Craig,
You raise the necessary distinction grammatical and functional coordination and subordination, that is, between parataxis/hypotaxis, on the one hand, and, for want of a better pair of terms, foregrounding/backgrounding. Parataxis and hypotaxis refer specifically to grammatically marked coordination or subordination, usually by the use of coordinating or subordinating conjunctions. A major function of subordination is to background material, although not all subordinate clauses do this. Subordinate clauses present typically, unless specific conditions to the contrary are present, content that is presupposed to be true. Main clauses, on the other hand, are asserted. In a sentence like
Samantha got a good interest rate after she checked with her credit union.
it's easy to deny that she got a good interest rate; just say, "No, she didn't." But to deny that she checked with the credit union, you'd have to say more, like, "But she didn't check with her credit union."
In a sentence like
Sammy at five green apples, and he got a belly ache.
we find the same relationship. If you say "No, he didn't" you're denying that he got a belly ache, not that he ate the apples. You have to specifically mention them to deny that presupposition. Functionally, that makes the first clause more like a subordinate, even though it's marked grammatically as a coordinate. Yet, so, and for clauses can be either presupposed or asserted. In that sense they act more like coordinate clauses, although like some and and but clauses they can have either pragmatic function.
With adverbial and adjectival subordinate clauses, we're much more likely to presupposition. With nominal subordinate clauses the function depends on the head word. With think, the that-clause isn't necessarily true:
I think it rained earlier this morning. (But the sprinklers could have come on.)
With regret, the clause is presupposed to be true. I can't say
I regret that I missed the meeting.
if I didn't miss the meeting.
The point is that meaning, in the sense of pragmatic function, varies to some extent independently of overt subordination or coordination.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Craig Hancock
Sent: Sat 6/2/2007 8:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Coordinating Conjunctions
> This has been a delightful conversation to pick up on some dozen
messages in.
There are two parts to Peter's original question about and, or, for,
nor, so, yet, and but. Are they conjunctions? John's movability test is
a good one, and it's one that they will pass. Are they coordinate? In
other words, do they leave both sides equal? I would say yes for and,
but, or, nor, but not for so, yet, and--especially--for. So when we
call them coordinating conjunctions, I like to tell my students that
they are RECOGNIZED as coordinating conjunctions within a standard
grammar, which means (if we follow the best rule books) we can start a
sentence with any of them without making it a fragment. So these are
different questions, one about meaning, the other about the analysis (a
little faulty) behind traditional punctuation conventions. You can also
ask questions about their role in discourse flow.
With my own students, a very high percentage of run-on sentences fit
the model of adverb opening second clause. So I think it is important
to talk about how adverbs are movable (nice test) but also that they do
not CONJUNCT. Subordinating conjunctions (not the adverbs, like however
or therefore or now or then)have a conjunctive function, but also
subordinate one clause to the other. (The subordinated clause has a
grammatical role in the main clause, more often than not adverbial.)
You can make a case that "He wanted to please her, for she was the girl
of his dreams" is very close to "He wanted to please her because she
was the girl of his dreams." I would like to call both subordinate, but
traditional grammar (and the punctuation conventions that come with it)
recognize the "for" as coordinating. "For she was the girl of his
dreams" would not be a fragment in traditional grammar, but "because
she was the girl of his dreams" would.
I do have a roughed out article on this somewhere, one that never got
past the extensive note stage. It's an intereresting area because it
highlights some of the different kinds of questions we can ask of
written language choice. What does it contribute to meaning? How does
it influence the flow of discourse? What does traditional grammar say
about it?
Craig
> In a message dated 6/1/07 3:01:05 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
>> Perhaps ?oclause; however, clause? is the standard convention, but we
>> also
>> allow ?oS. However, S? if the contrast is stronger.
>>
>
> I've always taught that "clause; conjunctive adverb, clause" is the
> standard
> convention, but Ed Schuster, in his wonderful book Breaking the Rules,
> points
> out that, in fact, "clause. Conjunctive adverb, clause" is much more
> common.
>
>
> I wonder why I have been insisting on the semicolon version for all these
> years . . . and why almost all the handbooks do too. Schuster recognizes
> Lynn
> Troyka's as the only one he is aware of that, at least, recognizes the
> equal
> correctness of the version with a period before the conjunctive adverb.
>
> Peter Adams
>
>
>
> **************************************
> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
