In a complex sentence, the following is distinguished:
The effective root of a dependent clause always depends on the effective root of the modified element. If a dependent clause modifies the content of the whole governing clause, its effective root node depends on the effective root of the governing clause. Three types of dependent verbal clauses are to be distinguished in the annotation (see Table 4.3, “Types of dependent verbal clauses”).
Table 4.3. Types of dependent verbal clauses
Dependent clause | Definition | Connective | Examples | ||
It stands for an argument of a word (verb, event noun..) in the governing clause. The effective root has an argument functor. |
Relative elements introducing content clauses have no coreferred elements. | He said, <that> he would
come. He asked, who was
coming. | |||
It further specifies, modifes a noun phrase in the governing clause The effective root of the
dependent clause has the |
Relative elements introducing relative clauses corefer with the modified noun. | A question that was not
answered. The district,
which | |||
It is a temporal, locative/directional, manner or other modification of an element in the governing clause. The effective root of a dependent clause has an adjunct functor. |
| <If>
the weather is nice. He went where he was told to. |
Dependent verbal clauses with no finite verb form include:
| dependent infinitival constructions, |
| dependent past participial constructions, |
| gerundial constructions. |
If there is a non-finite verb form in a dependent clause (instead of the finite verb form; i.e. the infinitive, participle, gerund) this non-finite form is the effective root of the dependent clause. A dependent clause without a finite verb form can be:
an argument. It is the predicative-complement-like position (i.e. there is dual dependency involved, see Section 1.1, “Dual dependency”).
a predicative complement (for the annotation rules see Section 1.1.1, “Predicative complement”).
an adverbial clause. In some exceptional cases, a dependent verbal clause without a finite verb form can also have an adverbial meaning, especially when introduced by a subordinating conjunction.
For more detail and more examples on annotation resolutions of non-finite verb forms see Section 1, “Infinitive clause” and Section 2, “Gerundial clause”
Examples:
The professor, inspired.COMPL by the article, gave a
lecture on the new issues. Fig. 4.31
He remains inspired.PAT by the
article.
The house, altough indebted.CNCS ,
was sold very
quickly.
You have two possibilities,
how to get.PAT
He told her to
leave.PAT
He left, being.COMPL
sorry.
Incongruent infinitival constructions.
Incongruent gerundial/participial
constructions. Incongruent gerundial/participial constructions are
analyzed as conditional clauses and regarded as syntactically
incorporated parentheses (see Section 5, “Parenthesis” and Section 2.8, “Gerund as free modification - COND”), which means that all members of the
parenthesis have the attribute value [is_parenthesis = 1]. For example:
Judging.COND by his
face.CRIT,
he was angry [is_parenthesis = 1]Fig. 4.32
Judged.COND
by modern
standards.CRIT,
this was a cruel thing to do. [is_parenthesis = 1]
He does very well, considering.COND
how old he is. [is_parenthesis
= 1]
Frankly speaking.COND, she has chosen a wrong
partner. [is_parenthesis = 1] Fig. 4.33
NB! Certain gerundial/participial constructions have frozen to such an extent that they are considered to be subordinators. For their complete list (taken from Quirk et al.) see Section 1.1, “One-word subordinators and the functors assigned to them”.
They invited all relatives
<excepting> his
brother.RESTR
They invited all relatives
<including> his
brother.ACMP
<Assuming/Given> your calculations are.COND correct,
we should travel northeast.
Constructions with adjectives introduced
by subordinating conjunctions. If an adjective modifying some modification is
introduced by a subordinating conjunction, this construction is
analyzed as a dependent verbal clause in which the predicate is
omitted. A new node for the missing predicate is added to the tree
(#EmpVerb) with the functor
corresponding to the meaning of the conjunction. The node for the
adjective depends on the node for the empty verb as its Patient. The
dependent clause modifies either another adjective or a(n entire) noun
phrase. For example:
He has always been an
influential, <though>
{#EmpVerb.CNCS} controversial.RSTR figure.PATFig. 4.34
NB: the constructions with adjectives introduced by subordinating conjunctions are resolved in a very different way compared to constructions with gerunds/participles introduced by subordinating conjunctions, which take no empty-verb node and the appropriate functor is assigned directly to the gerund/participle (see above, this section).
False dependent clauses are such clauses that have the form of a dependent clause but their semantic relation to the other (governing) clause is rather that of coordination. False dependent clauses are either relative, infinitive or conjunctional clauses. By the use of a subordinating conjunction the speaker introduces a new meaning (purpose, condition) into the sentence, which is in fact not present between the clause contents. When analyzing constructions with false dependent clauses, it is the form rather than the content that is the criterion. The effective root of the dependent clause is assigned a functor according to the meaning of the connective and depends on the effective root node of the governing clause.
Examples:
He run into an elephant in the
garden, which killed.DESCR him.Fig. 4.35
NB: the decision whether a wh-clause introduced with which refers to a modification or to the entire predicate is in ambiguous cases up to the annotator. Here, the interpretation "an elefant that killed him" is preferred to "he run into an elephant, and this event killed him".
