Relationships Realized by Absolute Clauses

Abstract

Traditional grammar distinguishes three types of subordinate clauses: adverbial clauses, nominal clauses (subject clauses, object clauses, and appositive clauses), and adjectival clauses (attributive clauses). Although the three types of subordinate clauses can all be non-finite, only adverbial clauses have the potential to form absolute clauses. However, the traditional definition of absolute clauses as clauses is not clear, because absolute clauses can function as clausal adjuncts of time, cause, condition, concession, etc., but there are no adverbial clauses of attendant circumstance. Furthermore, the explanation of with in augmented absolutes in traditional grammar is also vague. It only mentions that with introduces the subject of the absolute construction, but never explains in detail why the subject is introduced by with nor the syntactic or semantic role of with. “A general definition would involve both grammatical and semantic considerations.” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2004: 51). Therefore, the traditional definition of absolute clauses includes both their structure types and function types. SFL does not confine the functions realized by a lexico-grammatical item. One function can be realized by more than one forms and one form can realize more than one functions. This opens up a large relation potential for absolute clauses. “The class of an item indicates in a general way its potential range of grammatical function.” (ibid.: 52) The SFL classification of relation types of clause complexes is different from that of traditional grammar. SFL construes a complicated relationship system network between the two clauses constituting a clause complex along two dimensions: interdependency and logico-semantic relation. Since absolute clauses are an alternative form of finite clauses, they have a similar meaning potential to finite clauses.