Misplaced Pages

#87912

89-401: A complete simple sentence contains a single clause with a finite verb . Complex sentences contain at least one clause subordinated ( dependent ) to an independent clause (one that could stand alone as a simple sentence), which may be co-ordinated with other independents with or without dependents. Some dependent clauses are non-finite , i.e. they do not contain any element/verb marking

178-461: A conjunction such as but or and to be incomplete sentences, but this style prescription has "no historical or grammatical foundation". Computer grammar checkers often highlight incomplete sentences. A run-on sentence is a sentence that consists of two or more independent clauses (i.e. clauses that have not been made dependent through the use of a relative pronoun or a subordinating conjunction) that are joined without appropriate punctuation:

267-487: A sentence fragment . A sentence consisting of at least one dependent clause and at least two independent clauses may be called a complex-compound sentence or compound-complex sentence . Sentence 1 is an example of a simple sentence. Sentence 2 is compound because "so" is considered a coordinating conjunction in English, and sentence 3 is complex. Sentence 4 is compound-complex (also known as complex-compound). Example 5

356-405: A certain level in the accessibility hierarchy, and switch to a different strategy at this point. Classical Arabic , for example, only allows gapping in the subject and sometimes the direct object; beyond that, a resumptive pronoun must be used. Some languages have no allowed strategies at all past a certain point—e.g. in many Austronesian languages , such as Tagalog , all relative clauses must have

445-528: A comma (the comma splice ). In general, run-on sentences occur when two or more independent clauses are joined without using a coordinating conjunction (i.e. for , and , nor , but , or , yet , so ) or correct punctuation (i.e. semicolon, dash, or period). A run-on sentence can be as short as four words – for instance, I drive she walks , or even I drive, she walks, – because in these short cases there are two subjects paired with two intransitive verbs . An imperative sentence like "Run walk" can be

534-457: A complete thought or because it lacks some grammatical element, such as a subject or a verb. A dependent clause without an independent clause is an example of an incomplete sentence. An - ing fragment is a type of incomplete sentence containing a word ending in - ing that is a gerund or noun, not a verb, because it lacks a helping verb. An example is, "Swimming in the ocean". Some prescriptive grammars consider sentences starting with

623-410: A constituent question. They are also prevalent, though, as relative pronouns, in which case they serve to introduce a relative clause and are not part of a question. The wh -word focuses a particular constituent, and most of the time, it appears in clause-initial position. The following examples illustrate standard interrogative wh -clauses. The b-sentences are direct questions (independent clauses), and

712-400: A dependent clause cannot stand on its own as a sentence, complex sentences must also have at least one independent clause. In short, a sentence with one or more dependent clauses and at least one independent clause is a complex sentence. A sentence with two or more independent clauses plus one or more dependent clauses is called compound-complex or complex-compound. In addition to a subject and

801-477: A distinctive trait that is a prominent characteristic of their syntactic form. The position of the finite verb is one major trait used for classification, and the appearance of a specific type of focusing word (e.g. 'Wh'-word ) is another. These two criteria overlap to an extent, which means that often no single aspect of syntactic form is always decisive in deciding how the clause functions. There are, however, strong tendencies. Standard SV-clauses (subject-verb) are

890-508: A language that can relativize only subjects could say this: But not: These languages might form an equivalent sentence by passivization : These passivized sentences get progressively more ungrammatical in English as they move down the accessibility hierarchy; the last two, in particular, are so ungrammatical as to be almost unparsable by English speakers. But languages with severe restrictions on which roles can be relativized are precisely those that can passivize almost any position, and hence

979-416: A mers acasă"/"The man who I saw him yesterday went home"). They also occur in deeply embedded positions in English, as in "That's the girl that I don't know what she did", although this is sometimes considered non-standard. Only a very small number of languages, of which the best known is Yoruba , have pronoun retention as their sole grammatical type of relative clause. In the nonreduction type, unlike

SECTION 10

#1732764827088

1068-486: A mixed group. In English they can be standard SV-clauses if they are introduced by that or lack a relative pronoun entirely, or they can be wh -clauses if they are introduced by a wh -word that serves as a relative pronoun . Embedded clauses can be categorized according to their syntactic function in terms of predicate-argument structures. They can function as arguments , as adjuncts , or as predicative expressions . That is, embedded clauses can be an argument of

1157-475: A non-finite clause is usually a non-finite verb (as opposed to a finite verb ). There are various types of non-finite clauses that can be acknowledged based in part on the type of non-finite verb at hand. Gerunds are widely acknowledged to constitute non-finite clauses, and some modern grammars also judge many to -infinitives to be the structural locus of non-finite clauses. Finally, some modern grammars also acknowledge so-called small clauses , which often lack

1246-522: A predicate, an adjunct on a predicate, or (part of) the predicate itself. The predicate in question is usually the predicate of an independent clause, but embedding of predicates is also frequent. A clause that functions as the argument of a given predicate is known as an argument clause . Argument clauses can appear as subjects, as objects, and as obliques. They can also modify a noun predicate, in which case they are known as content clauses . The following examples illustrate argument clauses that provide

1335-413: A pronoun. There is no need to front the shared noun in such a sentence. For example, in the second example above, Hindi would actually say something equivalent to "I killed my friend with which knife, the police found that knife". Dialects of some European languages, such as Italian, do use the nonreduction type in forms that could be glossed in English as "The person just passed us by, she introduced me to

1424-642: A relative pronoun is not universally agreed. Traditional grammars treat "that" as a relative pronoun, but not all contemporary grammars do: e.g. the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (pp. 1056–7) makes a case for treating "that" as a subordinator instead of a relative pronoun; and the British National Corpus treats "that" as a subordinating conjunction even when it introduces relative clauses. One motivation for

1513-422: A run-on even if it only has two words. While some sources view comma splices as a form of run-on sentences, others limit the term to independent clauses that are joined without punctuation. Per The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language , the term "run-on sentence" is also used for "a very long sentence, especially one lacking order or coherence". Relative clause A relative clause

1602-434: A sentence contains homogenous members referring to another common member of the sentence, the sentence may be considered either simple or compound. If the homogenous members are removed, then the sentence is called contracted . In some languages, like Russian, a comma is not always required in a sentence with homogenous members. A complex sentence has one or more dependent clauses (also called subordinate clauses). Since

1691-404: A sentence equivalent to "The person who is run slower than by me" is grammatical. Gapping is often used in conjunction with case-marked relative pronouns (since the relative pronoun indicates the case role in the embedded clause), but this is not necessary (e.g. Chinese and Japanese both using gapping in conjunction with an indeclinable complementizer). This is a type of gapped relative clause, but

1780-604: A specific noun phrase; for example: Here, which refers not to the bed or the cat but to the entire proposition expressed in the main clause, namely the situation of the cat being allowed on the bed. Languages differ in many ways in how relative clauses are expressed: For example, the English sentence "The person that I saw yesterday went home" can be described as follows: The following sentences indicate various possibilities (only some of which are grammatical in English): There are four main strategies for indicating

1869-464: A specific tense. A primary division for the discussion of clauses is the distinction between independent clauses and dependent clauses . An independent clause can stand alone, i.e. it can constitute a complete sentence by itself. A dependent clause, by contrast, relies on an independent clause's presence to be efficiently utilizable. A second significant distinction concerns the difference between finite and non-finite clauses. A finite clause contains

SECTION 20

#1732764827088

1958-450: A structurally central finite verb , whereas the structurally central word of a non-finite clause is often a non-finite verb . Traditional grammar focuses on finite clauses, the awareness of non-finite clauses having arisen much later in connection with the modern study of syntax. The discussion here also focuses on finite clauses, although some aspects of non-finite clauses are considered further below. Clauses can be classified according to

2047-428: A superordinate expression. The first is a dependent of the main verb of the matrix clause and the second is a dependent of the object noun. The arrow dependency edges identify them as adjuncts. The arrow points away from the adjunct towards it governor to indicate that semantic selection is running counter to the direction of the syntactic dependency; the adjunct is selecting its governor. The next four trees illustrate

2136-400: A verb altogether. It should be apparent that non-finite clauses are (by and large) embedded clauses. The underlined words in the following examples are considered non-finite clauses, e.g. Each of the gerunds in the a-sentences ( stopping , attempting , and cheating ) constitutes a non-finite clause. The subject-predicate relationship that has long been taken as the defining trait of clauses

2225-402: A verb, dependent clauses contain a subordinating conjunction or similar word. There are a large number of subordinating conjunctions in English. Some of these give the clause an adverbial function, specifying time, place, or manner. Such clauses are called adverbial clauses . This complex sentence contains an adverbial clause, When I stepped out into the bright sunlight from the darkness of

2314-487: A very small number of Native American languages , of which the best known are the Keresan languages . In this type, the position relativized is indicated by means of a personal pronoun in the same syntactic position as would ordinarily be occupied by a noun phrase of that type in the main clause—known as a resumptive pronoun . It is equivalent to saying "The woman who I saw her yesterday went home". Pronoun retention

2403-411: A yes/no-question via subject–auxiliary inversion , 2. they express a condition as an embedded clause, or 3. they express a command via imperative mood, e.g. Most verb first clauses are independent clauses. Verb first conditional clauses, however, must be classified as embedded clauses because they cannot stand alone. In English , Wh -clauses contain a wh -word. Wh -words often serve to help express

2492-414: Is a clause that modifies a noun or noun phrase and uses some grammatical device to indicate that one of the arguments in the relative clause refers to the noun or noun phrase. For example, in the sentence I met a man who wasn't too sure of himself , the subordinate clause who wasn't too sure of himself is a relative clause since it modifies the noun man and uses the pronoun who to indicate that

2581-400: Is a verb phrase that consists of more than one word. This simple sentence has one independent clause which contains one subject, dog , and one predicate, barked and howled at the cat . This predicate has two verbs, known as a compound predicate: barked and howled . (This should not be confused with a compound sentence.) In the backyard and at the cat are prepositional phrases . In

2670-403: Is a relative clause that is not a restrictive relative clause. Whereas a non-restrictive or non-defining relative clause merely provides supplementary information, a restrictive or defining relative clause modifies the meaning of its head word (restricts its possible referent). For example: In speaking, it is natural to make slight pauses around non-restrictive clauses, and in English this

2759-415: Is a relative clause, e.g. An embedded clause can also function as a predicative expression . That is, it can form (part of) the predicate of a greater clause. These predicative clauses are functioning just like other predicative expressions, e.g. predicative adjectives ( That was good ) and predicative nominals ( That was the truth ). They form the matrix predicate together with the copula . Some of

Clause - Misplaced Pages Continue

2848-424: Is a sentence fragment. The simple sentence in example 1 contains one clause. Example 2 has two clauses ( I don't know how to bake and I buy my bread already made ), combined into a single sentence with the coordinating conjunction so . In example 3, I enjoyed the apple pie is an independent clause, and that you bought for me is a dependent clause; the sentence is thus complex. In sentence 4, The dog lived in

2937-402: Is also widespread among languages with postnominal externally headed relative clauses. There may or may not be any marker used to join the relative and main clauses. (Languages with a case-marked relative pronoun are technically not considered to employ the gapping strategy even though they do in fact have a gap, since the case of the relative pronoun indicates the role of the shared noun.) Often

3026-553: Is an element of traditional grammar . In standard English, sentences are composed of five clause patterns: Sentences – which are composed of these clauses, in either "dependent" or "independent" form – also have patterns, as explained below. A simple sentence consists of only one clause. A compound sentence consists of two or more independent clauses . A complex sentence has at least one independent clause plus at least one dependent clause . A set of words with no independent clause may be an incomplete sentence , also called

3115-543: Is distinguished by the fact that the role of the shared noun in the embedded clause is indicated indirectly by the case marking of the marker (the relative pronoun ) used to join the main and embedded clauses. All languages which use relative pronouns have them in clause-initial position: though one could conceivably imagine a clause-final relative pronoun analogous to an adverbial subordinator in that position, they are unknown. Some languages have what are described as "relative pronouns" (in that they agree with some properties of

3204-402: Is equivalent to saying "Which girl you see over there, she is my daughter" or "Which knife I killed my friend with, the police found that knife". It is "correlative" because of the corresponding "which ... that ..." demonstratives or "which ... she/he/it ..." pronouns, which indicate the respective nouns being equated. The shared noun can either be repeated entirely in the main clause or reduced to

3293-513: Is fully present in the a-sentences. The fact that the b-sentences are also acceptable illustrates the enigmatic behavior of gerunds. They seem to straddle two syntactic categories: they can function as non-finite verbs or as nouns. When they function as nouns as in the b-sentences, it is debatable whether they constitute clauses, since nouns are not generally taken to be constitutive of clauses. Some modern theories of syntax take many to -infinitives to be constitutive of non-finite clauses. This stance

3382-448: Is generally head-first, but has adjectives preceding their head nouns, and genitive constructions with both preceding and following modifiers ("the friend of my father" vs. "my father's friend"). Chinese has the VO order, with verb preceding object, but otherwise is generally head-final. Various possibilities for ordering are: The antecedent of the relative clause (that is, the noun that

3471-429: Is inflected for grammatical gender and number, is sometimes used in order to give more precision. For example, any of the following is correct and would translate to "I talked to his/her father and mother, whom I already knew": However, in the first sentence, "whom I already knew" refers only to the mother; in the second, it refers to both parents; and in the third, as in the English sentence, it could refer either only to

3560-488: Is known as Syntactic Rank or the Relational Hierarchy. In English, a relative clause follows the noun it modifies. It is generally indicated by a relative pronoun at the start of the clause, although sometimes simply by word order. If the relative pronoun is the object of the verb in the relative clause, it comes at the beginning of the clause even though it would come at the end of an independent clause ("She

3649-431: Is modified by it) can in theory be the subject of the main clause, or its object, or any other verb argument . In many languages, however, especially rigidly left-branching , dependent-marking languages with prenominal relative clauses, there are major restrictions on the role the antecedent may have in the relative clause . Edward Keenan and Bernard Comrie noted that these roles can be ranked cross-linguistically in

Clause - Misplaced Pages Continue

3738-444: Is shown in writing by commas (as in the examples). However, many languages distinguish the two types of relative clauses in this way only in speaking, not in writing. Another difference in English is that only restrictive relative clauses may be introduced with that or use the "zero" relative pronoun (see English relative clauses for details). A non-restrictive relative clause may have a whole sentence as its antecedent rather than

3827-433: Is supported by the clear predicate status of many to -infinitives. It is challenged, however, by the fact that to -infinitives do not take an overt subject, e.g. The to -infinitives to consider and to explain clearly qualify as predicates (because they can be negated). They do not, however, take overt subjects. The subjects she and he are dependents of the matrix verbs refuses and attempted , respectively, not of

3916-506: Is the woman whom I saw", not "She is the woman I saw whom "). The choice of relative pronoun can be affected by whether the clause modifies a human or non-human noun, by whether the clause is restrictive or not, and by the role (subject, direct object, or the like) of the relative pronoun in the relative clause. In English, as in some other languages (such as French; see below), non-restrictive relative clauses are set off with commas, but restrictive ones are not: The status of "that" as

4005-431: Is unusual in that all roles in the embedded clause can be indicated by gapping: e.g. "I saw the person who is my friend", but also (in progressively less accessible positions cross-linguistically, according to the accessibility hierarchy described below) "... who I know", "... who I gave a book to", "... who I spoke with", "... who I run slower than". Usually, languages with gapping disallow it beyond

