CONJUNCTIVE CLAUSES

Section 9-2 CONJUNCTIVE CLAUSES

Transformation for the conjunction of clauses
Diagraming conjunctive clauses
Manner-sequentive clauses
Transformation and diagram for the manner-sequentive conjunctive clause
Time-sequentive clauses
Cause-sequentive clauses
Condition-sequentive clauses
Result-sequentive clauses
Resolving ambiguity
Justification-sequentive clauses
Qualification-sequentive clauses
Syntactic options for qualification

The simplest conjunction of two sentences makes each one a main clause equal at the same level of grammatical dependence. The author means to treat the statements in each of the independent conjoined clauses as equally valid and important. We now establish a new convention of designating each sentence of the paratactic paraphrase of a compound sentence with a letter near the first of the alphabet. Near the right margin with the sentence that resolves the structure, we abbreviate the analysis (some transformation) that accounts for the combination.

(1)	Misfortune could not subdue him and prosperity could not spoil him. —Dickens.
	a.	Misfortune could not subdue him.
	b.	Prosperity could not spoil him.	Conj (CL)

The normal analysis of example (1) is a conjoining of two declarative sentences. Some of its power seems to lie in the fact that the structures of the component sentences are parallel.

It is possible to use the adverb both to emphasize the fact that the conjoining using and is simple.

(2)	Both misfortune could not subdue him and prosperity could not spoil him. —Dickens altered.
(3)	The waves of yesterday are gone today; and the calm of today will be tumultuous tomorrow. —Beecher.
	a.	The waves of yesterday are gone today.
	b.	The calm of today will be tumultuous tomorrow.	Conj (CL)

The simple conjunctive relationship illustrated here is actually quite rare in our corpus. We had some hesitation to include so soon a discussion of the several sequentive relationships, related as they are to the adverbial phrase. However, the phenomenon is so ubiquitous among conjunctive clauses, that it is almost impossible to give examples of such clauses from our corpus without it.

Transformation for the conjunction of clauses.

We gave a formal statement of a transformation to relate the elements of sentence structure that are involved in the conjunction of clauses in §7-5. What we do here is relate each of the propositions generated by the rules of interpretation to the sentences in the paraphrase. The interpretation of the complete sentence is indicated with a shorthand reference to the rules of interpretation involved.

Diagraming conjunctive clauses.

In the rest of this work we will sometimes want to clarify the logical relationships between clauses and their elements through the use of diagrams. The idea of diagraming sentence structure was particularly popular during the last half of the last century, used by Harvey (1862), further developed by Reed and Kellogg (1907). In §5-6 we outlined some of the principles of graph theory. We have used some of these principles to draw tree diagrams of the syntactic structure described by PS-rules. Figure 3 illustrates another application of the theory to model the relationship between two independent clauses and their connective. We enclose the clauses as unanalyzed graphs within rounded rectangles as two nodes encircled to represent their combination as a single proposition or syntactically the superordinate clause. The rectangles are nodes representing more atomic elements, i.e., terminal constituents — here the conjunction. Such diagrams are thus a variant of the upper portion of a UML tree exemplified in figure 4.

Diagramming the Syntax of Conjoined Clauses

Figure 5 summarizes the seven additional ways to conjoin clauses as described in the following paragraphs.

Manner-sequentive clauses.

Manner-sequentive clauses are just one of at least seven varieties of sequentive clauses. The feature of sequentive may appear on any conjunctive connective that is not also adversative or illative. It is possible to conjoin sentences in other uses, not just those of the declarative mode illustrated in the last paragraph. Here the author joins imperative sentences as grammatically independent clauses. As often happens with adverbial clauses, the modification of one clause — though in this example left only understood — accumulates to the modification of the last. To indicate nested structures we begin a new alphabetic sequences for them; e.g., “aa” is the first substructure of structure “a.” When one sentence resolves multiple structures, we give the analysis notes (transformations) in the order of smallest to largest. Notice also that we enclose elements in parentheses when they must be supplied in parataxis.

(1)	Ring out the old, ring in the new,
	Ring out the false, ring in the true.		—Tennyson.
	aa.	[You may] Ring out the old.
	ab.	(By this) [you may] Ring in the new.	mConj (CL)
	ba.	[You may] Ring out the false.
	bb.	(By this) [you may] Ring in the true (by that).	mConj (CL);mConj (CL);AdvA (Man)

Here there is additional structure whereby Tennyson joins a as imbed to b as matrix at one level, and then joins the two combinations together on a second level by accumulating manner phrases where a is the imbed and b the matrix. The conjoining of elements without the use of an explicit connective is called asyndeton. Asyndeton would be the null reflex of the conjunctive connective. Here there is asyndeton at both levels making the analysis a little less than transparent.

The paraphrase suggests that the understood function of the clause in the predicate is the same as that of a manner adverb adjunct, which may be a prepositional phrase (the preposition by and the demonstrative pronoun). We discuss adverbial accumulation (AdvA) in the next chapter (cf. §10-3). It is also possible to argue that the adverbial relationship being accumulated is one of cause rather than of manner, that ringing in the new causes the ringing in of the true. Our analysis says ringing in the new is simply how ringing in the true is done. Tennyson may well have intended the reader to be free to use either or both interpretations.

Transformation and diagram for the manner-sequentive conjunctive clause.

Not only are the clauses connected as parallel grammatical structures, but also as subordinate in meaning. This means that the clause contained in the manner adverb is the same as the clause to which it connects asyndetically. The input structure to this transformation must have been effected by Conj(CL).

Tennyson does this to two pairs of clauses, connecting them in the same way. The map of the interpretation refers to this transformation three times — once for each pair of clauses, and once for the relationship between the pairs. We have attempted to analyze the paraphrase fully so as to represent the elements of the structure resulting from the transformation. Figure 6 illustrates how we graph any implicit dependence of one clause on another. Before the transformation mConj(CL), we might provide a directed edge between the deictic and the node representing the clause to which it refers. However, after the transformation, the adverbial is only implicit in the connective. The node representing the deictic was imbedded within the predicate, along with the auxiliary and verb phrase, but now it is associated with the connective. We take up the diagraming of adverbial accumulation in §10-3.

Time-sequentive clauses.

As an example of time-sequentive clauses consider the following quote from Lewis Carroll. As is quite natural with the imperative, this example contains a vocative (2nd person noun as a pro-sentence) as a parenthetic insertion.

(1)	Sit down, all of you, and listen to me! —Lewis Carroll.
	a.	Sit down, all of you!
	b.	Listen to me (then, i.e., after you do this)!	tConj (CL)

In (1) the interpreter further understands that the time of the action in the second sentence follows the time of the action in the first. We would not say, “Listen to me and sit down!” unless we meant for the listening to terminate (listen = obey) once the sitting down had been accomplished. In this form the interpretation of the second clause would be cause-sequentive, rather than time-sequentive. Asyndeton is quite common when independent clauses are co-temporal.

(2)	A while she paused; no answer came. —Scott.
	a.	A while she paused.
	b.	No answer came (in this time).	tConj (CL)

The author may imply additional relationships of time reference, such as before and after. We discuss these in the fifth and sixth paragraphs of § 21-2.

The transformation here is more general than necessary to delineate the various semantic relations of time enumerated in §21.2.

Cause-sequentive clauses.

The sentences in (1) and (2) have a secondary compound relation that is cause-sequentive:

(1)	A prick and she passed the most inviting stable door. —Stevenson.
	a.	(She got) a prick.
	b.	She passed the most inviting stable door (from this cause).	caConj (CL)
(2)	One child in a household of grown people is usually made very much of, and in a quiet way I was a good deal taken notice of by Mrs. Bretton. —Brontë.
	a.	One child in a household of grown people is usually made very much of.
	b.	In a quiet way I was a good deal taken notice of by Mrs. Bretton (from this cause).	caConj (CL)

Ms. Brontë’s sentence might more naturally be interpreted as result-sequentive, and possibly even justification-sequentive.

Condition-sequentive clauses.

English often requires the interpretation of an imperative (or subjunctive) in the first clause as a condition on the content of the declarative in the second clause. Consider (1), which has such a condition-sequentive.

(1)	Commit a crime, and the earth is made of glass. —Emerson.
	a.	Commit a crime. (= You may commit a crime.)
	b.	The earth is made of glass (for you) (in this case).	cnConj (CL)

In the following example asyndeton expresses a condition-sequentive relationship. The first clause is imperative, but the second clause is a yn-interrogative sentence.

(2)	Suppose I gave you something to eat, would you listen to me afterward? —Miss Mulock.
	a.	Suppose I gave you something to eat.
		(= You may suppose that . . . [DecNC cf. §12-1.1])
	b.	Would you listen to me afterward (in this case)?	cnConj (CL)

Condition-Sequentive Clauses [cnConj(CL)]

Result-sequentive clauses.