He left, never to come.AIM back again.Fig. 4.36
<If> I seem.COND angry
sometimes, it's.PRED usually
<because>
I'm.CAUS very tired. (see Fig. 4.37 obrazek)
NB! If the connective could be considered a coordinating conjunction, the construction is analyzed as paratactic. The following constructions are discussed whether to be considered paratactic (coordination, apposition) or hypotactic:
constructions with which coreferring with the entire clause. When a clause 2 is attached to a clause 1 by means of the anaphorical construction with the connective which (neither introduced by a preposition nor combined with be + wh-word) co-referring with the predicate of the clause 1, the two clauses are regarded as paratactically connected. The connective which (even when combined with prepositions) is often a valency modification in the clause it introduces. The root of the paratactic structure, then, is the node for the present punctuation mark. The effective root of the attached clause has the same functor as the other paratactically connected element. For example:
She had not arrived.
PRED[is_member=1]#Comma.CONJwhich.ACTmade.PRED[is_member=1]him sad.Fig. 4.38She had missed.
PRED[is_member=1]the plane#Comma.CONJwhich.PAThe didn't know.PRED[is_member=1] .We have not answered.
PRED[is_member=1]your question completely, <for> which.CAUSwe apologize.PRED[is_member=1](Fig. 4.39)They had not answered.
PRED[is_member=1]#Comma.CONJ<for> which.CAUSthey were punished.PRED[is_member=1]Constructions with which +be only coreferring with a valency modification. Constructions with which + copula be are resolved as apposition (see Section 4.1, “Coordination, apposition, mathematical operations and intervals”):
He got five points.
PAT[is_member=1]#Comma.APPSwhich.ACTwas.PAT[is_member=1]the maximum.PATFig. 4.40constructions with relative clauses comprising (preposition +) which + noun. These constructions introduce clauses which get the functors
RSTR/DESCRas common subordinate clauses.Eleanor's pen, which.
ACThad been lying.DESCRon the table, suddenly moved.Fig. 4.41Guidance.
DENOMon the Circumstances.PAT<in> which.CONDParents may Choose.RSTRto Educate their Children at Home. (Fig. 4.42)constructions with which + be + why correlating with the predicate. The construction which is/was why correlating with another clause's predicate is resolved as coordination. The root of the paratactic structure is the node for the present punctuation mark and has the functor
CSQ. The construction which is/was why is represented as the node for why with the auxrfs which and is/was. The node has the functorCM(conjunction modifier).She.
ACT's.PRED[is_member=1]poor.PAT#Comma.CSQ<which is> why.CMshe.ACThas.PRED[is_member=1]to come to Arthur. (Fig. 4.43)This construction has the same tectogrammatical representation as that's why (see Section 7.3, “Anaphorical that in sentences of the type that's +wh-word”).
constructions with non-restrictive postmodifying clauses which + be + wh-words except why correlating with the predicate. The construction which + be + wh-words. These constructions are resolved as paratactic conjunctions like which +be + why.
In the process, the uranium (loses, or) is depleted(,) of almost half its radioactivity, which is how depleted uranium gets its name.Fig. 4.44
NB: Especially in expert texts the non-restrictive postmodifying clause need not modify the effective root of the sentence but can "dive" much deeper - and it can even modify a gerundial predication:
Another thing the microscope revealed was the difference between forming a laminate using vacuum pressure, which is how 3DL is made, and forming a laminate using pressure from rollers, which is how (a few of) the typical (‘look-alike’) sails are made.Fig. 4.45
constructions with non-restrictive postmodifying clauses which + be + wh-words except why not correlating with the entire predicate but only with a valency modification. Such constructions are - according to the way they corefer - either resolved as non-restrictive attribute:
This is where you will find Ogden Utah, <which is> where.
DESCRthe Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads met in 1869. (Fig. 4.46)or as apposition (when the non-restrictive postmodifying clause actually paraphrases the valency modification in the preceding clause).
NB: Two types of apposition can occur:
the valency modification is modified by two restrictive relative clauses (
RSTR). The second restrictive relative clause paraphrases the first restrictive relative clause:We have reached the point where we want.
RSTR[is_member=1]to sum up.PATan infinite number of differential amounts#Comma.APPS<which is> when.TWHENwe integrate.RSTR[is_member=1]Fig. 4.47Only the wh-word keeps its tectogrammatical representation in this case, which and be are attached as its auxrfs.
only a noun phrase is paraphrased with the non-restrictive postmodifying clause:
To be successful, the formula is this reach combined.
RSTRwith frequency.EFF[is_member=1]#Comma.APPSwhich.ACTis.EFF[is_member=1]how often viewers will receive.PAT(Fig. 4.48)N is for Never.
SUBS[is_member=1] #Comma.APPS, which.ACTis.SUBS[is_member=1]how often he's.PATsincere when he says he cares.Fig. 4.49NB: This case is different in that which and how (or any other wh-word if ever found with this function) do have their own tectogrammatical nodes!