4094-537: Is very frequently used for relativization of inaccessible positions on the accessibility hierarchy. In Persian and Classical Arabic , for example, resumptive pronouns are required when the embedded role is other than the subject or direct object, and optional in the case of the direct object. Resumptive pronouns are common in non-verb-final languages of Africa and Asia, and also used by the Celtic languages of northwest Europe and Romanian ("Omul pe care l -am văzut ieri

4183-419: The direct object of the relative clause. A free relative clause (or fused relative ), on the other hand, does not have an explicit antecedent external to itself. Instead, the relative clause itself takes the place of an argument in the matrix clause. For example, in the English sentence "I like what I see", the clause what I see is a free relative clause, because it has no antecedent, but itself serves as

4272-413: The object of the verb like in the main clause. Alternatively, one could argue that the free relative clause has a zero as its antecedent. (See also English relative clauses § Fused relative constructions ) Bound relative clauses may or may not be restrictive . A restrictive relative clause is a relative clause that functions as a restrictive modifier . A non-restrictive relative clause

4361-404: The to -infinitives. Data like these are often addressed in terms of control . The matrix predicates refuses and attempted are control verbs; they control the embedded predicates consider and explain , which means they determine which of their arguments serves as the subject argument of the embedded predicate. Some theories of syntax posit the null subject PRO (i.e. pronoun) to help address

4450-592: The wh -word is a dependent of the finite verb, whereas it is the head over the finite verb in the embedded wh -clauses. There has been confusion about the distinction between clauses and phrases . This confusion is due in part to how these concepts are employed in the phrase structure grammars of the Chomskyan tradition. In the 1970s, Chomskyan grammars began labeling many clauses as CPs (i.e. complementizer phrases) or as IPs (i.e. inflection phrases), and then later as TPs (i.e. tense phrases), etc. The choice of labels

4539-457: The (ungrammatical) English structure "[You see the girl over there] is my friend" or "I took [you see the girl over there] out on a date". This is used, for example, in Navajo , which uses a special relative verb (as with some other Native American languages). A second strategy is the correlative -clause strategy used by Hindi and other Indo-Aryan languages , as well as Bambara . This strategy

SECTION 50

#1732764827088

4628-411: The English language, a compound sentence is composed of at least two independent clauses. It does not require a dependent clause. The clauses are joined by a coordinating conjunction, a semicolon that functions as a conjunction, a colon instead of a semicolon between two sentences when the second sentence explains or illustrates the first sentence and no coordinating conjunction is being used to connect

4717-545: The absence of subject-auxiliary inversion in embedded clauses, as illustrated in the c-examples just produced. Subject-auxiliary inversion is obligatory in matrix clauses when something other than the subject is focused, but it never occurs in embedded clauses regardless of the constituent that is focused. A systematic distinction in word order emerges across matrix wh -clauses, which can have VS order, and embedded wh -clauses, which always maintain SV order, e.g. Relative clauses are

4806-485: The actual status of the syntactic units to which the labels are attached. A more traditional understanding of clauses and phrases maintains that phrases are not clauses, and clauses are not phrases. There is a progression in the size and status of syntactic units: words < phrases < clauses . The characteristic trait of clauses, i.e. the presence of a subject and a (finite) verb, is absent from phrases. Clauses can be, however, embedded inside phrases. The central word of

4895-440: The appropriate intonation contour and/or the appearance of a question word, e.g. Examples like these demonstrate that how a clause functions cannot be known based entirely on a single distinctive syntactic criterion. SV-clauses are usually declarative, but intonation and/or the appearance of a question word can render them interrogative or exclamative. Verb first clauses in English usually play one of three roles: 1. They express

4984-412: The c-sentences contain the corresponding indirect questions (embedded clauses): One important aspect of matrix wh -clauses is that subject-auxiliary inversion is obligatory when something other than the subject is focused. When it is the subject (or something embedded in the subject) that is focused, however, subject-auxiliary inversion does not occur. Another important aspect of wh -clauses concerns

