We all know that in English, the main clause of a sentence is almost always more important than a subordinate clause or phrase, but many of you must have wondered which position is most appropriate for a subordinate clause or phrase—up front, at the tail end, or elsewhere in the sentence?
For instance, consider this sentence from an Agence France-Presse news dispatch many years ago: “Resource-hungry nations are snapping up huge tracts of agricultural land in poor Asian nations, in what activists say is a ‘land grab’ that will worsen poverty and malnutrition.” Here, of course, it’s obvious that the main clause is “resource-hungry nations are snapping up huge tracts of agricultural land in poor Asian nations,” and that the subordinate element is “in what activists say is a ‘land grab’ that will worsen poverty and malnutrition.”
But what about positioning that subordinate element up front instead? The construction seems to read just as well: “
In what activists say is a ‘land grab’ that will worsen poverty and malnutrition, resource-hungry nations are snapping up huge tracts of agricultural land in poor Asian nations.” And the meaning also stays perfectly intact if the subordinate element is placed neatly within the main clause: “Resource-hungry nations
, in what activists say is a ‘land grab’ that will worsen poverty and malnutrition, are snapping up huge tracts of agricultural land in poor Asian nations.”
So, we might as well ask once and for all, what’s the definitive rule for positioning subordinate clauses and phrases?
Regarding subordinate clauses, there are two general grammatical principles for conveying the relative importance of ideas in a sentence. The first, which I have already invoked above, is that ideas expressed in main clauses are usually more important than those in subordinate ones. This rule is, of course, so self-evident that it doesn’t merit further discussion. But the second rule is likely to throw many newspaper reporters and newspaper readers off balance, for it says so counterintuitively that information given later in a sentence could be more important than those given earlier.
Indeed, based on this second rule, it would seem that in the sentence I have presented as an example, the subordinate clause “in what activists say is a ‘land grab’ that will worsen poverty and malnutrition” is more important than the main clause, “resource-hungry nations are snapping up huge tracts of agricultural land in poor Asian nations.”
This clearly contradicts the first rule, which says that ideas expressed in main clauses are usually more important than those in subordinate clauses and phrases. Indeed, if we were to scrupulously follow the two rules, the optimal position of the subordinate clause in that sentence would be up front: “
In what activists say is a ‘land grab’ that will worsen poverty and malnutrition, resource-hungry nations are snapping up huge tracts of agricultural land in poor Asian nations.”
So why then does the Agence France-Presse news dispatch seemingly violate the twin rules on subordination and word order?
The reason is this: Newspaper journalism differs profoundly from formal exposition when it comes to indicating the relative importance of ideas in a sentence. As we all know, the typical news story uses the so-called “inverted pyramid” mode of presenting information. This approach to storytelling tells the reader the conclusion first, follows it with the most important supporting information, then continues the story by giving aspects of its background in the order of diminishing importance.
In contrast, the formal style of exposition uses the “upright pyramid” mode, meaning that it starts with contextual or foundation statements first and builds up to the conclusion. It is therefore not surprising that in formal expository writing, the more important information in a sentence—and in the story as a whole for that matter—tends to be presented later instead of earlier.
This essay first appeared in the column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in the print and online editions of the February 7, 2009 issue of The Manila Times
, © 2009 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
