English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Look at the following example
'But she was so tired, she did not finish painting.'
Is the first clause an independent or dependent clause?
If it is an independent clause, should I remove the comma to prevent a comma splice?
fyi, 'So' is used as an adverb of degree, so the latter clause is a result of the former.
First, but goes between conjuncts. The but doesn't go with either clause in this sentence;
rather, it connects the whole sentence with whatever came before it. So I will ignore it here.
Second, the rest of the sentence is an example of the so X/such a(n) X that S construction, which links together an independent clause:
and a dependent that-clause that identifies her degree of tiredness, referenced to so
The that complementizer, of course, is optionally deletable.
The entire sentence (without the but) is an answer to
Since how is the general wh-word for measuring adjectives and adverbs.
It's a dependent adverb clause, with the whole clause modifying 'finish'. Personally, I'd throw a 'that' in place of the comma.
[But she was so tired] [(that) she did not finish painting].
There are two clauses here, as shown in square brackets. The first is an independent clause, the second a dependent one where the subordinator “that” can be inserted as shown. The second clause is a declarative content clause functioning as complement of the adjective "tired". Although the clause follows the adjective it complements, it is licensed by the adverb "so" that modifies "tired", and is thus referred to as an indirect complement. A comma is not required.
Note that the coordinator “but” belongs with the first clause. Evidence for this is that the clause can occur on its own. The two clauses might even be spoken by two different people, one responding to what the other said. And when we separate the two clauses like this, the coordinator goes with the second: “I really expected Kim to attend. B: “But she was too tired, wasn't she?”.
Pinker of Harvard says this about starting a sentence with a conjunction:
“You can’t begin a sentence with a conjunction.” Teachers instruct young students that it is incorrect to begin a sentence with a conjunction (and, because, but, or, so, also) because it helps keep them from writing in fragments, Pinker writes, but it’s a lie that adults don’t need to follow.
Avoid writing an ugly “megasentence” full of connected independent clauses, and feel free to start a sentence with a conjunction.
starting a sentence with a conjunction
What the good professor does not say, and I will, is that in an utterance such as 'But she was so tired, she did not finish painting.', the but is presuppositional.
For example:
1) She painted like a fiend all day. **But she was so tired, she did not finish painting.** [see refining below. The but clause refines the idea of why she did not finish.]
Compared to:
2) She painted like a fiend all day but she was so tired she did not finish painting.**
3) She painted all day like a fiend. But she was so tired [that] she didn't finish the painting. without a comma.
The but in 1) can be called a "presupposition trigger".
A presupposition trigger is a construction or item that signals the existence of a presupposition in an utterance. (I say: also in a previous utterance)
In the OP's example the presupposition precedes the utterance. And as a coordinating conjunction what it coordinates is not given in the sentence, it precedes it.
So, I think I would argue here that 1) is really a variation of 2), and I'd call 1) a defective independent clause in its materialisation in 1) and a normal independent clause in 2) and 3).
It is "defective" because most initial-position buts are not dependent clause-clause like. They are fully independent clauses. If you look at the paper I quote below, I think that is a fair statement.
Putting but in the initial position is called initial-position but (SIB). And one linguist calls this cancellation or refining (depending on the clause). The quote below is from an academic paper about academic writing but its descriptions of SIBs can be applied to non-academic contexts such as this one.
[...] then SIB facilitates argument development by its canceling or refining the previous argument. It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore the many ways in which cancellation operates in terms of argument development, but I give examples of some of the main ways [it does].
(Please note: all bolding is mine)
