Subordinate clauses are introduced by functional connective words which effect their derivation from base sentences. Categorially these sentence subordinators (or subordinating clausalizers) fall into the two basic types: those that occupy a notional position in the derived clause, and those that do not occupy such a position. The non-positional subordinators are referred to as pure conjunctions. Here belong such words as since, before, until, if, in case, because, so that, in order that, though, however, than, as if, etc. The positional subordinators are in fact conjunctive substitutes. The main positional subordinators are the pronominal words who, what, whose, which, that, where, when, why, as. Some of these words are double-functional (bifunctional), entering also the first set of subordinators; such are the words where, when, that, as, used both as conjunctive substitutes and conjunctions. Together with these the zero subordinator should be named, whose polyfunctional status is similar to the status of the subordinator that. The substitute status of positional subordinators is disclosed in their function as "relative" pronominals, i.e. pronominals referring to syntagmatic antecedents. Cf:.
That was the day when she was wearing her pink dress. Sally put on her pink dress when she decided to join the party downstairs.
The relative pronominal when in the first of the cited sentences syntagmatically replaces the antecedent the day, while the conjunction when in the second sentence has no relative pronominal status. From the point of view of paradigmatics, though, even the second when cannot be understood as wholly devoid of substitute force, since it remains associated systemically with the adverb then, another abstract indicator of time. So, on the whole the non-substitute use of the double-functional subordinators should be described not' as utterly "non-positional", but rather as "semi-positional".
On the other hand, there is another aspect of categorial difference between the subordinators, and this directly corresponds to the nature of clauses they introduce. Namely, nominal clauses, being clauses of fact, are introduced by subordinators of fact (conjunctions and conjunctive subordinators), while adverbial clauses, being clauses of adverbial relations, are introduced by subordinators of relational semantic characteristics (conjunctions). This difference holds true both for monofunctional subordinators and bifunctional subordinators. Indeed, the subordinate clauses expressing time and place and, correspondingly, introduced by the subordinators when and where may be used both as nominal nominators and adverbial nominators. The said difference is quite essential, though outwardly it remains but slightly featured. Cf:.
I can't fmd the record where you put it yesterday. I forget where I put the record yesterday.
It is easy to see that the first place-clause indicates the place of action, giving it a situational periphrastic definition, while the second place-clause expresses the object of a mental effort. Accordingly, the subordinator where in the first sentence introduces a place description as a background of an action, while the subordinator where in the second sentence introduces a place description as a fact to be considered. The first where and the second where differ by the force of accent (the first is unstressed, the second is stressed), but the main marking difference between them lies in the difference between the patterns of their use, which difference is noted by the chosen terms "nominal" and "adverbial". This can easily be illustrated by a question-replacement test: ... → Where can't I find the record? ... → What do I forget?
Likewise, the corresponding subdivision of the nominal subordinators and the clauses they introduce can be checked and proved on the same lines. Cf:.
The day when we met is unforgettable. → Which day is unforgettable? When we met is of no consequence now. → What is of no consequence now?
The first when-pattern is clearly disclosed by the test as a qualification-nominal, while the second, as a substantive-nominal.
Thus, the categorial classification of clauses is sustainedby the semantic division of the subordinators which are distinguished as substantive-nominal clausalizers, qualification-nominal clausalizers and adverbial clausalizers. Since, on the other hand, substantive nomination is primary in categorial rank, while qualification nomination is secondary, in terms of syntactic positions all the subordinate clauses are to be divided into three groups: first, clauses of primary nominal positions to which belong subject, predicative and object clauses; second, clauses of secondary nominal positions to which belong attributive clauses; third, clauses of adverbial positions.
§ 6. Clauses of primary nominal positions - subject, predicative, object-are interchangeable with one another in easy reshufflings of sentence constituents. Cf.:
What you saw at the exhibition is just what I want to know.→ What I want to know is just what you saw at the exhibition.→ I iust want to know what you saw at the exhibition.
However, the specific semantic functions of the three respective clausal positions are strictly preserved with all such interchanges, so that there is no ground to interpret positional rearrangements like the ones shown above as equivalent.
