it is identified by "this", but, as I understand it, it means "in some moment of this morning, precisely when I was at work", so it identifies a moment in the morning (when I was at work, not when I was having breakfast, nor when I was dressing, nor when I was brushing my teeth, nor etc.) As I learnt it, "when" or "where" are relative adverbs if they can be related to a noun in the main clause. That simple. SignatureSaludos cordiales Javi Mood conjugation: I am an artist You are a Bohemian He forgot to shave this morning (Craig Brown) The context of what follows is a discussion about: (1) `She arrived this morning when I was at work.' (2) 'I live for the day when I can retire.' The discussion concerns whether `when' in each of the above is a relative adverb or an adverbial conjunction. > A relative clause forms a unit (a noun phrase) with > its head. In my example, 'the day when I can retire' is such a unit: > the entire phrase identifies the day under discussion. This phrase > can be used in other positions: 'The day when I can retire will be a > great day.' This really isn't precise enough. Unless you add to it, you have not made the case. You need to explain under which circumstances a relative clause forms such a unit. I assume the test is not just semantic. I would guess that you have in mind something more sophisticated than a context free grammar definition of a noun phrase. I say that because you have used the word `head'. The last time I heard this was in the context of a unification grammar. And I assume that someone based where you (apparently) are would not use a toy grammar. If I were to guess, I would say that the criterion you are using is based partly of the constituents of `the day when I retire', and partly on the context, i.e., following `for' or, rather, attached to a particular phrasal verb constructed with `for'. But that is just a guess. It adds little to the discussion if you claim that a relative clause is a member of a class, and then you fail to properly define the class. Finally, I suspect that the semantic test you give is dubious. For example, suppose that (1) is the first sentence of a story. Then `this morning' could refer to any of an indefinite number of a mornings. We know nothing more than that after having read just this one sentence. The words `when I was at work' do go some way towards identifying the morning. We know that mornings when the author was not at work are excluded. We do not know precisely which single morning is being referred to after (1), but neither do we know that after reading the whole of (2); the day when the author retires might be any of a number of days to come, although that day is probably to be drawn from the 44000 following the day when (2) is uttered. Again, you have not clearly indicated what you mean by `identifies'. The kind of identification discussed in the paragraph above may not be what you have in mind. If you do not share with us what is hidden in your head, we shall never know. There is more I could add to make my own position more clear, but this message is already too long. Finally, I do appreciate you comments. I hope I haven't been rude to you. It's just that your partial description leaves me wanting to know the rest. If you are busy you could refer to the relevant papers, textbooks, etc., that support your case. Cheers, R. > The context of what follows is a discussion about: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > This really isn't precise enough. [...] Oh, come on! Try the real world for a change: it isn't as menacing as you may think. If there's one thing that the failure of capital-L Linguistics has taught us, it's the ad-hoc plasticity of language: especially of the possibly accidental special case of English. In any case, some of us knew already. Mike. > Oh, come on! Try the real world for a change: it isn't as menacing as > you may think. If there's one thing that the failure of capital-L > Linguistics has taught us, it's the ad-hoc plasticity of language: > especially of the possibly accidental special case of English. In any > case, some of us knew already. English may be ad-hoc; Our analyses don't have to be. You're gushing nonsense. R. > > Oh, come on! Try the real world for a change: it isn't as menacing as > > you may think. If there's one thing that the failure of capital-L [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > English may be ad-hoc; Our analyses don't have to be. > You're gushing nonsense. There's such a thing as over-analysis. *That's* gushing, and comes pretty close to nonsense. Mike. > There's such a thing as over-analysis. *That's* gushing, and comes > pretty close to nonsense. No such thing. Stamina man, stamina! Daniel. > > There's such a thing as over-analysis. *That's* gushing, and comes > > pretty close to nonsense. > > No such thing. Stamina man, stamina! You can talk, given that your previous comment in this thread consisted, in its entirety, of a dot. I'd call that positively languid! Stylish, though. Mike. ps I first started to feel queasy about relative adverbs some time ago when I read: [Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar] b. Strictly `ote, entha, `ws, etc., are subordinating conjunctions when the clause introduced by them fixes the time, place, or manner of the main clause; but are relative adverbs when they serve only to define the antecedent and introduce a clause merely supplementary to the main clause. I should have resolved the issue then. If Greek grammar is applicable to English (there is no reason why it should be) then my `when' would seem to be a conjunction. But perhaps not. It really isn't clear to me what it means to define the antecedent. Consider again: `She arrived this morning when I was at work' The when-clause seems to fix a particular time during that morning. This is a situation described in Smyth's first sentence. Or is it? I really don't know what is going on here. Also: `She arrived one morning when I was at work' In this case `one morning' could refer to any number of mornings. Here `when I was at work' might define the particular morning, or at least a subset of all possible mornings. I had understood a relative adverb to be a word like `when' that introduces a subordinate clause and follows a noun phrase. The sub-clause `comments on' or `defines' the noun phrase in question. But this is all very informal and none of the grammars I have seen describe the situation adequately. I would appreciate your comments. R. > Traditional grammarians applied the label 'conjunction' very broadly, > though they excluded relative pronouns. Modern grammarians typically > recognize at least four parts of speech in place of the traditional > class of conjunctions: <snip> > 4. Sentence connectors: 'therefore', 'however', 'so' 'nevertheless', > ... I believe traditional grammarians put these in the adverb class, not the conjunction class; it'd be considered a solecism to use them as conjunctions. -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom > (iii) Is a conjunction a part of a clause or not? For > some reason I cannot gather, co-ordinating conjunctions [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > such as `and ...' starts to look less complete and more > like a subordinate clause, which it is not. I think everybody would agree that a subordinating conjunction forms a constituent (a syntactic unit) with its following clause: Susie was late [[because] she missed her train]. But coordinating conjunctions are a vexed issue. Which of the following is right? [Susie missed her train] and [Mike got stuck in traffic]. [Susie missed her train] [and Mike got stuck in traffic]. Traditional grammarians preferred the first. Modern grammarians are divided, since there is evidence for both analyses. Larry Trask larryt@sussex.ac.uk > I'm really not happy with the definitions that I've seen > for sentences, main clauses and subordinate clauses. [snip] Very interesting questions. How about, A subordinate clause functions as a part of speech within another clause. A main clause doesn't. A sentence is comprised of a main clause and all its subordinates. As with many other units of language, two or more sentences may be compounded, that is, joined by a coordinating conjunction. SignatureCheers, Jody jodybilyeu@smsu.edu |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.