Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only.

Not for reproduction or distribution or commercial use

This article was originally published in the Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics,
Second Edition, published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier
for the author's benefit and for the benefit of the author's institution, for noncommercial research and educational use including without limitation use in
instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who you know, and
providing a copy to your institutions administrator.
All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial
reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your
personal or institutions website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions,
permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier's permissions site at:
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial
Aarts B (2006), Subordination. In: Keith Brown, (Editor-in-Chief) Encyclopedia of
Language & Linguistics, Second Edition, volume 12, pp. 248-254. Oxford: Elsevier.

248 Subjects and the Extended Projection Principle

on
al
C
op
y

Koopman H & Sportiche D (1991). The position of


subjects. Lingua 85, 211258.
Li C N & Thompson S A (1976). Subject and topic: a new
typology of language. In Li C N (ed.) Subject and topic.
New York: Academic Press. 458489.
McCloskey J (1997). Subjecthood and subject positions.
In Haegeman L (ed.) Elements of grammar. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers. 197235.
Postal P M (1974). On raising. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Reinhart T (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora.
Ph.D. diss. MIT.
Reinhart T (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation.
London/Sydney: Croom Helm.
Ristad E S (1993). The language complexity game.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rothstein S (1983). The syntactic forms of predication.
Ph.D. diss. MIT.
Rothstein S (2001). Studies in linguistics and philosophy:
Predicates and their subjects. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sag I & Wasow T (1999). Syntactic theory: a formal
introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Schachter P (1976). The subject in Philippine languages:
topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Li C N
(ed.) Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.
491518.
Svenonius P (2002). Subjects, Expletives and the EPP.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams E (2003). Representation theory. Cambridge: MIT
Press.

Pe
rs

Bybee J L (1985). Morphology: a study of the relation


between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Chomsky N (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Chomsky N (1986). Convergence Series: Knowledge of
language: its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger
Publishers.
Chomsky N (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Dechaine R -M A (1993). Predicates across categories:
towards a category-neutral syntax. Ph.D. diss., University of Massachussets.
Demuth K (1989). Maturation and the acquisition of
Sesotho passive. Language 65, 5680.
Frege G (1879/1964). Begriffsschrift und andere Aufsatze.
Hildesheim: OlmsIgnacio Angelelli (ed.) 2nd annotated
edition from the original Begriffsschrift, eine der
arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen
Denkens (1879). with remarks from Edward Husserl
and Heinrich Scholz. Hildesheim: Olms.
Hale K L & Keyser S J (2002). Linguist inquiry monographs
39: Prolegomenon to a theory of argument structure.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Keenan E L (1976a). Towards a universal definition of
subject. In Li C N (ed.) Subject and topic. New York:
Academic Press. 303333.
Keenan E L (1976b). Remarkable subjects in Malagasy. In
Li C N (ed.) Subject and topic. New York: Academic
Press. 303334.
Keenan E L & Comrie B (1977). Noun phrase accessibility
and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63100.

Au
th
or
's

Subordination

B Aarts, University College London, London, UK


2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Definition

In a general sense, if an element a is subordinate to an


element b, it is less prominent than b and usually a is
dependent on b. In grammar, subordination is a pervasive phenomenon and occurs in many different
guises. Consider the following example:
(1) I thought [Clause that [NP the endless storm] was
frightening]]

Here, in the noun phrase the endless storm the head is


the noun storm. It is preceded by the determinative
the, which renders the phrase definite, while endless
furnishes additional descriptive information about
the head. In phrase structure, all elements are subordinate (although in different ways) to the head. The

string that the endless storm was frightening is a


subordinate clause. A defining characteristic of subordination (also called hypotaxis) is that the subordinate element or string is syntactically at a lower level
in the overall structure than the element or string it is
subordinate to. Thus in (1) that the endless storm was
frightening is subordinate because it functions as
the direct object of the verb think, which forms part
of the main clause. In this article, I use the term
subordination in the narrower sense of clause linking, that is, as a grammatical phenomenon in which a
clause is linked to another clause (or in some cases
a phrasal head).

Markers of Subordination
When a clause is subordinate to another clause, the
subordination is often marked. This can be done in a
variety of ways.

Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 12, pp. 248254

Subordination 249

In the sentences that follow, the subordinate clauses


(in italics) are linked to their host, the main clause, by
an overt subordinator (in boldface):
(2) when they arrived all hell broke loose
(3) we liked the play because the acting was superb
(4) he never calls you although he says he likes you
very much
(5) he claims that the trains that go to Edinburgh are
running on time
(6) I dont know whether they will cancel the
appointment or not
(7) the committee will decide if youre suitable for
this position
(8) it is entirely appropriate for you to comment on
his management style

(12) Willem heeft de


kat vermoord
Willem has
the cat murdered
Willem has murdered the cat
(13) ik denk dat Willem de kat heeft vermoord
I think that Willem the cat has murdered
I think that Willem has murdered the cat

Consider also the example in (14) from German, in


which the predicative adjective phrase krank sick
would normally follow the verb in a main clause
(er ist krank) (Konig and van der Auwera, 1988: 102).
(14) weil
er
krank ist, kann
because he sick
is
can
Fritz nicht mitkommen
Fred not
come along
because he is sick, Fred cannot come along

Subordination is often signaled by desententialization


(Lehmann, 1988), as in the following sentence in
which the subject of the subordinate clause is missing
(and, in addition, the verb form is nonfinite; this is
discussed later).
(15) I want to emigrate to Australia

Pe
rs

The items that, whether, if, and for are often called
complementizers because they introduce clauses that
function as a complement to a verb or some other
head. Some linguists have argued that a subset of
items traditionally regarded as subordinators are
prepositions; they then reserve the class of subordinators for only that, whether, if, and for (see, e.g.,
Huddleston, Pullum et al., 2002).

In Dutch, subordinate clauses have a different


word order from main clauses. Compare (12) and
(13):

on
al
C
op
y

Subordinators

Verb Forms

Word Order

Au
th
or
's

Subordination can also be signaled by changes in the


canonical order of words as in (9), which shows
English subject-auxiliary inversion:
(9) had I known about her qualifications, I would
have offered her the job

The italicized clause is interpreted as carrying conditional meaning.


Compare (9) with (10), in which, this time, subjectauxiliary inversion is a feature of the main clause
interrogative, whereas the subordinate interrogative
clause in (11) has the expected word order of subject,
auxiliary, and main verb:
(10) which books should I read?
(11) nobody seems to know which books I should
read

In (11) the subordination is in actual fact jointly


marked by the canonical word order of subject, auxiliary, and main verb, and the wh-phrase, which is
associated with (moved from) the direct object position following the verb read. An initial wh-phrase
on its own is not enough to signal subordination, as
(10) shows.

Clauses may be finite, nonfinite, or verbless. Nonfinite and verbless clauses are always subordinate
because they cannot stand on their own, as the
following examples illustrate.
(16) having taken a shower, Fred was now ready to
go out
(17) Sally had to walk home, her car a wreck

Clauses containing subjunctive verb forms are also


always subordinate. Indeed, as Palmer (1987: 90)
reminds us, the term subjunctive is a translation into
Latin from the Greek hypotaktike, which means subordinate; see also Lyons (1969: 312), who remarks
that for the traditional grammarian the subjunctive
was the mood of subordination par excellence. In
many languages, these verb forms are triggered by a
verb in the main clause that expresses modal meanings
such as factual remoteness, possibility, and unreality.
Thus, in Spanish the verb esperar hope takes a subordinate clause with a subjunctive verb:
(18) espero que
el
pueda
hope.I that he can.SUBJ
I hope that he can come

venir
come

Another way in which verb forms can signal subordination is through the phenomenon of switch

Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 12, pp. 248254

250 Subordination

[i]n ordinary subordinate clauses, both indicative and


subjunctive, a verb inflected for third person must have
a prefix indicating whether the subject of the subordinate clause is the same or different from the subject of
the CTP [complement-taking predicate]. In the third person singular perfective, the prefix indicating same subject (SS, non-switch reference) is e`-, and the unmarked
prefix indicating a third person singular subject (which
can be interpreted as switch reference) is o-.

