The study of language and grammar, and the defining of its terms, are not to be taken for granted. Men and women have, for centuries, sought to explain and organize our way of communication, hoping to bring order to chaos-or, at least, to make rules as a way of staking their claim on undefined territory. If these claims mirror any truth to the way real territory has been declared throughout history, it is by the very nature of its borders being defined: The southern border of Palestine is at such and such longitude; a sentence must be a complete thought containing a subject and predicate. But another person will come along and argue against these parameters and, consequently, the term’s definitive meaning is now straddling fences.
Seeking to uncover the border wars between one term in grammar, I have chosen the clause. Many linguists, grammarians, and English teachers have staked their claim on its definition and counterparts, and these will be shared and analyzed. If anyone is like me and has wondered about the differences between a clause and a phrase or a sentence, between an independent and dependent clause, or between compound, complex, and compound-complex sentences, may they grasp these explanations well enough to stake even their own claim.
A clause is classified under the subject of grammar, specifically under the heading of syntax. The reliable online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, identifies syntax as “the study of the rules that govern the way words come together in a sentence” and “concerns how different words are combined into clauses, which, in turn, are combined into sentences” (“Syntax” 1). In the hierarchy of grammar, a clause is listed just above a phrase but just below a sentence (Bloomer, Griffiths, & Merrison 179). Before disclosing the definition of a clause, the phrase will be defined. In the end, defining terms surrounding the clause will better clarify it and distinguish it from its neighbors. The definition of a sentence will soon follow.
A phrase does not contain either a subject or a predicate (Gaynor 169). However, it may act as a noun, verb, adjective or adverb (Gaynor 169, “Phrase” 1). There are also units called prepositional phrases. An example of a phrase acting as a noun, consequently called a noun phrase, is as follows: “the fierce horse” or “the lobby at the hotel”. There is no predicate available; it is merely the combining of one or more words (Bloomer . . . 179).
A clause, defined in Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor’s Dictionary of Linguistics, is “a subdivision of a sentence containing a subject and a predicate (or a word which implies or replaces a predicate)” (40). This definition relays that clauses are not sentences but are only “subdivisions” of them, yet they retain the very essence of what makes a sentence a sentence-the subject and predicate.
Wikipedia describes a clause and a sentence both as having a “subject and a predicate” (“Sentence” 1, “Clause” 2). The encyclopedia also says that sentences are recognized by the use of a finite verb; the textbook, Introducing Language in Use, says the same when seeking to identify clauses (200). So where does the distinction lie? Are they synonymous? Close. The main distinction lies within the dependent (or subordinate) clause; otherwise, a clause and a sentence can be the same.
The beginning of Pei and Gaynor’s definition of a clause, “a subdivision of a sentence”, actually caters more to explaining a dependent clause, since a dependent clause is not a full sentence (or neighborhood) but, rather, a subdivision. A dependent clause can not stand on its own like an independent clause can. It usually follows a subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun. The dependent and independent clauses make up the two basic categories of the clause.
An example of a dependent clause would be what is written in italics in the following sentence: While they looked for me, Germaine called the house. The elementary grammar student may recognize the clause as a sentence if they are simply looking for a subject and a predicate; naturally, they and looked would suffice their search. The moderate-level student would recognize the clause as a fragment of a sentence. Though they would be correct, they may not understand that it can further be labeled as a dependent clause. While is the subordinating conjunction which makes the clause dependent (and a fragment, as well).
Nothing else needs to be explained concerning the independent clause save that it is labeled by two other names, the main or coordinate clause. Because I have defined its opposite, it is even clearer to understand the independent clause’s function; it may stand alone as a sentence as it is without the presence of a subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun. Introducing Language in Use makes the inarticulate statement that “clauses can be combined to form sentences” (200) but they, obviously, are referring to the use of dependent clause since the independent clause is already a sentence by nature.
In conjunction with the independent and dependent clauses, there are three types of sentences whose definition relies on the mixture of such clauses. If a sentence contains one or more independent clauses and no dependent clauses, it is called a compound sentence. The clauses are either linked by a coordinating conjunction or a semicolon. Here is an example, appropriately taken from the book Introducing Chomsky: “The presupposition was tacit; traditional, modern and pedagogic grammarians mistakenly thought they were describing the language” (Groves & Maher 68). The semicolon is used to keep two intimately relating sentences together; they could, however, be separated into two individual sentences (just like this one).
Aside from the compound, the two remaining sentence forms are the complex and the compound-complex. The former consists of one independent clause and one or more dependent clauses. A sentence with two or more independent clauses and one or more dependent clauses is recognized as compound-complex.
An example of a complex sentence would be, Your favorite book disintegrated because I spilled the potion on it. The subordinating conjunction is because and its dependent clause follows; your favorite book disintegrated is a complete sentence and is the independent clause. Here is an example of a compound-complex sentence with one dependent and two independent clauses: I carried her to bed while she squirmed in my arms, but she calmed down, eventually. The dependent clause is while she squirmed in my arms, and the independent clauses are I carried her to bed and she calmed down, eventually.
This paper has (hopefully) helped to shed light on the term of clause and its counterparts. Relying on one book to define grammar’s sometimes more complicated issues will not usually be fruitful, and the definitions here were either crafted from others or chosen as the best among its peers. There are still depths of the clause that were not discussed, such as a focal and Dutch subordinate clauses, nominal relative clause-like clauses, or even “simply structured clauses with the Subjects often not expressed but identified by SR-monitoring” (Bolkenstein, de Groot, & Mackenzie 27, 139, 180, 161). Grammar is, indeed, an intricate field of study often taken for granted, especially because so much of it comes naturally, through the consequence of daily immersion. Yet it is certainly more than a subject and a predicate.
Bloomer, Aileen, Patrick Griffiths, and Andrew John Merrison. Introducing
Language in Use. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Bolkenstein, A.M., C. de Groot, and J.L. Mackenzie. Eds. Syntax and Pragmatics in
Functional Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publication Holland, 1985.
“Clause.” Wikipedia.org. 2006. 9 April 2006Clause>.
Gaynor, Frank, and Mario Pei. Dictionary of Linguistics. New York: Bonanza
Books, ?.
Groves, Judy, and John Maher. Introducing Chomsky. New York: Totem Books,
1998.
“Phrase.” Wikipedia.org. 2006. 9 April 2006Phrase>.
“Sentence.” Wikipedia.org. 2006. 8 April 2006Sentence_(grammar)>.
“Syntax.” Wikipedia.org. 2006. 8 April 2006Syntax>.
