Content

Introduction
1. Theoretical aspects of subordinate clauses in the English language
1.1 Types of English sentences
1.2 The nature of clause
1.3 Specific features of subordination
1.4 Types of subordinate clauses
2. Examples of different subordinate clauses in Modern English

2.1 Punctuation peculiarities and subordinating conjunctions

Conclusion
Bibliography

Introduction
In the process of communication people use a variety of sentences to make their
speech interesting and lively. Too many simple sentences, for example, will sound
choppy and immature while too many long sentences will be difficult to read and hard
to understand.and Subordination are ways of combining words, phrases, and clauses
into more complex forms. The discussion below examines coordination and
subordination of clauses.- uses coordinating conjunctions, conjunctive adverbs (with
appropriate punctuation), or punctuation to combine short independent clauses into a
single sentence. Coordination implies the balance of elements that are of equal
semantic value in the sentence.- uses subordinating conjunctions or relative pronouns
to transform independent clauses (main clauses or ideas) into dependent clauses
(subordinate clauses or ideas). Subordinate clauses are subordinate to (and thus hold
less semantic value than) the independent clause(s) to which they are linked.topic of
our investigation is «Types of Subordinate Clauses in the English
Language».topicality of our investigation is predetermined by the necessity
understand and use in practice English language with all its grammatical and syntactic
peculiarities. English is recognized to be a global language of communication of
different people from different countries. That is why it is so important to understand
fully syntactic peculiarities of the language.
The object of the investigation is subordinate clauses.
The subject of the investigation is specific features of functioning of
subordinate clauses in accordance with their different types.
The aim of the investigation is to analyze different types of subordinate clauses
in the English language.gain the aim of the investigation we have determined the
following tasks:
to consider types of English sentences;
investigate the nature of clause;
determine specific features of subordination;
characterize types of subordinate clauses;
investigate punctuation peculiarities and subordinating conjunctions;
select sentences with different types of subordinate clauses.
Structure of the investigation. The paper consists of the introduction, two
chapters, theoretical and practical one, conclusion and bibliography.
 1. Theoretical aspects of subordinate clauses in the English language

1.1 Types of English sentences

are different types of sentences. SENTENCE simple sentence, also called an
independent clause, contains a subject and a verb, and it expresses a complete
thought. In the following simple sentences, subjects are in yellow, and verbs are in
green.
A. Some students like to study in the mornings.. Juan and Arturo play football
every afternoon.. Alicia goes to the library and studies every day.
The three examples above are all simple sentences. Note that sentence B
contains a compound subject, and sentence C contains a compound verb. Simple
sentences, therefore, contain a subject and verb and express a complete thought, but
they can also contain a compound subjects or verbs.SENTENCEcompound sentence
contains two independent clauses joined by a coordinator. The coordinators are as
follows: for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so. (Helpful hint: The first letter of each of the
coordinators spells FANBOYS.) Except for very short sentences, coordinators are
always preceded by a comma.
A. I tried to speak Spanish, and my friend tried to speak English.. Alejandro
played football, so Maria went shopping.. Alejandro played football, for Maria went
shopping.
The above three sentences are compound sentences. Each sentence contains
two independent clauses, and they are joined by a coordinator with a comma
preceding it. Note how the conscious use of coordinators can change the relationship
between the clauses. Sentences B and C, for example, are identical except for the
coordinators. In sentence B, which action occurred first? Obviously, «Alejandro
played football» first, and as a consequence, «Maria went shopping. In sentence C,
«Maria went shopping» first. In sentence C, «Alejandro played football» because,
possibly, he didn't have anything else to do, for or because «Maria went shopping.»
How can the use of other coordinators change the relationship between the two
clauses? What implications would the use of «yet» or «but» have on the meaning of
the sentence?SENTENCEcomplex sentence has an independent clause joined by one
or more dependent clauses. A complex sentence always has a subordinator such as
because, since, after, although, or when or a relative pronoun such as that, who, or
which.
A. When he handed in his homework, he forgot to give the teacher the last
page.. The teacher returned the homework after she noticed the error.. The students
are studying because they have a test tomorrow.. After they finished studying, Juan
and Maria went to the movies.. Juan and Maria went to the movies after they finished
studying.
When a complex sentence begins with a subordinator such as sentences A and
D, a comma is required at the end of the dependent clause. When the independent
clause begins the sentence with subordinators in the middle as in sentences B, C, and
E, no comma is required. If a comma is placed before the subordinators in sentences
B, C, and E, it is wrong.that sentences D and E are the same except sentence D begins
with the dependent clause which is followed by a comma, and sentence E begins with
the independent clause which contains no comma. The comma after the dependent
clause in sentence D is required, and experienced listeners of English will often hear a
slight pause there. In sentence E, however, there will be no pause when the
independent clause begins the sentence [10, p. 144-146].
 1.2 The nature of clause
can be complex and include a main clause, what we call main sentence, or a
subordinate clause, what we call clause. There are 3 types of clauses: noun clauses,
adjectival clauses and adverbial clauses.clauses: A clause which acts as the subject or
object (O) or as the complement (C, atributo in Spanish) Adjectival or Relative
clauses: They refer to nouns (generally) and therefore perform the same syntactic
function as the preceding noun or antecedent, this means they are PART of whatever
syntactic function that noun performs in the sentence. For instance, The girl who is
eating prawns is Russian, who is eating prawns is the relative clause which is
modifying «girl», so the subject of is Russian is the whole idea The girl who is eating
prawns. Likewise, I don’t like the film we saw last night has the relative clause we
saw last night modifying film, so the object of the main sentence (I don’t like) is the
film we saw last night, and not the film only.clauses are complementos
circunstanciales. There are different types: time clauses, (CCT), place (CCL), manner
(CCM), comparison, reason or cause (CCC), purpose (CCF), result (consecutivas),
conditional, concession.can be finite or non-finite. In other words, they may have a
finite verb (a verb with a subject in a tense) or a non-finite verb (an infinitive, a
present participle [-ing] or a past participle, no subject) [21, p. 87].clause is a part of a
sentence. There are two main types: independent (main clauses), dependent
(subordinate clauses).Clausesindependent clause is a complete sentence; it contains a
subject and verb and expresses a complete thought in both context and
meaning.example: The door opened.clauses can be joined by a coordinating
conjunction to form complex or compound sentences.example: Take two independent
clauses and join them together with the conjunction and: «The door opened.» «The
man walked in.» = The door opened and the man walked in.Clausesdependent
(subordinate) clause is part of a sentence; it contains a subject and verb but does not
express a complete thought. They can make sense on their own, but, they are
dependent on the rest of the sentence for context and meaning. They are usually
joined to an independent clause to form a complex sentence.clauses often begin with a
subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun (see below) that makes the clause
unable to stand alone.example:
The door opened because the man pushed it.
Dependent clauses can be nominal, adverbial or adjectival.nominal clause
(noun clause) functions like a noun or noun phrase. It is a group of words containing a
subject and a finite verb of its own and contains one of the following: that | if |
whetherexample:
I wondered whether the homework was necessary.
Noun clauses answer questions like «who(m)?» or «what?»adverbial clause
(adverb clause) is a word or expression in the sentence that functions as an adverb;
that is, it tells you something about how the action in the verb was done. An adverbial
clause is separated from the other clauses by any of the following subordinating
conjunctions: after | although | as | because | before | if | since | that | though | till |
unless | until | when | where | whileexample:
They will visit you before they go to the airport.
Adverbial clauses can also be placed before the main clause without changing
the meaning.example:
Before they go to the airport, they will visit you.
When an adverb clause introduces the sentence (as this one does), it is set off
with a comma.clauses answer questions like «when?», «where?», «why?»adjectival
clause (adjective clause or relative clause) does the work of an adjective and describes
a noun, it's usually introduced by a relative pronoun: who | whom | whose | that |
whichexample:
I went to the show that was very popular.
This kind of clause is used to provide extra information about the noun it
follows. This can be to define something (a defining clause), or provide unnecessary,
but interesting, added information (a non-defining clause).example:
 The car that is parked in front of the gates will be towed away. (Defining
relative clause.)
An Adverb clause is a dependent clause that takes the place of an adverb. An
adverb clause answers questions such as when, where, why, with what result, under
what conditions, and for what purpose [26].watched a movie last night. 'Last night' is
an adverb.watched a movie after I came home. 'After I came home' is the adverb
clause in this sentence. It takes the place of the adverb. As you see, the adverb clause
is dependent of the main clause «I watched a movie», which is a complete sentence.
The adverb clause does the same job as the adverb.contained in the defining relative
clause is absolutely essential in order for us to be able to identify the car in question.
My dog, who is grey and white, chased the postman. (Non-defining relative
clause)
A non-defining relative clause is separated from the rest of the sentence by
commas. If you take away the non-defining clause the basic meaning of the sentence
remains intact.example:
My dog chased the postman.
Adjective clauses answer questions like «which?» or «what kind of?»adjective
clause functions as an adjective (modifies a noun or pronoun); an adverb clause
functions as an adverb (describes a verb, adjective or other adverb); a noun clause is
used as a noun (subject of a verb, direct object, indirect object, predicate nominative
or object of the preposition).Clause has a subject and a verb, and takes the place of an
adjective. An adjective clause must be connected to an independent clause.:
«Faraday first worked as a bottle washer for the famous chemist Humphry
Davy, who later had become very jealous of him.»clause: «who later had become very
jealous of him.»clause: «Faraday worked as a bottle washer for the famous chemist.
The main clause can stand by itself because it expresses a complete thought.»
«Faraday discovered that electricity moves through wire.» In this sentence,
conductivity of wire is not mentioned, but it is described as the 'object' of the
sentence. This sentence has two independent clauses:first independent clause:»
Faraday discovered that». In this sentence 'that» is a clause marker acting as the object
of the sentence.second independent clause, «the electricity moves through wire»,
replaces the object «that» and carries a complete thought.above two clauses are
independent because they both have a subject and verb, and impart a complete
thought thus an stand alone.difference between a clause and a phrase is that a phrase
does not contain a finite verb.data, mentioned above, are summed up in Table 1, given
below [27].
Table 1. Types of clauses
Type of CLAUSE FINITE CLAUSES NON-FINITE CLAUSES
Noun clauses [What you said] was (Infinitive, Present participle) [To give up at this stage] would be a
great > subject pity > non-finite noun clause, infinitive, subject [Closing the
factory] would mean unemployment for all > non-finite noun
clause, gerund, subject
Adjectival Clauses or We bought the (Infinitive, Present and Past Participles) I have something [to tell
Relative Clauses house [which you you] > non-finite adjectival clause; infinitive The thieves took two
had rented] > object, bags [containing $2,000] > present participle I couldn't read the
part of the object! instructions [given in the manual] > past participle
Adverbial Clauses* I shall see you (Infinitive, Present and Past Participles, Perfect Participle) [To
[when we return] > speed up the process] she bought a computer > non-finite adverbial
time adverbial clause, infinitive of purpose [While travelling by air], she was taken
sick [Given time], she'll do the job extremely well [Having finished
their task], they went out for a drink

