The relationship between the main clause and the type of subordinate clause
In Hebrew the subordinating conjunction between the main clause and the subordinate clause is usually she
- (that).
Below three types of subordinate clauses: Descriptive clauses, relative clauses and content clauses. In many cases the production of subordinate clauses that begin with logico-semantic connectors are unnecessary in accordance to the rules of Hebrew main clause syntax and that syntactic errors are made under the influence of the writer’s native language-Arabic.
Descriptive clauses
Such clauses by their very nature represent a high degree of complexity, reflecting as they do a logical relationship with the main clause. Such clauses may represent a high degree of complexity if they reflect actual logical relations with the main clause and this, as already noted, depends on the writer’s lexical knowledge when he or she produces logical-semantic relations in the second language.
Below are examples of descriptive clauses whose production fails to materialize this.
Concessive clauses
Concession is a logico-semantic relationship which is usually defined as the converse of the causal relationship. While the latter determines a causal link between the clause’s two parts, its concessive counterpart says that an expected causal connection between the two parts does not exist, that in fact what exists in the opposite of what is expected (Azar 1999:285).
The texts composed by the students in this study were indeed found to contain concessive clauses introduced by subordination, but the clause’s parts did not present a logical-semantic relation of concession. Here is an example:
-
1.
Ramato ha-gevoha shel ha-psychometri
ve-lamrot she
-hu mivhan qashe, aval hu gem mivhan hashuv u-meshaqef, u-viglal ze tsarikh limtso mashehu dome va-halufi bimqomo be-rama doma aval yoter kala (6)Footnote 6
-
The psychometric exam’s high level and
despite
the fact that it is a difficult test, but it is also important and revealing, for which reason a similar alternative must be found, at a similar level but easier.
The concessive particle lamrot she
- (“despite the fact that”) with which the concessive clause opens encompasses the statement that the test is difficult, but does not have a logico-semantic relation of concession to the main clause’s second part, that the test is important.
Now a concessive clause does have the potential to promote the writer’s persuasive aims (Livnat 2011:90) in an argumentation text, and in this case it even illuminates the problem which the student wishes to present. However, the logical relation here is not one of concession; rather, the causes that need to be addressed are mentioned.
This gives rise to the impression that the student here expresses a kind of brainstorming that he carries out within himself, and writes down partially developed ideas in an unfinished form, thus detracting from the completeness of his idea. This may be the beginning of understanding the differences between everyday speech (verb-based, syntactically complex, lexically sparse) and academic writing (noun-based, syntactically relatively simple, but lexically complex and dense/compact) and why an ability to speak a language does not necessarily entail an academic register.
Causal clause
Causal clauses connect the two parts of the clause with a causal connection. Here is an example in which a causal connector is used instead of one denoting result:
-
1.
Yesh anashim she-ovrim oto bli qashot, ve-aherim lo ya’aviru oto
biglal she-
hu lo me’afsher otam livhor et ha-miqtsoa she-hem hashvu oto mat’im lahem (12)
The causal clause which opens with biglal she- (“because”) aims at explaining the idea, expressed in the main clause, that others will not pass it. However, the content of this clause implies that something is missing from the main clause, a phrase such as with a sufficiently high grade or the like, which would open the way towards a logico-semantic connection expressing result in a coordinate structure: therefore
it does not enable them to choose the profession which they think is fitting for them.
Purpose clause
-
1.
Ani madgisha she-ha-mivhan ha-psikhometri hu tsarikh lihyot batul
kedey she-
ha-avira normalit u-zeman tov lahshov lifney lesamen teshuva (20)
Purpose phrases describe the aim of an action or an event. In the main clause in question the student insists that the psychometric test should be abolished. However, despite the fact that she speaks of abolition, she mentions actions and situations that should exist before and during the event. In other words, there is no thematic connection between the main clause and the clause that begins with the subordinating particle
kedey she (“in order for”).
The production of concessive, causal and purpose clauses requires a careful development and presentation of arguments, explanations and illuminations, in addition to the claims themselves (Peled 2001:55, 81). These require advanced thought structures and competence in the second language’s lexicon and syntax.
We found that the logico-semantic connectors in the Hebrew of the students’ compositions were restricted and very basic.
These connections were the following:
-
marking a relationship of concession: lamrot she
- (“although”) ; afilu im (“even if”);
-
marking a relationship of causality: ki
,
biglal she
- (non-standard), aharey she
-, mi-kevan she
- (all meaning: “because, since”);
-
marking purpose: kedey she
-, kedey + infinitive, al menat (all meaning: “in order to”);
Relative and other complement clauses
In Hebrew a relative clause qualifies a nominal head, which may consist of a noun phrase, a noun or a pronoun. It can be connected to the head in two ways: A. By means of a relative pronoun (she-, asher, ha- or ø [asyndetic connection]) ; B. An oblique pronoun that agrees with the head in gender and number.
According (Halliday 2014: 494) “The typical defining relative clause, introduced by who, which, that, or in its so-called ‘contact clause’ form without any relative marker (e.g. he told in the tales he told), is elaborating in sense”.
In Arabic relative clauses are different, being divided into two types depending on whether the head is definite or indefinite: A definite head is followed by a relative pronoun while an indefinite head is followed by an asyndetic relative clause.
In Hebrew relative clauses are syntactically connected to the noun phrase they modify. Their function is to transmit information about the head or to identify one previously mentioned in the discourse (Meshler 2011:177). Therefore they create connectedness and great denseness between the main clause parts and so contribute to the great complexity of the text as a whole. For example:
Ve-ani omeret et za mi-keyvan she-ani makira harbe anashim
she-
hem baharu tehumim u-maslulim
she-
hem bikhlal lo ohavim otam ve-lo mit’anyenim bahem. Ve-ze raq biglal she-eyn lahim et ha-tsiyunim
ha-
mevuqashim ba-mivhan ha-psikhometri shel ha-mikhlala o ha-universita o ha-tsiyun
ha-
mevuqash shel ha-tehum shal ha-maslul
sh-
hem hayu rotsim livhor bo (14)
And I say this because I know many people
who chose domains and courses that
they do not like at all and that do not interest them, only because they do not have the scores that are needed in the psychometric exam for the college or the university, or the score that is required for the course that they would like to choose.
However, in many cases what the student wants to say is not consistent with use of the subordinating particle she
-, since the following clause does not expand on the noun phrase.
Here are a number of examples:
-
A.
She-
(=that) used instead of another complementizer to begin a clause
-
1.
Le-fi da’ati ha-mivhan ha-ze tsarikh levatel oto la’asot mashehu
she-
kol ehad yihye lo hizdamnuyot lilmod be-maqom yoter tov (1)
-
1.
Mivhan ha-psykhometri hashuv me’od le-khol ha-talmidim ha-mathilim et ha-limud ha-aqademi,
she-
hu mehaleq otam le-fi ha-rama shelahem (12)
-
2.
Le-da’ati ze basis halash
she-
aqadema’i mithayev ve-livnot he-’atid shelo me’alav ve-lilmod mashehu she-lo ohev (3)
-
3.
Biglal she-hamivhan lo ba-qalut
she-
anu hoshvim, ve-totsa’a mikakh anahnu hayavim liqro rov ha-zeman (8)
-
B.
She-
(=that) after a parenthetical phrase
-
The subordinating particle she
- often appears in student compositions after an expressed opinion. This is due to the fact that in the students’ native language, Arabic, the construction parenthetical + subordinating conjunction + noun phrase + verb is quite common.
-
1.
Le-tsa’ari ha-rav
she-
harbe talmidim lo matslihim ba-mivhan ha-ze (4)
-
2.
U-ve-khakh yots’im anashim u-mevaqshim levatel behina zo ki lefi da’atam
she-
hi lo meshaqefet et ha-nivhan (11)
-
C.
She-
(=that) after a modal verb
-
In both written and colloquial Arabic modal verbs such as want, can, are followed by the particle inna
+ an imperfect verb, in contrast to Hebrew. Shatil 2008: 78 notes that Arabic has no infinitive and uses the imperfect instead.
-
1.
Im ata rotse
she-
ta’avor bo ve-rotse
she-
teqabel ha-tsiyun she-biglalo tilmad, ata hayav lihyot haruts kol ha-zeman (18)
-
D.
She-
(=that) introducing and explanation
-
1.
Le-khol davar yesh hesronot ve-gam yitronont, zot omeret
she-
yesh et ha-tsad ha-tove u-ve-maqbil le-ze yesh et ha-tsad ha-sheni she-hu lo tamid ba le-tovatenu (4)
-
2.
Ha-mivhan ha-ze efshar lihyot tov ve-ra’ be-oto zeman,
she-
yesh anashim she-ovrim oto bli qashut, ve-aherim lo ya’aviro oto (12)
To summarize, in many cases the subordinating conjunction she- does not involve the high level of complexity implied by the frequency of its occurrence. It is the influence of the writers’ native language that accounts of this high frequency, resulting in substandard syntax and erroneous use of the lexicon.
Content clauses
The simplest kinds of subordinate clauses are content clauses that function as object. Such content clauses have a low complexity level due to their syntactic function, which merely conveys subcategorized complements needed for understanding the idea that the main clause communicates. Structurally this involves a simple, linear complement linked by a syntactic connection. Content clauses thus do not necessarily reflect a text’s special syntactic qualities. Their production was not marked by any particular difficulties.
Object clauses serve as complements of modal verbs and adjectives that belong to closed groups: Verbs of saying and verbs of mental acts (Rubinstein 1971:77-79).
Verbs of saying were expected to occur frequently in our sample, due to the character of the genre being studied, namely argumentation texts in which the writer tries to convince the addressee to accept his or her position by undermining or bolstering certain positions in a rational manner, or at least expresses an explicit personal argument at this stage of writing. However, the variety of verbs and the number of occurrences was quite restricted, and the writing was found to be rather impersonal. The students who composed the texts did not place themselves in the position of the syntactic subject as expected, but chose rather to put nouns (opinion), demonstrative pronouns (these), an impersonal noun (someone) or constructed main clauses with no overt subject at all and a predicate in the third person. Here are some examples:
-
1.
Yesh
de’ot
she-
omrot she-
matrato shel ha-mivhan hi hagbalat kamut ha-studentim be-qavana (6)
-
2.
Ba-zeman ha-aharon ta’anot rabot nishma’ot neged ve-gam be’ad ha-behina ha-psikhometrit.
Ele
she-hem be’ad ha-behina
to’anim she-
hi meshaqefet et yekholet ha-mu’amad lehishtalev u-lehatsliah ba-limudim ha-aqademiyim. Ve-rabim
to’anim she-
ha-behina ha-psikhometrit eynena kli miyun tov (7)
-
3.
Me-hagdarat ha-mivhan ha-psikhometri heleq
yitlonenu she-
ze oseq be-psikhologia yoter ve-en lo hashpa’a al ma she-ani baharti lilmod (11)
-
4.
Yesh
mishehu
she-
to’en she-
ha-mivhan ha-psikhometri hu mivhan hashuv me’od le-khol ha-anashim, va-aherim hoshvim she-hu lo meshaqef et ha-rama shel ha-anashim ha-ele (20)
-
5.
Ani
madgisha she-
ha-mivhan ha-psikhometri hu tsarikh lihyot batul kedey she-ha-avira normalit u-zeman tov lahashov lifney lesamen teshuva (20)
The explanation for why students tended to avoid using the first person in verbs of saying is in our view to be sought in the different culture in which they were brought up, and also in the way in which argumentation texts are taught in high school. The students express their ideas hesitantly and using the first person would tend to transmit authoritativeness and assertiveness with respect to the content (Hyland 2001:217). It may well be that students at this stage think that they do not possess enough information on the subject, and may even be afraid of expressing their views openly because the teacher of their course will read what they write. This is not the case when they use verbs of mental acts, as we shall see now.
We assumed that students would also make frequent use of verbs of mental acts, because of the genre’s nature. However, it is well-known that mental verbs are problematic in the language acquisition process, because of their abstract meanings (Ravid & Egoz-Liebstein 2012:225), which may bring about a reduction in the frequency of their use. The variety of mental verbs found in the texts in question is rather limited, and the number of occurrences is low. The verbs are the following: hashav (“think”), ra’a (“see”), yada’ (“know”), qiva (“hope”) and shiqef (“reflect”). The syntactic subject of these verbs, that is, the person who experiences the mental act, is the student himself. This is not surprising. After all, these verbs express thought and hopes, so that students do not hesitate to use them in the first person singular, in contrast to verbs of saying, which imply an authoritative and unambiguous statement. Here are the examples:
-
1.
Ani
ro’e she-
kol ha-mivhan ha-ze eno meshaqef ramat ha-yeda’ etsel ha-talmid (2).
-
2.
Be-sofo shel davar ani
meqava she-
yimtse’u pitron she-yaqel al ha-talmidim(4)
-
3.
Ani
hoshevet she-
ani be’ad qiyumo shel ha-mivhan ha-psikhometri (17)
Complexity of the subordinate clause
Subordinate clauses may themselves consist of more than one clause which are subordinate or conjoined. In language development relations of conjunction, which are linear, precede the production of relations of subordination. As a result, the level of syntactic complexity may be reflected in the subordinate clause’s content as well as the relationships among its components.
Subordinate clauses are indicative of complex and complicated mental structures. The advantage of subordination is that it expresses thoughts with greater precision (Fruchtman 1971:29). However, when subordinate clauses are long, clumsy and very wordy, they do not of necessity express exactly what the writer wants to say, and may in fact also contain grammatical errors. Too much verbiage is not always a sign of linguistic ability; it may indicate a pragmatic failure due to the writer’s distrust of his or her own communicative skills (Schleifer 2014:190) or to the influence of one’s native language when writing in a target language.
In our case specifically, Arab students when writing in Hebrew are affected by their native language, whose discourse is built of combinations of parallel lines with very flexible mutual connections (Margolin 2002; Margolin & Ezer 2014). They repeat connectives in order to validate their arguments, and so create disconnected parallel lines. Between these parallel lines there are missing links, which must be filled in by the addressee if he is to understand the discourse and recognize the conclusions that are to be derived from it.
Below are a number of examples for the complexity of subordinate clauses, arranged according to various structures that were found in the students’ compositions:
-
A.
Sequence of subordinate clauses: Subordination instead of coordination
-
Long and complex main clauses in which subordinate main clauses are subordinated to other main clauses make it difficult to perceive the main point and are therefore not effective as persuaders (Fruchtman 1971). They are even less effective if the wrong lexical choices are made, leading to an erroneous syntactic structure, since it is not a matter of expanding a noun phrase.
-
B.
Parallel subordinate clauses
-
In the following main clauses there are sequences of subordinate clauses, each of which is linked to the same main clause through a repetition of the complementizer. Repetition is a characteristic feature of persuasive-emotional speech, typically used by orators who make use of emotional rhetorical devices.
-
In the examples below we find relative clauses that expand a noun phrase functioning as the subject of the main clause (harbe talmidim “many students” and talmida “student f.”, respectively), following which the student skips the predicate and continues on to a new main clause.
-
1.
Harbe
talmidim she-
nisu la’asot oto kama pe’amim
she-
bizbezu shanim bishvil lehagia’ la-miqtsoa’
she-
ratsu lilmod ba-mikhlala u-va-sof nishberu ve-lo himshikhu ve-halkhu le-miqtso’ot
she-
lo ratsu otam az le-da’ati ze basis halash she-aqadema’I mithayev ve-livnot he-atid shelo me’alav ve-lilmod mashehu she-lo ohev (3)
-
Many
students who tried to do it a number of times who wasted years in order to be accepted into the subject that they wanted study at college and in the end they gave up and did not continue and went into subjects that they did not want, so in my opinion this is a weak basis on which a college graduate commits himself to build his future and to study something that he does not like.
-
2.
Talmida she-
qibla be-hamesh yehidot be-safa anglit tsiyun 90 ba-tikhon
ve-
hi asta et ha-mivhan ha-psikhometri
ve-
qibla tsiyun namukh
lakhen
hamivhan ha-ze lo mar’e lanu et ha-rama shel ha-talmida (1)
-
C.
Other subordinate clauses
The demonstrative pronoun (zo = this is) is in subject position while the content noun (ha-be’aya = “problem”) is moved out into the position of predicate in the main clause, with the result that another demonstrative pronoun (ze
=
that) is produced, followed by a subordinate clause. The structure is as follows:
In Arabic the demonstrative pronoun (zo) is placed before the head. This word order exists in Hebrew as well, in certain styles, such as ze ha-ish (“this man”) in Rabbinic Hebrew (Shatil 2008:79), but is not considered standard usage in contemporary academic writing. If the semantically empty demonstrative pronoun in subject position is elided and replaced by a content noun (“the main problem”), followed by a copula and a predicate clause, the main clause’s meaning would be much clearer: Ha-be’aya
ba-psikhometri hi she-le-khol she’ela yesh zeman katsar (“the problem with the psychometric is that every question is given a short time”).