Hubbry Logo
HypotaxisHypotaxisMain
Open search
Hypotaxis
Community hub
Hypotaxis
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Hypotaxis
Hypotaxis
Hypotaxis
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Hypotaxis is the grammatical arrangement of functionally similar but "unequal" constructs (from Greek hypo- "beneath", and taxis "arrangement"); certain constructs have more importance than others inside a sentence.

A common example of syntactic expression of hypotaxis is the subordination of one syntactic unit to another in a complex sentence.[1]

Another example is premodification: in the phrase "inexpensive composite materials", "composite" modifies "materials" while "inexpensive" modifies the complex head "composite materials", rather than "composite" or "materials". In this example the phrase units are hierarchically structured, rather than being at the same level, as compared with the example "Cockroaches love warm, damp, dark places."

John Keats's "Ode to a Nightingale" has an example of hypotaxis in the second stanza: "O, for a draught of vintage! That hath been/ Cool'd a long age in the deep-delved earth, / Tasting of Flora and the country green" (1. 11–13). The "draught of vintage" is modified by the clauses in the successive lines.[2]

In William Blake's poem "The Clod and the Pebble", the phrase "So sang a little Clod of Clay,/ Trodden with the cattle's feet" (l. 5–6) is an example of hypotaxis; line 6 modifies the "Clod of Clay" in line 5.[2]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Hypotaxis

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Hypotaxis is a fundamental syntactic and in and composition, characterized by the subordination of one , phrase, or element to another through explicit function words such as subordinating conjunctions (e.g., because, although), relative pronouns (e.g., which, who), or other markers that denote hierarchical dependencies and logical relationships. This arrangement creates complex, layered structures that convey nuance, causation, conditionality, or , distinguishing it from simpler, more egalitarian constructions. Originating from the Greek terms hypo- ("under" or "beneath") and ("arrangement" or "ordering"), the concept entered modern grammatical discourse in the to describe dependent constructions in . In contrast to parataxis, which links independent clauses or phrases through , intonation, or implied semantics without overt connectors—resulting in a more linear, stream-like flow—hypotaxis emphasizes formal cohesion and explicit relational ties, often producing periodic or intricate sentence styles. For instance, a hypotactic sentence might read: "She succeeded because she prepared diligently," where the subordinate explains the main clause's outcome via the conjunction because. This technique has historical roots in classical , traced to Aristotle's frameworks on subject-predicate logic (384–322 BCE) and later elaborated by scholars like in the , influencing analyses of sentence complexity across languages. Hypotaxis plays a crucial role in , , and stylistic analysis, particularly in distinguishing language families: it predominates in Indo-European tongues like English and German for building elaborate arguments, while is more prevalent in languages such as Chinese or classical Hebrew for concise expression. In literary and rhetorical contexts, excessive hypotaxis can yield dense, formal prose—evident in or Ciceronian oratory—whereas balanced use enhances readability and persuasive depth; scholars note its through , as in English-to-German translations where hypotactic structures adapt to varying subordination preferences. Overall, hypotaxis underscores how languages encode hierarchy and interclause logic, remaining a vital tool for sophisticated communication.

Core Concepts

Definition and Etymology

Hypotaxis refers to a syntactic structure in which clauses are arranged hierarchically through subordination, typically using explicit connectors such as subordinating conjunctions, relative pronouns, or other function words to establish dependency relationships between a main clause and one or more subordinate clauses. This arrangement creates complex sentences where subordinate clauses provide additional information, such as modification, explanation, or conditionality, but cannot stand alone as complete thoughts. The core components of hypotaxis include the main (independent) clause, which carries the primary assertion, and subordinate clauses that depend on it for grammatical completeness and semantic integration. Subordinate clauses may function as relative clauses (introduced by words like "who" or "which," adding descriptive detail to a ), adverbial clauses (using connectors like "because" or "although" to indicate reason, time, or concession), or nominal clauses (acting as subjects or objects, often with "that" or words). These dependencies form a layered , contrasting with , which relies on coordination or juxtaposition of independent clauses. The term "hypotaxis" derives from the Greek elements "hypo-" meaning "under" or "beneath" and "taxis" meaning "arrangement" or "order," literally denoting "subordinate arrangement." Although the concept of subordinating clauses for rhetorical clarity and periodicity appears in Aristotle's analysis of prose style in Rhetoric Book III, where he contrasts structured periods (complex, bounded sentences) with loose, running constructions, the specific term hypotaxis was coined in 19th-century linguistics. It first appeared in English in 1883, introduced by classicist Basil L. Gildersleeve in the American Journal of Philology to describe syntactic subordination in ancient Greek texts.

Grammatical Features

Hypotaxis is characterized by the use of subordinating conjunctions such as "because," "although," and "if" to link a to a main , establishing a clear hierarchical relationship between them. Relative pronouns like "who," "which," and "that" further facilitate this by introducing relative that modify nouns within the main , allowing for embedded structures that add descriptive or explanatory detail without disrupting the primary assertion. These elements enable clause embedding, where subordinate function as arguments or to the superordinate , creating syntactic through nested dependencies rather than mere . The hierarchical structure in hypotactic constructions involves multiple levels of clause dependency, with subordinate often exhibiting reduced syntactic properties compared to the main . Finite subordinate retain full verbal , including tense and mood, as seen in complements introduced by conjunctions like "that" in English. In contrast, non-finite subordinates, such as infinitival or participial phrases, undergo desententialization, losing features like independent subjects or finite verb agreement, which tightens integration with the main and enhances cohesion. This distinction allows for varying degrees of embedding depth, from simple subordinates to deeply nested relative . Syntactic rules in hypotaxis influence sentence by imposing order constraints that reflect dependencies, often varying across languages. In right-branching structures, typical of English, subordinate s follow the main (e.g., main + "because" + subordinate), facilitating sequential processing but potentially increasing for long embeddings. Left-branching languages, such as Japanese, place subordinates before the main , which can create center-embedding challenges during but aligns with head-final typology. These rules ensure that dependency relations are explicitly marked, aiding unambiguous interpretation. In , hypotaxis is prominently associated with analytic languages, which rely on explicit subordination markers like conjunctions and pronouns to convey , compensating for limited inflectional morphology. Languages such as English exemplify this by using free-standing function words to signal clause subordination, contrasting with more synthetic languages that may integrate dependencies through affixation or verb position. While some analytic languages like Chinese blend hypotaxis with , detailed comparisons are covered in subsequent sections.

Historical Context

Origins in Classical Rhetoric

The concept of hypotaxis emerged in ancient Greek rhetoric during the 4th century BCE, where it manifested through the use of subordinate clauses to create structured, hierarchical sentence forms known as periodic sentences. , in his Rhetorica (Book III, chapters 9 and 12), distinguishes between the continuous or running style—characterized by loose, paratactic connections—and the periodic style, which employs subordination to divide discourse into balanced, emphatic units that enhance clarity and persuasive impact. He argues that periodic structures, relying on subordinate elements like relative clauses and participles, allow orators to build suspense and rhythm, making arguments more memorable and logically compelling for audiences. This rhetorical emphasis on hypotaxis tied into the Greek cultural valuation of kosmos—the principle of ordered harmony in the universe—prevalent in 4th-century BCE thought, where discourse was expected to emulate cosmic structure for aesthetic and intellectual efficacy. Philosophers and orators, influenced by pre-Socratic notions of an ordered world, adapted hypotactic forms to impose rational on spoken and , viewing chaotic or paratactic styles as inferior to those reflecting universal order. Roman rhetoricians adapted these Greek foundations, with employing hypotaxis in oratory to construct intricate, nested clauses that fortified logical arguments and emotional appeals. In speeches like the Pro Archia, favors elaborate subordination to weave evidentiary details into overarching claims, creating periods that suspend resolution until the full structure unfolds for maximum persuasive force. , in his (Book IX, chapter 4), builds on this by advocating periodic hypotaxis as essential for judicial and deliberative oratory, where subordinate elements allow speakers to layer proofs and counterarguments in a manner that mirrors judicial reasoning's complexity.

Evolution in Linguistic Theory

The formalization of hypotaxis in modern linguistic theory began in the within German , where grammarians distinguished subordination from coordination as a key syntactic opposition. Paul Thiersch's 1826 work introduced versus syntaxis in Greek grammar, while Karl Ferdinand Becker, in his 1827 Deutsche Sprachlehre, elaborated on principles of subordination involving dependent s linked hierarchically to a main , contributing to the later development of the term hypotaxis to explain complex sentence formation in . In the 20th century, structuralist linguistics, beginning with Ferdinand de Saussure's (1916), shifted focus to synchronic analysis of language as a system of signs, providing a foundation for later syntactic studies including hypotaxis. The Prague School expanded this in functional terms, emphasizing hypotaxis in functional sentence perspective (FSP), where subordinate clauses structure information flow from theme to rheme, as articulated by Vilém Mathesius in his 1939 studies on English syntax. Noam Chomsky's , introduced in (1957), reconceptualized hypotaxis as recursive embedding in phrase structure rules, enabling infinite hierarchical nesting to model competence in natural languages. Post-1980s developments in cognitive linguistics shifted focus to hypotaxis's role in discourse processing and conceptual integration. Talmy Givón's functional-typological approach, outlined in On Understanding Grammar (1979, expanded 1989), posits hypotaxis as evolving from pragmatic discourse strategies to syntactic subordination, aiding information packaging by hierarchically linking propositions to reflect cognitive topic continuity. Ronald Langacker's Cognitive Grammar (1987) similarly views subordination—encompassing hypotactic structures—as a profiled conceptual structure, where subordinate clauses background information relative to a primary predication, facilitating coherent mental representations in extended discourse. More recent work in construction grammar and typology, such as Adele Goldberg's 1995 studies on argument structure constructions, has further explored hypotactic patterns across languages. These theories underscore hypotaxis's adaptive function in human cognition, contrasting earlier formal models by integrating usage-based evidence from cross-linguistic corpora.

Comparative Analysis

Differences from Parataxis

Hypotaxis and represent two fundamental syntactic strategies for linking , differing primarily in their structural organization. In hypotaxis, are connected through subordination, creating a hierarchical dependency where one (the subordinate) modifies or elaborates the main , often using subordinating conjunctions such as "because," "although," or "while." This contrasts with , where are juxtaposed as equals, typically joined by coordinating conjunctions like "and" or "but," or placed sequentially without explicit markers, maintaining independent status. According to Halliday and Matthiessen, hypotaxis forms a univariate with unequal status (α for dominant, β for subordinate), while treats as a flat chain of equal elements, both enabling but differing in interdependency. Functionally, hypotaxis facilitates the expression of logical hierarchies and nuanced relationships, allowing for precise of ideas to convey causation, conditionality, or concession within a single complex sentence. , by contrast, emphasizes simplicity and additive progression, often prioritizing rhythmic or emphatic effects over explicit logical connections, as the relations between clauses are inferred from context or sequence. Halliday notes that paratactic clauses each represent independent "moves" in , fully negotiable, whereas hypotactic subordinates provide supporting detail without equal weight, enhancing argumentative depth in hypotactic constructions. These differences impact and textual flow significantly. Hypotaxis tends to increase syntactic through greater depth, which can demand more cognitive processing to unpack layered dependencies, making it suitable for detailed exposition. , however, promotes a linear, straightforward progression that enhances immediacy and ease of , reducing the load on but potentially sacrificing explicit clarity. In , this contrast underscores hypotaxis's role in building dense, integrated information structures. Regarding linguistic distribution, hypotaxis prevails in formal written , particularly in like English, where it supports elaborate argumentation and academic styles. , conversely, is more characteristic of and poetic forms, fostering conversational or stylistic across various languages. Halliday's analysis highlights this divide, attributing parataxis's frequency in speech to its alignment with real-time production constraints.

Similarities with Other Syntactic Structures

Hypotaxis shares significant similarities with endotaxis, a syntactic involving the nesting of subordinate s within a main , creating embedded structures that enhance complexity in and descriptive . Both structures rely on to convey hierarchical relationships between clauses, allowing for nuanced expression of dependencies such as temporal or causal links, though endotaxis specifically emphasizes the interruption of the main clause by the embedded one, differing from hypotaxis in the degree of clause equality where hypotactic constructions more explicitly mark subordination through conjunctions or relative pronouns. In phrase-level , hypotaxis exhibits overlap with hierarchical organizations that structure modifiers within or phrases, where subordinate elements like prepositional phrases or attributive adjectives embed to build layered meaning, mirroring the subordination in hypotaxis but operating at a smaller scale without full clausal independence. This shared emphasis on fosters recursive depth in syntactic trees, enabling efficient information packaging in both phrasal and clausal domains, as seen in generative models of . Hypotactic subordination often influences and mimics appositive structures by using dependent clauses to provide additional, explanatory detail about a main element, effectively integrating descriptive in a way that parallels the non-restrictive renaming function of appositions, though hypotaxis employs explicit markers of dependency to maintain hierarchical clarity. This convergence allows for stylistic flexibility, where a hypotactic can function appositively to elaborate without altering the core proposition, bridging subordination and in . Cross-linguistically, hypotaxis aligns with clause-chaining mechanisms in agglutinative languages like Turkish, where non-finite verb forms create subordinate-like links between clauses, forming extended chains that embed sequential or dependent actions in a hierarchical manner akin to Indo-European hypotaxis. In Turkish narratives, these chains use converbal suffixes to subordinate clauses, promoting continuity and embedding similar to hypotactic embedding, though adapted to the language's agglutinative morphology for compact expression.

Practical Examples

In English Sentences

Hypotaxis in English sentences typically involves a main clause supported by one or more subordinate clauses, connected through subordinating conjunctions or relative pronouns to express hierarchical relationships such as condition, reason, or description. A simple example is the sentence "Sarah was awarded first prize after she wowed the audience with her ," where the main "Sarah was awarded first prize" is modified by the subordinate "after she wowed the audience with her ," which indicates time and provides additional context for the event. In this structure, the subordinate cannot stand alone, emphasizing its dependency on the main to convey a complete idea. Complex embeddings in hypotaxis occur when multiple levels of subordination are layered, such as combining and s in a single sentence. For instance, consider "The that I read, which was recommended by a friend, changed my perspective," where the "that I read" directly modifies "book," and the nested "which was recommended by a friend" further embeds description within the structure. This multi-level approach builds depth in narrative sentences, allowing for detailed elaboration without disrupting the primary assertion. Another example is "One December morning near the end of the year when snow was falling moist and heavy for miles all around, emerged from her home," featuring an clause of time ("when snow was falling...") embedded to set the scene for the main action. In , hypotaxis commonly patterns cause-effect relations to articulate logical arguments precisely. A representative sentence is "Although it rained heavily, the experiment proceeded because the could not be delayed," where "although it rained heavily" (concessive) and "because the could not be delayed" (causal) subordinate clauses clarify the reasoning behind the main clause's outcome. This use of subordinators like "although" and "because" enhances clarity and in explanatory . Variations of hypotaxis appear in constructions, where the subordinate supports a passivized main to focus on the action or result. For example, "The report was completed after the data, which had been gathered over months, was analyzed," employs passive elements ("was completed," "was analyzed") alongside a ("which had been gathered...") to subordinate details about the process. Similarly, hypotaxis integrates as subordinate elements to express purpose or result, as in "The team decided to revise the proposal so that it would meet the guidelines," with the infinitive phrase "to revise the proposal" functioning dependently to the main and linked by "so that."

In Non-Indo-European Languages

In non-Indo-European languages, hypotaxis manifests through diverse syntactic mechanisms that embed dependent clauses within larger structures, often adapting to the language's morphological type without relying on explicit conjunctions common in fusional Indo-European systems. These adaptations highlight cross-linguistic variation in subordination, where isolating languages emphasize and particles, while agglutinative ones incorporate affixes for hierarchical embedding. In Japanese, an , hypotaxis is evident in relative clauses that modify s via and particle marking, creating subordination without relative pronouns. For instance, the "watashi ga yonda" (I [subject particle] read) embeds as a modifier in "watashi ga yonda hon" (the [that] I read), where the particle "ga" signals the subject's role in the , establishing a hierarchical relation to the head "hon" (). This structure relies on verb-final and gap resolution for dependency, differing from paratactic coordination by integrating the as a non-predicative modifier. Chinese, a prototypical isolating language, employs hypotaxis in serial verb constructions (SVCs) that chain verbs to imply subordination through semantic hierarchy and shared arguments, often without overt connectives. In such structures, the first verb typically governs the sequence, embedding subsequent actions as dependent, as in "tā qù Běijīng kàn péngyou" (he go Beijing see friend, meaning "he went to Beijing to see a friend"), where "qù" (go) subordinates "kàn" (see) via directional and purposive implication, creating an implicit clause dependency. Modern Chinese increasingly incorporates explicit hypotactic markers like "rúguǒ" (if) for conditional subordination, blending traditional parataxis with Western-influenced hierarchy. In Bantu languages such as Swahili, another agglutinative family member, hypotaxis occurs through prefixal agreement on verbs to embed tense and aspect in subordinate clauses, particularly relatives and adverbials. For example, the relative clause "mtoto anayesoma" (child who present-tense-reads, meaning "the child who is reading") uses the subject prefix "a-", present tense "-na-", relative marker "-ye-", and verb stem "soma" integrated into the verb form "anayesoma" to subordinate the verb, linking tense/aspect embedding to the head "mtoto" (child) via noun class agreement. This prefix-based system allows for tight integration of dependencies, as seen in clause chaining where subjunctive moods mark non-initial verbs for sequential subordination. Agglutinative and isolating languages adapt hypotactic principles differently from fusional ones by prioritizing morpheme stacking or positional cues over fused inflections, leading to challenges in cross-linguistic comparison; for instance, isolating structures like Chinese SVCs may blur subordination boundaries due to absent markers, while agglutinative ones like Japanese and enforce hierarchy through discrete affixes, potentially increasing parsing complexity in embedded contexts.

Applications in Discourse

Role in Literary Style

In classical literature, hypotaxis plays a pivotal role in epic poetry by constructing hierarchical sentence structures that expand narrative scope and embed layered descriptions. In Virgil's Aeneid, this technique is evident in the increased use of subordinate clauses and relative pronouns, particularly in emotional passages, where hypotaxis reaches 0.53 instances per sentence compared to 0.37 overall, fostering a more sophisticated syntactic expression that mirrors the epic's grandeur and emotional intensity. For instance, in Book 4, hypotaxis nests mythic allusions and foreshadowing, such as Dido's pyre preparation in lines 504–10, which interweaves ritual, divine elements, and tragic precedents to amplify thematic depth and intertextual richness. This subordination creates a cosmic hierarchy, linking individual actions to broader divine and historical forces, as seen in the Cave of the Winds sequence (1.52–59), where conditional clauses emphasize Aeolus's authority over elemental chaos. Shifting to 19th-century novels, hypotaxis enables authors like to delve into psychological complexity through intricate clause dependencies. In James's late works, such as (1904), sentences often feature up to 13 dependent clauses, as in GB38:16, which simulates characters' mental wandering and , thereby conveying interiority and emotional nuance. This dense hypotaxis, with dependent clauses comprising 54.4% of structures and a 1:3.6 ratio to coordinated ones, reflects protagonists' grappling with relational intricacies, using embedding and delay to dramatize subjective consciousness rather than direct narration. Compared to earlier novels like Washington Square (1881), where maximum dependency is six clauses, James's evolving style heightens reader engagement by requiring interpretation of abstract thoughts, thus achieving a "plenitude" in character portrayal. Hypotaxis's stylistic effects in literature include enhancing suspense through delayed revelations in subordinate clauses, irony via contrasting dependencies that underscore discrepancies between appearance and reality, and character interiority by hierarchically layering thoughts to reveal psychological depth. In epic contexts, this clause dependency builds tension by nesting descriptive elements, as in Virgil's conditional sequences that withhold outcomes until subordinate resolutions unfold. For irony, hypotaxis allows subtle subordination of ironic undertones, amplifying thematic contrasts without overt statement. In Jamesian prose, it fosters interiority by mimicking mental processes, where dependent clauses embed hesitations and realizations, creating emotional complexity and three-dimensional character insight. Criticisms of hypotaxis often center on its overuse leading to convoluted prose, a concern prominent in modernist reactions against Victorian-era complexity. Modernist writers favored parataxis for its fragmentation and directness, viewing hypotactic layering as overly intricate and obstructive to immediacy, as seen in the shift toward linear breaks in sentence structures to evoke spectrality and discontinuity. This reaction highlighted how excessive subordination could obscure clarity, prompting a stylistic pivot to simpler, juxtaposed clauses that better captured modern fragmentation.

Influence on Modern Writing

In academic prose, hypotaxis prevails through the use of subordinate clauses to construct precise argumentation, particularly in research papers where it facilitates the integration of under a main . For instance, statements often employ hypotactic structures to subordinate supporting details, such as causal or concessive clauses, ensuring logical and of expression. This ranking of ideas enhances clarity by directly into the primary claim, as seen in complex sentences that connect propositions hierarchically for analytical depth. In , hypotaxis supports explanatory reporting by explicitly linking causes and effects via subordinate clauses, promoting semantic transparency in narratives. Economic journalism, for example, traditionally relies on hypotactic constructions like causal clauses (e.g., introduced by "because" or equivalents) to hierarchically explain events, though modern trends show a partial shift toward simpler for reader . This structure remains essential for detailing relationships in investigative or analytical pieces, where subordination clarifies conditional or explanatory logic. Digital media adapts hypotaxis in blogs and emails to foster structured persuasion, contrasting with the paratactic brevity dominant in social media platforms. Blogs often use hypotactic layering to build coherent arguments and narrative depth, guiding readers through dependent clauses that elaborate on main ideas for enhanced engagement. Emails similarly employ subordination for persuasive flow, prioritizing logical connections over the fragmented, immediate style of tweets or posts. As a historical precursor from literary styles, this approach now underpins professional digital discourse. In composition , as exemplified in analyses of Bakhtin's ideas, teaching hypotaxis cultivates clarity and stylistic versatility in student writing. Courses instruct learners to practice subordinate clauses alongside , analyzing how hypotaxis adds precision and hierarchy to arguments, often through revision exercises that transform simple sentences into complex ones. This method, influenced by earlier rhetorical traditions, improves argumentative prose by encouraging students to subordinate evidence effectively, reducing ambiguity in academic and professional contexts.

References

  1. https://saudijournals.com/media/articles/SIJLL_53_94-99.pdf
  2. https://iasj.rdd.edu.iq/journals/uploads/2025/03/06/fee80e49569ff2aa40ea2dca21b80565.pdf
  3. https://www.etymonline.com/word/hypotaxis
  4. https://swl8.sciencesconf.org/data/pages/Ross_etal_PH_SWL_1.pdf
  5. https://research.manchester.ac.uk/files/54546816/FULL_TEXT.PDF
  6. https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/goodell/parataxis-and-hypotaxis
  7. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/books/kirkpatrick_xu/chapter6.pdf
  8. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypotaxis
  9. https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.3.iii.html
  10. http://walkden.space/ICEHL21.pdf
  11. https://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/linkage.pdf
  12. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
  13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44714935
  14. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cosmos-in-the-ancient-world/introduction/B505B521F929134A0B39292A08C57D3D
  15. https://classics.osu.edu/Undergraduate-Studies/Latin-Program/Prose-Composition/periodicity
  16. http://walkden.space/dahlem.pdf
  17. https://www.academia.edu/18524679/Towards_the_History_of_Two_Oppositions_Parataxis_vs_Hypotaxis_and_Coordination_vs_Subordination
  18. https://benjamins.com/catalog/tsl.3
  19. https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935276.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935276-e-25
  20. https://functionallinguistics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40554-018-0059-7
  21. https://elibrary.erytis.com/index.php/llcs/article/view/60/50
  22. https://academic.oup.com/book/9103/chapter/155668343
  23. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/systemic-functional-grammar/verbal-group/989DD1D38C8996576854C41F1901596D
  24. https://rrlinguistics.ru/en/journal/article/2383/
  25. https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/294_fulltext.pdf
  26. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00115/full
  27. https://www.thoughtco.com/hypotaxis-grammar-and-prose-style-1690948
  28. https://www.softschools.com/examples/literary_terms/hypotaxis_examples/299/
  29. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/parataxis-vs-hypotaxis-in-literature
  30. http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~eivs/papers/Shibatani%202009%20Elements%20of%20complex%20structures.pdf
  31. https://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/127800/1/Content.pdf
  32. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/evolution-of-chinese-grammar/serial-verb-construction/4D1FE8B9116D4E8931568E004F57F1BF
  33. http://www.deniscreissels.fr/public/Creissels-Bantu_typ.var.pdf
  34. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1236&context=dlls
  35. https://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0023/chap04.html
  36. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1461029/1/Lesley_Moss_thesis%5B1%5D.pdf
  37. https://www.pala.ac.uk/uploads/2/5/1/0/25105678/moss2008.pdf
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394449103_A_Study_of_Syntax_and_Spectrality_in_Modernist_Writing
  39. https://escholarship.org/content/qt9v62q25x/qt9v62q25x_noSplash_79b1236c479e7d76c59ee81b15bddbfa.pdf
  40. https://commons.princeton.edu/shakespeares-language/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2017/09/Lanham-from-Analyzing-Prose.pdf
  41. https://www.mariobisiada.de/files/bisiada-thesis.pdf
  42. https://bazerman.education.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/docs/BAZERMAN2005ARTBakhtinEssayPedagogy.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.