ENGLISH SYNTAX CLAUSE TYPES AND COORDINATION
ENGLISH SYNTAX
CLAUSE TYPES AND COORDINATION
Compiled by group: 2
Defita Sari
Wida Khairunia
Herianto Guawan
Lecturer:
ENDANG HERYANTO, M.Pd
TARBIYAH AND TADRIS FACULTY
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
INSTITUT AGAMA ISLAM NEGERI
BENGKULU
2015
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
CLAUSE TYPES AND COORDINATION
A.
BACKGROUND
Clause type is the
technical term referring to the syntactic categories of declarative,
interrogative, imperative and exclamative, each of which is associated with a
characteristic use, as illustrated below:
Clause type
|
Example
|
Characteristic
meaning/use
|
Declarative
|
She is
sensible
|
Statement
|
Interrogative
|
Is she
sensible?
|
Question
|
Imperative
|
Be sensible!
|
Directive
|
Exclamative
|
How sensible
she is!
|
Exclamatory statement
|
Declarative
is the ‘unmarked’ or ‘default’ type, lacking the distinctive properties of the
other types (such as subject-auxiliary inversion in the case of interrogatives) Directive is a
general term covering orders, requests, instructions, and the like (the term command, as
commonly used in traditional grammars, being too specific to capture the range
of uses associated with imperative clauses). Following Huddleston
(1984: 352) exclamatory statement is
preferred over the more familiar term exclamation, which fails to distinguish the characteristic
use of exclamative clauses from the exclamatory realization of other use
categories (e.g. Who the hell are you? as an
exclamatory question
The coordination of clauses is the combination of
two or more independent main clauses into a compound clause.
Coordinate clauses are linked by
This kind of coordination is called syndetic
coordination. More rarely, coordinate clauses are linked
without a coordinating word (= asyndetic coordination):
B.
Research Question
1.
What is calause trypes and coordination?
2.
Tell kinds of caluse types and coordination
CHAPTER II
DISCUSION
Verb and Their Satellites
A.
Definition Clause Types And Coorniation
Clause type is an important determinant of
illocutionary force, it is not the only one. For instance, if a declarative
such as Maria is Spanish is uttered with rising intonation,
this will typically have the effect of making what would otherwise be a
statement into a question. Clause
type is the technical term
referring to the syntactic categories of declarative, interrogative, imperative
and exclamative.
B.
Syntax Vs Semantic Vs Pragmatic
The
clause type system raises vexing issues concerning the interrelationship
between syntax and semantics/pragmatics. Consider the relationship between the
declarative clause Tina is
sensible and the
interrogative Is Tina
sensible?. Semantically, they are partly alike and partly different. PRAGMATIC CATEGORIES
LIKE A Statements, questions, and directives are in essence. Each represents a very general class of speech
acts which embraces a range of more specific categories; e.g. assertions and
predictions as types of statement; orders, requests and invitations as types of
directive. Beyond
these there are a vast number of illocutionary categories that are not subsumed
under any of the general categories, such as promises, congratulations, bets,
wishes, and the like.
Clause
type is an important determinant of illocutionary force, it is not the only
one. For instance, if a declarative such as Maria
is Spanish is uttered with
rising intonation, this will typically have the effect of making what would
otherwise be a statement into a question. One special device of relevance here
is the per formative use of verbs that denote illocutionary acts (e.g. admit, swear, urge, apologize, warn, suggest); that is, their use to
effect the performance of the very acts they denote.
Ssyntactic categories of clause type, illocutionary categories
are not mutually exclusive, For example, in a typical utterance of I advise you to make an appointment the advice force is primary and the
statement force secondary (the statement simply being the means by which the
advice is issued), as reflected in the greater likelihood that the utterance
would be reported as You
advised me to make an appointment rather
than You said you advised me
to make an appointment). Indirect
illocutionary force may be signaled in various ways. For instance the
exclamatory statement force of the interrogative Gee is he strong! is reinforced by the non-propositional
marker gee and by the likely selection of a
falling intonation terminal, rather than the rising terminal typically
associated with closed questions). Often used as an indicator of indirect
illocutionary force is the conventional use of certain expressions, e.g. the
use of the modal can and the adverb please in a request such as Can you pass the salt, please?,
where by contrast Are you able
to pass the salt? is unlikely
(unless there is actual doubt as to the addressee's ability to perform the
desired activity.
C. The Category Of Status
Coordination
Example my daughter and her husband,
the coordinates (my daughter and her husband) are NPs, and the
usual practice in formal grammar is to analyze the whole coordination as an NP
too. More generally, for any category α a coordination of α constituents is
itself taken to be an α (see, e.g., the entry in under ‘coordinate structure’).
