Traditionally, a clause is defined as consisting of a subject and predicate.
In Oxford Dictionary, it is defined as:
A unit of grammatical organization next below the sentence in rank and in traditional grammar said to consist of a subject and predicate.
But recent linguistics says you don't need a subject to qualify as a clause.
For example, an imperative clause normally can get away with no subject:
Come on in.
Except for the imperatives, subjectless clauses are essentially non-finite clauses having an infinitive or participle form of a verb.
He wanted [to change his name]. [infinitive]
She was [locking the door]. [participle]
His father got [charged with manslaughter]. [participle]
These bracketed portions all have a verb as its head. That is, they're all verb phrases, which still holds water even in recent linguistics and outside traditional grammar.
Now, what's the merit of reclassifying these verb phrases as non-finite clauses? To me, it merely seems to make the already confusing phrase-clause distinction even more confusing.'
No comments:
Post a Comment