Modern Analysis of Sentence Structure
Introduction
In the Syntax 1 video lesson we analysed and exemplified four "correct" sentence structures (simple, compound, complex, compound-complex) and three problematic sentence structures (run-on/comma splice, fragment, rambling). The analysis was based on the traditional definition of clause. Namely, that a clause is a group of words with a single subject and a single finite verb.
Modern definition of clause
It is important to note, however, that modern grammarians have extended the definition of the clause to include groups of words that contain a non-finite verb but are missing an explicit subject.
Non-finite clause examples
In the modern analysis all the bold groups of words in the following examples are classified as clauses, i.e. non-finite clauses. In each case the non-finite verb is underlined and its non-finite type is shown in brackets.
- She has a cat called Claws. (past participle)
- I finally made him see his mistake. (bare infinitive)
- His new year's resolution was to stop smoking. (to-infinitive)
- She arranged for me to be picked up at the airport. (to-infinitive)
- After finishing his homework, Koji went straight to bed. (present participle)
- Being well-prepared, Min-Jae was confident about passing the test. (present participle)
- To enjoy good health you need to eat well and exercise regularly. (to-infinitive)
- Walking to school yesterday I got drenched in a sudden cloudburst. (present participle)
- Criticised for being late again, she finally decided to buy an alarm clock. (past participle, gerund, to-infinitive)
- Swimming in the ocean at sunset is my favorite summertime activity. (gerund)
- She enjoys having breakfast in bed on a Sunday morning. (gerund)
Note that in the last two sentences the non-finite clause is a gerund functioning as the subject or object of the sentence.
Embedding
As well as extending the definition of clause, modern analysis of sentence structure has introduced the concept of embedding. An embedded clause is a clause that is located within another clause, which is often the main clause. The embedded clauses in the following sentences are shown in bold.
- Did they catch the person who stole your bicycle?
- The film I watched last night was really boring.
- Do you know whether he passed his driving test?
- She did much worse in the test than she normally does.
- He couldn't believe that he had been so foolish.
- I would like you to help me in the garden tomorrow.
- After the rain stopped, we went for a walk.
- I like tea whereas my sister prefers coffee.
- We all enjoyed the soup, the recipe for which I found in a old cookbook that I hadn't opened for years. (an example of nested embedding)
Note: Not all grammarians agree that all the above bolded clauses should be classified as embedding.
Matrix clauses
Matrix clause is the term for a clause within which a subordinate clause is embedded. A matrix clause may be the whole sentence (or main clause) or a matrix clause may itself be a subordinate clause embedded in a superordinate matrix clause. The term for the location of clauses within clauses is nesting.
The best way to understand the concept of matrix clauses and nesting is to see some examples.
The first example is a main (independent) clause that is also a sentence:
This is not a matrix clause because it does not contain a subordinate clause. There is no nesting.
The second example sentence is:
The subordinate clause "that you called" is embedded within the sentence. So the whole sentence can be classified as matrix clause.
In some analyses the whole sentence "I'll tell him that you called." is also classified as a main clause (see Aarts, 82). So the sentence is both a matrix clause and a main clause. In traditional grammar "I'll tell him" would be considered the main clause.
The third example sentence is:
In this case the entire sentence is a matrix clause because it contains the subordinate content clause "that the man who attacked her had a beard". But this content clause is also a matrix clause because it contains the embedded subordinate (relative clause) "who attacked her" [ Sentence source ]
More examples of matrix clauses
Here are more examples, some of which are repeated from above. All of the sentences are themselves matrix clauses. The clauses are delimited by square brackets.
- [main/matrix clause I think [subordinate clause that this poem justifies his point].]
- [I'll call you [when I get home].]
- [The victim told police [that the man [who attacked her] had a beard].]
- [He said [I think [I'd like coffee]].] Source
- [His new year's resolution was [to stop smoking].]
- [[After finishing his homework], Koji went straight to bed.]
- [She revealed the secret [that had been hidden for years [after the house had been demolished]].]
- [[Criticised for being late again], she finally decided [to buy an alarm clock [that worked reliably]].]
- [The recipe, [which I found in an old cookbook], contained a little-known ingredient [that made it unique].]
- [His family and professional life have made him uniquely able [to write novels with a family setting [which can absorb the conflict between past and present, tradition and novelty, good and evil, common beliefs and the idea of the modern family today]].] Source
Note: The first (poem) example above is from Aarts in Oxford Modern English Grammar. On the Syntax 1: Lesson Notes page there is an extract from Aarts' book with an explanation and further examples of matrix clauses.
Usefulness of the terms simple, complex and compound?
In conjunction with this alternative analyis of sentence structure, some grammarians have argued for abandoning the terms simple, complex and compound as useful ways to classify sentences. For example, the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) states "...we shall not make further use of these terms". Click the button below to read its explanation for this stance.
→ Below is the text in the footnote on page 45 of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language section Sentence and clause.
"Traditional grammar classifies the sentences in [1*] as respectively simple, complex and compound, but this scheme conflates two separate dimensions: the presence or absence of embedding, and the presence or absence of coordination. Note that in I think Jill seems quite friendly, but her husband is extremely shy there is both embedding and coordination. We can distinguish [i-ii] from [iii] as non-compound (or clausal) vs compound; [i-ii] could then be distinguished as simple vs complex clauses but no great distinction attaches to this latter distinction, and we shall not make further use of these terms."
* The sentences in [1*] referred to in the footnote shown below.
- Jill seems quite friendly.
- I think Jill seems quite friendly.
- Jill seems quite friendly, but her husband is extremely shy.
Disclaimer
There is far from complete agreement among grammarians on how to label and how to classify the constituents of English in general and sentences in particular. So be aware that the examples above are just one way that sentence structures may be described and analysed.
Conclusion
Linguists and English teachers will no doubt find these discussions about terminology and classification interesting and important. English learners probably less so, however.
What they need to know, for example, is that the previous sentence is a fragment (or non-sentence) and that there are some contexts in which fragments are acceptable and other contexts in which they are not. In other words, they need to apply their understanding of the various sentence structures to the writing of clear, coherent, grammatical and engaging texts.
References
^ 65 ^
^ 33 ^