Reinhold Schlieper suggested:
>Trink 'n Bier fuer mich mit, Burkhard, ja? <grins>
Gewuenscht, getan :-)
And before I try to answer your notes, Reinhold, here is the original
message as I posted it:
------------------------------------------------------
A pronoun does not stand for a noun as the name suggests. In a similar
way 'subordinate' should not be taken as meaning subordinate idea, nor
even as meaning subordinate to a 'mainclause' (whatever that may be).
'Subordinate clause', or 'subclause' for short, should be a structural
term, no more. It should refer to a certain syntactic structure
that consists of two parts, the subordinator part (usually, but not
invariably, a 'subordinating conjunction') and the second part, which
may be a major or a minor sentence:
subordinator slot II
slot
............................................................
: because : things are what they are :
: if : taken at face value :
: provided : ... :
............................................................
(When-sentences do not belong here, they belong to the group of
wh-sentences, which are regular sentences where one slot is filled by a
wh-pronoun, which then goes to the front. So we can disregard them
here.)
Subclauses can do various jobs. They may fill slots in sentences, the
subject slot, an object slot, adverbial slots, etc.
They can be used on their own as in 'Why?' - 'Because there was no
time.' This is a function in a 'communicateme' - a structure on one of
the text levels.
Subclauses can fill functional slots in mini-paragraphs, e.g.
conditional structures:
If this is so, topic slot
then xxx conclusion slot.
Etc.
Once we have described the syntactic rules concerning subclauses, we can
then look at their position in sentences, communicatemes, paragraphs and
so on. This is where a communicative perspective comes in. If the
subclause comes first, it usually refers to some information we already
know. If it comes last, focus is on the information it contains - which
has to do with our memory span, something biological, rather than linguistic.
Why we may want to put this information in focus, may have innumerable
reasons - this has to do with life in general. Maybe the information is new
to the hearer, or we find it fascinating, or we want to set right what
someone else has said, and so on.
My 2 cents worth ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>I don't understand, Burkhard; can you explain why you are alluding to
>these slots?
Ok, I hope you do now.
>Hmmm! I can't really imagine 'why' as a pronoun
Whyever not? We've got these 9 wh-words (including 'how', "where the w
has gone to the end"). What do they do? They fill sentence slots (or
parts of them). All of them do this. So they belong to the same
structural class. The difference is which slot each one fills. But this
is the same with nouns, or adjectives, and so on.
The difference between a 'regular sentence' and one where a slot is
filled by a wh-word is that the latter usually goes to the front, thus
creating a 'new' type of sentence structure. I call them wh-sentences.
'Interrogative' etc. is not a problem of the pronouns (or whatever
you want to call that class), but a problem of the wh-sentence. Some
wh-sentences are used in subject slots of sentences, in object slots, in
adverbial slots, etc. (the statement structure). Some are used as noun
attributes and are then called defining relative clauses. Some are used
in conclusion slots of paragraphs (usually which-clauses). Some adopt
question structure and are then used to ask questions. And so on.
So calling wh* 'interrogative marker' would lead to calling them also
'relative clause markers' and 'object markers' and so on, a different
term for each function of the wh-sentence. This would multiply the
wh*-sets, when a single one will do. In the same vein you would have to
speak of subject nouns and object nouns and attribute nouns and what
not. It seems easier to distinguish word class on the one hand and
function on the other hand.
>"Warum gehen wir?" would--if anything at all--stand for a
>missing clause: "weil wir den Film sehen wollen" or whatever.
I don't see this as a missing clause, it's not a sentence level problem.
What is missing is information, not a structure.
>If . . ., then . . . consists, logically, of antecedent and consequent
>and is considered one hypothetical.
Sure, but this is the semantic interpretation, I was discussing
syntax. Syntax does not stop at the sentence level, but continues
upwards for several more levels. One of these levels is the paragraph
level. The (one?) basic paragraph type is what I call the TDAC-type:
topic description antithesis conclusion
I prefer the letters. They don't suggest what the names suggest, e.g.
that the C-slotfillers always means a 'conclusion', it may be some kind
of summary - anything that 'concludes' a train of thought. And this is
certainly the case with the then-part of the if-thing, hypothetical or
real or non-real.
> So, I am not sure what you mean by "topic" and "conclusion" in this context.
>I don't think that the actual communicative setting needs to be relevant
>to a syntactic analysis.
Well, yes and no. When we discuss focus, theme and rheme, old and new
information and the like, this is no longer syntax proper, but is
related to syntax, albeit loosely. To include communicative
considerations can help making things clearer.
BTW, language exists (predominantly) for the purpose of communication.
Like a hammer is there for, e.g., putting nails in walls. To describe a
hammer without taking into acount what it is used for, is quite
useless - provided the description is supposed to serve a specific
purpose. My purpose is EFL (i.e. teaching English), and as this can't
stop at mere structures, but must lead to the communicative use of the
structures, the linguistic model must necessarily take communication
into account.
And now for another beer :-)
Burkhard Leuschner
Paedagogische Hochschule, Schwaebisch Gmuend, Germany
INTERNET: BITNET:
[log in to unmask] Leuschne@dulruu51
|
