What is the subordinate clause of this sentence?

In spite of these persuasive arguments against putting such a premium
on correct spelling it is still taken by most to be the primary factor
in distingiushing 'literacy' from 'illiteracy'.

The subordinate clause of this sentence is:

In spite of these persuasive arguments against putting such a premium
on correct spelling


The main clause of this sentence is:

it is still taken by most to be the primary factor in distinguishing
'literacy' from 'illiteracy'.


The definition of a subordinate clause (or dependent clause) is a
clause that cannot stand alone as a complete sentence and relies on
the rest of the sentence for its meaning.

The subordinate clause that I retyped above depends on the main clause
for its meaning as it makes no sense by itself. The main clause is
also able to stand alone and be grammatically correct (it is a
complete sentence), while the dependent (subordinate) clause cannot
stand by itself as a grammatically correct sentence.

I hope this is a satisfactory answer.


Additional links

Definition of a subordinate clause
http://www.writing.ucsb.edu/faculty/behrens/sub.htm
http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000010.htm


Search strategy

subordinate clause

I found the explanation very clear and helpful until someone added a
comment which made me more confused!

Some definitions of "clause" say a clause must have a subject and a
predicate.  With such a definition, the sentence in the posted
question does not have a subordinate clause.  The phrase

"In spite of these persuasive arguments against putting such a premium
on correct spelling"

is some kind of modifier or prepositional phrase, but it's not a
clause, because it doesn't have a subject or a verb.

Others define "clause" more broadly to include phrases that don't have
a subject, and maybe not even a verb.

With this kind of definition, "putting such a premium on correct
spelling" and "distinguishing 'literacy' from 'illiteracy'" could both
be considered subordinate clauses.

I did not find a definition of "subordinate clause" under which I
thought the posted sentence would have exactly one subordinate clause.

--efn

What is the generally accepted way of defining a subordinate clause? 
I find it all very confusing!

Hi dogger,

I'm sorry to have confused you.

The "subordinate" part is relatively easy.  A subordinate clause is a
clause that can't stand alone and works inside a sentence as a noun,
adjective, or adverb.

The more difficult question is "what is a clause?"  In my Internet
searching, I didn't find consensus.  It seems that the more
old-fashioned sources say it is a phrase that contains a phrase that
looks like a sentence, with a subject and predicate.  For example, "if
you build it" is a clause because "you build it" is a sentence.  Then
there are some that say the subject can be implied rather than
explicit, and there are a few who say you don't even need a verb. 
That's why my previous comment gave more than one answer.

I am not currently in touch with the grammarian community enough to
know what definition is generally accepted.  I will try to do some
research off-line to see if there is any consensus in print.  This may
take a while, though.

Meanwhile, perhaps another reader will chime in.

--efn

When I was looking up my original answer, I found "in spite of the
fact that" to be a true subordinate conjunction. Using this, the
sentence can be modified as such:

In spite of the fact that these persuasive arguments are against
putting such a premium
on correct spelling it is still taken by most to be the primary factor
in distingiushing 'literacy' from 'illiteracy'.

The subordinate clause would be:

In spite of the fact that these persuasive arguments are against
putting such a premium
on correct spelling

because it cannot stand alone as a sentence.

The subordinate clause also satisfies the definition of a clause
because it includes a subject and a predicate. The subject is
"persuasive arguments" and the predicate is "are against putting such
a premium...". I did modify the sentence, however, to 'generate' this
result. This modification can be justified if the original sentence is
grammatically incorrect. Alas, I cannot make such a judgement.

I hope this comment offers a bit of insight as to whether the
subordinate clause in the unmodified, original sentence is indeed a
true clause.

I looked at the grammar books available at my local library and they
all had the more restrictive definition of a clause, the one that says
a clause has a subject and a predicate or verb.  So it looks like that
is the generally accepted definition.

The page on "The Clause" at the Grammar Bytes web site may be helpful:

http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/clause.htm

Dr. Ed Vavra has an interesting discussion here:

http://nweb.pct.edu/homepage/staff/evavra/ED498/IM/Clauses_Det.htm

--efn

Thank you everyone who has helped me with clauses, you are all so
kind. I wish I had tried Google answers before.
Q. What's the suboordinate clause here?

Your comment (quoted):
> Thank you everyone who has helped me with clauses, you are all so
kind. I wish I had tried Google answers before.
> Q. What's the suboordinate clause here?

Your first sentence contains a comma splice and is a run-on sentence.
You used a comma when you should have used a period or semi-colon.
Therefore, a correction would be:

Thank you everyone who has helped me with clauses. You are all so
kind.

As well, there is no subordinate clause in either of the above
sentences.

Dear Supermacman and all, In the original sentence "In spite of these
persuasive arguments against putting such a premium on correct
spelling it is still taken by most to be the primary factor in
distingiushing 'literacy' from 'illiteracy'".  Do you think a comma
should be placed after the word 'spelling'?

Yes, there should be a comma after "spelling."