1.3 Specific features of subordination

on the relationship that holds between the clauses within multiple sentences we
distinguish between compound and complex sentences. Downing & Locke [26, p.
279] distinguish two kinds of relationship between clauses in a multiple sentence:) the
syntactic (structural) relationship of interdependency in which clauses are related to
each other basically in one of two ways: the relationship is either of equivalence (the
clauses have the same syntactic status) or the relationship is one of non-equivalence
(the clauses have different status). When clauses are linked in a relationship of
equivalence, we say that the relationship is paratactic. This type of linking is often
treated as equivalent of coordination. On the other hand, when units of unequal status
are related, we say that the relationship is hypotactic. In hypotactically related clauses,
one clause is syntactically and semantically subordinated to another or to a series of
clauses.) the logico-semantic relations, which are varied since they represent the way
the speaker/writer sees the connections to be made between one clause and another.
These connections do not simply link clauses within a complex clause, but also
clauses within a paragraph and paragraphs within a text. As Downing & Locke state,
connection is, therefore, a discourse phenomenon. These logico-semantic relations are
of two kinds, that of expansion (the nuclear situation is expanded by means of other
situation) and projection (a situation is ‘projected through a verb of saying or
thinking)., generally considered to be an index of structural complexity in language,
has been studied by a number of grammarians. Thompson [29] claims that
‘subordination’ treats as a single phenomenon all clauses which are not independent
clauses.to Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, Svartvik’s A Comprehensive Grammar of the
English Language (CGEL), subordination is a feature of a complex sentence [21]. It is
a way of joining clauses of unequal status, where the independent clause is
superordinate to the dependent clause(s), and he says that it is a misleading term and
doesn’t accept it as a grammatical category at all but rather as a «negative term which
lumps together all deviations from some ‘main clause’ norm».
(i) He told me [main-super ordinate to (ii)], which depends on the main clause
for its meaning. Semantically, the information contained in the subordinate clause is
often presented as back grounded or presupposed in relation to the information
contained in the superordinate clause (independent). A clause may enter into more
than one relationship, it may be subordinate to one clause and super ordinate to
another (ibid. 14.3).
(ii) that Peter wouldn’t go there [subordinate to (i) - super ordinate to (iii)]
(iii) unless they invite him. [subordinate to (ii)]complex sentence is then a
structure consisting of one independent clause that can stand alone as a sentence, and
of one or more dependent clauses functioning as an element of the sentence. The
subordinate clause, on the other hand, cannot stand alone (see the examples below):
[1] I was really very surprised because Tom arrived early in the morning.
[2] John will lend you his car if you need it.
[3] That he didn’t know about it was not an excuse.
[4] She said that the test was not easy at all.
The embedded clauses in sentences 1 - 4 function as constituents of the super
ordinate clause (a clause of which a constituent is realized by another clause).
However, Downing & Locke [26, p. 278] would think of embedded clauses only in
examples [3] and [4] as they occur at subject and object functions (nominal clauses)
and represent situations which are participants in a super ordinate situation. In
sentence [1] and [2] the subordinate clauses function as adverbs, they are termed
adverbial clauses. The relationship of dependency is different from that of the
previous cases of embedding. Adverbial clauses themselves show a continuum of a
looser-to-tighter integration, a continuum that correlates with their function [29, p.
176]. They have not reached the level of incorporation that the nominal clauses have
done. They are syntactically and semantically additional to, rather than participative
in, the situation expressed in the main clause. Thus, such clauses are not considered as
embedded, but dependent., there are some discrepancies in terming of the above
mentioned relationships. Downing & Locke [26] distinguish only two types of
relationships between the clauses within a sentence, namely, the relationships of
equality (parataxis) and relationships of dependency (hypotaxis), within which they
distinguish between two types of relationships, that of dependency and embedding.
Hopper and Traugott [29, p. 170]), on the other hand, redefine the terminology of two
traditions and expand the parataxis (coordination) versus hypotaxis (subordination)
pair into a three-way distinction establishing three cluster points which they
characterize by a ‘cline of clause combining (parataxis > hypotaxis > subordination).
They define ‘hypotaxis» as a kind of relationship in which there is an independent
clause and one or more clauses that cannot stand by themselves. These are not wholly
included within any constituent of the independent clause. On the other hand,
‘subordination’ according to them is ‘embedding’, or complete dependency, in which
a dependent clause is wholly included within a constituent of the independent clause.,
the clearest cases of subordination are those signalled by subordinating conjunctions.
They serve not only to mark syntactic boundaries, but also to signal the functional
relationship of the combined clauses to each other. However, the nature of
relationship is not always marked explicitly and not all subordinate clauses contain
such markers. Other signals of subordination are wh - words, the word that, lack of
finite verbs, and inversion. Huddleston [30, p. 152-153] names the following
distinguishing markers: relative words, non-finiteness, ellipsis, and order.the
following example
[5] Please, pass me the book that I borrowed from Ann.
the relative clause is introduced by a relative word, which is a marker of
subordination, and it functions as a dependent structure in the noun phrase (the book).
Nevertheless, by some grammarians, it is treated as postmodification within the
complex noun phrase constituting the object the book that I borrowed from Ann.
According to Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik, such structures add to the
complexity of the noun phrase, not to the sentence, thus they are considered to be
«constituents of phrases, and therefore only indirectly embedded within a larger
clause» [31].on their definition that «a simple sentence is an independent clause that
does not have another clause as one of its elements. In other words, a simple sentence
does not contain a clause functioning as a subject, object, complement, or adverbial»,
but a clause may be part of one of its phrases comes clear that they consider clause
structures containing relative clauses to be simple sentences. Hopper and Closs
Traugott [29, p. 190] support this idea, and they state that languages exhibit different
degrees of integration and interlacing of relative clauses, ranging from clauses which
are placed outside the nucleus to clauses which are closely attached to a head noun
inside the nucleus.grammars would consider such sentences complex as they contain
more than one finite clause. The terms simple and complex sentences will be avoided
here and Huddleston’s brief definition [30, p. 152] of a subordinate clause as «one
functioning as dependent within a larger construction that is itself a clause or a
constituent of one» can form a starting point for the analysis as it covers a whole
range of dependencies, differing in form and syntactic function and serving various
discourse needs.for the classification of subordinate clauses, these tend to be
classified in grammars according to functional-semantic principles such as whether a
clause functions as a noun phrase, modifies a noun phrase, or has adverbial functions.
In the present study, they are divided into three major categories: nominal, relative,
and adverbial.clauses are treated within the adverbial group. Structures used for the
purpose of focusing or giving information a more prominent position such as cleft and
pseudo-cleft sentences were omitted from our analysis, because although their
structure is similar to a relative or nominal clause and are introduced by that, zero
pronoun or a wh-pronoun, they are neither relative nor nominal clauses.

