AULA 6

ESTUDOS AVANÇADOS DE
LÍNGUA INGLESA – ESTUDOS
GRAMATICAIS

Prof. Leonardo Felipe Salmoria

INTRODUCTION

The complex sentences

By the end of this lesson, you will be fully able to understand the complexity
of clauses, and the relation established among different clauses, and their
semantic implications. You will also be able to comprehend structural features of
both text and speech from a cohesive perspective. And, finally, you will observe
the contrast between Pragmatics and the other areas of linguistic studies.

THEME 1 – THE CLAUSE

A phrase can contain only a few words, and enough information to give a
message: ‘More sugar?’, or ‘Help me!’. But even so, we need more information,
more details to elaborate the full meaning of what is uttered. To make it possible,
we combine different words and structures to build up more complex sentences,
and to this sort of phrases we call it clauses (Swan, 2005).
Typically, clauses can contain verbs, which are called ‘verbal phrases’, or
nouns, which are called ‘noun phrases’, and a combination of preposition, verb, or
noun, which are called ‘prepositional phrases’. Each one of these phrases can be
combined to form a clause, and even two distinct clauses can be combined to form
an even more complex sentence. The next sections will cover the syntactic
analysis of three types of clauses, the coordinate, the subordinate, and the
relative.

1.1 Coordinate clauses

As you have already seen, the study of coordinate clauses is linked with the
study of conjunctions, once the very purpose of a coordination is the organisation
of the elements of a clause augmenting its complexity. The so-called coordinators
are generally ‘and’, ‘but’, ‘or’, ‘nevertheless’, ‘for’, ‘either/neither’, and ‘both’ (Quirk
et al., 2005).

[1] “The author believes that the adaptation of his novel won’t be successful,
and (that) the producers will destroy the original story.”

2
 The coordinate structure of [1] contains a that-clause, a very usual order. In
this case, the avoided repetition of the second ‘that’ prevents the interpretation of
the final clause as a main clause.
Adverbials are also very usual in coordinated clauses, occupying a
peripheral position:

[2] “Unfortunately the sun melted down the ice sculpture and ruined the
wooden floor of the gazebo.”

The adverb in [2] refers to the unfortunate event, the sun heat, which befell
both dependent clauses conjoined by ‘and’. Adverbials also help to coordinate
independent clauses.

[3] “Yesterday I missed the train and had to wait two hours.”

The different types of coordination will depend on the constituents of the

clause, being each element either behaving as a subject, like ‘the teachers and the
students have complained about the meal’, or the object, like ‘the scientist breeds
microbes and fungi’, in either noun phrases or verbal phrases.

1.2 Subordinate clauses

Within a complex sentence we have clauses that behave as main clauses,

also known as ‘superordinate clause’, and the syntactic function of the conjoined
clauses is being subordinated to a subordinator. Subordinate clauses may
function as the subject, the object, the complement, or adverbial of a main clause,
not necessarily conjoined by connectors (Quirk et al., 2005).

[4] “You can tell whoever did it to you that there’ll be a payback.”

Even in a mid-position, the subordinate clause in [4] also works as an

indirect object to the main clause.
Subordinate clauses can contain different elements that vary in class but do
not change the function of the clause within a complex sentence, like the
subordinate function of time clauses, adverbial clauses, conditional clauses, etc.,
because it is all about the relationship that is established between the clauses that
will guarantee the full meaning of the message.

3
1.3 Relative clauses

Relative clauses are the ones which have a strict relation with the subject
or object of the sentence, and for that reason, its main purpose is to modify the
noun phrase in a main clause (Frodesen; Eyring, 2000).

[5] “The gun was found at the bottom of the Amityville creek.”
[5a] “The gun that was the murder weapon was found at the bottom of the
Amityville creek.”

The modification of the noun phrase ‘the gun’ in [5a] specifies the role it
plays in the investigation of the Amityville murders in 1974, when Ronald DeFeo,
Jr killed his entire family while they were sleeping, and threw the murder weapon
into the creek not very far from the murder scene.

[6] “Ronald DeFeo, Jr was arrested in 1974.”

[6a] “Ronald DeFeo, Jr, who killed his entire family, was arrested in 1974.”

In [6a], the relative clause gives more information about the subject of the
sentence, the killer, and this kind of clause is separated by commas. We use
possessive forms, like ‘whom’ and ‘whose’, to express relationship between
people, as subject, pronouns like ‘who’ and ‘that’ to refer to people, and ‘which’
and ‘that’ to refer to things.

THEME 2 – FOCUS

As we convey meaning to a phrase, or a clause, the information that is given

goes through a range of emphatic points, which vary according to the focus the
speaker is willing to express. Each unit of a clause can become the focus if the
intended information lies in it.
The emphasis in written communication is given by grammar association
once textual elements are necessary to spot the focused information, as we call it
the cleft sentences.

2.1 Marked focus

As we construct a message, it is somewhat implied that the information must

be clear, or that specific elements of this information deserve special observation.

4
In this context, we have the contrast of what is new information and what is given
information.

[7] “When are you going to get married?”

[7a] “We are going to get married in September.”

The answer [7a] to the question [7] starts with the same information in the
question, and for that reason, this information is given, and the new information is
‘in September’, which in informal speech becomes the sole element of the answer.
Another contrast we are going to consider is between theme and focus. To
the first element of a clause, we give the name ‘theme’, which is generally the
subject of the sentence: a) ‘the teacher’; as we give more information: b) ‘the
teacher’s lecture’, the definite article ‘the’ in a) is thematic in relation to the noun
‘teacher’, but in b) the genitive premodifier ‘the teacher’s’ becomes thematic.

[8] “The teacher’s lecture wasn’t quite amusing.”

As we spot the intonation nucleus, the information intended depends on the

context; if the focus should lie on the first segment ‘the teacher’s lecture’, one can
infer that this piece of information is being delivered to people who was not at the
lecture, and that the lecture they are mentioned is more relevant, even being a
given information.
On the other hand, if the focus lies on the new information ‘wasn’t quite
amusing’, which is naturally more usual, we deliver the intended focus on what is
indeed relevant. Another way to put it, is by asking questions: [Who led the
lecture?] – ‘the teacher’; [How was the lecture?] – ‘it wasn’t quite amusing’. Each
question brings a different focus (Quirk et al., 2005).

2.2 Cleft sentences

As a matter of Prosody, the focus, in the previous section, is marked by

intonation in uttered sentences. In writing, the intonation will depend on the context
in a broader view, and for that reason, to avoid ambiguity, we make use of cleft
sentences (Quirk et al., 2005).
The word ‘cleft’ means to divide, so, cleft sentences divide sentences into
two parts, being one a focus element, generally marked by the pronoun ‘it’, and
the other a clause beginning with ‘that’, ‘who’, ‘when’, or ‘where’.

5
 [9] “He is interested in you, not me.”
[9a] “It is you who he is interested in, not me.”
[9b] “It is me who he is not interested in, not you.”

No focus is given in [9] without any reference of intonation, however in [9a]

the it-cleft puts special emphasis on the second person, while [9b] puts emphasis
on the first person, changing the meaning of the sentence, and giving a more clear
idea of the context in which the sentence was uttered, giving it more emotional
intonation, for the best or for the worst.
Another usual way to give special emphasis without the intonation element,
or the clef sentence, is the Emphatic Do. As an auxiliary, ‘do’ gives special
emphasis to a whole sentence, not divided parts of it. It is also a prosody resource,
and it is very usual:

[10] “Yes, you really do have a good taste in clothing.”

It also adds emphasis to imperative sentences, but it changes the harsh

implications of the imperative, by giving it more polite encouragement:

[11] “Do come in!”

The semantics of the emphatic do changes according to the context,

stressing ideas such as clarification questions, like ‘can you tell me what did
happen?’, or to contradict negative statements, like ‘you’re wrong, I did lock the
door.’. Adverbs also cooperate to give extra emphasis, such as ‘really’, ‘certainly’,
‘indeed’, etc.

THEME 3 – THE SPEECH

As the utmost instance of the communication, the discourse is the very

essence of linguistic analysis, and deserves special attention. Spotting direct or
indirect speeches is worthwhile in linguistic analysis, for it gives a clearer message
of who said what, which makes it way easier to analyse the features of the
reported speech.

3.1 Direct and indirect speech

The main aspect of the direct speech is that it is enclosed in quotation

marks as to detach from the rest of the sentence. It is generally a remark or
6
statement from someone else, and it is inserted in the speech to make a point
about an argument, more usual in academic writing, or to simply report the exact
words from an important speech, or opinion.

[11] “The governor’s exact words were ‘shortage of investments’ as he

spoke about education.”

Widely used in journalism, direct speech conducts the reader to interpret

the speech by accessing the exact words spoken by the subject of the article,
whether they are entertainment or politics. The semantic problem with this feature
is the clipping nature of it, that can be easily removed from the context to fit into
another narrative that serves to different purposes and interests.
The indirect speech is very similar to direct, once it is reporting someone
else’s words, but not the exact elements. In this type of speech, the discourse is
blended into the text and the author is properly referred to. Generally, a nominal
that-clause is used after the reported clause.

