从属结构一_L_31_Subordination.ppt

* Adverbial clauses of cause Adverbial clauses of cause are generally introduced by because, for, since, as, now that, seeing that, etc. As has been mentioned before, the conjunction for sometimes behaves like a coordinator, but at other times it functions as a subordinator. for vs. because? * For? vs. because? Both for and because can denote “direct reason” and “indirect reason” Direct reason means the reason given as a cause of, or an explanation for, a fact, e.g. We hurried because/ for it was getting dark. Indirect reason refers to the reason given as an explanation for the speaker’s opinion about a fact e.g. It must be very late because/ for the streets are quite deserted. * For? vs. because?: Direct reason A because-clause is mobile, whereas a for-clause can only follow rather than precede the main clause. He didn’t go to the party, because he was not invited Because he was not invited, he didn’t go to the part. * For? vs. because?: Direct reason A because-clause can stand alone as a response to a why-question, while a for-clause cannot. Why didn’t he go to the party? --- Because he was not invited * For? vs. because?: Direct reason Because can be negated by not or be modified by an adverb, for cannot He didn’t go to the party not because he was busy, but because he was not invited * For? vs. because?: Direct reason A because-clause can function as the focal element of a cleft sentence, whereas a for-clause cannot It was because he was not invited that he didn’t go to the party. * For? vs. because? The above-mentioned differences are only true of the cases where because and for are used to denote “direct reason” No such differences exist when they are used to denote “indirect reason”, in which case because behaves just like for in all the four respects mentioned above. * For? vs. because? The conjunction for, which is also a coordinator, can often be used to introduce an independent clause of cause, whereas because, which is always a subordinator,