1.4 Types of subordinate clauses

problem of classifying subordinate clauses is one of the vexed questions of
syntactic theory. Several systems have been tried out at various times, and practically
each of them has been shown to suffer from some drawback or other. Some of the
classifications so far proposed have been inconsistent, that is to say, they were not
based on any one firm principle of division equally applied to all clauses under
consideration. We will first of all point out what principles of classification are
possible and then see how they work when applied to Modern English. It is quite
conceivable that a sort of combined principle will have to be evolved, that is, one
principle might be taken as the ruling one, and the main types established in
accordance with it, and another principle, or perhaps other principles, taken as
secondary ones and applied for a further subdivision of clauses obtained according to
the first principle. It might also prove expedient to have two different classifications
independent of each other and based on different principles. As we proceed to point
out the various principles which may be taken as a base for classification, we shall see
that even that is a matter of some difficulty, and liable to lead to discussion and
controversy. The first opposition in the sphere of principles would seem to be that
between meaning, or contents, and syntactical function. But this opposition is not in
itself sufficient to determine the possible variants of classification. For instance, under
the head of «meaning» we may bring either such notions as «declarative» (or
«statement») and «interrogative» (or «question»), and, on the other hand, a notion like
«explanatory». Under the head of «function» we may bring either the position of a
clause within a complex sentence, defined on the same principles as the position of a
sentence part within a simple sentence, or (as is sometimes done) on the analogy
between a clause and a part of speech performing the same function within a simple
sentence. Besides, for certain types of clauses there may be ways of characterising
them in accordance with their peculiarities, which find no parallel in other clauses.
For instance, clauses introduced by a relative pronoun or relative adverb may be
termed «relative clauses», which, however, is not a point of classification [25].order
to obtain a clearer idea of how these various principles would work out in practice, let
us take a complex sentence and define its subordinate clauses in accordance with each
of these principles. Let the sentence be this: It was unreal, grotesquely unreal, that
morning skies which dawned so tenderly blue could be profaned with cannon smoke
that hung over the town like low thunder clouds, that warm noontides filled with the
piercing sweetness of massed honeysuckle and climbing roses could be so fearful, as
shells screamed into the streets, bursting like the crack of doom, throwing iron
splinters hundreds of yards, blowing people and animals to bits.us first look at the two
subordinate clauses introduced by the conjunction that: (1) that morning skies… could
be profaned with cannon smoke, (2) that warm noontides., could be so fearful.the
point of view of meaning they may be called declarative clauses, or subordinate
statements, l as they contain statements which are expressed in subordinate clauses.
From the point of view of function they may be termed, if we consider them as
something parallel to parts of a simple sentence, either appositions to the impersonal
it which opens the sentence, or subject clauses, if we take the view that the it is
merely an introductory subject, or a «sham» subject, as it is sometimes called. If, last
not least, we wish to compare the clauses to the part of speech which might perform
the corresponding function in a simple sentence, we may call them noun clauses, or
substantive clauses, which is a very usual way of treating them in English school
grammars. Now let us turn to the clause coming after the noun skies of the first
subordinate clause: which dawned so tenderly blue. From the viewpoint of meaning
this clause can also be said to be declarative, or a subordinate statement. It may also
be termed a relative clause, because it is introduced by a relative pronoun and has a
relative connection with the noun skies (or the phrase morning skies). From the
functional point of view it may be called an attributive clause, and if we compare it to
the part of speech which might perform the corresponding function in a simple
sentence, we may call it an adjective clause, which is also common in English school
grammars.same considerations also apply to the clause that hung over the town like
low thunder clouds; it is evident from the context that the word that which opens the
clause is a relative pronoun (without it the clause would have no subject).we take the
last subordinate clause: as shells screamed into the streets, bursting like the crack of
doom, throwing iron splinters hundreds of yards, blowing people and animals to bits.
This again would be a declarative clause or a subordinate statement, and from the
viewpoint of function it may be termed an adverbial clause, as it corresponds to an
adverbial modifier in a simple sentence. More exactly, it might be termed an adverbial
clause of time. Now, for the last item, if we compare it to the part of speech
performing the corresponding function in a simple sentence, we might term it an
adverb clause, which, however, is too close to the term «adverbial clause» to be of
much use in distinguishing the two notions.sum up these various possibilities, we
have, for the first two clauses, the following terms: declarative clause, or subordinate
statement; apposition clause, or subject clause; noun clause.the second two clauses:
declarative clause, or subordinate statement; attributive clause; adjective clause
[19].the clause coming last: declarative, or subordinate statement; adverbial clause of
time; adverb clause.next question is, what are we to make of all this variety of
possible treatments, and what classification, or what classifications of subordinate
clauses should be accepted as the most rational? It is perhaps best to start with the last
of the enumerated views, viz. that which draws a parallel between subordinate clauses
and parts of speech. There is little to be said in favour of this view. The strongest
argument here is probably the fact that in Modern English a clause may sometimes be
treated like a noun, namely when it is introduced by a preposition, as, for instance, in
the following sentence: But after the initial dismay he had no doubt as to what he
must do.seems practically the only feature which shows some likeness between
clauses of the given kind and nouns as such. As for the rest, the analogy is merely one
of function: clauses and parts of speech resemble each other only in so far as both of
them can perform certain functions in the sentence, viz. that of subject, object, or
attribute. This kind of similarity can hardly be said to be a sufficient ground for
classifying clauses according to parts of speech. The term «noun clause», for
example, can only mean «a clause which performs in a complex sentence one of the
functions which a noun can perform in a simple sentence». In a similar way, the term
«adjective clause» would mean «a clause which performs in a complex sentence one
of the functions that an adjective can perform in a simple sentence». This treatment of
clauses does not appear to have any serious foundation, and the only consideration in
favour of it, that of clauses sometimes being introduced by prepositions (as if they
were nouns), is not strong enough to prove the case. We will therefore not adopt the
classification of subordinate clauses based on comparing them with parts of speech.
Now let us consider the principle according to which declarative and interrogative
clauses (or subordinate statements and subordinate questions) are given as types. This
principle has certainly something to say for itself.difference between the subordinate
clauses in the following two sentences viewed from this angle is clear enough:
However, she felt that something was wrong., when they talked it over, they always
wondered why they had failed to notice Scarlett's charms before. (Idem) It may
accordingly be adopted as a criterion for the classification of subordinate clauses. It
has a weak point, however, and this is that not every clause will fit into either of these
categories. For instance, the subordinate clause in the following sentence cannot
naturally be termed either a declarative or an interrogative clause: If he had been
destitute and she had had money she would have given him all he wanted.clause if…
money expresses condition, it neither asserts anything nor does it ask any question.
There are, of course, a number of clauses of a similar kind. It would appear, therefore,
that the distinction between declarative and interrogative clauses (subordinate
statements and subordinate questions) applies to certain types of clauses only and
cannot be made a general principle of classification. The term «relative clause» may
very well be applied to any clause introduced by a relative pronoun or relative adverb.
O. Jespersen devotes several chapters of his book «A Modern English Grammar» to
relative clauses. In accordance with his general view that elements of language may
be divided into primaries, adjuncts, and subjuncts, he treats the syntactical functions
of subordinate clauses as falling under these heads: «relative clauses as primaries»
and «relative clause adjuncts». From the viewpoint of function the subordinate
clauses of these types are of course quite different, yet they may be all termed
«relative clauses» [25]. This makes it evident that the notion «relative clause» is not a
notion of syntactic function, since it cuts right across syntactical divisions. It is also
evident that the term «relative clause» cannot be an element of any system: the
clauses which are not relative do not make any kind of syntactical type which might
be put on the same level as relative clauses: what unites them all is merely the fact
that they are non-relative. Thus the notion of «relative clauses», which is doubtless
useful in its limited sphere, as a description of a certain type of subordinate clauses
characterised by a peculiarity they all share, is useless as an element of a general
classification of clauses. In that respect it is no better than «declarative» or
«interrogative» clauses. There remains now the classification of subordinate clauses
based on the similarity of their functions with those of parts of the sentence, namely
the classification of clauses into subject, predicative, object, attributive, adverbial,
appositional, and parenthetical clauses. In this way the general parallelism between
parts of a simple sentence and subordinate clauses within a complex sentence will be
kept up; however, there is no sufficient ground for believing that there will be
complete parallelism in all respects and all details: on the contrary, it is most likely
that differences between the two will emerge (especially in the sphere of adverbial
modifiers and adverbial clauses). Subordinate clauses may well be expected to have
some peculiarities distinguishing them from parts of a simple sentence. In studying
the several types of subordinate clauses, we will compare them with the
corresponding parts of a simple sentence, and point out their peculiarities, and the
meanings which are better rendered by a subordinate clause than by a part of a simple
sentence. With this proviso we proceed to examine the various types of clauses.
2. Types of adverbial clauses
TYPES OF ADVERBIAL CLAUSES CONNECTORS
TIME I’ll show it to you [when you come back]; or [When you when, whenever, while, as, since / ever since,
come back], I’ll… We could do it [whenever you like] after, before, until/till, as soon as, then,
during, the sooner, no sooner…than, hardly…
when, immediately, the moment, the minute
PLACE I am always meeting her [where I least expect her] where, wherever
MANNER He solved the problem [as one might have expected] as, as if, as though
COMPARISON He writes [as incoherently as he speaks] Her as (as…as, not so…as, as much…as), more/-
stepmum treated her more kindly [than any real mum would have er….than…, less…than
done]
REASON OR CAUSE He stole the money [because he was out of because, as, since, for (sometimes: if), seeing
work] [Since we haven't seen him], we must assume he isn't coming that Alternative linkers: so, therefore
[Having heard nothing from her], we assumed she wasn't coming
(reversible +,)
PURPOSE She spent most of her time studying [so that she might so that, in order that, for fear that, in case, lest,
later get a better job] [To speed up the job], she bought a computer Non-finite purpose: to-infinitive (specific), for
(it can be reversed) + - ing (general), in order to, so as to, for
+noun/pron+ to-inf
RESULT The boy was so exhausted [that he fell asleep on the bus] so so+ adj/adv + that such + (adjective+) noun
Weapon production is now increasing so much [as to constitute a + that
major problem]
CONDITION [If I were rich], I would go on a world cruise (It can if, unless, whether whether…or not, as/so long
be reversed) We could leave now [provided we called her first] as, provided that, supposing, on condition that
CONCESSION [Although she is over eighty], she's still very active although/though, even though, even if, while,
(reversed;,) Alternative link: in spite of the fact that no matter, however + adj/adv, whatever,
wherever, whenever, as + «be»
 2. Examples of different subordinate clauses in Modern English

