I understand people's unease with those who maintain that to describe
language one needs a theory of language.
Johanna has provided us with a good example of what happens when one
tries to describe language without a theory.

Language has structural dependencies.  This is a statement about
language based on a particular theory and it provides
explanation for some of the definitions being discussed.

Let's consider Johanna's definition of a clause with special focus on
the relationship between subject and predicate.

Johanna Rubba wrote:

>Here is my scheme for clause/sentence discussion: A clause is a
>structure that has a subject and predicate that go together meaningfully
>(the predicate is about the subject; the subject is an argument of the
>predicate, and passes standard subject tests).
>

The problem with this definition is what "go together meaningfully"
might mean.  It appears to suggest a semantic principle.

So, it (1), how does it "go together meaningfully" with "is cold."

1)  It is cold..

Or consider Howard  in 2 and 3.   In (2), the emotion is admiration; in
(3) fascination.

2) Howard admires the Mars mission.
3) The Mars mission fascinates Howard.

 "the Mars mission" is the trigger of the emotion in both.  It is clear
that Howard has different grammatical functions in (2) and (3).

And, passive constructions would appear to  require a special
explanation from active counterparts because, at least on surface, the
subject of the passive and active
"go together" but the semantic relationship of the subject of  the
active sentence has the same semantic relationship in the passive
construction even though
it is no longer the subject.  Juliet is still the kisser in both 4 and 5.

4)  Juliet kissed Romeo.
5)  Romeo was kissed by Juliet.

"Go together meaningfully" is not very helpful.

As both DeBeaugrande and Noguchi, among others, have observed, the
subject of a clause is repeated as a pronoun is the tag question.  This
is not a semantic property.

6)  It is cold, isn't it?

and  you can do the rest.

There is a problem with Johanna's definition of an independent clause.

>A sentence consists of at least one finite, independent clause. An
>independent clause is one that does not play a grammatical role in
>another clause. A dependent clause is one that does play a grammatical
>role in another clause or phrase (subject, direct object, adverbial,
>adjectival within a noun phrase). A subordinate clause is the same thing
>as a dependent clause--it plays a grammatical role within another clause
>or phrase.
>

We can identify the dependent clause in  (7) and (8): that Dean will win
using Johanna's definition.

7) Bob believes that Dean will win.
8) That Dean will win is likely.

What is the independent clause in 7 and 8?  If we change out approach to
identify the main verb of the sentence versus
other verbs we are then in a better position to identify the main
clause.  This is an important issue for Ed.

The main verb of any string with several clauses can be identified with
tag questions (the tense of the main verb is repeated in
the tag question) or with yes/no questions (the tense of the main verb
is "moved" for a yes no question).

Again, these are properties of structural dependencies.

Notice what happens when one doesn't want to talk about structural
dependencies.


>A sentence can have more than one main clause: A sentence could have a
>subordinate clause which has another subordinate clause in it:
>
>A. "He forgave me after I explained that I didn't mean to give offense."
>
A has a nested dependent clause.

             [He forgave .....[after I  explained  [that I didn't
mean....................] ] ].

For Ed's purposes, we need to identify the main verb and the verbs that
in dependent clauses.

Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University

>
>

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/