Clause linking

There are a number of ways of linking clauses in English, including (a) by coordinate linkers such as and, but, or; (b) by temporal subordinate linkers such as after, before, while, till, until; (c) by logical subordinate linkers such as since, because, if, although, even though, unless, in spite of; (d) by contrastive linkers such as however, moreover, nevertheless, therefore, accordingly, on the other hand, at all events, still; (e) by the purposive linker in order (to/that).

English has a further, rather unusual, syntactic trick for clause linking. After if, some speakers use were (sometimes called a ‘subjunctive’ form) in place of the expected was. For example, If Mary were to come, we’d ask her to propose the vote of thanks. An alternative construction is to omit if and transpose the subject and were, giving Were Mary to come, we’d ask her to propose the vote of thanks. (Note that for speakers who use was in preference to were, this alternative is not possible; they can only say If Mary was to come, . . . , not *Was Mary to come, . . . ).

Linked clauses often share a coreferential NP. It is infelicitous to repeat the same word several times in a sentence, and there are grammatical conventions in English for omitting a repeated NP, or replacing it by a pronoun.

A repeated NP can be omitted under two circumstances, one involving coordinate and the other involving temporal subordinate linkers. Firstly, if two coordinated clauses share an NP which is in subject (S or A) function in each clause, then it may be omitted from the second clause in sequence. From Mary (S) came in and Mary (A) saw John (O) can be formed the complex sentence Mary came in and saw John. But if the shared NP is in non-subject function in either clause then omission is not possible—from John (S) came in and Mary (A) saw John (O) it is not permissible to form *John came in and Mary saw. (We do have available the passive construction, which puts an underlying O into derived S function. John (S) came in can be linked with John (S) was seen by Mary and the second John may now be omitted, giving John came in and was seen by Mary.)

A temporal subordinate clause may have the structure of a main clause, preceded by a subordinate marker such as after or while, e.g. After he took off his hat, John sat down; no omission of a coreferential NP is possible here. Alternatively, we may have a VP whose initial verb is in -ing form; the subject of such a clause must be omitted if it is coreferential with the subject of the main clause, e.g. After taking off his hat, John sat down. Note that such a temporal clause can come before, after, or in the middle of the main clause, e.g. John was, while waiting for Mary, deciding what he would say to her and Fred always washes his hands before eating. We find, in addition, that after and while (but never before) can be omitted under specific circumstances. After can be dispensed with before a VP commencing with having (it appears that the previous aspect auxiliary have sufficiently conveys the idea of prior time, without requiring after as well), e.g. (After) having taken off his hat, John sat down. While may be—but perhaps less often is—omitted when the VP begins with a lexical verb in -ing, e.g. (While) sitting in the garden, John studied the birds. (there are also temporal clauses, whose VP begins with an -ing form, that have a different subject from the main clause, e.g. His mother having gone out for the day, John had a party.)

Another important device—which is much used when a complex sentence includes two underlying occurrences of the same NP—is to replace one of them by the corresponding third person pronoun. This is possible whatever the syntactic functions involved, e.g. Mary (S) came in and she (A) saw John, or Mary (S) came in and John saw her(O). Pronominalization can only apply ‘forwards’ within coordinate constructions, e.g. She came in and Mary saw John is not a possible paraphrase of Mary came in and she saw John. (If She came in and Mary saw John were heard, she would have to be taken to refer not to Mary but to someone else, previously mentioned in the discourse.)

Pronominalization can apply forwards or backwards into a subordinate clause, whether introduced by a temporal connective such as after or while, or a logical connective such as since or if, e.g. If he comes here, John will get a shock and After she lost her keys, Mary couldn’t get into the house. Backwards pronominalization is not possible from subordinate clause to main clause; it is not acceptable to say He will get a shock if John comes here with the he referring to John (the he would have to be taken as referring to someone else).

Set (d), contrastive linkers, are typically placed at the beginning of the clause, as in Jack is handsome; moreover his father has made a will leaving him a million pounds. However, a contrastive linker may follow the subject, or the first word of the predicate, the word preceding it then being stressed (shown by ‘ ); for example Jack is handsome; his 0 father, moreover, has made a will leaving him a million pounds or Jack is handsome, his father ‘ has, moreover, made a will leaving him a million pounds. The placement and associated meanings of contrastive linkers are compared with those of sentential adverbs.

Two clauses linked by a coordinator such as and, or a logical subordinate linker such as if, or a contrastive linker such as however, each have the structure of a main clause. The fifth type of clause linker, in order, is quite different; it must occur with a main clause and be followed by a THAT, FOR-TO or TO complement clause (the main clause usually comes first although, as with since and if constructions, the order can be reversed), e.g. (51) and

(95) John told the children to keep quiet in order that he/Mary might work

(96) John kept the children quiet (in order) for Mary to be able to work

(97a) Mary went to her study (in order) to work/write a book

(97b) John took Mary outside (in order) (for her) to relax/pick flowers

A THAT clause, as in (95), may have the same subject as the main clause or a different one, while a FOR-TO complement, as in (96), will normally have a different subject. The TO complement after in order, as in (97a), has the same subject as the main clause, and this subject cannot be stated in the TO clause. In (97b), the O of the main clause is identical to the subject (S or A) of the TO clause; here for her can be omitted. In order may be—and usually is—omitted from in order to and from in order for . . . to; it is possible—but less usual—to omit in order from in order that.

When a complement clause occurs after in order, any verb may fill the predicate head slot in the accompanying main clause (subject to semantic plausibility of the complete sentence). The term ‘complement clause’ is perhaps not appropriate here, but it shows that a clause which follows in order does have the same structure as a complement clause that can fill a subject or object slot for semantically determined types of predicates.

There is a further convention in English grammar, concerning a VP that recurs in two clauses of a complex sentence. This is: if two coordinated clauses have the same predicate but different subjects, objects and other peripheral constituents, then the predicate can simply be omitted from the second clause (this is called ‘gapping’), e.g. John likes apples and Mary (likes) pears; Fred is sitting in the lounge and Jane (is sitting) in the garden; Peter has been looking at the Ce´zannes and Julius (has been looking) at the Renoirs.

We mentioned that it is considered infelicitous in English to repeat the same word several times within a single sentence or, indeed, too closely together within a discourse. It is a feature of ‘good style’ to employ lexical substitution, using synonyms and near-synonyms rather than keep repeating a given word. This applies more in written than in spoken language, and more in literary than in scientific work—but it is to some extent a feature of every variety of English. Rather than employ the word ‘use’ several times in one paragraph a writer may alternate ‘use’ with ‘utilize’ and ‘employ’ (I first began this sentence with ‘Rather than use the word ‘‘use’’ . . . ’ but then substituted ‘employ’ for the first ‘use’ since writing ‘use’ twice in four words seemed ugly). In the fourth paragraph I alternated ‘can’, ‘may’, ‘is possible’ and ‘is permissible’ to save having too many occurrences of ‘can’.

It was mentioned that restrictive relative clauses may be introduced by a wh- word or by that. These will often be alternated for stylistic effect, so as not to have too many occurrences of that, or too many of which or who, in close proximity. And in an NP beginning with that as demonstrative one would generally prefer wh- over that for introducing a relative clause—that man who you saw sounds much more felicitous than that man that you saw.

The topic of lexical substitution belongs to the domain of stylistics. It has an obvious semantic basis and is most deserving of systematic study. I have not attempted this here; it remains an important topic for future research.