Thus, in (19) the subject of e`cego` is dako (nonswitch


reference), but in (20) the subject of o`cego` cannot be
dako (switch reference).
(19) dako
o`po`yo`
n
woman remembered.3.SING.SUBJ COMP
e`cego`
dOgola
closed.3.SING.SS door
the woman1 remembered that she1 closed
the door

(Here SS indicates same subject.) This phenomemon is


only possible in subordinate clauses.
Here are some Quechua examples from Cole
(1982):
chaya-shpa-mi
arrive-ADVLR.SS]-VAL

Au
th
or
's

(21) Kitu-man
[Quito-ALL

rijsi-ta
riku-rka-ni
acquaintance-ACC see-PAST-1.SING
when I arrived in Quito, I saw a friend

(22) nuka
[I

Kitu-man
Quito-ALL

(24) Alik ne xodit (PAUSE) spotykajas (Russian)


stumbling
Alik NEG walk

This sentence can be glossed in two ways, depending


on whether there is a pause between xodit and spotykajas. If there is a pause, then (24) can be translated
as Alik doesnt go because he stumbles (i.e., with a
subordinate clause), whereas without the pause it
means Alik doesnt walk with a stumble.
Semantic linking refers to meaning links that can
be established between clauses, such as the mention
of the same people or entities. The term grammatical
category dependence (GCD; Van Valin, 1984) can be
defined as a dependence between clauses in terms of
voice, mood, tense, pronoun reference, and so on. Van
Valin cites an example from Jacaltec (Craig, 1977):

Pe
rs

(20) dako
o`po`yo`
woman
remembered.3.SING.SUBJ
n
o`cego`
dOgola
COMP
closed.3.SING.SUBJ
door
the woman1 remembered that she2 closed the
door

This sentence is ambiguous. Under the first reading,


the reason for my not going to the gallery was that
I wanted to meet Sue in some other location. Under
the second reading I did in fact go to the gallery, but
the reason for my going there was not that I wanted
to meet Sue but some other reason (we can continue
the sentence in (23), saying but because I wanted to
see the pictures). The difference between the two
readings has to do with the scope of the negative
element in the main clause. Under the second reading,
it extends into the subordinate clause; under the first
reading it does not. Notice that under the first reading
there is an intonational break just before the subordinate clause, and there are thus two intonation contours for this complex sentence. For the second
reading, there is just one contour. We thus see that a
main and a subordinate clause, in addition to having
overt markers of subordination, can be linked by the
semantic notion of scope of negation.
Consider next a Russian example of intonational
linking (Haiman and Thompson, 1984: 516):

on
al
C
op
y

reference. Consider example (19) from Noonan


(1985: 8081), who noted that in Lango:

chaya-jpi-mi
arrive-ADVLR.DS]-VAL

rijsi
riku-wa-rka
acquaintance
see-OBJ.1-PAST.SUBJ.3
when I arrived in Quito, a friend saw me

(Here ALL indicates allative; ADVLR.SS indicates adverbializer, same subject; ADVLR.DS indicates adverbializer, different subject; and VAL indicates validator.) In
these examples, the inflections on the verb at the end
of the subordinate clause signal whether its subject is
the same or different from that in the main clause.
Scope, Intonation, Semantic Linking, and
Grammatical Category Dependence

Consider (23)
(23) I didnt go to the gallery because I wanted to
meet Sue

(25) ch-in
NPAST-1.SING.ABS

xubli
whistle

an
1P

x--(h)in-txah-ni
PAST-3.ABS-1.SING.ERG-wash-SUFF

xil
CLASS

kape
an
clothes 1P
I washed the clothes whistling

(Here NPAST indicates nonpast, ABS indicates absolutive, ERG indicates ergative, SUFF indicates suffix, and
CLASS indicates classifier.) Van Valin (1984: 546) notes
that
the verb in the first clause must be in the neutral nonpast
tense form, and the two clauses must have the same
subject. The tense interpretation for the whole sentence
is a function of the tense inflection of the verb in
the second clause; there is therefore G[rammatical]
C[ategory] dependence between the clauses.

Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 12, pp. 248254

Subordination 251
Circularity

Emonds (1970, 1976) discusses a number of syntactic


operations (transformations) that can only take
place in root (i.e., main) clauses. Green (1976)
dubbed these operations main clause phenomena
(MCP). Among them are subject-auxiliary inversion
(SAI), tag question formation (TQF), adverb preposing (AP), and topicalization (TOP). Here are a few
illustrative examples (from Emonds, 1976: 21):

Some linguists have pointed out (Haiman and


Thompson, 1984; Thompson, 1985: 86) that one
problem of using the phenomena discussed so far
to identify subordination is that it may lead to circularity: Why is this clause subordinate? Because
it is introduced by a subordinator. Why is it
introduced by a subordinator? Because it is subordinate. Where possible, we therefore need to look
for additional identifiers of subordination, as in (13),
which combines the use of a subordinator with a
change in word order. According to Palmer (1987:
97), it is the fact that the subordinate clause can
follow or precede the main clause (compare also (2)
and (3)) that distinguishes it from the coordinated
clause, as in (32) and (33):

(26a) why werent they cooperative? (SAI)


(26b) *she doesnt know why werent they
cooperative?
(27a) Mary had come, hadnt she? (TQF)
(27b) *Bill wanted to know whether Mary had
come, hadnt she?
(28a) under no conditions may they leave the area.
(AP)
(28b) *if under no conditions may they leave the
area, how can they pay their debt?
(29a) these steps I used to sweep with a broom.
(TOP)
(29b) *have I shown you the broom (that) these steps
I used to sweep with?

(32a) John came, although Mary stayed at home


(32b) although Mary stayed at home, John came
(33a) John came, but Mary stayed at home
(33b) *but Mary stayed at home, John came

However, this test does not always work, as when the


element for is the subordinator:
(34) John laughed, for he was a fool
(35) *for he was a fool, John laughed

Au
th
or
's

Pe
rs

Green (1976: 397) argues that, in fact, MCP can


occur in subordinate clauses as well, provided certain
conditions are met: the embeddability of so-called
MCP is influenced not only by syntactic forms and
semantic functions, but also by pragmatic functions,
by what a speaker is trying to do in using a particular
syntactic form to express something. This view was
endorsed by Bolinger (1977).

on
al
C
op
y

Main Clause Phenomena

No Overt Marker of Subordination

Subordination can also be achieved without overt


markers of subordination, as in the well-known
cases of that omission in English complement
clauses:
(30) I believe (that) the monarchy wont survive for
much longer

Here the string of words following believe can


stand on its own, but should nevertheless be regarded
as a subordinate clause by virtue of the fact that it
functions as the direct object of believe.
Consider also:
(31) do that again and Ill punch you

Here the imperative clause seems to be coordinated


with the clause Ill punch you, but it is interpreted as a
conditional adjunct clause, that is, as if you do that
again.

Palmer is forced to say that for is not a subordinator,


even though it functions in the same way as the causal
subordinator because.
The circularity problem has led some linguists to
conclude that there is no meaningful grammatical
notion of subordinate clause (Thompson, 1985: 86):
[S]ubordinate clause is not a grammatical category at
all. That is, there does not seem to be a single function or
even a group of functions that we can think of this
category as having been designed, as it were, to serve.
So the term subordination seems to be at best a negative
term which lumps together all deviations from some
main clause norm, which means that it treats as unified
a set of facts which we think is not a single phenomenon.
For these reasons, we have found it more fruitful to tease
it apart into its component parts and try to determine
what are the discourse motivations that underlie each of
these components.