[11b] “The governor said that the investments in education will be smaller
than the previous administration.”

Apart from the verb ‘say’, it is also common other verbs such as ‘believe’,
‘feel’, ‘imagine’, ‘know’, ‘mention’, ‘realise’, ‘recognise’, ‘suppose’, etc., and it is
noticeable that such paraphrases can also be summaries, which implies some
changes may occur from the original quotation, but generally without alteration in
its essential truth (Quirk et al., 2005).

3.2 Reported speech

When we need to report other people’s statements, there are some

grammatical rules we must obey. As you have learned from the previous section,
the indirect speech is the way to report other people’s words without citing it in
extenso, in between quotation marks, as it happens in direct speech. To this
paraphrase we name it reported speech.
The most usual verbs in reported speech are ‘say’ and ‘tell’ in past tense,
and they are followed by that-clauses, but ‘that’ is often optional. The catch actually
happens with the main verbs and their tenses. In reported speech, as we backshift

7
a sentence, their inflection must return a point in the imaginary timeline we have
seen in the lesson about tenses.

[12] “I’m a walking ecological nightmare.”

[12a] “Michael Moore said he was a walking ecological nightmare.”

In the stretch [12] from the satirical book “Stupid white men”, the filmmaker
Michael Moore impersonates the opinions of average American white men, so
even when the reported version in [12a] cites his name as the author, it is implicit
that it is actually a general American behaviour when it comes to environment
issues.
The verb ‘be’ in the present simple in [12] shifts into past simple in [12a],
and the same process happens, like a given speech in past simple, the reported
version shifts into the past perfect, and so forth.

THEME 4 – THE TEXT

Whether the discourse is spoken or written, the most relevant aspect when
it comes to linguistic analysis is the structure. The text must follow some structural
rules in order to maintain its communicative purpose, and one of these elements
is the reference, especially to keep a coherent writing. Another feature of
coherence is the discourse markers, to connect the ideas in a clearer way,
avoiding repetition and redundant constructions (Swan, 2005).

4.1 Reference and context

As you have seen in the lesson about clauses, coordination and

subordination are means of structure expansion, for they expand the information
by connecting clauses. The other way around is the means of structure
reduction, which is the very next subject of this section (Quirk et al., 2005).
The means of structure reduction are the Anaphora, the Pro-form, and the
Ellipsis. Each one has a special textual function that lies beyond the pure rhetoric.
Let’s take the anaphoric structure, also known as coreference, of the following
stretch from the book “The five people you meet in heaven”:

[13] “With 50 minutes left on earth, Eddie took his last walk along Ruby Pier.
He passed an elderly couple. ‘Folks’, he mumbled touching his cap.”

8
 As Mitch Albom refers to his main character Eddie, he avoids repeating the
name Eddie by using the anaphoric pronoun ‘he’ twice in the stretch [13]. Of
course, even though extremely usual, this kind of reference marker has a flipside,
once ambiguity might happen, like ‘Carla told Anna that she was awful.’, who is
awful, Anna or Carla? Only the context will tell.
Another mean is the Pro-form, that works as substitutes for previously
mentioned verbs, adjectives, relative clauses, or object clauses. The usual pro-
forms are ‘one(s)’, ‘each’, ‘some’, ‘so’, ‘half’, ‘both’, ‘other(s)’, etc. Generally, the
pro-form can be replaced by the original form without change in meaning:

[14] “Michelle Yeoh got an Oscar this year, and Jessica Chastain got one
last year.”

The pro-form of ‘an Oscar’ in [14] is ‘one’ and can be replaced by the original
without changing the meaning, and even this repetition would not be a redundancy
as it would, according to the context, become an emphasis of the value the prize
has for actors.

[15] “Is it Lily Gladstone who is going to win the Oscar for best actress in a
leading role in 2024? I hope so.”

The pro-form ‘so’ substitutes the italicised object clause of the sentence in
[15], and it is highly dependent on its linguistic context for interpretation, once it is
extremely difficult to make sense out of the context of only ‘I hope so.’
And lastly, the Ellipsis, which is even a more severe reduction once full
elements or parts of elements can be completely removed. In these cases, the
reference is unnecessary due to the context, in which the information can be
predicted in further sentences (Swan, 2005).

[16] “He tried very hard to hold back the tears, but he was unable to {hold
back the tears}.”

Also known as ‘grammatical omission’, the ellipsis happens in a semantic

level, as it is implicit in [16] the inability of the person not to cry. The elliptical words
must be recoverable, which means that we can remove the ellipsis, by repeating
the main information keeping the same meaning.

[17] “She always arrives earlier than I.” {formal}

9
 [17a] “She always arrives earlier than me.” {informal}
[17b] “She always arrives earlier than I arrive.”

Even though the construction in [17a] is more usual, the grammar

prescription of the elliptical form in [17] is more accurate as we remove the ellipsis
in [17b], which makes the form ‘earlier than me arrive’ an inconsistency in the full
form of [17a] (Quirk et al., 2005). There are, though, more complex structures using
the ellipsis, but these basics will provide you with enough knowledge to predict
how it functions.
As we compare speech and text, both structures operate with referential
elements, either to avoid repetition, or ambiguity. Writers compose for unknow
readers, who might be unaware of the same shared context or usual knowledge
as the writer, so writing tends to use more nouns to explain the context than the
speech, in which its very here-and-now nature suggests a closer proximity
between the speaker and their interlocutors, by using more pronouns than nouns
(Swan, 2005).

4.2 Discourse markers

To ensure the fluency of a text it is necessary to make use of discourse

markers, whose main function is text management. Such markers are typically
dependent on register, once they are often fixed, and mostly strictly formal, like ‘on
the other hand’, ‘nevertheless’, ‘of course’, etc., but some are also used in informal
circumstances, like ‘anyway’, ‘by the way’, etc. (Swan, 2005).
As you can verify in the chart below, there are some usual meanings of
discourse markers and their function in the text:

Chart 1 – The function of discourse markers

Function Discourse markers

Addition ‘Moreover’; ‘In addition’; ‘Additionally’; ‘Further’;
‘Further to this’; ‘Also’; ‘Besides’; ‘What is more’.
Contrasting ‘However’; ‘On the other hand’; ‘In contrast’; ‘Yet’.
Concession ‘Although’; ‘Even though’; ‘Despite the fact that’;
‘In spite of the fact that’; ‘Regardless of the fact
that.’

10
 Results ‘Therefore’; ‘Consequently’; ‘In consequence’;
‘As a result’; ‘Accordingly’; ‘Hence’; ‘Thus’; ‘For
this reason’; ‘Because of this’.
Condition ‘If’; ‘In the event of’; ‘As long as...’; ‘So long as...’;
‘Provided that...’; ‘Assuming that...’; ‘Given
that....’
Emphasis ‘On the contrary’; ‘As a matter of fact’; ‘In fact’;
‘Indeed’.

There is, of course, some gradience in meaning when we compare

contrasting markers with emphatic markers, like ‘on the other hand’ and ‘on the
contrary’; the latter implies a more categorical contrast than the first.
Discourse markers are essentially connectors once they link different
clauses, in a coordinated/subordinated manner, to express different relationships
of contrast, addition, result, explanation or emphasis. As a matter of coherence, it
is important to vary the range of discourse markers and usual conjunctions, such
as ‘but’, instead of ‘however’, or ‘so’, instead of ‘therefore’.

THEME 5 – PRAGMATICS

Within the philosophy studies, Pragmatics refer to an individual’s goal

shared among members of a community (Parret, 1993). In linguistic studies it does
not go very far from it. As you have seen so far, grammar studies come to help you
to define the meaning of words and phrases to avoid double meaning and
misinterpretation. The area of linguistic studies that provides assistance when it
comes to explain the usage of the language, and its potential meaning is the
Pragmatics (Widdowson, 2005).

[18] “Is that your dog?”

According to pragmatics, the apparently innocuous sentence in [18] may

vary in meaning, depending on the speaker’s intention at the very moment of the
utterance; ‘is that your dog?’ meaning: ‘I’ve found this lost dog, is it yours by any
chance?’, or maybe ‘that dog of yours nearly attacked me and you’re responsible
for it.’, or even ‘I can’t believe someone like you would walk around with such an
ugly pet.’, and so the possibilities go on.

11
 As a field of linguistic studies, pragmatics is concerned about overlooked
aspects of a communicative event, such as the emotional state of the
speaker/writer, and the shared cultural knowledge of a social group. But, to avoid
forks in the road, here we propose comparing this area with other areas of linguistic
studies: Semantics, Syntax, and Semiotics.

5.1 Pragmatics vs. Semantics

As we have seen so far, the rule system to understand the literal linguistic
meanings of expressions is the Semantics; its main purpose is to define the
meaning of phrases, also delimiting the appropriate context in which they may
occur, to prevent mistakes, errors, and misconceptions.

[19] “I don’t want realism. I want magic!”

