Make your own free website on Tripod.com
PHL202:  Subordination Categories

What is a good way to think about the kinds of thing an SP says about an MP?

There are four different kinds of subordination:

s—for support or argument

Japanese TV has been asked not to show mad-cow material because it is worrying viewers.

MP: Japanese TV has been asked not to show mad-cow material.
[s]    SP: It is worrying viewers.

The SP in this case gives support for the MP, or it supports not showing the material.

e—for cause or explanation

Police are hunting for a monkey because it is loose.

MP: Police are hunting for a monkey.
[e]     SP: It is loose

The SP in this case gives an explanation for the MP, or why the police are hunting for a monkey.

r—for result or ramification

The British are drinking less alcohol and as a result they are drinking more soft-drinks.

MP: The British are drinking less alcohol.
       SP: They are drinking more soft-drinks.

q—for qualification

Four Islamic militants had their sentences shortened but no explanations were given for this.

MP: Four Islamic militants had their sentences shortened.
      SP: No explanations were given for this.
___________
Some more examples.

Jim’s thinks his car is running terribly due to bad gasoline.
MP: Jim’s thinks his car is running terribly.
 [s]   SP: It has bad gasoline.

Jim’s car is running terribly because the fuel injectors need cleaning.
MP: Jim’s car is running terribly.
 [e]      SP: The fuel injectors need cleaning.

Jim’s car is running terribly, so he won’t be able to get home.
MP: Jim’s car is running terribly.
 [r]       SP: He won’t be able to get home.

Jim’s car is running terribly although there is a greater likelihood it will run right again.
MP: Jim’s car is running terribly.
 [q]        SP: There is a great likelihood that his car will run right again.
_______________________

Cal Poly is a good school because US News rated it in the Top 100 for public universities.
MP: Cal Poly is a good school.
 [s]       SP: US News rated it in the Top 100 for public universities.

Cal Poly is a technological school because it has an excessive amount of funding from a variety of sources.
MP: Cal Poly is a technologically sound school.
 [e]        SP: It has an excessive amount of funding from a variety of  sources.

Cal Poly is a good school so I will get a high paying job upon graduation.
MP: Cal Poly is a good school.
 [r]         SP: I will get a high-paying job upon graduation.

Cal Poly is a good school for being a public university.
MP: Cal Poly is a good school.
 [q]          SP: It is a public university.

 ----
Police should hunt for the monkey because loose monkey’s are dangerous.
MP: Police should hunt for the monkey.
 [s]      SP: Loose monkey’s are dangerous.

Police are hunting for a monkey because it is loose.
MP: Police are hunting for a monkey.
 [e]        SP: It is loose.

Police are hunting for a monkey so they can sell it.
MP: Police are hunting for a monkey.
 [r]      SP: The police want to sell the monkey.

Police are hunting for a monkey although such hunts are rare.
MP:Police are hunting for a monkey.
 [q]    SP: Police hunting monkeys are rare.

Refined Subordination Categories

1. [ec], The SP is a cause of its MP.
 (The car stopped running because it is out of gas.)
 (The food spoiled because the refrigerator quit.)
 (The freeway was jammed due to an accident.)
 Backward looking explanation.
 
2. [em], The SP is a motive (reason) for its MP (action/policy).
 (They worked on her car because she needed help.)
 (They cleaned out the refrigerator because the health dept. ordered them to.)
 (We exited the freeway because the traffic reporter suggested it.)
 Backward looking explanation.
 Human action.

3. [ep], The SP is a purpose of its MP (action/policy).
 (They worked on her car in order to get it running.)
 (They cleaned out their refrigerator in order to put new food into it.)
 (We exited the freeway in order to get something to eat.)
 Forward looking explanation.
 Human action.

4. [s], The SP is a support for its MP.
(The car must have stopped running because the side of the freeway is a dangerous place to be.)
(The refrigerator door must have been left open because the food was good before we left.)
(The freeway should be jammed since the weather is good.)

5. [re], The SP is an effect (explanatory result) of its MP.
 (The car stopped running and as a result they were stranded.)
 (The refrigerator was left open which caused the food to spoil.)
 (The freeway was packed, so no more cars could get on.)

6. [rI], The SP is an implication (inferential result) of its MP.
 (The car stopped running, therefore it must have been a mechanical problem.)
 (The refrigerator door was left open, thus we should be more careful.)
 (The freeway is jammed, so we should take side streets.)

7. [q], The SP is a qualification its MP.
 (The car stopped running, but the radio still works.) (8--Mitigation)
 (The house was open including the back door and windows.) (6--Elaboration)
 (We made it home early in spite of the traffic.) (5--Prevailing)

8. [ i ], The SP is independent of its MP.
 (The car stopped running and its registration is due.)
 (The freeway is jammed and the CHP is on strike.)

Effects and Implications

Effects—explanatory or causal results
 Explanatory or Etiological SP’s
 a. SP explains MP [e]
 b. MP explains SP [re]

Implications—inferential results
 Inferential SP’s
 a. SP supports MP [s]
 b. MP supports (implies) SP [rI]

A Systematic Difference
Etiological MP’s are events or actions (things to be explained).  [e]'s
 The dynamite went off because…..
 The car stopped running because…

Inferential MP’s are statements (things to be supported or argued for). [s]'s
 The dynamite must have gone off spontaneously because…
 The refrigerator door must have been left open because…

Sorting out [s] and [ri] SP's from [e] and [re] SP's
Method:
1. Decide whether it is 'because' or 'so.'
2. 'Because' signals [e] or [s]; 'so' signals [re] or [ri].
3. Simple Tests:

a) If it 'because', see if it fits a simple cause, the SP caused the MP. If so, it is an [e].
b) If it is 'because', see if it fits a simple cause, the MP caused the SP. If so, it is an [re].
c) If it doesn't fit a simple cause, see if it is just a straight forward reason as either an [s]  or [ri].

4. For [e] or [s]:
 a) Look for indirectness indicators and mental flag terms.
 b) Look and see if the MP is a statement or an event/action.
 c) If the MP is a statement or there is indirectness, the SP is an [s].
 d) If the MP is an event/action and there is no indirectness, the SP is an [e].
5. For [ri] or [re]:
 a) Look for indirectness indicators and mental flag terms.
 b) Look and see if the SP is a statement or an event/action.
 c) If the SP is a statement or there is indirectness, the SP is an [ri].
 d) If the SP is an event/action and there is no indirectness, the SP is an [re].

One simple way of doing 4 and 5 is to look for the indirectness indicators and mental flag terms of Tbl 3.1

Example A
I may give failing grades in this course because students didn't take the material seriously.
MP: I may give failing grades in this course.
   SP: The students didn't take the material seriously.

The only way we know the MP here is through the SP. We know the MP indirectly through the SP.

Example B
The car is on fire because of an electrical failure.
MP: The car is on fire.
    SP: It had an electrical failure.

 We can know the MP directly here through simple observation.

The 'may' here in Example A signals indirectness and is a statement, which signals reasoning. We know that 'because' signals [s], so the subordination would be support in the first instance. In the second case, Example B, there is no indirectness so we know it would be an [e] claim.
 
Example C
I gave failing grades in my CT course so the students must not have taken the material seriously.
MP: I gave failing grades in my CT course.
   SP: The students must not have taken the material seriously.

The only way we know the SP here is through the MP. We know the SP indirectly through the MP.

Example D
The motor blew up, so the car is not running.
MP: The motor blew up.
   SP. The car is not running.
   We can know the SP directly through simple observation.

The 'must' here in Example C signals indirectness and is a statement, which signals reasoning. We know that 'so' signals [ri], so the subordination would be support in the first instance. In the second case, Example B, there is no indirectness so we know it would be an [re] claim.

A few helpful hints and patterns.

Use the Interrogating Structure to find additional SP's.

…..[flag term]… because….. we know it is usually an [s].
……so …[flag term]…..we know is it usually an [ri].

To get a handle on [e] claims look for human action, as usually that will signal an [em] or an [ep]. Then look at the direction, backwards [em], forwards [ep].

To get a handle on [e] claims look at direction, if the explanation if backwards looking, you know it is either an [ec] or an [em]. The look for human action or a simple/strict cause.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A contestant for Miss France has been disqualified after having her spine stretched in order to appear taller. Organisers say the extra 3.8 centimetres gave Aurelie Brun an unfair advantage and is against the rules.

The teenager had the operation in order to enter the  contest, which required a minimum height of 1.72 metres. On the strength of her extra centimetres she won the title  Miss Loire-Forez in September and entered the rounds for the Miss France contest. One of Brun's competitors guessed her secret and told organisers. According to reports, Aurelie has 'shrunk' back to her normal size since being disqualified, and is no longer tall enough to take part anyway.  Story filed: 15:21 Tuesday 9th October 2001

MP: A Miss France contestant was disqualified.
[em]   SP: She had her spine stretched.
[ep]        SP: She wanted to appear taller.
[q]          SP: Her spine was stretched 3.8 centimeters.
[ri]          SP: It gave her an unfair advantage.
[em]   SP: A fellow contestant told on her.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over 100 snakes are back in the wild after being found in  the boiler room of a hospital. An expert was called in after a nurse spotted a snake in the room at Cinderford's Dilke Hospital.  Eric Pritchard eventually found 143 baby grass snakes at  the Gloucestershire hospital.  They had hatched in the boiler room and made a home for them-selves. Hospital spokes woman Gail Sykes said: "Mummy snake needed somewhere warm and safe to hatch her eggs and that's why she chose our boiler room."  Mr. Pritchard says the mother snake probably slithered in through an air vent.  "This is the second year in a row that I've found snakes there," he told the Gloucestershire Echo. "Conditions in the boiler room are perfect for them, because it's very warm. It was quite a business getting rid of them. " Three weeks later I was still finding more and more snakes, and I reckon we had 143 in total." The snakes have been returned to their natural habitat, a nearby forest.Story filed: 16:22 Tuesday 9th October 2001

MP: Numerous snakes were returned to the wild.
[em]        SP: They were found in a hospital boiler room.
[q]                 SP: About 143 were found.
[q]                 SP: They were grass snakes.
[ec]                SP: The mother hatched them in a warm environment.
[q]         SP: It was a local forest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------