I in my reply wrote:Most people seem to find it best to think of a clause as something akin to a simple sentence i.e. as a grammatical unit with at least a subject and a finite/tensed verb (verb phrase beginning with a finite/tensed verb) e.g.
I've written this reply for you;
You are reading it now.*
When there are two or more clauses in a sentence, then it is a complex sentence (as opposed to simple sentence) containing at least one dependent/subordinate clause besides its main clause. (I'm ignoring co-ordination, as that doesn't seem difficult to recognize).
According to Graeme Kennedy, 'Most subordinate clauses begin with a word or words which can mark the fact that the clause has subordinate status. These include...' (Click on the following GBS link for the listing):
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wE5X ... #PPA269,M1
(NB: Make sure that you compare Kennedy pp 269-270 with the LSGSWE pp 31-36 inclusive, esp pg 31).
The order of the two types of clause is not fixed - subordinate can precede main (
If you like, I can give you an example), or the main precede the subordinate (
I can give you another example (,) if you'd prefer), but let's assume that main will usually precede subordinate.
Having made this potentially helpful theoretical assumption, and in light of all the stuff above (especially the definition of clause as minimally
subject followed by tensed verb), let's now look at your sentence.
'A collision between US and Chinese military aircraft has led to Pentagon accusations that China is intercepting US military aircraft in an "unsafe manner"'.
I'm going to go through it word by word. Tell me when we reach something verby, especially if it looks tensed.
1) A... (nope, no verb yet, just a determiner/the indefinite article (according to mainly the OALD7:
http://www.oup.com/elt/catalogue/teache ... ?cc=global ))
2) A collision... (no verb, just det + noun)
3) A collision between... (no verb, just det + noun + preposition)
4) A collision between US... (no verb, just det + noun + prep + "adjective")
5) A collision between US and... (no verb, just det + noun + prep + "adj" + conjunction)
6) A collision between US and Chinese... (no verb, just det + noun + prep + "adj" + conj + adj)
7) A collision between US and Chinese military... (no verb, just det + n + prep + "adj" + conj + adj + adj)
8 ) A collision between US and Chinese military aircraft..(no verb, just det + n + p + "adj" + conj + adj + adj + n)
9) A collision between US and Chinese military aircraft
has...STOP! WE HAVE A VERB!
Indeed, "our" verb, the finite/tensed one we were looking for. It actually starts a verb phrase that is a 'compound tense' ("present perfect") i.e. 'has led' ('led' is a past participle/non-finite form, by the way, and the main/lexical verb, with 'has' the finite auxiliary that adds perfective aspect. Skip on from that last bracketed sentence or two and don't come back to it if it's causing you to start to freak out! LOL;).
So we now know that we have a subject and a finite verb, the two essential elements of a clause according to our definition. The subject is the long noun phrase 'A collision between US and Chinese military aircraft', the verb phrase is 'has led'. Obviously that sounds a bit incomplete, so we ought to see if there is an object or whatever completing the clause...
The preposition 'to' bridges/links the verb phrase to...
Pentagon ("noun", but kinda adjectival, seeing as there is no determiner)
Pentagon accusations ("compound noun/NP", and plural, should suffice for now!)
Pentagon accusations
that - NP + a conjunction.
The OALD states:
that: as conj. Used after some verbs, adjectives and nouns
to introduce a new part of the sentence:
She said (that) the story was true. It’s possible (that) he has not received the letter. The fact (that) he’s older than me is not relevant.
So, what is this 'that' introducing in the rest of our sentence? (T)hat...
China
China
is
China
is intercepting
China
is intercepting something - all of which is, yup, basically another clause.
Now, you might think this embedded clause is a subordinate one, but its function is actually more to just postmodify/complete the noun phrase that began with 'Pentagon accusations' (and ends with 'manner').
So I'd say that you "basically" have a sentence there with two noun phrases, the first relatively simple, the second relatively complex (due to the embedded clause), which are hung each side of a pivotal central verb phrase and which function respectively as subject and object of a single clause overall.
I don't know if that answer is satisfactory (you might fear that some will shout, 'Wrong, there are TWO clauses ultimately in that sentence!', even though the latter is embedded
within and postmodifying a noun phrase/object rather than clearly/immediately subordinate to any main clause), but I think that saying 'One clause' and providing a hopefully sophisticated enough (and obviously hopefully correct!) explanation as to why that should be is better than "wimping out" with 'Two, Sir!' simply for fear that here is a trick question absolutely requiring the latter answer. Which is all a way of saying that if you do answer 'Two clauses', you should probably make sure that you explain how one is part of something functioning as the object of a bigger clause.
Hope this helps, and please tell me if I am wrong! (I'm never 100% sure about things myself - this could all be a load of twaddle!).
By the way, the word-by-word linear build-up isn't really necessary once you are more confident in your parsing abilities; quite a few people would go straight for a clean binary subject-predicate/NP-Chosmkyan "VP" parse/division ('A collision between US and Chinese military aircraft / has led to Pentagon accusations that China is intercepting US military aircraft in an "unsafe manner"'), then divide the VP into its further constituents etc.
*I won't bore you with non-finiteness except to say that in contrast to finiteness, non-finiteness is traditionally reserved for phrases that "lack" a/"THE" subject within them themselves and therefore don't have their verbs inflected for tense (compare a finite verb phrase without a subject - either an imperative (
Stop! vs ?
You stop!) or apparent nonsense (*
Stopped!)). For example, in
My father travelled by two buses each day / to get there on time, / leaving home at 5am / and usually returning after 10pm, there is a clause (finite ~) followed by three non-finite phrases (=verb phrases at least: 'to get', 'leaving', and 'returning'). Note that non-finite phrases logically are a type of subordination/dependent. Other joys to get your head around eventually are 'verbless "clauses"', 'absolute "clauses"' etc (see the Chalker & Weiner
Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar that I'm always recommending - a bargain at around a tenner).