2

Consider the following sentence -

She was working.

[Function] Subject: She [Category: Noun Phrase] and
[Function] Predicate: was working [Category: Verb Phrase]

Now consider the verb phrase - was working. It has an auxiliary verb - was - and a lexical verb - work. So here also, as far as my understanding (which is based on The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language page no 1209), we can analyze it like the following -

[[Vaux WAS] [Catenative Clause [WORKING]]

1. Now is my understanding correct?
2. If it is, then it consists of a subordinate clause (I am referring to the Catenative clause). Then how can this sentence be a Canonical Clause?
[The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language on page no 46, markes this sentence as Canonical Clause]

  • A canonical clause has to be positive, active, and main. "He was working" is a main clause, so it's a canonical clause. The non-canonical clause is the gerund-participial clause "working". Correct me if I'm wrong. – user178049 Apr 20 at 16:24
  • Yes: CGEL treats "was working" as aux + catenative complement. It meets CGEL's criteria for a canonical clause by virtue of being a declarative, positive, non-coordinate, main clause not belonging to any of the information-packaging constructions (passive, it-cleft etc) – BillJ Apr 20 at 16:39
  • @BillJ And subordinate, too. – Man_From_India Apr 20 at 16:43
  • 1
    @Araucaria CGEL are saying it's just the underlined subordinate clause in that example that is non-canonical. See ex [1] ii a. for what MFI is asking about. – BillJ Apr 20 at 17:12
  • 1
    @Araucaria please give me some time. I will. – Man_From_India Apr 22 at 10:56
1

She was working.

[Function] Subject: She [Category: Noun Phrase] and
[Function] Predicate: was working [Category: Verb Phrase]

Inside this Verb Phrase, was is the auxiliary verb and it takes a Catenative clause as complement. The Cetenative Clause is realized by the Gerand-Participle form of the lexical verb - work. This clause has no explicit subject but it is implied. This Catenative Clause is subordinate to the matrix clause - she was working.

This answers question no. 1

Whether a clause is Canonical or not depends on a number of syntactic features, namely -

  • Polarity (Whether the clause is positive or negative - if the clause is positive, it is Canonical and if it is negative, it is non-canonical.)
  • Clause Type (Whether the clause is declarative or anything else for example Interrogative or imperative or anything else - if the clause is declarative, it is canonical. Else it is non-canonical)
  • Subordination (Whether the clause is subordinate or main clause - if the clause is main clause, it is canonical. And if it is subordinate clause, it is non-canonical.)
  • Coordination (Whether a clause is marked by a coordinator or not - Canonical clauses are non-coordinate but non-canonical clauses are coordinate. Ex: That is Bill or I'm blind. Here That is Bill and I'm blind is Canonical but the whole sentence is non-canonical.)
  • Information Packaging (Information can be packaged in a variety of ways like PASSIVE, PREPOSING, EXPTRAPOSING etc - Canonical clauses expresses are most elementary ones. If the clause is passive, preposed or extraposed etc, they are non-canonical)

These features can be combined in case of non-canonical clauses.

Ex: Jim says that he is not well.

The canonical clause is Jim says that he is not well, but that he is not well is non-canonical due to two features mentioned above - Polarity and Subordination.

Now in our case

She was working.

It is a canonical clause, but the subjectless Gerund-Participle clause - working - is a non-canonical clause.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.