CLAUSE TYPES AND COORDINATION

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

• coordinating conjunctions, e.g. und, oder, denn, weder...noch
• conjunctional adverbs, e.g. deswegen, somit, zudem

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

 "Clause Types." The Handbook of English Linguistics. Arts, Bas and April McMahon (eds). Blackwell Publishing, 2006. Blackwell Reference Online. 03 October 2015 http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/tocnode.html?id=g9781405113823_chunk_g97814051138239

Aarts,bas and mcmahon,april.2006.The handbook of English linguistics.Ltd