Languages & Linguistics
Subordinating Conjunctions
Subordinating conjunctions are words that connect two clauses, with one clause being dependent on the other. They introduce subordinate clauses and show the relationship between the two clauses, such as cause and effect, time, condition, or contrast. Examples of subordinating conjunctions include "because," "although," "while," and "if." These conjunctions are essential for creating complex sentences and conveying complex relationships between ideas.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
9 Key excerpts on "Subordinating Conjunctions"
eBook - PDF- Lauren Kessler, Duncan McDonald(Authors)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- Cengage Learning EMEA(Publisher)
In Chapter 3, we explained about compound and complex sentences. Remember these sentence types are we move through this discussion. Coordinating and Subordinating Conjunctions In its primary role, a conjunction coordinates (balances) clauses and phrases of equal weight. A coordinating conjunction can link two independent clauses, which could stand alone as separate sentences: You can’t adjust the wind, but you can adjust your sails. A coordinating conjunction also links simple words and phrases that show a relationship: Vanessa loves tofu and chocolate. In a stressful situation, avoid jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. The most common coordinating conjunctions are: and but for nor or yet while When conjunctions are used to join clauses of unequal weight (that is, one clause clearly takes precedence and can stand by itself if necessary as a Copyright 201 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Chapter 5 Working With the Verb: The Captain’s Crew 61 complete sentence), they are called Subordinating Conjunctions . They often are used to introduce some material or to provide context or counterpoint to the main part of the sentence. In this first example, a subordinating conjunction (underlined) intro-duces a dependent clause: Unless management and labor can come to an agreement, the strike will begin at midnight. The most common Subordinating Conjunctions are: after although as as if before how if since so through unless while Pay careful attention to use of the subordinating conjunction as if .
eBook - PDFAdverbial Subordination
A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordinators Based on European Languages
- Bernd Kortmann(Author)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Whereas modern grammar has devoted great efforts to providing new 'explicit', 'formal' and 'structural' definitions of other grammatical categories such as the Noun, the Verb, the Adverb, it has left almost unquestioned what was said about conjunctions several decades —even several hundred years —ago. This suits a functional typological analysis insofar as such analyses, for the most part, have to start out anyway from enlightened primitives or prototype definitions of the linguistic cate-gories they want to investigate (cf. Croft 1990: 17 — 18). The operative necessity of adopting this procedure is probably even more pronounced once it comes to the traditional word class distinctions than elsewhere in grammar (cf. espe-cially Lyons 1977: 423 — 430). What served then as the starting-point of the present study was the following definition of an adverbial subordinator (Kort-mann 1991b: 4): 26 Adverbial subordinators are free forms or bound adverbial morphemes which specify some semantic interclausal (or: circumstantial, adver-bial) relation between the subordinate clause over which they operate and the modified matrix clause. Indeed, this definition corresponds almost exactly to the one Matthew Dryer made the basis of his typological study on the position of adverbial subordinators in adverbial clauses: By an adverbial subordinator, I mean a word that marks an adverbial subordinate clause for its semantic relation to the main clause (Dryer 1992: 53). Before I specify which (combination of) properties lexical items have to fulfil in order to qualify as adverbial subordinators in this study (section 4.2.2), let me just sketch some of the greatest obstacles to more refined definitions of this word class, for which no solutions will be offered. Evidently, these obstacles are even greater and more numerous in a typological study than they are in a single-language account.
eBook - PDF- Na'ama Pat-El(Author)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Gorgias Press(Publisher)
21 C HAPTER 2: A DVERBIAL S UBORDINATION 2.1. M ETHODOLOGICAL I NTRODUCTION As in many aspects of linguistics, a clear and sound definition is an essential start to any discussion; moreover, since the present work is focused on syntax, a syntactic definition of subordination and the strategies used to mark subordinated clauses is in order. 1 More specifically, a definition of adverbial subordination is required. There have been many attempts to define subordination as a cross-linguistic, typological phenomenon. The two main components of definition traditionally used are dependency and clausal embedding. In other words, the subordinated clause functions as a constituent of the main clause, or more conventionally, the matrix sentence. Coordinated clauses do not show such syntactical dependency. Palmer (1986:131) suggests a simple distinction between subordination and coordination: coordination connects two independent clauses, while with subordination, one of the clauses (the subordinated) forms a part of the other (the matrix). As a general definition of subordination, in this study the term pertains to syntactic marking of ‘nexal hierarchy.’ Subordination is a syntactic tool that marks a lower nexus relative to the main nexus. 2 This definition has nothing to do with function (what syntactic slot the subordinated sentence fills) or morphology (the inflectional form of the subordinator or the clause itself), but rather with the 1 Works such as Cristofaro (2 3:33) are not useful, since the definition is functional: “a situation whereby a cognitive asymmetry is established between linked States of Affairs, such that the profile of one of the two (the main State of Affairs) overrides the other (the dependent State of Affairs).” 2 Nexus, a term introduced by Otto Jespersen, describes the type of relationship between subject and predicate ( he is a teacher ), as opposed to the one between an element and a junction ( able teacher ).