A compelling objection to this approach, however, is that – as is well known –
coordinates do not always belong to the same category.
i (2) He is [an
entrepreneur and extremely wealthy]. (NP + AdjP)
ii The article was [very long and of little relevance]. (AdjP +
PP)
iii I can't remember [the cost or where I bought it]. (NP +
Clause)
iv The University provides an opportunity [for adventures of the
mind and to make friendships that will last a lifetime]. (PP + Clause)
v They replaced it [immediately and at no extra cost]. (AdvP +
PP)
vi She found an inconsistency between the [state and federal laws].
(N + Adj)
D. Distinctive syntactic properties of
coordination
In this section we outline the most
important syntactic properties that distinguish coordination from other
constructions.
·
No grammatical limit to the number of coordinates
All the coordinations cited so far
consist of just two coordinates, but there can be any number: three in You
can have [pork, beef or lamb]; four in I was [tired,
hungry, cold and very depressed]; five in Meetings are held in [March,
May, July, September, and November]; and so on, without any limit set by
the grammar.
·
·
The requirement of syntactic likeness
We
have said that coordinates are of ‘equal syntactic status,’ which implies that
they are syntactically alike. In most cases they belong to the same category;
but we interpret the data in (2) as indicating that in fact it is functional
likeness rather than categorial likeness that is crucial.1 As a first approximation, we could
state the condition on the admissibility of a coordination of two elements α
and β as in (3), with illustrations given in (4):
a
We invited [the manager and several staff members]
b. We invited the manager.
c. We invited several staff members.
a. The
article was [very long and of little relevance]. (= (2i))
b. The
article was very long.
c. The
article was of littlie relevance.
a. He left [the country and this morning
b. He left the country.
c. He left this morning.
Condition (3) is, as we say, only a
first approximation. This generalization covers the default case, but special
provision needs to be made to handle various kinds of exception. Some of these
are illustrated in (5) (again, CGEL gives a fuller discussion, in pp.
1323–6):
i The toaster and the electric kettle] don't
work any more.
ii %They've arranged for [your father and I] to
see her.
iii To delay any longer and letting
your son get involved] would be unwise.
iv One or other] of them will
have to resign
·
The marking of coordination
Coordination is usually but not
invariably marked by one or more coordinators. Three patterns to be
distinguished are shown in (6):
i
|
simple syndetic
|
You need [celery, apples, walnuts, and
grapes]
|
ii
|
polysyndetic
|
You need [celery and apples and walnuts
and grapes]
|
iii
|
asyndetic
|
You need [celery, apples, walnuts,
grapes]
|
The major contrast is between syndetic
coordination, which contains at least one coordinator, and asyndetic
coordination, which does not. In constructions with more than two coordinates
there is a further contrast within syndetic coordination between the default simple
syndetic, which has a single coordinator marking the final coordinate, and polysyndetic,
where all non-initial coordinates are marked by a coordinator (which must be
the same for all of them). The coordinator forms a constituent with the
coordinate which follows: we refer to expressions like and grapes as an expanded
coordinate, with grapes itself a bare coordinate.
The two most central coordinators
are and and or. But is also uncontroversially a
coordinator in examples like I tried to phone her but there was no answer
(and uncontroversially a preposition in It causes nothing but trouble),
but is subject to various restrictions that do not apply to and and or.
Most importantly, it is restricted to binary coordinations: compare *He was
old but healthy but rich.2 Tthis kind involve correlative
coordination. Both, either and neither also function as determiner
in NP structure: both parents, either parent, neither parent.
For this reason we classify them as determinatives – along with the,
a, this, that, some, any, etc.4 They differ from coordinators in
that they are not invariably positioned immediately before the coordinate, but
may be ‘displaced,’ as in (7):
i They will either have to
increase taxes or reduce spending.
ii Usually he was either too busy to get away or couldn't summon up the
energy for the trip.
Prescriptive manuals tend to advise
against such displacement, but this is a matter of stylistic preference, not
the avoidance of ungrammaticality (see either (3) in
Merriam-Webster 1994: 385).
1.3.4No fronting of coordinator
+ coordinate
An expanded coordinate can never be
fronted, as constituents with a dependent function commonly can. Compare, for
example:
a. She recommended a holiday,
although I had my thesis to finish.
b. Although I had my thesis to
finish, she recommended a holiday.
a. ii She recommended a holiday, but I had my thesis to finish.
* b. But I had my thesis to finish,
she recommended a holiday.
The underlined constituent in (ia)
is a dependent (an adjunct), and can be placed at the front of the whole
construction, as in (ib). The underlined element in (iia), however, is
coordinate, not dependent, and hence cannot be placed at the front, as we see
from (iib) (interpreted as a reordering of (iia)). Note that the meanings of
(ia) and (iia) are similar, but the grammatical difference is very sharp.
