Introduction

This research intends to examine English clause combining and the potential of transfer therein. Clause combining generally involves two clauses. Traditional grammar (e.g., Quirk et al. 1985) distinguishes two basic patterns of clause combining, i.e., coordination and subordination. Subordination is readily identifiable by two basic properties, i.e., dependency and embedding. Halliday (1985, 1994) and Halliday and Matthiessen (2004, 2014) categorize embedded clauses into embedded defining clauses and embedded fact clauses. An embedded defining clause is the restrictive relative clause that is embedded in a nominal group to function as its post-modifier. An embedded fact clause is the clause that is embedded in a fact noun to function as its appositive, including subject appositive and object appositive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

eBook EUR 85.59 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 105.49 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 105.49 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

References

• Aarts, B. (2006). Subordination. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 248–254). Amsterdam: Elsevier. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Asher, N., & Vieu, L. (2005). Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations. Lingua, 115(4), 591–610. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Austin, J. R., Engelberg, S., & Rauh, G. (2004). Adverbials: The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. BookGoogle Scholar
• Blakemore, D. (2005). And-parentheticals. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1165–1181. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Blakemore, D., & Carston, R. (2005). The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. Lingua, 115(4), 569–589. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Blühdorn, H. (2008). Subordination and coordination in syntax, semantics, and discourse: Evidence from the study of connectives. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 59–88). Amsterdam: Benjamins. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Carston, R., & Blakemore, D. (2005). Introduction to coordination: Syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Lingua, 115(4), 353–358. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cosme, C. (2008). A corpus-based perspective on clause linking patterns in English, French and Dutch. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 89–114). Amsterdam: Benjamins. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Cristofaro, S. (2003). Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Crysman, B. (2006). Coordination. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 183–196). Amsterdam: Elsevier. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Fabricius-Hansen, C. (1992). Subordination. In L. Hoffmann (Ed.), Deutsche Syntax: Ansichten und Aussichten (pp. 458–483). Berlin: de Gruyter. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Fabricius-Hansen, C., & Ramm, W. (2008). Editors’ introduction: Subordination and coordination from different perspectives. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: Benjamins. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Fawcett, R. P. (1996). A systemic functional approach to complementation in English. In M. Berry, C. Butler, R. P. Fawcett, & G. W. Huang (Eds.), Meaning and form: Systemic functional interpretations (pp. 297–366). Norwood: Ablex. Google Scholar
• Foley, W. A., & Van Valin, R. D., Jr. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Givón, T. (Ed.). (2001). Syntax: An introduction, Vol. II. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
• Gunthner, S. (1996). From subordination to coordination? Verb-second position in German causal and concessive constructions. Pragmatics, 6(3), 323–370. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (1999). Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London/New York: Cassell. Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Google Scholar
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). London/New York: Routledge. BookGoogle Scholar
• Haspelmath, M. (2004a). Coordinating constructions: An overview. In M. Haspelmath (Ed.), Coordinating constructions (Typological studies in language 58) (pp. 3–40). Amsterdam: Benjamins. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Haspelmath, M. (Ed.). (2004b). Coordinating constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
• He, W. (2002). On recursiveness, embedding and functional syntactic reanalysis. Foreign Language Research, 3, 64–69. Google Scholar
• He, Q., Yang, B., & Wen, B. (2015). Textual metaphor from the perspective of relator. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 35(4), 334–350. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Holler, A. (2008). German dependent clauses from a constraint-based perspective. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 187–216). Amsterdam: Benjamins. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Huang, G. (1999). A functional approach to English syntactic analysis. Journal of Sun Yat-Sen University (Social Science Edition), 4, 20–27. Google Scholar
• Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BookGoogle Scholar
• Johannessen, J. B. (1998). Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Johansson, S., & Hasselgård, H. (1999). Corpora and cross-linguistic research in the Nordic countries. In S. Granger, L. Beheydt, & J.-P. Colson (Eds.), Contrastive linguistics and translation (pp. 145–162). Leuven: Peeters. Google Scholar
• Knott, A., & Dale, R. (1994). Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. Discourse Processes, 18, 35–62. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Knott, A., Sanders, T., & Oberlander, J. (Eds.). (2001). Levels of representation in discourse relations. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 197–332. Google Scholar
• Kortmann, B. (1996). Adverbial subordination: A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
• Lang, E. (1984). The semantics of coordination (Studies in language companion series 9). Authorized English translation from Lang (1997). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
• Lang, E., Maienborn, C., & Fabricius-Hansen, C. (Eds.). (2003). Modifying adjuncts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
• Lefèvre, M. (Ed.). (2000). Subordination in syntax, semantik und textlinguistik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Google Scholar
• Lehmann, C. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman & S. D. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in Grammar and discourse (pp. 181–226). Amsterdam: Benjamins. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. BookGoogle Scholar
• Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243–281. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Matthiessen, C. M. I. M., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and ‘subordination’. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 275–329). Amsterdam: Benjamins. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• O’Dowd, E. (1992). The syntactic metaphor of subordination: A typological study. Lingua, 86, 46–80. Google Scholar
• Polanyi, L. (1988). A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 601–638. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London/New York: Longman. Google Scholar
• Ramm, W. (2008). Upgrading of non-restrictive relative clauses in translation: A change in discourse structure? In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘coordination’ in sentence and text: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 135–160). Amsterdam: Benjamins. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Reis, M. (1999). On sentence types in German: An enquiry into the relationship between grammar and pragmatics. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis, 4, 195–236. Google Scholar
• Taverniers, M. (2006). Grammatical metaphor and lexical metaphor: Different perspective on semantic variation. Neophilologus, 2, 321–332. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Google Scholar
• Thompson, S. A., & Longacre, R. E. (1985). Adverbial clauses. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, Vol. II: Complex constructions (pp. 171–234). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
• Verstraete, J.-C. (2005). Two types of coordination in clause combining. Lingua, 115(4), 611–626. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Verstraete, J.-C. (2007). Rethinking the coordinate-subordinate dichotomy. In Interpersonal grammar and the analysis of adverbial clauses in English (Topics in English linguistics 55). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
• Webber, B., Joshi, A., Stone, M., & Knott, A. (2003). Anaphora and discourse structure. Computational Linguistics, 29(4), 545–587. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Wolf, F., & Gibson, E. (2005). Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based analysis. Computational Linguistics, 31(2), 249–287. ArticleGoogle Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. School of Foreign Languages, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China Qingshun He

1. Qingshun He

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

He, Q. (2019). Introduction. In: A Corpus-Based Approach to Clause Combining in English from the Systemic Functional Perspective. The M.A.K. Halliday Library Functional Linguistics Series. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7391-6_1

Download citation

• .RIS
• .ENW
• .BIB

• DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7391-6_1
• Published : 18 May 2019
• Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore
• Print ISBN : 978-981-13-7390-9
• Online ISBN : 978-981-13-7391-6
• eBook Packages : Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Copy to clipboard

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative