The Clause
Definition: A clause usually (but not always!) consists
of a noun phrase (nominal group) and a verb phrase (verbal group), and perhaps
other phrases as well. Minimally, a verb phrase could realise a clause (as in
‘Go!’). As mentioned elsewhere, we can also consider the criterion of meaning:
‘In all human languages so far studied, the clause is the fundamental meaning
structure in our linguistic communication with each other’ (Butt et al. 1995:
35).
There is sometimes some controversy about what constitutes a clause, even among linguists. Our aim is not to go into a lot of detail, but to see how we can make use of this notion at a fundamental level.
|
Noun Phrase |
Verb Phrase |
Noun Phrase |
Phrase |
|
She |
nudged |
David |
very gently |
The first NP = subject, and agrees in number with the verb.
|
Noun Phrase |
Verb Phrase |
Noun Phrase |
Phrase |
|
My sister |
has kicked |
the ball |
into the drain |
In English, today, the normal order (when making statements, technically
in the declarative mood, rather than asking questions or giving orders)
seems to be: subject + verb phrase [+ other things]. We will call this the S-V
order.
Typological linguists make a distinction between languages of the world
based on whether the language typically has an S-V pattern or a V-S pattern.
(We must not assume that the S-V pattern is more ‘natural’, simply because this
is the order we are more familiar with.)
This is not to say that variations are not possible. (Below, the
subjects have been italicised and the verb phrases underlined.)
(a) I climbed
the mountain.
(b) She was
extraordinarily agile.
(c) The party was
over before six o’ clock.
(d) Happy is the
man who is never angry.
(e) Incy-wincy spider climbed up the
spout,
(e´) Down came the
rain
(e´´) and [ellipsis] washed
the spider out.
(e´´´) Out came the
sun
(e´´´´) and [ellipsis] dried
up all the rain,
(e´´´´´) And the incy-wincy spider climbed up the spout again.
Clearly, in (d) and (e), there is inversion –
‘mannered’ or ‘dramatic’. Here are some more dramatic patterns.
(f) Never have
I been so insulted.
(g) Rarely would
anyone hit so cute an animal.
(h) Neither will
I phone her.
(i) Foolishness
I call it.
(j) John my name is.
However, although the S-V order can be broken in today’s English, we
need to concede that the S-V pattern is indeed the default one. In OE though,
the S-V pattern did not always prevail, and it is not difficult to explain why
not. Look at the sentences below.
(k) The man killed
the bear
(l) The bear killed
the man
(m) Killed the man the
bear
(n) Killed the bear
the man
(o) The man the bear
killed
(p) The bear the man
killed
In today’s English (k) and (l) mean different things; we interpret the man in (k) as NP functioning as subject, and that the man did the killing, whereas we interpret the bear in (l) as NP functioning as subject. There is nothing that marks the man or the bear as subject, so our basis for identifying subject is word order. The NP that comes first, before the VP, is subject. This explains why we find it difficult to interpret (m) to (p).
Notice that if we used personal pronoun forms, we would need to make a distinction
between the subject form (nominative case) and non-subject form (accusative
case):
(k´) I killed him
(l´) Him killed I
(m´) Killed I him
(n´) Killed him I
(o´) I him killed
(p´) Him I killed
Flexible word order
in Old English
In OE, all NPs were marked as Subject or otherwise, and the word order
was not as fixed as our English. They did this by marking nouns and determiners
with endings, called inflexions or inflections. (See the
discussion under ‘Morpheme
and Word’.) The determiner the would also be
appropriately marked. This is like the way we distinguish between I and me;
he and him; she and her in today’s English – only
in OE you had to distinguish between Subject and non-Subject in ordinary NPs
too. So thing or person referred to by
the NP is already marked as being the Subject (typically the ‘actor’) or as a
non-Subject (typically the one acted upon), so that in a way how the sentence
was ordered did not matter a great deal in relation to the core meaning of the
sentence.
Let’s try to make the discussion a little more concrete with some
examples:
·
in OE, se mann means
‘the man’ or ‘that man’ (Subject); the non-Subject version of the NP is ₫one mann.
·
ofsloh means ‘killed’ (cf. ‘slew’); and
·
₫one beran means ‘the bear’ or ‘that bear’
(non-Subject); the Subject version of the NP is se bera.
Now look at these sentences
(q) Se mann ofsloh
₫one beran
(r) ̃one beran ofsloh
se mann
(s) Ofsloh se mann
₫one beran
(t) Ofsloh ₫one beran
se mann
(u) Se mann ₫one
beran ofsloh
(v) ̃one beran se
mann ofsloh
The meaning of all these sentences is essentially the same. The availability of case inflections in OE meant that word order is not so crucial for identifying Subjects.