Advertisement

Abstract

This research intends to examine English clause combining and the potential of transfer therein. Clause combining generally involves two clauses. Traditional grammar (e.g., Quirk et al. 1985) distinguishes two basic patterns of clause combining, i.e., coordination and subordination. Subordination is readily identifiable by two basic properties, i.e., dependency and embedding. Halliday (1985, 1994) and Halliday and Matthiessen (2004, 2014) categorize embedded clauses into embedded defining clauses and embedded fact clauses. An embedded defining clause is the restrictive relative clause that is embedded in a nominal group to function as its post-modifier. An embedded fact clause is the clause that is embedded in a fact noun to function as its appositive, including subject appositive and object appositive.

References

  1. Aarts, B. (2006). Subordination. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 248–254). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asher, N., & Vieu, L. (2005). Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua, 115(4), 591–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, J. R., Engelberg, S., & Rauh, G. (2004). Adverbials: The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blakemore, D. (2005). And-parentheticals. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1165–1181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blakemore, D., & Carston, R. (2005). The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. Lingua, 115(4), 569–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blühdorn, H. (2008). Subordination and coordination in syntax, semantics, and discourse: Evidence from the study of connectives. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 59–88). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carston, R., & Blakemore, D. (2005). Introduction to coordination: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Lingua, 115(4), 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cosme, C. (2008). A corpus-based perspective on clause linking patterns in English, French and Dutch. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 89–114). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cristofaro, S. (2003). Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Crysman, B. (2006). Coordination. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 183–196). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fabricius-Hansen, C. (1992). Subordination. In L. Hoffmann (Ed.), Deutsche Syntax: Ansichten und Aussichten (pp. 458–483). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fabricius-Hansen, C., & Ramm, W. (2008). Editors’ introduction: Subordination and coordination from different perspectives. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fawcett, R. P. (1996). A systemic functional approach to complementation in English. In M. Berry, C. Butler, R. P. Fawcett, & G. W. Huang (Eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations (pp. 297–366). Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  14. Foley, W. A., & Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Givón, T. (Ed.). (2001). Syntax: An introduction, Vol. II. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  16. Gunthner, S. (1996). From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position in German causal and concessive constructions. Pragmatics, 6(3), 323–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  18. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  19. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London/New York: Cassell.Google Scholar
  21. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  22. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haspelmath, M. (2004a). Coordinating constructions: An overview. In M. Haspelmath (Ed.), Coordinating constructions (Typological studies in language 58) (pp. 3–40). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haspelmath, M. (Ed.). (2004b). Coordinating constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  25. He, W. (2002). On recursiveness, embedding and functional syntactic reanalysis. Foreign Language Research, 3, 64–69.Google Scholar
  26. He, Q., Yang, B., & Wen, B. (2015). Textual metaphor from the perspective of relator. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 35(4), 334–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holler, A. (2008). German dependent clauses from a constraint-based perspective. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 187–216). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Huang, G. (1999). A functional approach to English syntactic analysis. Journal of Sun Yat-Sen University (Social Science Edition), 4, 20–27.Google Scholar
  29. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Johannessen, J. B. (1998). Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Johansson, S., & Hasselgård, H. (1999). Corpora and cross-linguistic research in the Nordic countries. In S. Granger, L. Beheydt, & J.-P. Colson (Eds.), Contrastive linguistics and translation (pp. 145–162). Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
  32. Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18, 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Knott, A., Sanders, T., & Oberlander, J. (Eds.). (2001). Levels of representation in discourse relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 197–332.Google Scholar
  34. Kortmann, B. (1996). Adverbial subordination: A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  35. Lang, E. (1984). The semantics of coordination (Studies in language companion series 9). Authorized English translation from Lang (1997). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  36. Lang, E., Maienborn, C., & Fabricius-Hansen, C. (Eds.). (2003). Modifying adjuncts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  37. Lefèvre, M. (Ed.). (2000). Subordination in syntax, semantik und textlinguistik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
  38. Lehmann, C. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman & S. D. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in Grammar and discourse (pp. 181–226). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 275–329). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Dowd, E. (1992). The syntactic metaphor of subordination: A typological study. Lingua, 86, 46–80.Google Scholar
  43. Polanyi, L. (1988). A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 601–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  45. Ramm, W. (2008). Upgrading of non-restrictive relative clauses in translation: A change in discourse structure? In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 135–160). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reis, M. (1999). On sentence types in German: An enquiry into the relationship between grammar and pragmatics. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis, 4, 195–236.Google Scholar
  47. Taverniers, M. (2006). Grammatical metaphor and lexical metaphor: Different perspective on semantic variation. Neophilologus, 2, 321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  49. Thompson, S. A., & Longacre, R. E. (1985). Adverbial clauses. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. II: Complex constructions (pp. 171–234). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Verstraete, J.-C. (2005). Two types of coordination in clause combining. Lingua, 115(4), 611–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Verstraete, J.-C. (2007). Rethinking the coordinate-subordinate dichotomy. In Interpersonal grammar and the analysis of adverbial clauses in English (Topics in English linguistics 55). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  52. Webber, B., Joshi, A., Stone, M., & Knott, A. (2003). Anaphora and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 29(4), 545–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wolf, F., & Gibson, E. (2005). Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based analysis. Computational Linguistics, 31(2), 249–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qingshun He
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Foreign LanguagesSun Yat-Sen UniversityGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations