26. Syndetic Composite Sentences some syntactical connections of subordinate clauses

With some types of subordinate clauses the question may be raised, whether they are connected with the head clause as a whole, or with some part of it. Of course this question does not arise with reference to subject and predicative clauses, for example: they quite obviously refer to the head clause as a whole. ¹

But most types of subordinate clauses have to be considered from this point of view. Since it is by no means certain that there are clear objective criteria to be applied in every particular case, and since the decision in some cases may prove arbitrary, it is as well to set down in advance what our method is going to be in such cases. It would appear that there are two methods to choose from: (1) we may decide that we will consider a subordinate clause to be subordinated to the whole main clause unless there are objective signs to show that it is subordinated to one part of it, or, (2) we may decide that we will consider a subordinate clause to be subordinated to a part of the head clause unless there are clear objective signs to show that it is subordinate to the main clause as a whole. Now, the second alternative does not appear to be convincing. Subject clauses and predicative clauses, which require no special consideration from this viewpoint, are clearly subordinated to the sentence as a whole, and this indeed appears the chief and essential kind of subordination. We will accordingly settle on the first alternative and state that we will consider a clause as subordinated to the whole unless there is clear evidence that it is subordinated to some part of the head clause. Such a decision will make our task easier and will at the same time point out in advance the degree of arbitrariness inherent in this problem.

Let us begin by two types which present least difficulty from this viewpoint, namely by attributive and appositional clauses. These obviously belong to a part of the head clause, namely the word denoting the thing which is further characterised in the attributive or appositional clause. If the part of the sentence to which an attributive clause belongs is dropped, the attributive clause must obviously be dropped along with it, as without that part there is nothing left for it to be attached to. The same reasoning applies to appositional clauses. They refer to an abstract noun, which is a part of the head clause, and would have to go if that noun were dropped. It is another clear case of a subordinate clause connected with one part of the head clause, not with the head clause as a whole.

Now let us consider the adverbial clauses. Here matters are somewhat less clear, as different types of adverbial clauses appear to be different from this viewpoint. With temporal, causal concessive, conditional, and resultative clauses, it is obvious that they belong to the head clause as a whole, not to any particular part of it. Let us consider a complex sentence with a conditional clause, that is, a conditional sentence, as an example. Take the sentence And if you tell father, he might tell the police, and set them hunting for them. (R. MACAULAY) There would not seem to be any doubt that the conditional clause belongs to the head clause as a whole. There is no reason to say that it belongs only to the predicate of the head clause. And the same will be true of other types of adverbial subordinate clauses which we have just mentioned.

Doubts are possible about clauses of manner and comparison. As a clause introduced by the conjunction than is necessitated by the comparative degree alone, and would be absolutely impossible in its absence, the conclusion seems to impose itself that the clause belongs to that part of the head clause which is expressed by the adjective or adverb in the comparative degree. (If it is an adjective, it may be either a predicative, or an attribute; if an adverb, it can only be an adverbial modifier of some kind.)

Now we proceed to object clauses, and this part of the problem appears to be the most difficult. For instance, in the sentence He bought what he wanted, does the object clause what he wanted belong to the head clause as a whole, or to the predicate bought alone? Or again, in the sentence She may marry whom she likes, does the object clause whom she likes belong to the head clause as a whole, or to the predicate may marry alone? There appears to be no clear evidence either way. On the one hand, it may be argued that the object clause is a part of the sentence just as an object is part of a simple sentence; it may also be pointed out that there is some parallelism between a subject clause and an object clause; compare, for instance, What he knew worried him and He told me what he knew. On the other hand, it may be argued that the object clause fully depends on the predicate verb and must go if that verb

is dropped. For want of unmistakable evidence either way, let us apply the principle agreed and draw the conclusion that an object clause belongs to the head clause as a wholeParenthetical clauses, in the vast majority of cases, refer to the head clause as a whole. They express the speaker's or writer's attitude to the statement contained in the head clause. However, there may be sentences in which the parenthetical clause refers not to the whole of the head clause but only to some fraction of it. Here are two examples: Fleda found Mrs Gereth in modest apartments and with an air of fatigue in her distinguished face — a sign, as she privately remarked, of the strain of that effort to be discreet of which she herself had been having the benefit. (H. JAMES) The parenthetical clause as she privately remarked refers only to the loose apposition a sign... discreet (with the attributive clause of which... the benefit belonging to it). Yes, but I hadn't heard from you then that you could invent nothing better than, as you call it, to send him back to her. (Idem) Such cases appear to be very rare.

THAT-CLAUSES

From a purely descriptive viewpoint, we can establish a category of clauses beginning with that. An analysis of the surrounding elements (the context) is needed to find out whether that in a given case is a demonstrative pronoun, a relative pronoun, or a conjunction, and what kind of clause is introduced by it. We will not at present dwell on the question how we have found out that the word that opens a clause (that would necessitate some additional investigation which does not belong here); we will consider it as settled that it does come at the beginning of a new clause, and we will limit ourselves to the study of the questions indicated above.