eBook - PDF- Bruce C. Donaldson(Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Conjunctions 305 (See a above, i.e. a co-ordinating conjunction + a co-ordinating conjunction with a different meaning.) 9.4. Subordinating Conjunctions A clause introduced by any of the following conjunctions is regarded as being subordinate to the main clause and this is reflected in the position of the finite verb in the two clauses: the finite verb in the main clause is always the second idea in that clause (see 12.1), while that in the subordinate clause is the last idea (see 12.1.4). As in English, the subordinate clause can either precede or follow the main clause; when it precedes, inversion of subject and verb in the main clause results, e.g. (1099) Omdat ek siek voel, bly ek vandag by die huis. 'Because I'm feeling sick today, I'm staying home' (subordinate clause first). (1100) Ek bly vandag by die huis omdat ek siek voel. (subordinate clause second). The following Subordinating Conjunctions occur in Afrikaans. Super-script numbers refer to the explanatory points which directly follow the list: aangesien afhangende van 2 (al)hoewel alvorens as as (wat) soos (as)of indien ingeval mits na na gelang namate of ofskoon omrede onderwyl sedert sinds sodra so gou as (wat) solank (as wat) sover, vir sover, insover(re) tensy terwyl 'seeing, as' 1 'depending on' 'although' 3 'before' 28 'when, if 4 'as, than' 5 'as, like' 6 'as if 6 'if 7 '(just) in case' 8 'provided (that), on condition that 79 'according to, as' 10 'as, in so far as, according to' 11 'as, in so far as. according to' 11 'whether, if 12 'although' 3 'because' 13 'while' 14 'since' 15 'since' 15 'as soon as' 16 'as soon as' 16 'as long as' 17 'as far as >ut 'unless' 19 'while, whilst' 14
eBook - PDFComplex Structures
A Functionalist Perspective
- Betty Devriendt, Louis Goossens, Johan van der Auwera, Betty Devriendt, Louis Goossens, Johan van der Auwera(Authors)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Subordinators in a semantic clause structure Peter Harder 1. Introduction: theoretical preliminaries In this article 1 I would like to put forward some views on the role and nature of subordinators. The position I take is basically that the layered clause structure provides an illuminating framework for a description of subordinators, i.e. words like if, because, when, although, but in order to function as such it must be understood in a way that I shall begin by outlining. The assumptions which are crucial to the picture I am presenting are the following ones. First, I assume that a functional grammar must understand its underlying clause structure as a semantic clause structure, i.e. as consisting of the coded meanings of the items in the clause, rather than constituting an abstract structure of uninter-preted elements. Secondly, I have argued that for linguistic purposes it is necessary to understand such meanings as instructions specify-ing what the addressee is to do in order to make sense of the utter-ance. In other words, linguistic items have no finished, ready-made message attached to them, however literally they are meant to be understood; they just have something designed as input to an inter-pretation process that the addressee must perform on his own (cf. Harder 1990, 1992). Langue, then, is an instrument designed to trigger interpretation processes in addressees. Knowing how to speak is knowing how to get addressees to do the work necessary to understand what you want to say by priming them with language. The underlying, semantic structure of a clause is a specification of what total process the clause is designed to trigger in an addressee. There is a close analogy between linguistic, instructional meaning as opposed to the finished message produced by the addressee on the one hand, and a cooking recipe as opposed to the finished course produced by the cook on the other.
eBook - PDFSyntactic Analysis and Description
A Constructional Approach
- David Lockwood(Author)
- 2003(Publication Date)
- Continuum(Publisher)
12. Since he is so difficult to work with, I decided against taking the job. 13. Inasmuch as the room wasn't ready for us, we decided not to stay there. CONCESSIVE 14. Although he enjoys gambling, he passed up the trip to Las Vegas. 15. 7 decided to accept the report, even though I was not completely happy. 16. While they seemed to be calm, we could sense an underlying tension. Subordinate clauses and clausoidal phrases 293 The internal structure of these various subordinate clauses varies, in that it is sometimes more comparable to that of relative clauses, and in other cases it is more like the simpler Relator-Axis structure seen in nominal clauses, as in Tables 14.1-4. The simpler structure is seen in the examples of manner, reason, and concessive clauses, which have Subordinating Conjunctions as Relators in combination with a declarative clause in the role of Axis. The structure of the Locational and Temporal examples, on the other hand, is sometimes more like what we see in relative clauses. This is true for both of the Locational examples given, in that where and wherever can be seen as Subordinating Conjunctions further indicating that location is involved. Among the temporal examples, those with when and whenever are exactly parallel, but others, like before, after, and while, are more similar to prepositions. Their meaning includes an element of anteriority (before), posteriority (after), or simultaneity (while) in addition to the more general idea of reference to time. Similarly, as soon as may be considered a compound temporal subordinating conjunction, indicating that the event reported in the main clause directly followed that in the subordinate clause. Yet another kind of common subordinate clause usage in English is shown in the data of Table 14.7. The Objects in items 1-9 and the Subjects in items 10-18 all have forms reminiscent of English supplement (wh) questions and of some relative clauses.