2.1 Punctuation peculiarities and subordinating conjunctions

CONJUNCTION is a word that connects or joins together words, phrases,
clauses, or sentences. There are two kinds of conjunctions, a primary class of
COORDINATING conjunctions and a secondary class called SUBORDINATING or
SUBORDINATE conjunctions. There are also words called CONJUNCTIVE
ADVBERBS; these conjunctive adverbs sometimes act a bit like conjunctions, but at
other times act like plain old adverbs.adverbs are sometimes used as simple adverbs.
If they do not connect independent clauses, they are not conjunctive adverbs. Then,
they are merely adverbs modifying a verb, adjective, or another adverb. For instance,
in the sentences below, the words accordingly, still, and instead are adverbs. When
functioning this way, the adverb needs no punctuation to separate it from the
surrounding material. For example, see the following sentences:
I knew the test would be hard, so I planned accordingly to study for several
hours.was still studying at six o'clock in the evening!decided to go to a party instead.
In these examples above, there is no comma needed before the words
accordingly, still, and instead. That's because they are acting like adverbs, modifying
verbs like planned and was studying, and decided.tricky part is that these same
adverbs can also transform into conjunctive adverbs. Conjunctive adverbs can be used
with a comma to introduce a new independent clause, or they can help connect two
independent clauses together after a semicolon. Typically, each conjunctive adverb is
followed by a comma. For example, look at the comma usage below:
Joey had an upset stomach. Accordingly, he took antacid tablets.had an upset
stomach; accordingly, he took antacid tablets.antacids must not have worked.
Otherwise, he would quit complaining.antacids must not have worked; otherwise, he
would quit complaining.antacids didn't work for Jill either. Instead, they made her
feel even more sick.antacids didn't work for Jill either; instead, they made her feel
even more sick.
 Here, the conjuctive adverb helps connect the ideas of the two sentences
together. Note also that after a semicolon, the word beginning the next independent
clauses needs no capitalization.
(A) Two independent clauses can be joined by a comma and a pure
conjunction. However, a comma by itself will not work. (Using a comma without a
conjunction to hook together two sentences creates a comma splice!)
[Independent Clause], pure conjunction [independent clause].: The gods
thundered in the heavens, and the mortals below cowered in fear.dodged the bullet,
but Joey was shot seventeen times in the tibia.appreciated the flowers, yet a Corvette
would be a finer gift.
(B) Two independent clauses joined by a conjunctive adverb are separated by a
semicolon. However, the writer still needs to insert a comma after the conjunctive
adverb.
[Independent clause]; conjunctive adverb, [independent clause].: The gods
thundered in the heavens; furthermore, the mortals below cowered in fear.bank
robber dodged the bullet; however, Joey was shot seventeen times in the
tibia.appreciated the flowers; nevertheless, a Corvette would be a finer a gift.
(C) Two independent clauses not joined by a conjunction are separated by a
semicolon.
[Independent clause]; [independent clause].: The gods thundered in the
heavens; the mortals below cowered in fear.bank robber dodged the bullet; Joey was
shot seventeen times in the tibia.appreciated the flowers; a Corvette would be a finer
gift.
In the examples above, you can see that the semicolon does the same job as
both a comma and a conjunction.
(D) A dependent clause at the beginning of a sentence is introductory, and like
most bits of introductory material, it is usually followed by comma. A dependent
clause following the main (independent) clause is usually not punctuated.Using
Introductory Clauses:
While the gods thundered in the heavens, the mortals below cowered in fear.the
bank robber dodged the bullet, Joey was shot seventeen times in the tibia.Susan
appreciated the flowers, a Corvette would be a finer gift.on the other hand, no
punctuation is necessary for the dependent clause following the main clause:gods
thundered in the heavens as mortals below cowered in fear.bank robber dodged the
bullet while Joey was shot seventeen times in the tibia.appreciated the flowers even
though a Corvette would be a finer gift.
English has a wide range of subordinate conjunctions: that, if, though, although,
because, when, while, after, before, and so forth…. They are placed before a complete
sentence or independent clause to make that clause dependent. This dependent clause
now needs to attach to another clause that is independent. Otherwise, a sentence
fragment results:
«While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there
will be no State.»
«If everyone demanded peace instead of another television set, then there
would be peace.»
«I can believe anything, provided that it is quite incredible.»
«Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting
convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.»
«A platitude is simply a truth repeated until people get tired of hearing it.»
«I had a funny feeling as I saw the house disappear, as though I had written a
poem and it was very good and I had lost it and would never remember it again.»
Most subordinate clauses are signalled by the use of a subordinating
conjunction. There are three main types:
simple subordinators consist of one word:, if, since, that, unless, until, whereas,
while, etc.
complex subordinators consist of more than one word:order that, such that,
granted (that), assuming (that), so (that), as long as, insofar as, in case, etc.
correlative subordinators consist of 'pairs' of words which relate two parts of
the sentence:… so…, scarcely… when…, if… then…, etc.
«I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do
it.»
«If I had to live my life again, I'd make the same mistakes, only sooner.»
«These are white-looking figures, whereas the men who are about to spar have
on dark headguards that close grimly around the face like an executioner's hood».

