Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:17:02.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subordinate clauses and asymmetry in English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Richard M. Smaby
Richard M. Smaby
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Linguists are constantly invoking a relation of subordination of one clause to another and there seems to be agreement among linguists, about their native tongues at least. Yet the reason for the existence of the relation and the consistency of judgments concerning it is not well understood. The study of subordination and of argumentation for assigning the relation can profitably be made from at least two viewpoints. One viewpoint is paradigmatic or transformational. Evidence for subordination derives from an asymmetry in certain transformational relationships. Non-subordinating constructions on a pair of clauses show identical properties in each clause when the whole construction undergoes transformation, while the same transformations display non-identical properties in the clauses of subordinating constructions. The other viewpoint is syntagmatic or textual. One might even call this viewpoint semantic. Subordinating constructions are restricted in their co-occurrence within coreference patterns of a text in a way that corresponds to an intuitive feeling that a subordinate clause is not the topic of the text at the point where it occurs. Thus one might state the pattern by saying that the common element of meaning of all subordination markers is to indicate that the clause they operate on is subordinate in topic to the non-marked clause. However, the precise account will be in cerms of coreference patterns.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , September 1974 , pp. 235 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Greenbaum, S. (1969). Studies in English adverbial usage. (Longman linguistic library.) London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. JL 3. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1963). Discourse analysis reprints. (Papers on formal linguistics, 2.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1970). The two Systems of grammar: report and paraphrase. Papers in structural and transformational linguistics. (Formal linguistics series, I.) Dordrecht: Reidel. 612–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiż, H. (1961). Congrammaticality, batteries of transformations and grammatical categories. Proceedings of symposia in applied mathematics, 12. 43–50.Google Scholar
Hiż, H. (1964). The role of paraphrase in grammar. MSLL. 17. 97–104.Google Scholar
Hiż, H. (1969). Referentials. Semiotica 1. 136–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postal, P. (1971). Cross-over phenomena. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Reibel, D. A. & Schane, S. A. (eds.) (1969). Modern studies in English. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Robbins, B. L. (1968). The definite article in English transformations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967a). On the cyclic nature of English pronominalization. In To honor Roman Jakobson. Vol. 2. The Hague: Mouton. 1669–1682.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967b). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Ryden, M. (1970). Coordination of relative clauses in sixteenth century English. (Studia anglistica Upsaliensia, 7.) Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Smaby, R. M. (1968). A transformational grammar of the paraphrase relation in English with special application to relative clauses. Unpublished dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Smaby, R. M. (1970). Paraphrase grammars. (Formal linguistics series, 2.) Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smaby, R. M. (1973). Adequacy of natural language texts for semantic relations. Linguistics.Google Scholar
Smith, K. H. & McMahon, L. E. (1970). Understanding order information in sentences: some recent work at Bell Laboratories. In Flores d'Arcais, G. B. & Levelt, W. J. M. (eds.), Advances in psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Stockwell, R. P., Schachter, P. & Partee, B. H. (1972). The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. (1971). The deep structure of relative clauses. In Fillmore, C. J. & Langendoen, D. T. (eds.). Studies in linguistic semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar