Structural-Semantic Classification
Finally, finite dependent clauses can be classified according to the degree of their semantic and structural integration into the matrix clause. This criterion allows to draw a distinction between two types of clauses: obligatory and optional. Obligatory finite
222
dependent clauses form a semantic and structural whole with the matrix clause and, consequently, cannot be left out. The connection of optional dependent clauses with the matrix clause is rather loose. As a result, they can easily be left out. Obligatory clauses include complement clauses, restrictive relative clauses, and adverbial clauses mat contain the second part of a correlative subordinator (for example, comparative clauses, proportion clauses, etc.). Adverbial clauses introduced by non-correlative subordinates and non-restrictive relative clauses make up the class of optional clauses.
NON-FINITE DEPENDENT CLAUSES
According to English grammarians, dependent clauses can be not only finite but also non-finite [R.A. Close; R, Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J. Svartvik and many others]. The verb in a finite dependent clause, as we have seen, is a finite verb. In a non-finite clause, the verb is non-finite: an infinitive, participle, or gerund. Two participles are generally distinguished: Participle I with the suffix -ing and Participle II with the suffix -ed. The Gerund, like Participle I, is formed by adding the suffix -ing to the stem of the verb. Since there is no external difference between Participle I and Gerund, E. Kruisinga suggested that they should be called ing-forms. Nowadays, many English grammarians classify non-finite dependent clauses into infinitive clauses, ing-clauses., and ed-clauses. Infinitive clauses are sometimes subdivided into infinitive clauses with the marker to and infinitive clauses without the marker to.
A finite dependent clause always has a subject. In contrast, non-finite dependent clauses can be constructed without a nominal component, and usually are. Following G.N. Vorontsova, we call the nominal component in non-finite clauses not a subject, but a subjectival member because although it is functionally similar to the nominal component in finite clauses, it is formally different from it. The nominal component in finite clauses (or the subject), is formally independent: nouns in the function of the subject are used in the common case, personal pronouns - in the nominative case. As for the nominal component in non-finite clauses, it can have a dependent form. For instance, when it is expressed by a personal
|
|
|
223
pronoun (which is rather often the case), it is always used in the oblique objective case. Besides, in a number of cases it can be introduced by a preposition. What is more, subject and predicate are correlative notions: when there is no predicate, we cannot speak about the subject. And in non-finite clauses, there is no predicate as only finite verbs can form predicates.
Infinitive Clauses with 'to':
without a subjectival member: The best thing would be to tell everybody (R. Quirk et al.);
with a subjectival member: The best thing -would be for you to tell everybody (R. Quirk et al.).
Infinitive Clauses without 'to':
without a subjectival member: / think it helps support our style of policing structure (S. Greenbaum);
with a subjectival member: / won't let you talk like that (S. Sheldon).
Ing-Clauses:
without a subjectival member: Leaving the room, he tripped over the mat (R. Quirk et al.);
with a subjectival member: Her aunt having left the room, I declared my passionate love for Celia (R, Quirk et al.).
Ed-Clauses:
without a subjectival member: Covered with confusion, I left the room (R. Quirk et al.);
with a subjectival member: The daughter sat quite silent and still, with her eyes fixed on the ground (Ch. Dickens).
Infinitive and ing-clauses are characterized by a higher frequency of occurrence and a wider range of syntactic roles than ed-clauses.
Among dependent clauses, English grammarians also include verbless clauses. Verbless clauses are treated as reductions of finite or non-finite clauses with the verb be. Cf.:
When ripe, these apples will be delicious (R. Quirk et al.)- •"* When these apples are ripe, they will be delicious.
Breakfast over, he went to his counting house (Ch. Bronte). —» Breakfast being over, he went to his counting house.
The verbless clause in the first example lacks a subjectival member; the verbless clause in the second example has a subjectival member: breakfast.
224
Non-finite and verbless dependent clauses are never marked for modality and tense, and are marked for person only when there is a subjectival member. They do comprise an element of predication: non-finite clauses - due to the presence of a non-finite form of the verb, verbless clauses - due to isolation. But it is secondary, not primary predication. Since finite clauses, on the one hand, non-finite clauses and verbless clauses, on the other, are predicatively heterogeneous, we see no grounds for calling them by the same term 'clause'. We quality as dependent only finite clauses, i.e. clauses one of whose elements is a finite verb.
|
|
|
INDEPENDENT CLAUSES
Independent clauses can be both finite and verbless. They are never embedded in a larger structure as a clause element or as part of a clause element. But they may contain embedded clauses or be coordinated with clauses on the same level. The authors of the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English mention three major types of independent clauses: simple, complex, and compound. A simple independent clause represents a single clause, e.g.:
I'll ring her up tonight! (H.E. Bates).
A complex independent clause is a combination of a matrix clause with one or more dependent clauses, e.g.:
If the police win, you generally hear all about it. If the police lose, you generally hear nothing (W. Collins).
A compound independent clause is a combination of two or more coordinated independent clauses, e.g.:
7? had begun to rain, and she had returned to the house early (S. Sheldon).
Independent finite clauses correspond to what is generally defined as sentences. They are used to perform speech-act functions. The question arises if simple, complex, and compound sentences are the only communication rendering syntactic units. In our opinion, they are not. We suggest a multistage classification of communication rendering syntactic units based on their inherent predication. At the first stage, we draw a distinction between predicative and non-predicative syntactic units. The latter ar referred to as 'communicatives'
225
Дата добавления: 2018-09-22; просмотров: 1603; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!