eBook - ePub- Hadumod Bussmann, Kerstin Kazzazi, Gregory Trauth, Kerstin Kazzazi, Gregory Trauth(Authors)
- 2006(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
daughter, to which the features [feminine] as well as [offspring] apply.Reference
Weinreich, U. 1966. Explorations in semantic theory. In T.A. Sebeok (ed.), Current trends in linguistics. The Hague. Vol. 3, 395–477.Congo ⇒ Bantu
congruence ⇒ agreement
conjugation
[Lat. coniugatio ‘connection’]Morphological marking of the verb stem with regard to the verbal grammatical categories of person, number, tense, mood, voice, and (to the extent it is grammaticalized) aspect. Conjugational patterns differ from language to language. The formal distinction between regular and irregular verbs is a fundamental one in the English conjugational system. (⇒ also inflection, strong vs weak verb)References
⇒ morphologyconjunct
[Lat. coniungere ‘to join’]Partial sentence in a sentence with coordinating conjunction.conjunction
Class of words whose function is to connect words, phrases, or sentences syntactically, while characterizing semantic relations between those elements. With regard to their syntactic function a distinction is drawn between co-ordinating and Subordinating Conjunctions: because co-ordinating conjunctions connect elements that are equally ordered with each other, they generally cannot be used sentence-initially (e.g. *For Philip was sick, he didn’t go to work); on the other hand, Subordinating Conjunctions introduce dependent clauses and can occur sentence initially (e.g. Because Philip was sick, he didn ‘t go to work). The following semantic relations can be expressed with co-ordinating conjunctions: (a) copulative: and, as well as, neither…nor, namely, (b) disjunctive: or, either…or; (c) adversative: but, however, on the contrary; (d) causal: for. Subordinating Conjunctions introduce adverbial clauses and characterize causal (since, because), modal (by) and temporal (when, before)
eBook - PDF- Claudine Chamoreau, Isabelle Léglise, Claudine Chamoreau, Isabelle Léglise(Authors)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
Contact, convergence, and conjunctions: a cross-linguistic study of borrowing correlations among certain kinds of discourse, phasal adverbial, and dependent clause markers 1 Anthony P. Grant 1. Introduction Certain discourse markers and conjunctions that head many types of depen-dent or subordinate clauses are among the first structural or ‘‘grammatical’’ features speakers of a less dominant language are likely to borrow from the language of a more dominant or prestigious group. This claim has been put forward in Matras (1998 and subsequent work) and his observations have helped inform the statements which I intend to make in this contribution. In some cases, such as the Eskimo-Aleut language Siberian Yupik, these kinds of borrowings (discourse markers, adverbials, and other function words, which have been taken from Chukchi) account for more than half the total of loans into the less prestigious language from the more presti-gious one, with considerable consequences for the shape and flexibility of the syntactic structure of this language at clause level and above (as shown in de Reuse 1994). Following the method of comparison introduced by Matras (1998), in this article I discuss the degree to which certain kinds of discourse markers, phasal adverbs, coordinating and especially Subordinating Conjunctions (the latter as used in some major and frequently occurring kinds of dependent clauses) have been borrowed in a wide range of languages (some 22 in all), which themselves have had frequent recourse to the replacement of inherited elements by means of borrowing, or in some cases the reinforce-1.
eBook - PDF- Knut J. Olawsky(Author)
- 2011(Publication Date)
- De Gruyter Mouton(Publisher)
734 Multi-clause constructions further non-finite verbal suffixes which exhibit a behaviour similar to the participle suffix. Clause coordination represents a multi-verb construction of a different type, as two or more independent clauses are conjoined, usually accompanied by some formal marking. This includes the use of coordinating conjunctions or adverbials, or can be expressed by juxtaposition, which, however, will be marked prosodically (cf. §20.5). 20.1 Subordination The clitic =ne has a range of different functions. On the one hand, it functions as a subordinate marker for temporal, conditional and complement clauses (cf. §20.1.1). On the other, it can be combined with a conjunction, which may express temporal, causal, concessive, comparative, or consecutive functions in a dependent clause (cf. §20.1.2). All subordinate clauses are also distinguished from other clause types morphologically, as the dependent verb always appears with the D-form (cf. §11.1). As shown in §18.5, the position of the dependent clause can vary. A subordinate clause may precede or follow the independent clause; however, its occurrence before the main clause is clearly preferred. With respect to the types of inflectional marking on the verb, there are minor differences between subordinate and main clauses: Of all 17 suffixal slots that occur in the independent clause only one is not attested in subordinate clauses: the irrealis suffix -ri (cf. §12.2.14). In elicitation, its use in dependent clauses is possible when the assertive enclitic =m is attached to the verb to mark future. In general, the use of enclitics in dependent clauses is restricted, as summarised in (1027). Only the remoteness marker =lu is freely attested in dependent clause; the reassurance enclitic =tau only occurs as a component of the lexicalised hearsay marker hetau in dependent clause (cf. (1027a)).
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
