{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024247588798078784, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012743541077584537, 'mean_word_length': 5.431988041853513, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
ON THE NOTION OF THE SUBORDINATE CLAUSE IN GERMAN LINGUISTICS

In traditional linguistic research on German syntax the term “subordinate clause” is defined on the basis of its two distinguishing features, namely its syntactic-functional integration into the matrix, as well as its formal exponents (the presence of introductory elements and the placement of the finite verb at the end of the clause). However, this classical approach to subordination is in fact a descriptive simplification which leads to the exclusion of all reference to the scalar character of this category from syntactic description. In this paper, an alternative approach to subordination is presented through defining the dependent clause as a scalar category, encompassing a wide range of representatives differing in the degree of prototypicality. The proposed model consists of four interrelated components: a precisely defined set of integration features, type-independent general principles, a description of the type-specific clusters of integration features and the differences in the degree of integration between representatives of the same syntactic class, as well as construction-specific restrictions.


Introductory remarks
The "subordinate clause" is one of the most ambiguously and imprecisely used terms in German linguistics. Traditionally it is defined on the basis of two independent criteria: the presence of formal indicators of syntactic dependency, as well as its syntactic-functional integration into the matrix clause. In this paper an alternative approach to subordination is presented, which enables its internal differentiation to be included within linguistic research. In this model the subordination is perceived as a scalar category, encompassing a precisely defined set of prosodic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features, indicating the degree of integration of the dependent clause into the structure of the matrix.

The traditional notion of subordination and its consequences for linguistic description
In traditional grammar as well as in many structuralist and functional approaches, the term "subordinate clause" refers to a syntactic construction that includes a finite verb, which is characterized by a formal and syntactic-functional dependency in relation to the matrix clause. The formal integration encompasses two distinctive features of German subordinate clauses: the presence of introductory elements, such as subjunctions, relative pronouns or interrogative pronouns, as well as the placement of the finite verb at the end of the clause. With regard to the aforementioned syntactic-functional dependency a subordinate is perceived as a part of a sentence or a part of a sentence component 1 within the matrix clause (cf. Sütterlin 1907: 390;Marillier 2000: 70;Valentin 2000: 13-14;Helbig 2003: 1). This traditional notion of subordination causes numerous descriptive problems, which cannot be solved through models in which the analysis of the hypotaxis is based exclusively on the two assumptions mentioned above. The first problem results from the fact that the traditional notion of hypotaxis implies a tight interrelation between the occurrence of formal subordination markers and the syntactic-functional integration of the dependent clause. However, this leads to many descriptive inaccuracies, as the German language features both dependent clauses lacking the formal distinctive features of subordination (e.g. verb first conditionals, concessive and causal clauses or verb second complement clauses [1-4]) (cf. Zifonun et al. 1997Zifonun et al. : 2241Zifonun et al. , 2281Zifonun et al. , 2298Zifonun et al. -2299Zifonun et al. , 2313Eisenberg 2006: 319), as well as syntactic constructions which, despite formal integration, do not have the status of a part of the sentence or a part of a sentence component within the matrix clause (e.g. continuative relative clauses or metacommunicative conditionals [5-6]) (cf. Marillier 2000: 78-79;Engel 2009: 185): (1) Wäre ich eine Nummer, wäre ich die Nummer eins! Were I a number, were I the number one 'If I were a number, I were the number one!' (Hannoversche Allgemeine 19.01.2009: 15) 2   1 The term "a part of a sentence component" (Ger. 'Satzgliedteil') refers in German linguistics to functional elements of the sentence which in simple declarative sentences cannot occupy the prefield before the finite verb. The final issue is that models in which a subordinate is defined exclusively on the basis of its formal and syntactic-functional features do not take into account factors concerning the degree of integration of the dependent clauses into the matrix clause.

