|
The first thing you should know is that this part has two pages, one to do with clauses and the other, downranking. You are now reading the first page. The second, which is more important, is that all clauses must have a verb group (VG)—it is the obligatory constituent of the clause. The following, for instance, are all clauses (the VGs are underlined):
But the following are not:
It's easy to see why (4) isn't a clause ('cos there's no VG), but what about (5)? It has a VG, so doesn't that make it a clause? The answer is no. What you have in (5) is a VG, which only carries the potential of being part of a clause. In fact, if you look at the main verb—gargling—you'll agree that it requires someone to do the gargling. So if we had Mickey Mouse was gargling, we would have a clause. But in itself, (5) is only a VG, not a clause. But whoa ... hang on. What about (2) then? Well, what we have in (2) is an imperative. Now, imperatives are clauses that can be, and are often, subjectless. The omitted subject is frequently the second-person pronoun you. Hence, when someone yells Stop!, he or she really means You stop!. However, the subject, provided it is explicitly mentioned, need not always be the second-person pronoun. In certain cases, a third person subject is also possible, as in:
Here, we will only be concerned with the broadest types of clauses, namely, main (a.k.a. independent) clause, and subordinate (a.k.a. dependent) clause. These clauses are all ranking clauses, that is, they form a separate rank on the rank scale. This is, admittedly, a restrictive way of understanding clauses, since some textbooks regard embedded clauses as a type of subordinate clause. We will stick, nevertheless, to Halliday's terminological preference and regard all clauses—unless otherwise stated (see next paragraph)—as ranked. In terms of their realisation, ranking clauses do not form part of a larger clause, although some of them may be dependent on another clause (see the difference?). How then, do we handle clause-like segments that occur as part of a larger clause? Well, such segments are called downranked clauses (also sometimes referred to as rankshifted or embedded clauses). They have the form of a clause, but are really functioning as a participant (for example, Hearing him belch was quite an experience) or part of a circumstantial element (for example, He belched more loudly than he had ever belched before). It is for this reason that such clauses are called downranked—since participants and circumstantial elements are realised by word groups, which come below the full-fledged clause in terms of Halliday's rank scale. Another important point to note is that downranked clauses can occur only within NGs or adverbial groups, but never within VGs. Downranked clauses will be handled separately on page 2. Now, let's get back to the business of the day. An independent clause is different from a dependent clause in that the former can stand alone, but not the latter. Compare, for instance, (7) and (8) below:
If you need another rule of thumb, try putting the clauses together. When independent clauses are coordinated, they can't switch positions. For example:
As you can see, when independent clauses are coordinated, linking words are involved. These include coordinators (and, or, but) and conjunctive adverbs (therefore, moreover, however, etc.). Now, whereas coordinators must always be in initial position, conjunctive adverbs can occur in different positions in the clause:
The important thing to remember, though, is that the clause containing the coordinator or conjunctive adverb must always come after the first independent clause, not before. For this reason, we say that coordinated independent clauses are immobile. So much for independent clauses. Subordinate clauses, by comparison, are far more mobile. Some subordinate clauses can also be inserted (or enclosed) within another clause, as in (13) below:
The only exceptions to this rule of thumb involve a special type of a noun clause (called a projected subordinate clause) and the non-restrictive relative clause. Please don't try to move these two types of clauses around; you'll only get a yucky result:
Now, get ready for an itsy-bitsy problem. What do we do with a construction like the following?
It has "happens" and "to be". So, is it one clause or two? The answer is one. Arghhh ... why? That's because "happens to be" is regarded as a complex VG. Here are some more examples of complex VGs:
The following, however, is not an example of a complex VG. It has, instead, two clauses:
You can use two tests to find out whether you have a complex VG. And here they are:
One reason why (20) comprises two clauses is that the corresponding version—"To admire his rib cage, Alvin stopped"—is perfectly acceptable. We can't do the same, however, for (16) to (19)—*"To be grouchy in the morning, Alvin tends", etc. We therefore see that the VGs in (20) actually carry the meaning "stopped in order to admire". One other point. Please note that the above test works for "verb to verb" sequences only. If you have any other sequence involving more than one lexical verb, you'd have to resort to other means:
OK ... now for the mother of all questions: How do I tell apart one clause from another in a text? My advice to you is practice. And more practice. But for starters, here's what you need to do:
Still with me, everyone? Now, click here to see how you should go about dividing up a text into clauses. |
Page-internal links
|