5073-545: The chancellor here." In general, however, nonreduction is restricted to verb-final languages, though it is more common among those that are head-marking . The following are some of the common strategies for joining the two clauses: The positioning of a relative clause before or after a head noun is related to the more general concept of branching in linguistics. Languages that place relative clauses after their head noun (so-called head-initial or VO languages) generally also have adjectives and genitive modifiers following

5162-430: The chomskyan tradition are again likely to view the underlined strings as clauses, whereas the schools of syntax that posit flatter structures are likely to reject clause status for them. Simple sentence In grammar , sentence and clause structure , commonly known as sentence composition , is the classification of sentences based on the number and kind of clauses in their syntactic structure . Such division

5251-407: The clauses "run on" into confusion. The independent clauses can be "fused", as in "It is nearly half past five we cannot reach town before dark", in which case the two independent clauses might be separated (between "five" and "we") with a period [...five. We...], a comma and conjunction (...five, and we...), or a semicolon (...five; we...). The independent clauses can be joined inadequately with only

5340-522: The content of a noun. Such argument clauses are content clauses: The content clauses like these in the a-sentences are arguments. Relative clauses introduced by the relative pronoun that as in the b-clauses here have an outward appearance that is closely similar to that of content clauses. The relative clauses are adjuncts, however, not arguments. Adjunct clauses are embedded clauses that modify an entire predicate-argument structure. All clause types (SV-, verb first, wh- ) can function as adjuncts, although

5429-453: The different treatment of "that" is that there are differences between "that" and "which" (e.g., one can say "in which" but not "in that", etc.). The system of relative pronouns in French is as complicated as, but similar in many ways to, the system in English. When the pronoun is to act as the direct object of the relative clause, que is generally used, although lequel , which

SECTION 60

#1732764827088

5518-416: The distinction mentioned above between matrix wh -clauses and embedded wh -clauses The embedded wh -clause is an object argument each time. The position of the wh -word across the matrix clauses (a-trees) and the embedded clauses (b-trees) captures the difference in word order. Matrix wh -clauses have V2 word order , whereas embedded wh-clauses have (what amounts to) V3 word order. In the matrix clauses,

5607-404: The distinctions presented above are represented in syntax trees. These trees make the difference between main and subordinate clauses very clear, and they also illustrate well the difference between argument and adjunct clauses. The following dependency grammar trees show that embedded clauses are dependent on an element in the independent clause, often on a verb: The independent clause comprises

5696-578: The entire trees in both instances, whereas the embedded clauses constitute arguments of the respective independent clauses: the embedded wh -clause what we want is the object argument of the predicate know ; the embedded clause that he is gaining is the subject argument of the predicate is motivating . Both of these argument clauses are dependent on the verb of the matrix clause. The following trees identify adjunct clauses using an arrow dependency edge: These two embedded clauses are adjunct clauses because they provide circumstantial information that modifies

5785-459: The facts of control constructions, e.g. With the presence of PRO as a null subject, to -infinitives can be construed as complete clauses, since both subject and predicate are present. PRO-theory is particular to one tradition in the study of syntax and grammar ( Government and Binding Theory , Minimalist Program ). Other theories of syntax and grammar (e.g. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar , Construction Grammar , dependency grammar ) reject

5874-684: The following order from most accessible to least accessible: Ergative–absolutive languages have a similar hierarchy: This order is called the accessibility hierarchy . If a language can relativize positions lower in the accessibility hierarchy, it can always relativize positions higher up, but not vice versa. For example, Malagasy can relativize only subject and Chukchi only absolutive arguments, whilst Basque can relativize absolutives, ergatives and indirect objects, but not obliques or genitives or objects of comparatives. Similar hierarchies have been proposed in other circumstances, e.g. for pronominal reflexes. English can relativize all positions in

5963-608: The form of the verb is different from that in main clauses and is to some degree nominalized, as in Turkish and in English reduced relative clauses . In non-verb-final languages, apart from languages like Thai and Vietnamese with very strong politeness distinctions in their grammars , gapped relative clauses tend, however, to be restricted to positions high up in the accessibility hierarchy. With obliques and genitives, non-verb-final languages that do not have politeness restrictions on pronoun use tend to use pronoun retention. English

6052-594: The garden and the cat lived inside the house are both independent clauses; who was smarter is a dependent clause. Example 5 is an exclamatory sentence of an exclamative and a noun phrase but no verb. It is not a grammatically complete clause. A simple sentence structure contains one independent clause and no dependent clauses . This simple sentence has one independent clause which contains one subject , I , and one verb , run . This simple sentence has one independent clause which contains one subject, girl , and one predicate, ran into her bedroom . The predicate

6141-500: The head noun, as well as verbs preceding their objects. French , Spanish and Arabic are prototypical languages of this sort. Languages that place relative clauses before their head noun (so-called head-final or OV languages) generally also have adjectives and genitive modifiers preceding the head noun, as well as verbs following their objects. Turkish and Japanese are prototypical languages of this sort. Not all languages fit so easily into these categories. English, for example,

6230-540: The head noun, such as number and gender) but which do not actually indicate the case role of the shared noun in the embedded clause. Classical Arabic has "relative pronouns" which are case-marked, but which agree in case with the head noun. Case-marked relative pronouns in the strict sense are almost entirely confined to European languages , where they are widespread except among the Celtic family and Indo-Aryan family . The influence of Spanish has led to their adaption by

6319-557: The hierarchy. Here are some examples of the NP and relative clause usage from English: Some other examples: Languages that cannot relativize directly on noun phrases low in the accessibility hierarchy can sometimes use alternative voices to "raise" the relevant noun phrase so that it can be relativized. The most common example is the use of applicative voices to relativize obliques, but in such languages as Chukchi antipassives are used to raise ergative arguments to absolutive. For example,

6408-415: The independent clause contains two noun clauses. The noun clause What she had realized serves as the subject of the verb was , and that love was that moment serves as complement . The sentence also contains a relative clause, when your heart was about to burst . An incomplete sentence , or sentence fragment , is a set of words that does not form a complete sentence, either because it does not express

6497-445: The last two sentences would be normal in those languages. A further example is languages that can relativize only subjects and direct objects. Hence the following would be possible: The other ungrammatical examples above would still be ungrammatical. These languages often allow an oblique object to be moved to the direct object slot by the use of the so-called applicative voice , much as the passive voice moves an oblique object to

6586-454: The main verb of the relative clause may appear in a special morphological variant, or a relative clause may be indicated by word order alone. In some languages, more than one of these mechanisms may be possible. A bound relative clause , the type most often considered, qualifies an explicit element (usually a noun or noun phrase ) appearing in the main clause, and refers back to that element by means of some explicit or implicit device within

6675-442: The meaning of him in the independent clause, Let him complain . In the second example, the non-restrictive relative clause who have never known your family describes you in the independent clause, You see them standing around you . A noun clause is a dependent clause that functions like a noun. A noun clause may function as the subject of a clause, a predicate nominative , an object or an appositive . In this sentence

6764-427: The movie house . The adverbial clause describes when and where the action of the main clause, I had only two things on my mind , took place. A relative clause is a dependent clause that modifies a noun or noun phrase in the independent clause. In other words, the relative clause functions similar to an adjective . In the first example, the restrictive relative clause who has been deceived specifies or defines

6853-410: The norm in English. They are usually declarative (as opposed to exclamative, imperative, or interrogative); they express information neutrally, e.g. Declarative clauses like these are by far the most frequently occurring type of clause in any language. They can be viewed as basic, with other clause types being derived from them. Standard SV-clauses can also be interrogative or exclamative, however, given