2.2 Selection of sentences with different types of subordinate clauses

’s, mention once more that a subordinate clause is a clause that supports ideas
stated in the main clause. Subordinate clauses are also dependent on main clauses and
would be otherwise incomprehensible without them.example:
Because I was leaving.
Concessive Clausesclauses are used to concede a given point in an argument.
The principle concessive conjunctions introducing a concessive clause are: Though,
although, even though, while, and even if. They can be placed at the beginning,
internally or at the of the sentence. When placed at the beginning or internally, they
serve to concede a certain part of an argument before proceeding to question the
validity of the point in a given discussion.example:
Even though there are many advantages to working the night shift, people who
do so generally feel that the disadvantages greatly outweigh any financial advantages
that might be gained.
By placing the concessive clause at the end of the sentence, the speaker is
admitting a weakness or problem in that particular argument.example:
I tried hard to complete the task, though it seemed impossible.
Other examples of concessive clauses are given below.
Despite /in spite of the rain, he walked to the station./in spite of being tired, he
walked to the station.
The café was crowded, but we found a table.
Benjamin has a car, but he doesn’t often drive it.
Although the café was crowded, we found a table.
Although Benjamin has a car, he doesn’t often drive it.he was tired, he couldn't
get to sleep', the first clause is a concessive clause.think his name is John, although
I'm not completely sure about that.I am willing to help, I do not have much time
available.'m going to the party even though (even if) it rains.he had laughed at me,
(nevertheless) I did not become angry.we had seen them, nevertheless we did not
want to speak.we are in Italy, nevertheless we shall not go to Rome.
Time Clausesclauses are used to indicate the time that an event in the main
clause takes place. The main time conjunctions are: when, as soon as, before, after, by
the time, by. They are placed either at the beginning or the end of a sentence. When
placed at the beginning of the sentence, the speaker is generally stressing the
importance of the time indicated.example:
As soon as you arrive, give me a call.
Most often time clauses are placed at the end of a sentence and indicate the
time that the action of the main clause takes place.example:
I had difficulties with English grammar when I was a child.
Below we will give some other examples of sentences, which contain time
clauses.
When I went to Regina, I visited my aunt.visited my aunt when I went to
Regina.Francois ate dinner, he went to the movies.went to the movies after he ate
dinner.I went to bed, I finished my homework.finished my homework before I went to
bed.
I was having a shower, the phone rang.phone rang while I was having a
shower.the phone rang, I was having a shower.was having a shower when the phone
rang.the phone rang, I answered it.'ll do it when I come back home.you need my car
you can take it.'t stand up till (until) I tell you.have wanted to be a pilot since I was a
child.will phone you as soon as he arrives.'ll deliver the goods as soon as we can.we
are cutting the grass you'll pick the apples.the time you get there, the shop will be
closed.'s planning to get married next year, by which time she hopes to have a new
job.
Place Clausesclauses define the location of the object of the main clause. Place
conjunctions include where and in which. They are generally placed following a main
clause in order to define the location of the object of the main clause.example:
I will never forget Seattle where I spent so many wonderful summers.was there
before I came here.
stood where I had left her.wiped her face with the back of her hand and looked
where he looked.I was going down the road, I met your sister. won’t leave until you
come. haven’t seen her since she left school.
the agreement had been signed, the delegation left Moscow.
have not had any news from him since he left Moscow.
shall stay here until (till) yon return.’ll buy that novel when it comes out. will
be informed as soon as he comes.
the time you come, I shall be ready.
you are having dinner, I shall be reading the newspaper.
I come back, I’ll call you.he was explaining all this, the phone rang.
I was sitting in the garden, he came up to me.
I was coming here, I met your brother.was late when I went home. was
reading when I entered the room.
Reason Clausesclauses define the reason behind a statement or action given in
the main clause. Reason conjunctions include because, as, due to, and the phrase «that
the reason why». They can be placed either before or after the main clause. If placed
before the main clause, the reason clause usually gives emphasis to that particular
reason.example:
 Because of the tardiness of my response, I was not allowed to enter the
institution.
Generally the reason clause follows the main clauses and explains it.example:
I studied hard because I wanted to pass the test.
Conditional clause is a type of adverbial clause that states a hypothesis or
condition, real or imagined.conditional clause may be introduced by the subordinating
conjunction if or another conjunction, such as unless, provided that, or in case of.
If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.I find her address, I’ll send her
an invitation.I found her address, I would send her an invitation.he talked to her
yesterday, he told her about our plan.would be very grateful if you would send me
your catalogue.you go on smoking so much, you will ruin your health. - If you will go
on smoking so much, you will ruin your health.can make your favorite cherry pie for
you if you buy sugar on your way home. - I can make your favorite cherry pie for you
if it will make you feel better.Mike doesn't help her, Tom will help her. - If Mike won't
help her, Tom will.I found a thousand dollars on the street, I would buy presents and
sweets for all the children in our apartment house.he repaired his car tomorrow, he
would go to the summer house on Friday.you had told me about it at that time, I
would not have believed you.he hadn't been sick last week, he would have gone to the
lake with his friends.would have gone to the park yesterday if it had not been raining
so heavily.he were a good specialist, he would have found the problem with my
computer quickly enough yesterday.he had sold some of his paintings when he had
good offers, he could buy a house for his family now.that he had told her about his
past before their wedding five years ago. Do you think she would have married him?it
rained tomorrow. - In that case, we would stay home.I had found her address, I would
have sent her an invitation.people eat too much they get fat.I had more time I would
travel the world.I had had time I would have gone to the football match.we had no
winter, the spring would not be so pleasant; if we did not sometimes taste of
adversity, prosperity would not be so welcome.park their cars the way I would park if
I had just spilled a beaker of hydrochloric acid on my lap.I had only known, I would
have been a locksmith.
Conditions deal with imagined situations: some are possible, some are unlikely,
some are impossible. The speaker/writer imagines that something can or cannot