In (1) we have a result-sequentive:

(1)	He was her special pet and she disapproved of the nurse. —Kipling.
	a.	He was her special pet.
	b.	She disapproved of the nurse (for this reason).	rConj (CL)

Asyndeton usually seems to imply that there is a sequentive relationship. The following has result-sequentive meaning:

(2)	The desert heavens have felt her sadness; Her earth will weep her some dewy tears. —Jean Ingelow.
	a.	The desert heavens have felt her sadness.
	b.	Her earth will weep her some dewy tears (for this reason).	rConj (CL)
(3)	Two years later, Mexico became independent of Spain, and California was made a Mexican province. —Kimball
	a.	Two years later Mexico became independent of Spain.
	b.	Two years later California was made a Mexican province (as a consequence of this).	rConj (CL)

Resolving ambiguity.

A comparison of the following sentence to the last one in the previous paragraph suggests that it is probably to exclude the interpretation of some sequentive adverbial relationship that an author would precede the conjunction and in the second clause with the adverb both in the first clause.

(1)	Two years later, both Mexico became independent of Spain and an earthquake occurred in California. —Kimball (altered)
	a.	Two years later Mexico became independent of Spain.
	b.	Two years later an earthquake occurred in California.	Conj (CL)

We demonstrate in §10-3 how sentence paraphrases for conjoined words and phrases are available as though reduced from clauses, but the various sequentive relationships do not seem to be preserved beyond the predicate level.

Justification-sequentive clauses.

The imperative clauses in the following example imply a justification-sequentive:

(1)	And hark! how blithe the throstle sings!
	He, too, is no mean preacher;
	Come forth into the light of things,
	Let Nature be your teacher.		—Wordsworth.
	aa.	How blithe the throstle sings!
	ab.	(Moreover) He is no mean preacher too.	qConj (CL)
	b.	And (for this reason I say) hark!
	ca.	(For this reason I say) Come forth into the light of things.
	cb.	(For this reason I say) Let Nature be your teacher.	jConj (CL); jConj (CL)

Justification-Sequentive Clauses [jConj(CL)]

Qualification-sequentive clauses.

By far the most frequent sequentive meaning between two conjoined clauses is what we call qualification-sequentive. This is where the second clause adds to the meaning of the first clause by qualifying it or enlarging on its meaning. The following examples conjoin elements smaller than the clause, which we cover with principles and details in the following chapter.

(1)	They come in the summer months by hundreds and hundreds of thousands out of the cold gray sea. —Kipling.
	a.	They come in the summer months by hundreds out of the cold gray sea.
	b.	They come in the summer months by hundreds of thousands out of the cold gray sea.	qConj (Adv)
(2)	The house is empty and has been so for months. —Kimball
	a.	The house is empty.
	b.	(Moreover) it has been so for months.	qConj (PRED)

This kind of qualification usually gives a significance to the order of the conjoined adjectives, which we illustrate here in anticipation of the next chapter.

(3)	The moon stood bright and full in the heavens. —Howells.
	a.	The moon stood bright in the heavens.
	b.	(Moreover) the moon stood full in the heavens.	qConj (Adj)
(4)	Our own thought sounds new and larger from his mouth. —Emerson.
	a.	Our own thought sounds new from his mouth.
	b.	(Moreover) our own thought sounds larger from his mouth.	qConj (Adj)

Qualification-Sequentive Clauses [qConj(CL)]

Syntactic options for qualification.

When the conjoining is asyndetic, it is usually not clear whether the phrases are qualification-sequentive or appositive (cf. chapter 10 for the conjunction of words and §17-1 for the non-restrictive adjective clause of this example); their qualification functions seem to be identical. (It is unimportant for this illustration, but the careful student will also learn later that “the whole distance” cannot logicallly be taken as a normal direct object noun phrase of walk. The phrase answers the adverbial question about “how far” was walked.)

(1)	We walked the whole distance, exactly three miles. —Kimball.
	a.	We walked the whole distance.
	b.	(Moreover) we walked exactly three miles.	qConj (Adv)
	E.	We walked the whole distance, which was exactly three miles.
	m.	We walked the whole distance.
	i.	This was exactly three miles.	nAdjC

Works of Wonder | Paraphrastic Grammar Contents