In the play “A streetcar named desire”, by Tennessee Williams, the main

character Blache Dubois struggles with her own sanity, but the sentence in [19]
does not suggest that she is willingly diving into madness. According to semantics,
what she means is that she is sickened tired of the ugliness of what is perceived
as a pessimistic realism, as opposed to an optimistic realism, that in fact resembles
‘magic’; all she wants is some kindness in this ruthless world.
We can simplify this process by making two distinct analyses on the same
sentence: ‘Can you pass me the sauce?’, in which the Semantic analysis conveys
the literal meaning: ‘Are you physically able to perform the task of passing me the
sauce?’; on a pragmatic analysis the same sentence conveys the meaning: ‘Will
you pass me the sauce?’
By comparing Semantics and Pragmatics, the main difference is the
delimitation of meaning proposed by the first, whilst the latter deliberately search
for potential meanings within the same sentence.

5.2 Pragmatics vs. Syntax

For Syntax, what really matters is the structure of the language, the ways
we combine words into phrases, into clauses and into connected clauses to
express a specific meaning, following strict rules about inflections and lexicon, as
you have also seen so far.

[20] “People quite often thought Marcus was being funny when he wasn’t.”
12
 The main character of the novel “About a boy”, by Nick Hornby, is introduced
with a very clear image of his ethos; according to syntax, the meaning is conveyed
as we analyse its structure, from the adverbial ‘quite often’ to the ellipsis ‘being
funny’, all these elements combined produce the intended meaning; Marcus, the
boy from the title, is somewhat clumsy and socially inadequate.
For analytical purposes, we can contrast the different observations from a
Syntactic perspective, rather than the Pragmatic perspective; from a Syntactic
analysis, the sentence ‘So, you’re saying there’s no witness?’ conveys the
meaning: ‘I am repeating the question to emphasise your answer.’; but from a
Pragmatic point of view, the same sentence means: ‘Are you lying to face?’, or ‘Are
you sure is this your final word?’
From a Syntactic perspective, the effect of meaning in the adverbial ‘quite
often’, modifies the verb ‘think’, giving a sense of a maybe too more than usual
frequency of a behaviour. On the other hand, from a Pragmatic perspective, the
same adverbial usage manifests what is thought to be the British Humour; a rather
acid, self-depreciative, and humourless sense of humour.

5.3 Pragmatics vs. Semiotics

Semiotics is a field of studies that concern about visual language and signs,
where meaning in conveyed by the usage of not just words but also signals,
images, gestures, symbols, and even sounds. This area focuses on how meaning
can combine a whole set of elements within a specific context.

[21] “he plays with the dog he doesn’t talk much

and I’m thinking of Pozzo pulling
Lucky behind him one moment dancing
the next moment still ”

In [21], the British poet Andrew McMillan builds up, very graphically, a
symbol of a complex relationship, as he makes a reference to a tragicomedy stage
play named “Waiting for Godot”, written by Samuel Becket in 1953, which evolves
symbols of suicide and existential crisis. The rope the character Lucky uses as he
attempts against his own life, becomes a sort of a dog leash that Pozzo can pull
around as they wait for enlightenment, in the symbol of a man, or deity, named
Godot.

13
 In the poem from the section “Knotweed” in the 2019 book “Pandemonium”
in [21], the symbol of the rope is implicit, but extremely graphic for the British
people, and raises these implications of complex relationships. This semiotic
analysis covers the roles the symbols, even not visual, but with intense visual
inferences play in context.
As we compare with Pragmatics, the reference to Beckett’s play is more
attached to the author’s intention to produce such effect of meaning, as if to
express melancholy towards simple relationships, like the mundane friendship of
a boy and his dog.

14
REFERENCES

BRITISH COUNCIL. Learning English: Grammar Reference. 2023. Retrieved

from: <https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/grammar>, on 13 Oct 2023.

COLLINS COBUILD – ENGLISH GRAMMAR. Suffolk: William Collins Sons & Co

Ltd, 1990.

FRODESEN, J.; EYRING, J. Grammar Dimensions: Form, Meaning, and Use.

4. ed. Boston: Thomson Heinle, 2000.

LONGMAN DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH. Essex: Longman

Group UK Limited, 1990.

OXEDEN, C.; LATHAN-KOENIG, C. New English File: Advanced. 3. ed. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2015.

PARRET, H. The Aesthetics of Communication, Pragmatics and Beyond.

New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.

QUIRK, R. et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. 20.

ed. Essex: Longman Group Limited, 2005.

SCHENDL, H. Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

SWAN, M. Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

WIDDOWSON, H. G. Linguistics. 6. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

15