The subject clause, in accordance with its functional position, regularly expresses the theme at the upper level of the actual division of the complex sentence. The thematic property of the clause is well exposed in its characteristic uses with passive constructions, as well as constructions in whichthe voice opposition is neutralized. E.g.:
Why he rejected the offer has never been accounted for. What small reputation the town does possess derives from two things.
It should be noted that in modern colloquial English the formal position of the subject clause in a complex sentence is open to specific contaminations (syntactic confusions on the clausal level). Here is one of the typical examples:
Just because you say I wouldn't have (seen a white elephant-M.B.) doesn't prove anything (E. Hemingway).
The contamination here consists in pressing into one construction the clausal expression of cause and the expression of the genuine theme-subject to which the predicate of the sentence refers. The logical implication of the statement is that the event in question cannot be taken as impossible by the mere reason of the interlocutor's considering it as such. Thus, what can be exposed of the speaker's idea by way of "de-contaminating" the utterance is approximately like this: "Your saying that I wouldn't have doesn't prove anything."
Another characteristic type of syntactic contamination of the subject-clause pattern is its use as a frame for an independent sentence. E.g.:
You just get yourselves into trouble is what happens (M. Bradbury).
The cited contamination presents a feature of highly emotional speech. The utterance, as it were, proves to be a living illustration of the fact that where strong feelings are concerned the logic of lingual construction is liable to be trespassed upon. The logic in question can be rehabilitated by a substitution pattern: "You just get yourselves into trouble, this is what happens."
As is known, the equivalent subject-clausal function can be expressed by the construction with an anticipatory pronoun (mostly the anticipatory it). This form of expression, emphasizing the rheme-clause of the sentence, at the same time presents the information ot the subject clause in a semantically stronger position than the one before the verb. Therefore the anticipatory construction is preferred in cases when the content of the subject clause is not to be wholly overbalanced or suppressed by the predicate of the sentence. E.g.:
How he managed to pull through is a miracle. →It is a miracle how he managed to pull through.
Some scholars analyse the clause introduced by the anticipatory construction as presenting two possibilities of interpretation which stand in opposition to each other. According to the first and more traditional view, this is just a subject clause introduced by the anticipatory it, while in the light of the second, the clause introduced by it is appositive. In our opinion, the latter explanation is quite rational; however, it cannot be understood as contrary to the "anticipatory" theory. Indeed, the appositive type of connection between the introducer it and the introduced clause is proved by the very equivalent transformation of the non-anticipatory construction into the anticipatory one; but the exposition of the appositive character of the clause does not make the antecedent it into something different from an introductory pronominal element. Thus, the interpretation of the subject clause referring to the introducer it as appositive, in fact, simply explains the type of syntactic connection underlying the anticipatory formula.
The predicative clause, in conformity with the predicative position as such, performs the function of the nominal part of the predicate, i.e. the part adjoining the link-verb. The link-verb is mostly expressed by the pure link be, not infrequently we find here also the specifying links seem and look; the use of other specifying links is occasional. E.g.:
The trouble is that I don't know Fanny personally. The question is why the decision on the suggested innovation is still delayed. The difficulty seems how we shall get in touch with the chief before the conference. After all those years of travelling abroad, John has become what you would call a man of will and experience.
Besides the conjunctive substitutes, the predicative clause, the same as other nominal clauses, can be introduced by some conjunctions (that, whether, as if, as though). The predicative clause introduced by the conjunctions as if, as though has an adverbial force, which is easily shown by contrast:
She looks as though she has never met him.→ She behavesasthough she has never met him.
While considering subordinate clauses relating to the finite be in the principal clause, care should be taken to strictly discriminate between the linking and non-linking (notional) representations of the verb. Indeed, the linking be is naturally followed by a predicative clause, while the notional be, featuring verbal semantics of existence, cannot join a predicative. Cf.:
It's because he's weak that he needs me. This was because he had just arrived.
The cited sentences have been shown by BA. Ilyish as examples of predicative clauses having a non-conventional nominal-clause conjunction [llyish, 276-277]. However, the analysis suggested by the scholar is hardly acceptable, since the introducing be in both examples does not belong to the class of links.
The predicative clause in a minimal complex sentence regularly expresses its rheme. Therefore there is an essential informative difference between the two functional uses of a categorially similar nominal clause: that of the predicative and that of the subject. Cf.:
The impression is that he is quite competent. That he is quite competent is the impression.
The second sentence (of an occasional status, with a sentencetress on the link-verb), as different from the first, suggests an implication of a situational antithesis: the impression may be calledinquestion, or it may be contrasted against another trait of the person not so agreeable as the one mentioned, etc.
The same holds true of complex sentences featuring subordinate clauses in both subject and predicative positions. Cf:.
How she gets there is whafs troubling me (→ I am troubled). Whafs troubling me is how she gets there (→ How is she to get there?).
The peculiar structure of this type of sentence, where two nominal clauses are connected by a short link making up all the outer composition of the principal clause, suggests the scheme of a balance. For the sake of convenient terminological discrimination, the sentence may be so called - a "complex balance".
The third type of clauses considered under the heading of clauses of primary nominal positions are object clauses.
The object clause denotes an object-situation of the process expressed by the verbal constituent of the principal clause.
The object position is a strong substantive position in the sentence. In terms of clausal relations it means that the substantivizing force of the genuine object-clause derivation is a strongly pronounced nominal clause-type derivation. This is revealed, in particular, by the fact that object clauses can be introduced not only non-prepositionally, but also, if not so freely, prepositionally. Cf:.
They will accept with grace whatever he may offer. She stared at what seemed a faded photo of Uncle Jo taken half a century before. I am simply puzzled by what you are telling me about the Carfatrs.
On the other hand, the semantic content of the object clause discriminates three types of backgrounds: first, an immediately substantive background; second, an adverbial background; third, an un-characterized background of general event. This differentiation depends on the functional status of the clause-connector, that is on the sentence-part role it performs in the clause. Cf:.
We couldn't decide whom we should address. The friends couldn't decide where they should spend their vacation.
The object clause in the first of the cited sentences is of a substantive background (We should address - whom), whereas the object clause in the second sentence is of adverbial-local background (They should spend their vacation - where).
The plot of the novel centred on what might be called a far-fetched, artificial situation. The conversation centred on why that clearly formulated provision of international law had been violated.
The first object clause in the above two sentences is of substantive background, while the second one is of an adverbial-causal background.
Object clauses of general event background are introduced by conjunctions:
Now he could prove that the many years he had spent away from home had not been in vain.
The considered background features of subordinate clauses, certainly, refer to their inner status and therefore concern all the nominal clauses, not only object ones. But with object clauses they are of especial contrastive prominence, which is due to immediate dependence of the object clause on the valency of the introducing (subordinating) verb.
An extremely important set of clause-types usually included into the vast system of object clauses is formed by clauses presenting chunks of speech and mental-activity processes. These clauses are introduced by the verbs of speech and mental activity (Lat. "verba sendendi et declarandi"), whose contextual content they actually expose. Cf:.
Who says the yacht hasn't been properly prepared for the voyage? She wondered why on earth she was worrying so much, when obviously the time had come to end the Incident and put it out of mind.
The two sentences render by their subordinate clauses speech of the non-author (non-agent) plane: in the first, actual words of some third person are cited, in the second, a stream of thought is presented which is another form of the existence of speech (i.e. inner speech). The chunk of talk rendered by this kind of presentation may not necessarily be actually pronounced or mentally produced by a denoted person; it may only be suggested or imagined by the speaker; still, even in the latter case we are faced by lingually (grammatically) the same kind of non-author speech-featuring complex construction. Cf:.
Do you mean to say that the story has a moral?
Not all the clauses introduced by the verbs in question belong to this type. In principle, these clauses are divided into the ones exposing the content of a mental action (as shown above) and the ones describing the content of a mental action, such as the following:
You may tell me whatever you like. Will you tell me what the matteris?