SUBJECT CLAUSES

The notion of a subject clause is not quite clearly defined. The idea at the bottom of the category is this: a clause which performs within a complex sentence the same function that the subject performs within a simple sentence. But in some cases this definition does not appear to be sufficient.

To make the essence of what a subject clause is quite clear let us first take some examples in which no other interpretation appears to be possible. Clauses of this kind are introduced either by a relative or interrogative pronoun or adverb, or by the conjunction that. We give some examples of each variety. What had happened was that I had spent too much time in the French Quarter, mostly in jazz bars along Bourbon Street, but I planned to make up for it by getting my order book filled in Baton Rouge and Shreveport and thereby make a good showing at the sales conference in Dallas. (E. CALDWELL) What she considered his monkey's, Simon's, value, for instance, was not lost upon her. (BUECHNER) In the following sentence there is one subject clause and two predicative clauses to it: What they learn from me is that they're never going to have it so good again; that the great ones, the ones they read, saw it all as pretty black. (Idem)

The following two examples are from A. Trollope: That she must fear the result of the trial, he thought, was certain, but he could not bring himself to have any such fear. The clause he thought is an inserted clause, so the clause that she must fear the result of the trial can only be the subject clause to the first half of the composite sentence, the predicate being was certain. Indeed, if the clause that she must fear the result of the trial is dropped, the predicate was certain has nothing to be attached to. A similar situation is found in the following sentence: That this should be so cut Mr Mason of Groby to the very soul. If the clause that this should be so is dropped the predicate of the main clause cut has no subject to perform the action of "cutting". How they could get through it all, had often amazed Mrs Allen; and, when Catherine saw what was necessary here, she began to be amazed herself. (J. AUSTEN) If the subordinate clause is dropped, and the sentence is allowed to begin with the words had often amazed, there is no subject in it; and that is sufficient reason for terming the subordinate clause a subject clause. That the General, having erected such a monument, should be able to face it, was not perhaps very strange; and yet that he could sit so boldly collected within its view, maintain so elevated an air, look so fearlessly around, nay, that he should even enter the church, seemed wonderful to Cathe-

276 Subject and Predicative Clauses

rine. (J. AUSTEN) Each of the two complex sentences making up this passage has a subject clause, and indeed the second one has two of them. It is characteristic of this type that the subject clauses have (two out of the three) the group "should + infinitive" as their predicate, and that the predicates of the two main clauses contain adjectives expressing assessment (strange and wonderful).

The reason for calling these clauses subject clauses would seem to be clear: if the clause is dropped, the subject is missing. Since in the sentences as they are the position which might be occupied by a noun-subject is occupied by a subordinate clause, this seems to be sufficient reason for terming the clause a subject clause.

Things are somewhat more difficult and controversial in sentences like the following: It had seemed certain that their meeting was fortunate. (R. WEST) Here the main clause has the pronoun it (in its impersonal use) occupying the position assigned to the subject of the sentence, and after the main clause comes a subordinate clause whose syntactical function we are to consider now. Two views appear to be possible here. One of them is that the pronoun it at the beginning of the main clause is only a "formal subject", or, as it is sometimes termed, a "sham subject", whereas the subordinate clause coming after the main one is the real subject. The other view is, that the position of the subject is occupied by the pronoun it, and, whether "formal" or not, it is the subject of the sentence, so that no room is left for any other subject.. If this view is accepted, the clause will have to be some other kind of clause, not a subject clause. The best way of treating it in that case would be to take it as a kind of appositional clause referring to the subject of the main clause, namely the pronoun it.

The choice of either alternative must necessarily remain a matter of subjective decision, as no objective proof in favour of the one or the other view seems possible. The situation so far is the same as with some types of simple sentences, where the choice was between, taking a certain part as a "real" subject as distinct from the "formal" one, or as an apposition to it. We would definitely prefer the second view and we will therefore discuss this type of subordinate clauses when we come to appositional clauses (see p. 303).

PREDICATIVE CLAUSES

By predicative clauses we mean clauses like those in the following sentences. This was exactly what she had expected him to say and for the first time she did not go closer and squeeze his hand intimately. (E. CALDWELL) "The only comforting feature of the whole business," he said, "is that we didn't pay for our dinner." (LINKLATER) The following example is instructive: It seemed as if a good view were no longer to be taken from the top of a high hill

Predicative Clauses 277

and that a clear blue sky was no longer a proof of a fine day. (J. AUSTEN) The conjunction and, which joins the two subordinate clauses, must be taken as a sign of their being syntactically parallel, though they are introduced by different means (as if and that respectively). Their parallelism is further shown by the use of the modifier no longer in each of them. Apparently, both clauses are predicative ones (coming as they do after the link verb seemed), and the difference in the use of conjunctions may be due to the fact that the conjunctional phrase as if, which has a more definite meaning, implying unreality, is not repeated at the opening of the second subordinate clause because the more neutral and colourless conjunction that may well be taken as a kind of substitute for it.

The reason for calling these clauses predicative is that if they are dropped the sentence will be unfinished: there will be the link verb, but the predicative, which should come after the link verb, will be missing. This seems sufficient reason for terming the clause a predicative clause.

We must also consider under the heading of predicative clauses the following type: "It's because he's weak that he needs me," she added. (E. JAMES) Here the subordinate clause in question is included within the construction it is... that and thus singled out as the rheme of the complex sentence (compare what has been said on this construction in our chapter on functional sentence perspective, p. 193). This clause would occupy a different position in the sentence if it were not singled out; for instance, the sentence just mentioned would run like this: He needs me because he's weak and the clause would be a clause of cause. As the sentence stands, however, the clause is treated as a predicative one.

Sometimes we can even find two or three subordinate clauses singled out by being included into the frame it is... that. Here is an example which may be called extreme: It was whether one loved at all, and how much that love cost, and what was its reception then, that mattered. (BUECHNER) It may be interesting to note that it would probably have been impossible to have these three clauses as subject clauses, with the predicate mattered, and without the it is... that construction. That the three clauses are subordinate, is shown by several facts: (1) the conjunction whether, which is a sure sign of a subordinate clause, (2) the form of the predicate verb in the second subordinate clause: cost, not did cost, as it would have been in an independent clause (how much did this love cost?); as to the third subordinate clause, its subordinate status is shown by its being co-ordinated with the other two subordinate clauses by means of the conjunction and.

Not infrequently there is both a subject clause and a predicative clause in a complex sentence. The only element outside these clauses is then the link verb. In such cases there is nothing in the

278 Subject and Predicative Clauses

sentence that might be termed a main clause. What I am positive about is that he never expected a wife who would please the family. (SNOW) As is the rule with that -clauses of this kind, the predicative clause gives a precise definition of the idea vaguely hinted at in the subject clause. Another example of this type of sentence is taken from another modern novel: What she did not know was that in addition to liking things nice she infallibly, by her presence alone, tended to make them so. (BUECHNER) The following example is of a somewhat different kind. What I think is, you're supposed to leave somebody alone if he's at least being interesting and he's getting all excited about something. (SALINGER) The subject clause here is exactly the same type as in the preceding examples, but the predicative clause is not introduced by that, or by any subordinating conjunction, for that matter, and that may give rise to doubts about its syntactical status. It will probably be right to say that this absence of a conjunction does not basically alter the character of the clause, and it may even be taken as a stylistic variant of a syndetic predicative clause: What I think is that you are supposed... The semantic ties are quite obviously the same as with thai-clauses, and the difference lies in the stylistic colouring of the text.

Similar questions may also arise with other kinds of asyndetic clauses. Let us, for instance, consider the following example. "I'm so hungry I could eat anything," said Prue. "Even the sternal gulf fish." (A. WILSON) If the text ran, I'm so hungry that I could eat anything, there would quite evidently be a clause of result, namely one of the type described on p. 395, introduced by the conjunction that, with the correlative adverb so in the main clause. As it is, there are no grammatical reasons to term the clause a subordinate one. Indeed, if there were a comma after hungry it would be an argument against subordination, and the clauses would look quite independent of each other. With no comma, the definition of the clause and of the sentence as a whole must necessarily remain either vague or arbitrary: the usual distinctions are neutralised here.

Поиск по сайту: