Section 4-2 TWO KINDS OF CLAUSES


Dependent clauses vs. independent clauses.  
Grammatically the clause has the same major constituents as a sentence. Each clause in a compound sentence is a grammatically independent clause. At least one of the clauses in a complex sentence is a grammatically dependent clause. Whether independent or dependent the clause often has a connective that expresses the nature of the relationship. The connective may also point to logical relationships between the independent clauses and meaning relationships between any two clauses. As an illustration of this, compare the following two sentences:
(1)Today I met Henry Smith and he failed to impress me.
(2)Today I met Henry Smith, who failed to impress me.
The sentence in (1) consists in two grammatically independent clauses. The assertion as a single sentence connected with and expresses them as logically related. The sentence in (2) contains the same two clauses, but while the first is independent, the second is grammatically dependent.

Connectives vs. reference sharing.  
In the second example the connective is who. This word expresses the relation of the clause to the rest of the sentence. In this particular kind of dependent clause the connective also functions as the subject of the clause telling us that the clause is an adjective clause and that it is in construction with the noun phrase Henry Smith. The function of the pronoun he in the first sentence is to act as another subject, one that in this case shares the same reference as Henry Smith.

The fundamental principle of paraphrase.  
Principle 1
Logicians define a proposition as a object that may be either true or false. An assertion, however, always by definition involves the author’s commitment to its truth. Hence the assertion that is equivalent to a given proposition has to express the truth value with a potential modality — it may or might be so. Use of potential modality as a device always makes it possible to paraphrase a clause (proposition) as a full sentence (assertion) and sometimes also vice versa. The reason the principle is hedged by “usually” is that there are cases where a non-assertive form, e.g., an interrogative or imperative form, seems more appropriate in the full sentence version.

Changing a dependent clause into an independent one.  
Paraphrasing clauses, i.e., finding some syntactic or grammatical equivalent, is easiest when the clauses are grammatically independent. Usually the syntactic phenomena that convey the dependence or independence of two clauses are 1) their sequencing, 2) the connective between them, or 3) their sequencing together with the connective between them. Some understanding of clauses can come by acquiring the ability to recognize the connectives that often serve 1) to separate clauses of a certain kind and 2) to characterize the constructions of which they are a part. When a clause is dependent, the analyst using paraphrase considers the expression of the content of the dependent clause and fixing this content in the mind reformulates the expression so as to make it conform to the form of an independent construction. This skill appears to be very much the same as what is often involved in translating from one language to another. After expressing the content of the clause as a sentence, the paraphraser may not ignore the need to somehow express the connection between the sentences produced. In a dependent clause the connective is the signal that the clause is grammatically dependent. Upon reformulation as a sentence, the clause’s structure becomes grammatically independent. The resulting independent structures are parallel, they are on the same level, they share one tropic, or in other words, they are paratactic.

A principle of paraphrastic connectives.  
Connective principle 1
The grammatically independent paraphrase usually has a different way of relating to the context. The same connective is no longer appropriate, and the means of expressing the grammatical relationship comes to reside in devices such as the sequencing or the anaphoric use of deictic pronouns or demonstratives (cf., deixis).