·
Across the board’ application of syntactic
processes
Related to the requirement of
syntactic likeness between coordinates is the requirement that such syntactic
processes as relativization apply across the board, i.e. to all
coordinates. Again this provides a useful contrast with non-coordinate
constructions. Compare:
a. He has lots of experience but
he hasn't got a degree.
b. I appointed a guy [who has lots of experience but who hasn't
got a degree].
a. He has lots of experience though he hasn't got a degree.
b. I appointed a guy [who
has lots of experience though who hasn't got a degree
E. Order of coordinates
In the simplest and most
prototypical cases the order of coordinates is free, so that reversing them has
no significant effect on acceptability or interpretation. But there are also
many cases where coordinates are not freely reversible in this way:
a. I
live in Paris and work in a bank.
b. I work in a bank and live in Paris.
a. I went home and had a bath
b. I had a bath and went home.
a. first and foremost
b. foremost and first
The VP coordinates in (i) illustrate
the free reversibility cases; this kind of coordination is commonly called symmetric.
By contrast, (ii–iii) illustrate asymmetric coordination. In (ii) both
versions are perfectly acceptable, but would normally be interpreted
differently, with the order of coordinates matching the temporal order of
events: in (a) I went home first and had a bath when I got home, whereas in (b)
I had a bath before going home. One special case of asymmetric coordination
involves lexicalized expressions, such as (iiia).
In some cases of asymmetrical
coordination the across-the-board requirement is relaxed, as in Here are
some flowers which I've just been down the road and bought for you. Here which
relates to the second coordinate but not the first: compare non-relative I've
just been down the road and bought some flowers for you.
F.
Subordinate clause and main clause as
syntactic categories
The reason why traditional grammar singles out clauses for
special treatment is that there are important differences of internal form
between subordinate clauses and non-subordinate ones, i.e. main
clauses. Compare:
main clause
|
subordinate clause
|
a. i She is ill.
|
b. I realize that she
is ill.
|
a. ii Has she arrived
yet?
|
b. I wonder whether she
has arrived yet.
|
a. iiiShe is late
|
It's b. unusual for her
to be late.
|
- In (i) the subordinate clause is
distinguished from the main clause by the subordinator • that.
- In (ii) it is distinguished by the
subordinator • whether +
subject–predicator order.
- In (iii) it is distinguished by the
subordinator • for, the
infinitival marker to, the accusative case of the subject pronoun
and the form of the verb.
Subordinate clause and main clause thus have the status of
syntactic categories. Note, by contrast, that even those works
that use ‘subordination’ in the more general sense of dependency do not make a
comparable subcategory distinction between subordinate and main within other
categories, such as NPs, PPs, AdjPs, etc. – or nouns, prepositions, adjectives,
etc.
i (19) That you could ever want to marry such a
man!
ii To think that I was once a millionaire!
iii What to do in an emergency.
The first two stand as (exclamatory) sentences on their own,
while the third is used as a title or heading over a text that tells you what to
do in an emergency. We follow Quirk et al. in treating these as exceptional
uses of subordinate clauses, not exceptional forms of main clauses.
Second,
note that there are strong grounds for recognizing a type of construction
distinct from both dependency and coordination: the construction we call
supplementation.
6
A
supplement is an element that is loosely attached rather
than being tightly integrated into the structure; it can take numerous
different forms, including both subordinate and main clauses, as in (20):
- i (20) We've offered the job to Sue (who has easily the best qualifications), but I
don't think she'll accept.
ii We've offered the job to Sue (she has easily
the best qualifications), but I don't think she'll accept.
Chapter III
A.
Conclusions
We have seen
that clause type in English is standard treated as a four-term system, with
each term associated with a characteristic
illocutionary force. However, this correspondence may be overridden – in
indirect speech acts – by a variety of factors, including prosody and the per
formative use of speech act verbs. The system of clause type raises challenging
questions as to the relationship between syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. The
syntactic category of interrogatives is argued to be distinguishable both from
the semantic category of questions (classifiable on one important dimension
into what-questions,
yes/no-questions, and alternative questions), and the pragmatic category of
inquiries (embracing queries, suggestions, requests, and the like).
Imperative
clauses typically have directive force, but directives are also commonly
conveyed by the other clause types (e.g. by an interrogative such as would
you mind helping me? or a declarative such as You must
not touch it). A distinction is posited between ordinary
imperatives and let-imperatives. One important consideration in
the analysis of the latter is the varying degrees of grammaticalization that let has
undergone with different English speakers. The delimitation of the explanative
clause type has been the subject of some disagreement. In this chapter it is
maintained that the class is limited to clauses introduced by an explanative
phrase with what or how, and
excludes structures such as Isn't syntax easy! and Syntax
is so easy!: only in the former is the illocutionary force
of exclamatory statement grammatical zed.
REFERENCE
Aarts,bas and mcmahon,april.2006.The handbook of English
linguistics.Ltd
