Matrix phrase and matrix clause are similar concepts. If you understand one, the second is already understood. Let’s start with matrix clause.
What is matrix clause?
If you search multiple websites and grammar books for matrix clause, you’ll likely emerge confused between two definitions:
Definition 1: A matrix clause is a clause that contains subordinate clause(s). Put differently, matrix clause is main clause.
Definition 2: A matrix clause is main clause minus its subordinate clauses.
Which is correct?
It seems both.
After looking at few grammar books, I found that grammarians differ on, like on other matters, what constitutes a matrix clause. That’s what Geoffrey Leech too suggests in A Glossary of English Grammar, who presumably went through far more books and papers for compiling his glossary. I quote his explanation of matrix clause, which clearly says it can mean two different things:
(1) Another term for a main clause.
(2) A term for a main clause minus the subordinate clause. Thus in:
[You can drink your orange [if you like]].
the main clause is enclosed by the outer brackets and the subordinate clause by the inner brackets. The matrix clause (2) is the part of the main clause which is in italics. Although a matrix clause, so defined, is not strictly speaking a clause at all, it is sometimes useful to distinguish it from the material in the subordinate clause.
You’ve to decide for yourself which definition you want to go with, but I see merit in the second.
As per the first definition, matrix clause is synonymous with main clause. Why would you create another term for main clause, which is already well known?
On the other hand, second definition creates a term for a unit which otherwise is nameless. Having a term at hand can save one from unnecessarily repeating a lengthy phrase. For example, if you want to comment on the underlined part of the sentence I paid more for groceries until I discovered an online grocery store, do you refer to it as I paid more for groceries or as just matrix clause? What if you’ve to refer multiple times?
Is terminology that important? Grammar books that use second definition use the term matrix clause mainly for reference when explaining examples, like the one in last paragraph.
Examples of matrix clause
The examples that follow are based on second definition. Main clause has been enclosed in [square brackets] and matrix clause has been underlined. If you follow the first definition, main clause is the matrix clause.
1. [The winter chill continued as if it would never end].
2. [Do what you want].
3. [If you don’t know who you’re dealing with, don’t blame me if you land in trouble].
4. [When there was no danger, he feared], and [when there was no sorrow, he wept].
The second definition leads to weird, incomplete matrix clauses in the next two, but then they’re not a clause at all (see Leech’s explanation).
5. [The survey pointed to what may be the root cause of decline in the company’s fortunes].
6. [How you study matters more than when you study].
What is matrix phrase?
A matrix phrase is a phrase than embeds phrases or clauses. For example, matrix phrase The horse embeds the relative clause who was injured last month to form another phrase The horse who was injured last month, a noun phrase. This is exactly like the second definition of matrix clause we saw earlier. More examples:
(Matrix phrase in bold and embedded phrases and clauses underlined)
1. The book on the top shelf is mine.
2. The paperback that I borrowed from the library is an interesting read.
3. The group photo of the class on the beach is my favorite. [The embedded phrase itself is a combination of a matrix phrase and an embedded phrase]
If you’ve feedback on the post or if you know an authentic source (such as grammar book) that provides a different perspective on matrix phrases and clauses, feel free to drop an email (see contact page).