happen or have happened, and then compares that situation with possible
consequences or outcomes, or offers further logical conclusions about the
situation.»are six main types of conditional sentence:
For example, the equilibrium between liquid and vapor is upset if the
temperature is increased.
(General rule, or law of nature: it always happens.)
If you start thinking about this game, it will drive you crazy.
(Open future condition: it may or may not happen.)
But if you really wanted to be on Malibu Beach, you'd be there.
(Unlikely future condition: it probably won't happen.)
If I were you, I would go to the conference center itself and ask to see someone
in security.
(Impossible future condition: it could never happen.)
«I would have resigned if they had made the decision themselves,» she said.
(Impossible past condition: it didn't happen.)
If he had been working for three days and three nights then it was in the suit he
was wearing now.
(Unknown past condition: we don't know the facts.)attention should be also
paid to comparative subordinate clauses.
This is a lot more difficult than I expected.earns as much money as I do.think
London is less crowded than it used to be.
Rodney Huddleston also determines content clauses.usually function as Subject
or else Complement of a verb, noun, adjective or preposition:
i. That they accepted the offer is very fortunate. [Subject]. I KNOW she
likes it. [Complement of verb]. The FACT that it's so cheap makes me suspicious.
[Complement of noun]. We stayed in BECAUSE it was raining. [Complement of
preposition]
Like main clauses they select for clause type, except that there are no
subordinate imperatives:
i. Declarative He didn't know that everybody supported the proposal..
Closed interrogative He didn't know whether everybody supported the
proposal.. Open interrogative He didn't know which proposal everybody
supported.. Exclamative He didn't know what a lot of them supported the proposal.
Declaratives are often marked by the subordinator that; and since that occurs in
both the tensed clause and the subjunctive we include both in the declarative
class.interrogatives have whether or if instead of the Subject-auxiliary inversion found
in main clauses (compare the main clause counterpart of the subordinate clause in [ii]:
Did everybody support the proposal?).interrogatives have the interrogative phrase in
initial position and normally no Subject-auxiliary inversion (again compare the main
clause counterpart of that in [iii]: Which proposal did everybody support?).mostly
have the same form as their main clause counterparts, as with [iv].should be
mentioned that Participles can function as Adjectives and Participles can operate as
Adverbials.’s consider these sets of made-up examples:
1a. The noise made by the car suggested an engine problem.
b. Tired from the trip, we went to bed right after dinner.
a. The tall women standing in the corner are from Brazil.
b. Standing in the corner, the tall women watched the other people in the
classroom closely.
1a and 2a show participle clauses that have adjectival function; they come after
the noun and are attached to it and have become part of it. They can be analyzed as
reduced relative clauses:
1a. The noise that was made by the car suggested an engine problem.
 a. The tall women who are standing in the corner are from Brazil.
While the other clauses have the same types of words and the same
organization, they have different functions-and are analyzed as coming from different
sourses. 1b and 2b are actually adverbial in function and meaning.
1b. Because we were tired from the trip, we went to bed right after dinner.
b. While they were standing in the corner, the tall women watched the other
people in the classroom closely.
Here's are authentic sentences from the sociology source. They're from a
chapter opener that tells the story of an anthropologist's encounters with another
culture.
Anthropologist Napolean Chagnon was nearing the end of a three-day journey
to the home territory of the Yanomamo, one of the most technologically primitive
societies remaining on earth.anthropologist's clothes were soaked with perspiration,
and his face and hands were swollenfrom the bites of innumerable gnats swarming
around him.and his guide climbed from the boat and walked toward the village,
stooping as they pushed their way through the dense undergrowth.the world of
Yanomamo, Chagnon experienced a severe case of culture shock, personal
disorientation that accompanies exposure to an unfamiliar way of life.twelve
thousand Yanomamo live in villages scattered along the border of Venezuala and
Brazil.that he would survive at least the afternoon, he was still horrified by his
inablility to make any sense of the people surrounding him.
 Conclusion
use different types of subordinate clauses to give their language complexity and
stylistic variety. A clause, in general, is a group of words that contains a subject and a
verb, while a subordinate clause is a clause that cannot stand on its own as a complete
sentence. Instead, it takes the place of a single noun or acts as a modifier for the
sentence. Subordinate clauses are also called dependent clauses, because they are
dependent on the rest of the sentence.study focuses on the occurrence of grammatical
subordination strategies and patterns of inter-clausal relations as they are used in
interactional language within the mentioned differing text types of written and spoken
English. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of occurrence of
different types of subordinate clauses as well as the form-function dichotomy in the
syntax of four text types. As D. Hudson-Ettle assumes, variation in linguistic
performance is determined by the choices made by the speakers/writers of the
discourse and that these choices may be the result of a variety of influencing
factors.of syntactic strategy may differ in each of the examined text type, which can
be only investigated if grammatical descriptions of a large amount of comparable
language data are available.Clause:
· Contains both a subject and a verb
· Incomplete thought-cannot stand alone as a sentence
· Connected to the independent clause with a subordinating conjunction or
relative pronoun.Conjunctions: after, although, as, as if, as long as, as soon as, as
though, because, before, even though, if, in order that, once, provided that, since, so
that, than, though, unless, until, when, whenever, where, whilePronouns: that, how,
what, who, whom, which, whichever, whoever, whomever, whose, whether, why
) Adverb Subordinate Clause
· Modifies verbs, adjectives, or adverbs.
· Begins with a subordinating conjunction.
· Location-anywhere, usually before or after independent clause.
 · Punctuation Rules: If it opens sentence, use a comma; if inside sentence, a
comma is usually unnecessary.
) Adjective Subordinate Clause
· Modifies nouns or pronouns.
· Begins with a relative pronoun.
· Location-always follows the noun it modifies
· Punctuation Rules: If essential (noun is general), do not use commas; if
inessential (noun is specific), use commas.
) Noun Subordinate Clause
· Functions as a noun.
· Begins with a relative pronoun.
· Punctuation Rules: No comma unless it is an appositive., we have analyzed
main aspects of different types of subordinate clauses and their functioning in Modern
English.
 Bibliography