Some of these components have already been discussed (see also Haiman and Thompson, 1984:
511). For a discourse approach to subordination, see
Matthiessen and Thompson (1988). For a typological
approach see Cristofaro (2003: 2) where subordination is regarded as a particular way to construe the
cognitive relation between two events, such that one
of them (which will be called the dependent event)
lacks an autonomous profile, and is construed in the

Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 12, pp. 248254

252 Subordination

perspective of the other event (which will be called


the main event).

(40) if you cook tomorrow I will take you to the


theatre
(41) the prisoners will be released so that more space
will be available

Types of Subordinate Clause


Subordinate clauses can be classified as follows.

(42) in order that we can finalize the arrangements


all employees are requested to work overtime

Content Clauses

Comparative Clauses

As their name suggests, comparative clauses express


a comparison between two terms. Here are some
examples.

(37) the French are as mad as the English are


Relative Clauses

Subordination is a matter of degree. First, clauses that


are merely juxtaposed are paratactically linked, as in
(43).
(43) Tim fell. He broke his arm.

Although there is an obvious semantic (causal)


link between the first and second sentences in this
example and co-reference is established through
the use of the pronoun he, which may (but need not)
refer back to Tim, grammatically neither sentence is
subordinate to the other.
Consider next adjunct clauses, as in (40)(42).
These are clearly part of their containing sentences
and subordinate in the sense of not being able to occur
on their own and in furnishing nonessential information, but they are nonembedded. What this means is
that they are not constituents (arguments) of some
unit of the sentence, other than the sentence itself. In
sentences containing adjunct clauses, more than one
assertion is being made. Thus in (41) the assertions
are the prisoners will be released and more space will
be available. Another example of nonembedding is
(25), which similarly displays dependence, but by
virtue of grammatical category linking, not embedding. The combination of features [dependent,
embedded] is termed cosubordination in Van
Valin (1984: 546), following Olson (1981). This is
contrasted with subordination, which he regards as
[dependent, embedded], and coordination, which
can be characterized as [dependent, embedded].
Care should be taken with this terminology: some
authors use the term hypotaxis to mean what Van
Valin called cosubordination (see, e.g., Matthiessen
and Thompson, 1988: 283).
Matters are different for content clauses that function as complements in a sentence, for example, the
that- clause in (5). These are said to be embedded, in
this case in the verb phrase whose head requires a
clausal complement. When embedding occurs, the
complex sentence expresses just one assertion. In the
case of (5): X claims Y.
Observe that it is necessary to recognize levels
of embedding. Thus, the relative clause that go to
Edinburgh in (5) is more deeply embedded than its

Pe
rs

(36) these days Ben likes syntax more than he did last
year

Degrees of Subordination

on
al
C
op
y

The label content clause was introduced by Otto


Jespersen (1933) and was adopted in Huddleston,
Pullum et al. (2002) to designate a type of clause that
assumes a typical clause function, such as subject,
direct object, and complement of a preposition. (Because content clauses often occur in NP positions,
they have been called nominal clauses; cf. Quirk
et al., 1985: 1048.) They can be introduced by such
elements as the complementizers that, whether, if,
and for (examples are shown in (5)(8)) or by
wh-words (e.g., I dont know what you mean).

Au
th
or
's

Relative clauses are used to postmodify noun heads.


(38) this is the camera that we bought in America.
(39) we invited Harrys father, who loves barbecues

The relative clause in (38) is a restrictive relative


clause; it singles out a particular camera from the
universe of discourse. In contrast, in (39) we have a
nonrestrictive relative clause, so called because the
clause does not serve to identify a unique entity in
the universe of discourse.
Adjunct Clauses

Adjunct clauses furnish circumstantial information


that is supplementary to the proposition expressed
by the main clause. The subordinators that introduce
adjunct clauses can signal a wide variety of meanings, among them time (when, while, since), as in
(2); reason (because since, as), as in (3); concession
((al)though, (even) though), as in (4); condition (if ),
as in (40); result, as in (41), and purpose, as in (42)
(this is by no means an exhaustive list of the meanings
that can be expressed).

Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 12, pp. 248254

Subordination 253

(44) if you need it when you get there call me


(45) if you need it, when you get there call me
(46) if you need it when you get there, call me

Without any clues as to which intonation is intended,


(44) is ambiguous; but with commas indicating intonational breaks, the when clause is either taken to be
subordinate to call me, (45), or to if you need it (46).
Notice also that the word there ends on a lower pitch
in (46) than in (45).

Subordination versus Other Grammatical


Notions

Criteria

1. The item can only occur at the beginning of a


clause.

Au
th
or
's

Pe
rs

How can we distinguish subordination from other


grammatical phenomena such as modification,
complementation, and coordination?
Modification and complementation are both types
of dependency and, as such, involve subordination.
To clarify this, consider the noun phrase the frightening storm that battered our house. The head here is
storm, and we will say that the element the and the
string that battered our house are both dependent on
the head and modify it; hence, they are subordinate
to it in the wider sense. But only the relative clause
is subordinate in the narrower sense used here, as
involving a clause linked to a host.
Consider next (47) and (48):

coordinated and neither NP is subordinate to the


other. Previously we came across an example in
which a particular kind of coordination resembles
subordination from a semantic point of view. Several
linguists have argued that subordination and coordination cannot easily be distinguished. Thus, the
Dutch grammarian Kruisinga (1932: 501) noted that
[i]t is perhaps hardly necessary to observe that the
distinction between coordination and subordination
is a relative one, allowing of intermediate cases.
Huddleston (1984: 380, 382383) makes similar
comments. In Quirk et al. (1985: 927928) the idea
of gradience between subordination and coordination
is worked out in detail. They posit six syntactic
criteria (not ranked in order of importance) to
characterize coordinating conjunctions. The more
criteria a particular item conforms to, the more it is
like a coordinating conjunction and the less it is like a
subordinating conjunction. (Most of the examples
that follow are from Quirk et al., 1985: 921).

on
al
C
op
y

containing clause that the trains that go to Edinburgh


are running on time because it is part of its subject
NP. Levels of subordination can be signaled by intonation through intonational linking (see above). Consider the pair of sentences (45) and (46) (Bolinger,
1984: 410), as contrasted with (44):

(47) their discussion of the problem did nothing to


cool tempers
(48) the fact that he manipulated his audience was
beyond doubt

The subject noun phrase in (47) is headed by the noun


discussion. It is preceded by the determiner the and
followed by the prepositional phrase of the problem,
which functions as a complement (cf. they discussed
the problem). In (48), the that clause is said to be an
appositive clause (in that it specifies the content of the
head noun fact). It too functions as a nominal complement. In (47) there is subordination, in the narrow
sense, in the shape of modification, whereas in (48)
we have subordination in the wide and narrow senses
of the term.
Subordination is distinguished from coordination.
The latter links units at the same level, as in [the vicar]
and [the actress], in which two noun phrases are

(49a) John plays the guitar, and his sister plays the
piano
(49b) *John plays the guitar; his sister and plays the
piano

2. In a sequence of coordinated clauses A and B,


when B contains the item, B cannot precede A.
(50a) they are living in England, or they are spending
a vacation there
(50b) *or they are spending a vacation there, they
are living in England

3. A sequence of coordinating conjunctions is impossible, whereas subordinating conjunctions and


conjuncts can combine with other linkers.
(51a) *he was unhappy about it, and but he did as he
was told
(51b) he was unhappy about it, and yet he did as he
was told
(51c) he asked to be transferred, because he was
unhappy and because he saw no prospect of
promotion

4. The item can link clauses but also predicates


and other types of constituents.
(52a) I [may see you tomorrow] or [may phone later
in the day]
(52b) *he [did not spend very much], so that [could
afford a trip abroad]

Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 12, pp. 248254

254 Subordination

Criteria

Coordinators
Conjuncts
Subordinators

and, or
but
yet, so, nor
however, therefore
for, so that
if, because




















Source: Quirk et al. (1985).