6942-449: The other three, the shared noun occurs as a full-fledged noun phrase in the embedded clause, which has the form of a full independent clause. Typically, it is the head noun in the main clause that is reduced or missing. Some languages use relative clauses of this type with the normal strategy of embedding the relative clause next to the head noun. These languages are said to have internally headed relative clauses, which would be similar to

7031-407: The presence of null elements such as PRO, which means they are likely to reject the stance that to -infinitives constitute clauses. Another type of construction that some schools of syntax and grammar view as non-finite clauses is the so-called small clause . A typical small clause consists of a noun phrase and a predicative expression, e.g. The subject-predicate relationship is clearly present in

7120-416: The relative clause "whom I saw yesterday" modifies the head noun person , and the relative pronoun whom refers back to the referent of that noun. The sentence is equivalent to the following two sentences: "I saw a person yesterday. The person went home". The shared argument need not fulfill the same role in both clauses; in this example the same person is referred to by the subject of the matrix clause, but

7209-419: The relative clause. The relative clause may also function as an embedded clause within a main (or higher-level) clause, thereby forming a matrix sentence . The noun in the main clause that the relative clause modifies is called the head noun , or (particularly when referred back to by a relative pronoun) the antecedent . For example, in the English sentence "The person whom I saw yesterday went home",

7298-538: The role of the shared noun phrase in the embedded clause. These are typically listed in order of the degree to which the noun in the relative clause has been reduced, from most to least: In this strategy, there is simply a gap in the relative clause where the shared noun would go. This is normal in English, for example, and also in Chinese and Japanese. This is the most common type of relative clause, especially in verb-final languages with prenominal relative clauses, but

7387-399: The same "man" is referred to in the subordinate clause (in this case as its subject ). In many languages, relative clauses are introduced by a special class of pronouns called relative pronouns , such as who in the example just given. In other languages, relative clauses may be marked in different ways: they may be introduced by a special class of conjunctions called relativizers ,

7476-434: The sentences, or a conjunctive adverb preceded by a semicolon. A conjunction can be used to make a compound sentence. Conjunctions are words such as for , and , nor , but , or , yet , and so . Examples: The use of a comma to separate two independent clauses without the addition of an appropriate conjunction is called a comma splice and is generally considered an error (when used in the English language). Example: If

7565-530: The shared noun serving the subject role in the embedded clause. In these languages, relative clauses with shared nouns serving "disallowed" roles can be expressed by passivizing the embedded sentence, thereby moving the noun in the embedded sentence into the subject position. This, for example, would transform "The person who I gave a book to" into "The person who was given a book by me". Generally, languages such as this "conspire" to implement general relativization by allowing passivization from all positions — hence

7654-399: The stereotypical adjunct clause is SV and introduced by a subordinator (i.e. subordinate conjunction , e.g. after , because , before , now , etc.), e.g. These adjunct clauses modify the entire matrix clause. Thus before you did in the first example modifies the matrix clause Fred arrived . Adjunct clauses can also modify a nominal predicate. The typical instance of this type of adjunct

7743-655: The subject position. The above examples expressed in an applicative voice might be similar to the following (in not necessarily grammatical English): Modern grammars may use the accessibility hierarchy to order productions—e.g. in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar the hierarchy corresponds to the order of elements on the subcat list, and interacts with other principles in explanations of binding facts. The hierarchy also figures in Lexical Functional Grammar , where it

7832-414: The underlined strings. The expression on the right is a predication over the noun phrase immediately to its left. While the subject-predicate relationship is indisputably present, the underlined strings do not behave as single constituents , a fact that undermines their status as clauses. Hence one can debate whether the underlined strings in these examples should qualify as clauses. The layered structures of

7921-484: Was influenced by the theory-internal desire to use the labels consistently. The X-bar schema acknowledged at least three projection levels for every lexical head: a minimal projection (e.g. N, V, P, etc.), an intermediate projection (e.g. N', V', P', etc.), and a phrase level projection (e.g. NP, VP, PP, etc.). Extending this convention to the clausal categories occurred in the interest of the consistent use of labels. This use of labels should not, however, be confused with

#87912