Burlakova, V.V. Syntactic structures of modern English / V.V. Burlakova. - M.:

Education, 1984. - 112 p.
Veykhman, G.A. New in the grammar of modern English: textbook for universities /
G.A. Weichman. - 2nd ed., additional. and corrected - M.: Astrel, AST, 2002. - 544 p.
Galperin, I.R. Text as an object of linguistic research / I.R. Galperin. - M.: Higher
School, 1981. - 185 p.
Gimaletdinova G.K., Khalitova L.K. English language. Listening: Study guide for the
“English File” complex (Oxford). - Kazan: Kazan State. univ., 2007. - 27 p.
English Grammar: Morphology. Syntax: textbook / N.A. Kobrina, E.A. Korneeva,
M.I. Ossovskaya, K.A. Guzeeva. - St. Petersburg: Lenizdat; Union, 2001. - 496 p.
Gurevich, V.V. Theoretical grammar of the English language. Comparative typology
of English and Russian languages: textbook / V.V. Gurevich. - M.: Flinta: Nauka,
2003. - 168 p.
Elmslev, L. Prolegomena to the theory of language / L. Elmslev // Foreign linguistics:
in 3 hours / total. ed. V.A. Zvegintsev and N.S. Suitcase. - M.: Progress, 1999. - Part
I. - P. 131-256.
Zvegintsev, V.A. Sentence and its attitude to language and speech / V.A. Zvegintsev.
- 2nd ed. - M.: Editorial URSS, 2001. - 312 p.
Zvereva E.A. Types of emphatic construction found in modern scientific and socio-
political literature in English. Sat. "Issues of methods of teaching foreign languages."
Moscow, 2008.
10. Ivanova, I.P. Theoretical grammar of modern English: textbook / I.P. Ivanova,
V.V. Burlakova, G.G. Pocheptsov. - M.: Higher School, 1981. - 285 p.
Ivshin, V.D. Speech syntax of modern English (Semantic division of sentences):
textbook / V.D. Ivshin. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - Rostov n/d: Phoenix, 2002.
- 320 p.
Izrailevich E.E., Kachalova K.N. Practical English grammar. Moscow, 2009.
. Kaufman S.I. Some features of the style of American technical literature. M., 2006.
. Kachalova K.N., Izrailevich E.E. Practical English Grammar, Moscow, 2007.
. Kovalnitskaya O.V. Revealing the meaning of polysemous verbs from grammatical
connections. Sat. "Issues of methods of teaching foreign languages." Moscow, 2008.
. Levitskaya T.R., Fiterman A. M. Theory and practice of translation from English
into Russian. M., 2006.
17. Lichtenstein E.S. Editing a scientific book. M., 2007.
18. Micheleon T.N. Some questions of methodology for teaching translation of text in
the specialty. Sat. "Grammar developments in the English language." Moscow, 2007.
19. Novitskaya T.M., Kuchin N.D. Practical English grammar. Moscow, 2006.
. Popova E.K. Translation techniques from English into Russian (textbook).
Leningrad, 2009.
. Pre-EternalL. A. Practical English course. Rostov-on-Don, 2006.
22. Retsker Ya.I. Stylistic and grammatical meaning of absolute constructions in
modern English. M., 2009.
23. Fedorov A.V. Introduction to translation theory (linguistic problems). 2nd ed.
Moscow, 2008.
24. Yakovlev V.N., Katsyuba A.V. Collection of popular science and technical
articles in English. M., 2009.
. Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (2002): Corpus Linguistics, Cambridge
University Press.
. Downing, A. & Locke, F.A. (1992): A University Course in English Grammar,
Prentice Hall International (UK).
. Gethin. H. (1992): Grammar in Context, Proficiency level English, Thomas Nelson
and sons Ltd.
. Greenbaum, S., Quirk, R., Leech. G., Svartvik, J. (1993): A Student’s Grammar of
the English Language, Longman Group UK Ltd.
. Hopper, P.J. & Closs Traugott E. (1993): Grammaticalization, Cambridge University
Press.
. Huddleston, R. (1995): English Grammar an outline, Cambridge University Press.
. Lock, G. (1997): Functional English Grammar, Cambridge University Press.
32. Rafajlovičová R. (2002): A Survey of the English Syntax, Prešov: FHPV.