5

Can it be 不倫の原因で家庭が崩壊したり? What's the main clause and what is a subordinate clause?

4

The subject is

不倫が原因で家庭が崩壊したり、離婚に至る例(も)

The main clause is your whole citation.

The subordinate clause is:

不倫が原因で家庭が崩壊したり、離婚に至る

which is an object/complement of .

不倫が原因で

is further a subordinate clause of this clause.

  • What is the grammatical structure of 不倫が原因で家庭が崩壊したり? Can it be 不倫の原因で家庭が崩壊したり? – Steven Aug 5 '11 at 7:30
  • 不倫が原因で is a clause modifying 家庭が崩壊したり、離婚に至る. In this case, is attached to a clause 不倫が原因 instead of a noun. – user458 Aug 5 '11 at 7:34
3

I break it down like this:

実際問題として、不倫が原因で家庭が崩壊したり、離婚に至る例も少なくないです。

  • Clause: 実際問題として

    This is just setting the scene.

  • Topic phrase: 不倫が原因で家庭が崩壊したり、離婚に至る例も

    • The head of the noun phrase is 例. (Technically も is the head of the topic phrase, but we will ignore that to simplify matters.)

    • Complement clause: 不倫が原因で家庭が崩壊したり、離婚に至る

      • Clause: 不倫が原因で

      • Clause: 家庭が崩壊したり

      • Main verb phrase: 離婚に至る

  • Main predicate: 少なくないです

I think this is a nice example of a quintessentially Japanese pattern of sentence construction: the bulk of the sentence is a large topic phrase containing a complex relative clause modifying a noun, and the actual comment is just a simple verb.

  • 1. 実際問題として is not a clause. It is a postposition phrase. 2. Calling as a topic marker is at least not standard. is rather close to a focus marker. 3. 不倫が原因で家庭が崩壊したり、離婚に至る is not a relative clause as there is no gap that can fill in. 4. 少なくないです is the main predicate + conjugation, but is not a verb. – user458 Aug 5 '11 at 7:41
  • @sawa: I did say it was my analysis. (I'm not a trained linguist.) 1. I think it is a clause, because it is a conjunctive form of the sentence 「実際問題とする」. I would also call it a clause even if it were 「……とすると」 instead. But I don't disagree that it is a postposition phrase. (The question then is, what is the head of this PP, として, or null?) 2. I agree. I'm not sure how to describe も succinctly, but it seems to me to function syntactically enough like は. 3. Hmmm. Yes, that does seem to be a problem. I tend to automatically call clauses using a 連体形 to modify a noun a relative clause. [...] – Zhen Lin Aug 5 '11 at 7:48
  • What do you suggest this should be called instead? 4. Calling it a verb is indeed a simplification. On the other hand I don't want to call it a verb phrase (even though it is). What should it be called? – Zhen Lin Aug 5 '11 at 7:49
  • 1. The head is として. 3. Just call it a clause. More precisely, this is a complement clause. 4. Call it a predicate. – user458 Aug 5 '11 at 13:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.