Some Observations concerning Subordinate Clauses in English

Rutherford, William

doi:10.2307/412410

Cited by 72 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As could be expected, integrated and non-integrated because-clauses equally differ in terms of these constructions (Rutherford 1970;Couper-Kuhlen 1996). Integrated because-clauses can be clefted unproblematically, as shown in (19).…”

mentioning

confidence: 62%

“…The scope of the interpersonal systems of the main clause. Integrated because-clauses fall within the scope of interrogation, negation (Rutherford 1970, Schleppegrell 1991 In the interrogated, negated and modalized versions of the integrated (1), the because-clause can always serve as the focus ofthe interrogative, negative and modal value of the main clause: (3) can be interpreted as 'is that the reason why people in Cyprus stay together? ', (5) as 'that is not the reason why they stay together', and (7) as 'that must be the reason why they stay together'.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The functional value of non-integration in clause combining: Interpersonal versus discursive independence

Verstraete

2002

WORD</i>

9
0
0
0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. It is argued that the distinction between integrated and non-integrated intonation for dependent clauses, which is often used as an important parameter in typologies of clause combining mechanisms, is not a unitary phenomenon. The distinction between integrated and non-integrated intonation in these contexts correlates with two different functional parameters. On the one hand, there is the parameter of interpersonal independence, according to which a dependent clause can either have no interpersonal value of its own and completely depend on the interpersonal resources of its main clause, or be interpersonally independent of its main clause and have an assertive force of its own. On the other hand, there is the parameter of discursive independence, according to which a dependent clause can either form one single focus domain with its main clause, or function independently of the focus domain of its main clause. These two parameters are organized hierarchically, in that a discursively independent clause can still be interpersonally dependent, whereas an interpersonally independent clause is necessarily also discursively independent.

show abstract

mentioning
confidence: 62%

mentioning
confidence: 99%

The functional value of non-integration in clause combining: Interpersonal versus discursive independence
Verstraete
¹

2002
WORD</i>
9
0
0
0
View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5 This kind of ambiguity of because-clauses (and other adverbial clauses) was frequently discussed in the early 1970's in connection with the so-called performative analysis proposed in such works as Ross 1970 andRutherford 1970. For more recent analyses, see Nakau 1984 andSweetser (1990: Ch.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%

On a Certain Nominal Use of Because-Clauses: Just Because Because-Clauses Can Substitute for That-Clauses Does Not Mean That This Is Always Possible
Hirose
¹

1991
EL
13
0
5
0
View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The 1 Some because-clauses (with a different prosody) can also modify propositions or speech acts, just like since-clauses (cf. Rutherford 1970, Saebø 1991. In this paper, I only mention because-clauses that modify an event as a point of comparison with since-clauses.…”

Section: Diagnosing the Not-at-issue Contents Associated With Since-cmentioning
confidence: 99%

“…Rutherford 1970, Saebø 1991, Iatridou 1991, Johnston 1994, Charnavel 2017a. (38) * Liz has not left since anything is missing (but since…).…”

Section: *Must > Sincementioning
confidence: 99%

Non-at-issueness of since-clauses
Charnavel
¹

2017
SALT
7
0
0
0
View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the discourse status of English causal clauses introduced by since. Tests for non-at-issueness demonstrate that neither the relation (between the subordinate and the superordinate clause) expressed by since nor the content of the subordinate clause is at-issue. Other diagnostics further show that these two not-at-issue contents triggered by since belong to two different classes of projective content. This can be accounted for by attributing two different sources to their non-at-issueness: the relation expressed by since is not-at-issue for structural reasons, i.e. because since-clauses modify high evidential or speech act phrases, which are not-at-issue; the content of the subordinate clause is not-at-issue because since lexically selects factive clauses. More generally, this study (and future comparative studies on other subordinators) promises to shed further light on the constraints on different contents projected by the same trigger and the role played by structure in non-atissueness.

show abstract

Some Observations concerning Subordinate Clauses in English

Cited by 72 publications

References 0 publications

The functional value of non-integration in clause combining: Interpersonal versus discursive independence

The functional value of non-integration in clause combining: Interpersonal versus discursive independence

On a Certain Nominal Use of Because-Clauses: Just Because Because-Clauses Can Substitute for That-Clauses Does Not Mean That This Is Always Possible

Non-at-issueness of since-clauses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About