Linguistics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional linguists and others with an interest in linguistic research and theory. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
This article, http://www.christianlehmann.eu/publ/linkage.pdf , alluded to something called an adjoined clause, which is subordinate, but not embedded.
What is the difference between a subordinate clause and an embedded clause?
I am assuming that "subordinate clause" is a term for a category that includes embedded clauses, but is not limited to it.
What Lehmann is talking about is Hale's famous 1976 paper about the adjoined relative clause in Australia. It discusses (subordinate) relative clauses not being embedded, which spawned the opinion that there is no subordination in Australian languages (because for most 'subordination' and 'embedding' are synonimous indeed). In fact, Hale meant something like not embedded linearly in the sentence, i.e., not having other material on both sides of them. Nordlinger does an excellent job of clarifying the issue in her 2006 paper.