5. The item can link subordinate clauses.


(53a) I wonder [whether you should go and see her]
or [whether it is better to write to her]
(53b) *they didnt stay [although they were happy],
but [although they were bored]

6. The item can link more than two clauses.


(54a) the battery may be disconnected, the
connection may be loose, or the bulb may be
faulty
(54b) *Kate watched television, but Gerry was
reading, but Pete was singing

Pe
rs

These criteria are then used to construct the matrix in


Table 1 (see also Van Valin, 1984).

Green G (1976). Main clause phenomena in subordinate


clauses. Language 52(2), 382397.
Haiman J & Thompson S A (1984). Subordination in
universal grammar. In Brugman C & Macaulay M (eds.)
Proceedings of the 10th annual meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics
Society. 510523.
Huddleston R (1984). Introduction to the grammar of
English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huddleston R, Pullum G K et al. (2002). The Cambridge
grammar of the English language. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Jespersen O (1933). Essentials of English grammar.
London: George Allen and Unwin.
Konig E & van der Auwera J (1988). Clause integration in
German and Dutch: conditionals, concessive conditionals
and concessives. In Haiman J & Thompson S A (eds.)
Clause combining in grammar and discourse.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 101133.
Kruisinga E (1932). A handbook of present-day English.
(vol. 2, 5th edn.). Groningen: Noordhoff.
Lehmann C (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage.
In Haiman J & Thompson S A (eds.) Clause combining in
grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
181225.
Lyons J (1969). Introduction to theoretical linguistics.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Matthiessen C & Thompson S A (1988). The structure of
discourse and subordination. In Haiman J &
Thompson S A (eds.) Clause combining in grammar and
discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 275329.
Noonan M (1985). Complementation. In Shopen T
(ed.) Language typology and syntactic description.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 42140.
Olson M (1981). Barai clause junctures: toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. Ph.D. diss., Australian
National University.
Palmer F (1987). The typology of subordination: results,
actual and potential. Transactions of the Philological
Society 1987, 90109.
Quirk R, Greenbaum S, Leech G & Svartvik J (1985).
A comprehensive grammar of the English language.
London: Longman.
Thompson S A (1985). Subordination in formal and
informal discourse. In Schiffrin D (ed.) Meaning, form,
and use in context: linguistic applications. Proceedings
of the 1984 Georgetown University roundtable on linguistics. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
8594.
Van Valin R D (1984). A typology of syntactic relations in
clause linkage. In Brugman C & Macaulay M (eds.)
Proceedings of the 10th annual meeting of the Berkeley
Linguistics Society. Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics
Society. 542558.

on
al
C
op
y

Table 1 Co-ordination-subordination gradient

See also: Complement Clauses; Constituent Structure; Co-

ordination; Mood, Clause Types, and Illocutionary Force;


Relative Clauses.

Au
th
or
's

Bibliography

Bolinger D (1977). Another glance at main clause phenomena. Language 53(3), 511519.
Bolinger D (1984). Intonational signals of subordination.
In Brugman C & Macaulay M (eds.) Proceedings of the
10th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 401413.
Cole P (1982). Imbabura Quechua. Amsterdam: North
Holland.
Craig C (1977). The structure of Jacaltec. Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.
Cristofaro S (2003). Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emonds J (1970). Root and structure-preserving transformations. Ph.D. diss., MIT.
Emonds J (1976). A transformational approach to
English syntax: root, structure-preserving and local
transformations. New York: Academic Press.

Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2006), vol. 12, pp. 248254

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen