Editing Clause (section)

==Non-finite clauses==
{{Main article|Non-finite clause}}
The central word of a non-finite clause is usually a [[non-finite verb]] (as opposed to a [[finite verb]]). There are various types of non-finite clauses that can be acknowledged based in part on the type of non-finite verb at hand. [[Gerund]]s are widely acknowledged to constitute non-finite clauses, and some modern grammars also judge many ''to''-infinitives to be the structural locus of non-finite clauses. Finally, some modern grammars also acknowledge so-called [[small clause]]s, which often lack a verb altogether. It should be apparent that non-finite clauses are (by and large) embedded clauses.

===Gerund clauses===
The underlined words in the following examples are considered non-finite clauses, e.g.

::a. <u>Bill stopping the project</u> was a big disappointment.{{Snd}} Non-finite gerund clause
::b. Bill's stopping of the project was a big disappointment.{{Snd}} Gerund with noun status

::a. We've heard about <u>Susan attempting a solution</u>.{{Snd}} Non-finite gerund clause
::b. We've heard about Susan's attempting of a solution.{{Snd}} Gerund with noun status

::a. They mentioned <u>him cheating on the test</u>.{{Snd}} Non-finite gerund clause
::b. They mentioned his cheating on the test.{{Snd}} Gerund with noun status

Each of the gerunds in the a-sentences (''stopping'', ''attempting'', and ''cheating'') constitutes a non-finite clause. The subject-predicate relationship that has long been taken as the defining trait of clauses is fully present in the a-sentences. The fact that the b-sentences are also acceptable illustrates the enigmatic behavior of gerunds. They seem to straddle two syntactic categories: they can function as non-finite verbs or as nouns. When they function as nouns as in the b-sentences, it is debatable whether they constitute clauses, since nouns are not generally taken to be constitutive of clauses.

===''to''-infinitive clauses===
Some modern theories of syntax take many ''to''-infinitives to be constitutive of non-finite clauses.<ref>For an example of a grammar that acknowledges non-finite ''to''-infinitive clauses, see Radford (2004:23).</ref> This stance is supported by the clear predicate status of many ''to''-infinitives. It is challenged, however, by the fact that ''to''-infinitives do not take an overt subject, e.g.

::a. She refuses <u>to consider the issue</u>.
::a. He attempted <u>to explain his concerns</u>.

The ''to''-infinitives ''to consider'' and ''to explain'' clearly qualify as predicates (because they can be negated). They do not, however, take overt subjects. The subjects ''she'' and ''he'' are dependents of the matrix verbs ''refuses'' and ''attempted'', respectively, not of the ''to''-infinitives. Data like these are often addressed in terms of [[Control (linguistics)|control]]. The matrix predicates ''refuses'' and ''attempted'' are control verbs; they control the embedded predicates ''consider'' and ''explain'', which means they determine which of their arguments serves as the subject argument of the embedded predicate. Some theories of syntax posit the null subject [[PRO (linguistics)|PRO]] (i.e. pronoun) to help address the facts of control constructions, e.g.

::b. She refuses <u>PRO to consider the issue</u>.
::b. He attempted <u>PRO to explain his concerns</u>.

With the presence of PRO as a null subject, ''to''-infinitives can be construed as complete clauses, since both subject and predicate are present.

PRO-theory is particular to one tradition in the study of syntax and grammar ([[Government and Binding Theory]], [[Minimalist Program]]). Other theories of syntax and grammar (e.g. [[Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar]], [[Construction Grammar]], [[dependency grammar]]) reject the presence of null elements such as PRO, which means they are likely to reject the stance that ''to''-infinitives constitute clauses.

===Small clauses===
Another type of construction that some schools of syntax and grammar view as non-finite clauses is the so-called [[small clause]]. A typical small clause consists of a noun phrase and a predicative expression,<ref>For the basic characteristics of small clauses, see Crystal (1997:62).</ref> e.g.

::We consider <u>that a joke</u>.{{Snd}} Small clause with the predicative noun phrase ''a joke''
::Something made <u>him angry</u>.{{Snd}} Small clause with the predicative adjective ''angry''
::She wants <u>us to stay</u>.{{Snd}} Small clause with the predicative non-finite ''to''-infinitive ''to stay''

The subject-predicate relationship is clearly present in the underlined strings. The expression on the right is a predication over the noun phrase immediately to its left. While the subject-predicate relationship is indisputably present, the underlined strings do not behave as single [[Constituent (linguistics)|constituent]]s, a fact that undermines their status as clauses. Hence one can debate whether the underlined strings in these examples should qualify as clauses. The layered structures of the chomskyan tradition are again likely to view the underlined strings as clauses, whereas the schools of syntax that posit flatter structures are likely to reject clause status for them.