With a finite clause, the conjunction serves to express both the dependency (the hypotactic status) and the enhancing relationship. As well as simple conjunctions such as because, when, if, and conjunction groups like as if, even if, soon after, so that, there are three kinds of complex conjunction, one derived from verbs, one from nouns and the third from adverbs.
With concession, there is a special hypotactic construction that may be used when the β-clause is an attributive relational one: the Attribute is given the status of marked Theme and the Rheme begins with as or though — an item which would be the structural Theme in the unmarked case (as in tempting as it may be; little though it may be).
… the enhancing relation may be internal rather than external; that is, the β-clause may relate to the enactment of the proposition or proposal realised by the α-clause rather than to the figure that it represents. For example, if it is not too personal an inquiry, what limits do you set… means ‘if it is not…, I ask you…’; that is, the condition is on the act of questioning, not on the content of the question.
If it's not a personal question, are you a virgin?
Hypotactically enhancing clauses may be finite or non-finite. The finite ones are introduced by a binder (‘subordinating conjunction’). The non-finite are introduced either (a) by a preposition such as on, with, by functioning conjunctively – note that sometimes the same word is both conjunction and conjunctive preposition, e.g. before, after; or (b) by one of a subset of the binders – there are a few of these, such as when, which can function also with a non-finite clause.
… in a hypotactic chain, each new link in the chain moves further away from the place in the discourse where the dominant clause is located. In contrast, paratactic chains of enhancement move the discourse forward, as happens in narratives and procedures.
The combination of enhancement with hypotaxis gives what are known in traditional formal grammar as ‘adverbial clauses’. As with parataxis, these are clauses of time, place, manner, cause, and condition. Typically, hypotactically enhancing chains are limited to two clauses, with one clause (or sub-complex) qualifying another clause (or sub-complex);
The combination of enhancement with parataxis yields what is also a kind of co-ordination but with a circumstantial feature incorporated into it; the most frequently occurring subtypes are those of time and cause. The circumstantial feature is typically expressed
(a) by the conjunctions then, so, for, but, yet, still;
(b) by a conjunction group with and: and then, and thus, and so, and yet; or
(c) by and in combination with a conjunctive (i.e. a conjunctive expression that is not structural but cohesive) such as at that time, soon afterwards, till then, in that case, in that way.
Note also that some conjunctives, such as meanwhile, otherwise, therefore, however, nevertheless, are extending their use in modern spoken English so as to become paratactic structural conjunctions; in this function they are unaccented (spoken without salience).
the principal categories are set out in Table 7-10 together with the principal markers of enhancement. … Note that the cohesive conjunctives such as afterwards, nevertheless, in that way are simply examples of a large class of expressions that can co-occur with and in this context.
In enhancement one clause (or subcomplex) enhances the meaning of another by qualifying it in one of a number of possible ways: by reference to time, place, manner, cause or condition. As with extension, the parallel between parataxis and hypotaxis is very close, although there are certain gaps in the paradigm;
With the additive, the Process of a relational dependent clause may be implicit; the marker is the conjunctive preposition with (positive) or without (negative):||| I told the whole story of the six-minute Louvre at The Kennedy Centre || with President Carter there, || and I said, || ‘Mr. President, we have the man [[ who brought the six-minute Louvre back to America]] !’ |||
||| Without chlorine in the antarctic stratosphere, || there would be no ozone hole. |||
With the additive and adversative, however, there may be no conjunctive expression; such clauses are therefore identical with non-finite elaborating clauses, except that in speech they are not marked by tone concord. Examples:
(additive)
||| So she wandered on, || talking to herself as she went. ||| (‘and talked’)
(adversative)
||| Hardly knowing || what she did, || she picked up a little bit of stick || and held it out to the puppy. ||| (‘she hardly knew ... , but she picked up ... ’)
The non-finite clause is often introduced by a preposition or preposition group functioning conjunctively, e.g. besides, apart from, instead of, other than, without; for example
(a) addition
additive
||| Apart from being amusing || what else does The Nun’s Priest’s Tale do? |||
||| Besides being gifted with literary talent, || Amir Khusrau was a musician, too. |||
||| Most families are dependent on two salaries coming into the home, || with women now constituting almost half the country’s workforce. |||
adversative
||| Until we do that, || the opportunities may come and go || without our having a compelling rationale [[ for pushing commitment and action]] . |||
||| The arrow changed its course || and fell to the ground || without harming anyone. |||
(b) variation
replacive
||| Instead of finding the perpetrators, || they criminally charged the Earth First! activist, || who was left crippled for life. |||
subtractive
||| We call him a murderer, || but for him there is no way out || other than doing the deed. |||
Non-finite hypotactic extending clauses cover both (a) addition and (b) variation. Two subtypes are absent from the non-finite system: ‘negative additive’ addition and ‘alternative’ variation. The non-finite form of hypotactic extending is an imperfective clause; for example (structure α +β):||| We used to go away at the weekend, || taking all our gear with us. |||
The hypotactic form of the alternative relation is if ... not (i.e. ‘if not a, then b’, with the dependent clause typically coming first). For example,||| If they’re not in their usual place || they could have fallen through onto the – |||
||| If it doesn’t come from [[ what’s outside us]] , from our experience, || it’s got to come from our inner nature. |||
||| If you haven’t lost it, || then it’s in that cupboard. |||
‘either you’ve lost it, or else it’s in that cupboard’. Either clause can be construed as the negative condition; we could just as well say if it’s not in that cupboard then you’ve lost it, the only difference being which one is chosen as Theme.
Finite clauses with whereas, while, except that, if they follow the primary clause, have a strongly paratactic flavour. The line between parataxis and hypotaxis is not very sharp; as a working rule, if the extending clause could precede (thereby becoming thematic in the clause complex), the relationship is hypotactic (since +β ^ α is a possible sequence, but +2 ^ 1 is not). An example where the extending clause could not precede is
||| He pretended to know all about it || – whereas in fact he had no idea of what was happening. |||
/ ^ where/as in /fact /
There is no finite form for replacement. For subtraction the finite clause is introduced by except that, but (for the fact) that; e.g.||| Camera pulls back to show Kane and Susan in much the same positions as before, || except that they are older. |||
||| Language began || when interjections ended || but that man still utters cries and uses interjections || and that their significance is merely affective, i.e., expressing fear, surprise, etc. |||
Hypotactic clauses of addition are introduced by the conjunctions whereas, while. There is no clear line between the (positive) additive and the adversative; these clauses sometimes have an adversative component, sometimes not. (There is no negative additive type of hypotactic extension.) For example:||| Whereas most children’s fathers worked at an office, || my father worked at the studio, || so I went on the set. |||
||| They have no patience with our official style or tempo, || whereas an Indian at home would accept the hurdles as inevitable Karma. |||
||| And yet Frank grows up, || while Huck never grew up. |||
||| He will be an institutional dealer in New York, || while Mr Hayward will be an equity salesman. |||
||| While ‘Joe Gould’s Secret’ and ‘The Sweet Hereafter’ played to small audiences in limited release, || Holm has a couple of potential blockbusters [[ coming up]] . |||
The combination of extension with hypotaxis also embraces (a) addition, (b) variation and (c) alternation, but with the extending clause dependent. The dependent clause may be finite or non-finite. Compared with paratactic extension, the hypotactic type appears to be fairly rare; it is, in fact, the least common of the combinations of types of expansion and types of taxis.
Here one clause is presented as an alternative to another. Examples of clauses linked by the alternative relation:
||| Either you go ahead || and take the plunge || or you wait || till you think || you can afford it, || which you never will. |||
||| Can I go on the computer, || or have something to eat. |||
|| Guided tours of the Cathedral take place the first Sunday of every month, || or a self-guide booklet about the Cathedral can be picked up inside. |||
||| Did you have to educate yourself about traditional culture and mythology || or did you grow up with that? ||
||| The melt is then cooled at a few degrees per hour || until crystals start to form, || or alternatively the flux is evaporated at a constant rate. |||
Here one clause is offered as alternative to another. The correlative pairing is either – or, and the associated cohesive conjunctions include conversely, alternatively, on the other hand.
Here, one clause is presented as being in total or partial replacement of another. Variation falls into two subtypes — ‘replacive’ (‘instead’) and ‘subtractive’ (‘except’).
(a) Examples of clauses linked by the ‘replacive’ relation:
||| The vortex is not a uniform cylinder || but has a shape [[ that varies with altitude || and is strongest and most isolated above the 400-K isentropic surface, around 15 km and above]] . |||||| Witnesses said || the sand dredger seemed to go past the Marchioness || but suddenly smashed into the side || and went right over it. |||
||| They should not be broad statements [[ saying || where we hope to be]] , || but instead plans [[ specifying || what we want to do next || and exactly how we are going to do it]] . |||The clauses related in this way often differ in polarity value, one being ‘positive’ and theother ‘negative’. Note that the but here is not adversative, and so is not replaceable by yet; nor is it concessive — it does not correspond to hypotactic although. Cohesive expressions used with total replacement include instead, on the contrary.
(b) Examples of clauses linked by the ‘subtractive’ relation:||| He should have had them before, || only he hurt his shoulder at football or some such || and there was a long time spent in treatment, || so it was all deferred, || but finally he went. |||
||| Nelly looked rather put out || and replied || that he was quite all right, || only the poor little chap was highly strung. |||Here the secondary clause presents an exception to what has been said in the primary clause.
Examples of clauses linked by an ‘adversative’ relation:||| We liked that breed of dog, || but we felt || we weren’t in a position [[ to own one at the time]] . |||||| The solar elevation angle is comparatively low by October, || when the hole was at its deepest, || but is much higher in November, || when the ultraviolet (UV) effect might be stronger at the surface. |||The linker but contains the semantic feature ‘and’, so we do not say and but. For the same reason we do not say although ... but, because that would be a mixture of hypotaxis and parataxis; whereas although ... yet is quite normal – there is no paratactic ‘and’ in yet.
Examples of clauses linked by an ‘additive: negative’ relation:
||| Untouchability was observed in matters of food even by Muslims; || they would never dine at the same table with Christians || nor touch what was cooked by them. |||Note that since the linker nor embodies negative (clausal) polarity, it attracts the Finite, so the sequence is nor ^ Finite ^ Subject (unless the Subject is ellipsed).
||| He could neither explain the whole situation to the editor || nor could he accept his rebuke. |||
When the clause starts with and that or and this, with the that/this referring back to (some part of) the previous clause, the sense may be one of elaboration, particularly if the continuing clause is a ‘relational’ one:
||| [1] But we’ve got to find those || [=2] and that is the hard part. |||
The nearest hypotactic equivalent would be a non-restrictive relative clause, which is the hard part. Note that many such examples lie on the borderline between elaboration and extension. We have already noted examples of this indeterminacy between elaboration and extension from the other side, with non-defining relative clauses with who where the sense is ‘and + personal pronoun’…
Paratactically related clauses that are introduced by and are often additive extensions; but other possibilities exist. When the sense is ‘and then’, ‘and so’ and the hypotactic version is an enhancing dependent clause, we can interpret the paratactic nexus as one of enhancement instead of one of extension.
Here one process is simply adjoined to another; there is no implication of any causal or temporal relationship between them. Additon falls into three subtypes — (a) ‘additive: positive’ (‘and’), (b) ‘additive: negative’ (‘nor’) and (c) ‘adversative’ (‘but’ — ‘and conversely’). Paratactic additions are often accompanied by cohesive expressions such as too, in addition, also, moreover, on the other hand.
The combination of extension with parataxis yields what is known as co-ordination between clauses. It is typically expressed by and, nor, or, but. We can recognise three major subtypes of paratactic extension, (i) addition, (ii) variation and (iii) alternation.
The markers of paratactic extension are prototypically markers of extension; that is their core use – and, or, but, nor; in contrast, the markers of hypotactic extension are of mixed origin: most of them seem to have been pressed into service from other areas of the grammar – enhancing binders (while, if in if ... not (... then)), linkers followed by that (except that, but [for the fact] that) and conjunctive prepositions and preposition groups (e.g. besides, without, apart from, instead of, other than), and the two additive markers of finite clauses (while, whereas) are used both in the sense of ‘and’ (additive: positive) and in the sense of ‘but’ (adversative).
The principal categories are set out in Table 7-9, together with a summary of the principal markers of extending clause nexuses. As can be seen from the table, the gaps in the paradigm are found particularly with ‘hypotaxis’, and we can relate this fact to the skew in frequency between ‘parataxis’ (around 94%) and ‘hypotaxis’ (around 6%) in text…
In extension, one clause extends the meaning of another by adding something new to it. What is added may be just an addition, or else a replacement, or an alternative. There is a closer parallel with extension between parataxis and hypotaxis than we find with elaboration; we can operate with a single system of categories for both kinds of taxis, although there are certain gaps in the paradigm (e.g. negative additive relations are only paratactic, not hypotactic).
Finally, before we leave elaboration, we should note examples that include asides:
||| For me, by the time I come to the end of a particular form || —The Greenlanders is an epic || and A Thousand Acres is a tragedy – || I am not all that pleased anymore with [[ what I got from it]] || and I’m fed up with [[ what I had to give up]] . |||Such asides may be analysed as clauses or clause complexes that are enclosed within a clause complex but which are not part of the structure of that clause complex, having only a non-structural, cohesive link to the clause complex they are enclosed within. However, if there is felt to be a strong pressure to read or speak the enclosed clause or clause complex with tone concord, this suggests a relationship of elaboration, since tone concord is often the only marker of elaboration. Interpreted in this way, the tactic structure of the example would be xβ1 ^ xβ=21 ^ xβ=2+2 ^ α, where the aside is analysed as an elaboration of the hypotactically enhancing temporal clause by the time I come to the end of a particular form.
As with other cases of hypotactically dependent clauses that are non-finite and lack an explicit conjunctive marker, the logico-semantic relationship may be somewhat indeterminate; in the case of the intensive relational clause consisting of Attribute only, without an explicit Process, there may be a causal feature of enhancement, e.g. A Shi’a Muslim, Mr Sahhaf is an outsider in the Sunni-dominated government that has been in power since 1968 (‘since he is a Shi’a Muslim, Mr Sahhaf is an outsider ...’). Compare thematic circumstances of Role with a temporal connotation: As a child she lived at Herne Bay (‘when she was a child, she lived ...’).