Alternative approaches to subordination in linguistic research
The inaccuracies created by the traditional approach have initiated the development of alternative proposals related to the analysis of subordinate clauses. Since the 1980s numerous grammarians have tried to accommodate the scalar character of the subordination category in their research. The first syntactic classification referring to the different degrees of integration of subordinate clauses into the matrix can be found in König and van der Auwera (1988), who focus on the topological characteristics of concessives, conditionals and concessive conditionals. The authors distinguish three types of dependent clauses, featuring different degrees of topological integration: fully integrated constructions, partially integrated clauses preceded by a correlate and unintegrated structures. The first systematic description of subordination based on the prototype theory was presented by Fabricius-Hansen (1992), whose classification encompasses five types of dependent clauses differing with respect to the degree of their integration: fully integrated subordinate structures, prosodically, semantically, pragmatically and partially syntactically integrated clauses lacking features of topological integration, clauses accompanied by a correlate, as well as semantically or formally unintegrated constructions.
Another proposal regarding the classification of German subordinates connected with the degree of their integration was developed by Reis (1997). In her research on the status of dependent V2 clauses in German she distinguishes three types of dependent clauses: clauses licenced directly by the verbal head (complement and adjunct clauses), clauses licenced indirectly by the verbal head (clauses with the function of a part of a sentence component, e.g. attribute and comparative clauses), as well as clauses which are not licenced by the verbal head. Whereas the first two are examples of integrated clauses, the last category encompasses, according to Reis (1997: 128), unintegrated structures which can be divided into two subclasses: relatively unintegrated clauses (e.g. free dass-clauses, dependent V2 clauses) and absolutely unintegrated clauses (e.g. continuative relatives and non-restrictive relatives).
Innovative approaches regarding the scalar character of German subordinates were also presented by Holler in 2005 and In the earlier article (Holler 2005) three classes of dependent clauses are determined: the integrated, semi-integrated and unintegrated subordinates. The first type has all the features of subordination at the prosodic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic level. The semi-integrated clauses differ in their degree of semantic integration, as they have an independent illocutionary force. The unintegrated clauses lack all the features of prosodic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic integration. In the later article (Holler 2008) two main types of dependent clauses are distinguished: the integrated and unintegrated constructions. Each can be further divided into two subclasses that show features of weak or strong integration/unintegration.
The scalar character of the subordination category is also discussed in Wöllstein (2008), with the author failing to agree with the widely accepted thesis that a greater degree of integration within subordinates correlates with their status as a part of the sentence. On the contrary, she claims that complement and adverbial clauses differ with respect to their degree of prototypicality. Whereas complement clauses are syntactically dependent, as well as they cannot occur as an isolated sentence without the matrix, adverbial clauses share the second feature with complement clauses, but are only semantically dependent on the host clause.
Important evidence highlighting the scalar character of the subordination category has also been provided by Antomo and Steinbach (2010). The research is devoted primarily to the weil-V2 clauses, however, it also contains descriptive details relevant for a syntactic analysis of dependent V2 clauses introduced by a relative pronoun, as well as V2 complement clauses. The authors argue that although all types of dependent V2 clauses share certain vital common characteristics, they differ with respect to their degree of integration. V2 complement clauses show significant features suggesting syntactic and prosodic integration: they allow the binding of variables from the matrix, they can be integrated into interrogative sentences, they form a single prosodic unit with the host clause and can occur within the scope of assertive particles in the matrix. V2 relatives are at least prosodically integrated, as they cannot form a separate prosodic unit. They also allow a wide scope reading of an assertive particle from the matrix. The last class of dependent V2 clauses, which is the main focus of the research presented by Antomo and Steinbach (2010), that is the weil-V2 clauses, shows significant features of prosodic, syntactic and pragmatic disintegration. According to the authors, the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic characteristics of weil-V2 subordinates can be explained by reference to two construction-independent factors: the syntax and structural meaning of dependent V2 clauses, as well as the paratactic structure of weil-V2 clauses.
Frey (2011), inspired by the research of Haegeman (2002Haegeman ( , 2004Haegeman ( , 2006, provides evidence for the relevance of the distinction between central and peripheral adverbial clauses for the syntactic description of German. He claims that the two types of adverbial clauses show significant differences with respect to their syntactic behaviour. Firstly, IP-internal licencing is possible only in the case of the central adverbial clauses, whereas the peripheral adverbial clauses are licenced by the Force projection of the matrix. Secondly, the peripheral adverbials share several characteristics with the non-integrated clauses, as they cannot occur with a coreferent correlate in the matrix, do not allow wide negation scope, cannot carry the main stress of the whole sentence, and additionally cannot be questioned or included in a question into which the matrix clause has been transformed. Reis (2013) devotes her discussion on the integration status of subordinates to three types of weil-clauses: the integrated weil-VL clauses, the unintegrated weil-VL clauses and the weil-V2 clauses. She provides evidence for the fact that, contrary to the conjectures of Antomo and Steinbach (2010), the typical features of weil-V2 clauses cannot be explained with reference to the V2 syntax and semantics combined with the paratactic structure of the weil-V2 construction, but instead can be contributed to two other construction-independent factors: syntactic disintegration and root status. Reich and Reis (2013) in their article on the distinguishing features of coordination and subordination refer to the scalar character of the second category, which encompasses a wide variety of dependent clauses differing with respect to their degree of integration. They provide evidence for their thesis that subordination can be described as a continuum on a scale between two extreme poles, namely full integration and full disintegration. Freywald's (2013) research is devoted to the syntactic characteristics of dependent V1 and V2 clauses without an introductory element. She provides evidence for the fact that both types of clauses differ from prototypical subordinates with respect to their degree of integration. The first class, the V1 clauses without an introductory element, shows significant features of disintegration on several levels of linguistic description. They cannot be used as elliptic responses to questions, do not allow variable binding and rarely occur with a coreferent correlate in the matrix. They form a separate prosodic unit and have an independent topic-comment structure. As far as their topological behaviour is concerned, they tend to occur in the prefield of the matrix, although their placement in other syntactic positions (middle field and postfield) is often also possible. On the contrary, the V2 clauses without an introductory element do not show consistent behaviour as far as their integration status is concerned. Freywald (2013) distinguishes between four types of dependent V2 clauses which differ in their degree of prototypicality. The first class, the absolutely integrated V2 clauses, encompasses complements of nouns, which can be placed in all three syntactic positions within the matrix: the prefield, the middle field and the postfield. The second type, the relatively integrated V2 clauses, occurs exclusively in the postfield, but it can precede other subordinates with the status of a part of the sentence. The third group, the relatively unintegrated V2 clauses, shows significant features of pragmatic disintegration, as it has an independent illocutionary force. Finally, the last class, the absolutely unintegrated V2 clauses, is connected with the matrix exclusively on the discourse level and does not have a structural position within the host clause.
The aforementioned alternative classifications of dependent clauses, based on the prototype theory, allowed the inclusion of the scalar character of the category "subordination" in linguistic research. On the other hand, all these proposals unfortunately share a considerable flaw: they rely on an assumption, which appears to be incorrect, concerning the close interrelation between the type of subordinate clause, distinguished on formal and syntactic-functional grounds, and the degree of integration.

Subordination as a scalar category -introducing the model
In the previous section an overview of the linguistic literature on the internal differentiation of the category "dependent clause" with respect to the degree of integration was discussed. From this it can be concluded that earlier research on the subject includes references to the scalar character of subordination within a grammatical description. However, as it relies on the assumption that the degree of integration of the clause is closely connected with its formal and syntactic-functional characteristics, it is not able to capture type-independent generalizations which not only refer to the differences in the degree of integration of the distinct types of subordinate clauses, but also to the inconsistent characteristics of representatives of the same class. In this section an alternative approach to subordination is introduced, which aims to overcome the shortcomings of the previous proposals. The model consists of four components: • a precisely defined set of integration features • type-independent general principles • a description of the type-specific clusters of integration features, as well as the differences in the degree of integration between representatives of the same syntactic class • construction-specific restrictions.
In the following paragraphs a short description of the four components of the introduced approach is presented.

Integration features
The first component of the model is a set of precisely defined prosodic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features. Each of these features has a positive as well as a negative value, and the differences in the degree of integration of the subordinate constructions are directly related to the unique feature specification of the given subtype of dependent clause or -in case of the type-internal differentiation -of the particular subset of its representatives.
In this approach to the analysis of dependent clauses the notion "subordination" encompasses the following components:

• prosodic features
The positive value occurs in structures in which the subordinate clause and the matrix clause form a single prosodic unit, which is signalized by the occurrence of one main accent, as in prototypical verb last complement clauses: On the contrary, the prosodic unintegration is signalized by the presence of two main accents and two intonation units, as illustrated below on the example of verb second dass-clauses: (10) Öffne deine AUgen, dass sie sehen die WUNder Open your eyes, that they see the wonders 'Open your eyes, so that they see the wonders' (St. Galler Tagblatt 31.05.2000) • syntactic features a) formal indicators of subordination (the placement of the finite verb at the end of the clause and the presence of introductory elements) The positive value is characteristic of prototypical subordinate constructions with an introductory element in which the finite verb occurs at the end of the clause:

b) topological integration into the matrix clause
A prototypical subordinate clause is topologically integrated into the matrix and as a part of the sentence can be placed in the prefield or middle field of the host clause 4 or its topological behaviour is analogue to part of the sentence components: However, in German there also occur subordinates lacking features of syntactic-functional integration, which serve as a commentary and refer to the whole proposition in the matrix: (21) Gemäss der Seite blackfridaydeals.ch dürfte der Umsatz According the site blackfridaydeals.ch may the turnover 5 List of abbreviations: MC -main clause, SC1D -first degree subordinate clause, SC2D -second degree subordinate clause. 6 The sentence is grammatically correct; however, the so dass-clause is not directly dependent on the main clause, but on the preceding subordinate. Grammatically correct examples which do not fulfil the criteria concerned are marked with the symbol '#'. year makes 'According to the site blackfridaydeals.ch in Switzerland the turnover on Black Friday may be three times higher than on usual days, which makes this day the most important shopping event of the year.' (Galler Tagblatt 22.11.2018)

d) other indicators of syntactic integration
A fully integrated dependent clause shows a variety of further syntactic characteristics which can be proved by syntactic tests. In this model three such characteristics are taken into account: the variable binding (i), the wide negation scope (ii) and the potential occurrence of a coreferent correlate in the matrix (iii).
i) variable binding A prototypical subordinate is able to bind variables from the matrix: (22) [Jeder fünfte Hypertoniker] i weiß nicht, dass er i krank ist. Every fifth hypertensive knows not that he ill is 'Every fifth hypertensive does not know that he/she is ill.' (FOCUS 13.02.2016) On the contrary, the impossibility to bind variables from the matrix serves as an indicator of a lower degree of integration: 'These geese can cover over 3000 km within a week, which makes them an interesting subject for scientific research' 9 (Falter 18.09.2002: 78) • semantic features A prototypical subordinate clause is semantically integrated into the matrix and does not have the status of an independent proposition. 8 The sentence is grammatically correct; however, the subordinate is not within the negation scope of the matrix.
• pragmatic features a) thematic integration A prototypical subordinate clause is integrated into the topic-comment structure of the matrix: (28) Ich wusste längst, dass er KOMMT. I knew since long that he comes 'I've already known that for a long time that he is coming. ' (St. Galler Tagblatt 29.09.2016) Unintegrated dependent clauses can have their own topic-comment structure: (29) Das reizt sie nur noch ZUsätzlich, so dass der That irritates them only part. additionally, so that the Frosch im HALS bleibt. frog in + the throat stays 'That irritates them additionally, so that the frog stays in the throat.' (Stern 01.04.2019) b) lack of independent illocutionary force A prototypical subordinate does not have an independent illocutionary force.

Type-independent generalizations
The model presented is based on the assumption that the majority of the phenomena related to the internal differentiation of the "subordination" category with respect to the degree of integration of its representatives can be explained with reference to type-independent generalizations. The impact of type-independent generalizations on the process of value setting may be illustrated on the example of the metacommunicative conditionals and verb first concessive conditionals with the modal verb mögen. Both constructions are topologically unintegrated and occur in the preprefield of the matrix clause, as illustrated below: 10  Morgen 07.11.2008: 32) In both cases the topological unintegration correlates with prosodic unintegration, which can be perceived as a direct consequence of the placement of the clause in the left periphery.
Type-specific features and differences in the degree of integration between representatives of the same syntactic class As explained above, type-independent generalizations are responsible for the majority of the differences with respect to the degree of integration of particular subtypes of subordinate clauses, as well as the internal differentiation of feature settings within the same syntactic class. The interrelations between the two apparently independent phenomena mentioned above can be explained using the pragmatic integration of da-clauses as an example, as well as preposed and postposed conditional clauses.
Causal constructions introduced by the subjunction da tend to occur in the prefield of the matrix clause: As far as their pragmatic function is concerned, in contrast to the weil-clauses, they usually provide background information concerning the reasons for a previously unknown event introduced in the matrix. At the same time, da-clauses are one of the few subtypes of adverbial clauses with an independent focus-backgroundstructure. 11 Considering the cooccurrence of three independent integration features, a hypothesis may be formulated that the type-specific characteristics of da-clauses imply the existence of a close interrelation between three apparently unrelated topological and pragmatic features: the placement of the subordinated construction in the prefield of the matrix clause, its pragmatic function and the distinct focusbackground structure. 11 According to Reis and Wöllstein (2010: 155-156), the causal clauses introduced by da obligatorily show features of prosodic integration and have their own topic-comment structure. However, Frey (2011: 51-52) provides evidence for the occurrence of prosodically and pragmatically integrated da-clauses with a rhematic character in the prefield.
A similar correlation between the placement of the dependent clause in the prefield and the presence of independent focus-background-structure has been observed with reference to the internal differentiation of the degree of integration of conditional clauses, esp. the lack of integration features in verb first conditionals (cf. Freywald 2013: 323): (33) Hätte er früher davon geWUSST, hätte er viel Zeit und Geld geSPART.
Had he before it known, had he much time and money saved. 'If he had known it before, he would have saved much time and money' (spektrumdirekt 28.02.2005) As according to Haiman (1985: 34-36), the frequent usage of preposed conditionals can be seen as an indicator of their pragmatic function, the data presented provides evidence for the fact that the same general principle determining the three independent feature values of da-clauses, also has an impact on the internal differentiation of the conditional clauses with respect to their degree of integration.

Construction-specific restrictions
Although the main task of the research into the scalar character of subordination lies in identifying type-independent generalizations determining the degree of integration of dependent clauses, several exceptions can be explained exclusively through reference to the unique characteristics of particular constructions, specified in lexicon entries. A clear example of the influence of construction-specific restrictions on the degree of integration is the contrast between the formally integrated verb last hypothetical comparative clauses with the subjunction als ob and their unintegrated verb first counterparts introduced by als:

Conclusion
Adopting the traditional notion of the subordinate clause that is referring exclusively to its formal and syntactic-functional characteristics meant that the scalar character of the integration of the components of a compound sentence in German has largely been ignored in linguistic research for many years. In this article an alternative approach to subordination is presented through defining it as a scalar category, encompassing a set of prosodic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic features determining the degree of integration of its representatives. It is argued that a descriptively adequate model of subordination consists of four interrelated components: a precisely defined set of features, type-independent generalisations, a detailed description of the type-specific clusters of integration features and the differences in the degree of integration between representatives of the same syntactic class, as well as construction-specific restrictions.