Let us first take two examples of sentences with clauses introduced by that: (1) And he had heard that the house was costing Soames a pretty penny beyond what he had reckoned on spending. (GALSWORTHY) (2) The light fell on her soft, delicate hair, that was full of strands of gold and of tarnished gold and shadow. (LAWRENCE) To determine what the word that is in each case and what sort of clause it introduces, let us examine the context more closely. In the first sentence that is preceded by had heard (a form of the verb hear) and followed by a noun with its article (the house), after which comes was costing (a form of the verb cost). This is enough to make it clear that that is a conjunction: it cannot be either a relative or a demonstrative pronoun, for the following reasons. It cannot be a relative pronoun because there is no noun either immediately before it or, indeed, anywhere before it; it cannot be a demonstrative pronoun because there is no noun immediately after it: the word immediately following is the definitearticle, and this makes it clear that the word that is not a demonstrative pronoun. So it can only be a conjunction.

As the clause introduced by the conjunction that immediately follows a form of the verb hear, the clause can only be an object clause (provided we accept the view of object clauses laid down on page 281).

In our second example things are quite different. The word that immediately follows the noun hair and is followed by a form of the verb be and the adjective full. The preceding noun hair does not in itself give any decisive information about the status of the word that: it may, in different contexts, be either a relative pronoun, or a demonstrative pronoun (for instance, in the context she did her hair that day, or she did her hair, that being essential for ... etc., or it may be a conjunction, for example, in the context she did her hair that she might look... etc.). It is the words that come after that which are decisive: the words was full show that the word that is not a conjunction: if it were a conjunction there would be no subject in the subordinate clause, and the predicate was full must have a subject coming before it. That might after all be a demonstrative pronoun; if this were so, the clause which begins here would be an independent clause and the sentence a compound sentence. This is, however, most unlikely, as such a use of the demonstrative that in this context would be stylistically awkward. So the only likely possibility is, that that is the relative pronoun, and the clause which begins here, a relative attributive clause.

As may be seen from these examples, quite a number of factors have to be taken into account if we are to find out by reasoning what part of speech the word that is in each case and what kind of clause it introduces.

A somewhat similar analysis might be given of clauses introduced, for instance, by the word when. This would show whether it was an adverb or a conjunction, and what kind of subordinate clause it introduced. The latter question (about the kind of clause) would also have to be considered with clauses introduced by the conjunction whether, and possibly with some other types of clauses too.

In dealing with syntactical connections within a complex sentence, it will be well to bear in mind that special cases are always possible, which cannot be foreseen by any general theory. Thus, a very peculiar use of conjunctions is seen in the following complex sentence: He did not know why, exactly, he wrote, he said, unless perhaps that she might know to what extent he was guilty in that he could not bring himself with any sincerity to repent a sin that had for him such charm and value. (BUECHNER) The conjunction unless would seem to introduce a clause, as it always does. But in this sentence unless is followed by perhaps, after which a clausebegins which is introduced by the conjunction that. It is quite clear from the predicate of this clause (might know) and also from the adverb why in the object clause why, exactly, he wrote, that this that-clause is a clause of purpose. But what, then, is the function of the conjunction unless? Its function would be clear if the sentence ran like this: He did not know why, exactly, he wrote, he said, unless perhaps it were that she might know..., or, alternatively, He did not know why, exactly, he wrote, unless perhaps he wrote that she might know... In each of these variants the conjunction unless would introduce a subordinate clause of its own, to which the clause of purpose would, in its turn, be subordinated. In the original text unless in a peculiar way connects with the head clause a clause of purpose which already has its own conjunction, namely, that.

PARALLELISM OF SYNTACTIC FUNCTIONS

When we set out to characterise the syntactic function of some word, phrase, or clause, we are often at a loss for want of objective criteria which would justify this or that view of their function, and we are often reduced to subjective opinions, often incompatible with one another, instead of reaching conclusions binding on every one. The result is that the whole sphere to which such a question belongs, begins to look like one inaccessible to scientific treatment, and we either reconcile ourselves to this state of things, or else we decide that the question had better be dropped altogether.

Among these questions is that of the function of subordinate clauses in a complex sentence. In more than one case the description of a subordinate clause as belonging to this or that type appears to be a scholar's private opinion rather than anything else. We must therefore attach special value to any objective criterion that might be discovered here, and we must be on a constant look-out for such criteria.

Now, a very valuable criterion in this sphere is parallel use of a subordinate clause and of a word or phrase in the same syntactic function. If the syntactic function of the word or phrase has been established — and this is in many cases an easier thing to do than with subordinate clauses — the function of the subordinate clause may be defined on this ground with a much greater degree of objectivity than on any other. Unfortunately, cases of this kind do not seem to be frequent. The more value should be attached to the few cases that there are.

The following sentence affords a clear example of parallelism: For himself, he did not mind this but if she made silly jokes about the old ladies at Potter's Farm he would get angry and then Mummy would say all that about his having to learn to take a joke and about his being highly strung and where could he have got it froom, notfrom her. (A. WILSON) Towards the end of it there are three parts connected by the conjunction and: ...all that about his having to learn to take a joke and about his being highly strung and where could he have got it from, not from her. So the syntactical function of the three parts (1) about his having to learn to take a joke, (2) about his being highly strung, (3) where could he have got it from, not from her, are bound to be the same. So a clause is shown to be on the same syntactical level as the two prepositional phrases introduced by about. If we agree that the two prepositional groups, joined as they are to the words all that, are on that account to be considered as attributes, the subordinate clause is bound to be an attributive clause.

A parallel use of a word and a clause is found in the following passage: "I have heard that something very shocking indeed will soon come out in London." Miss Tilney, to whom this was chiefly addressed, was startled, and hastily replied, "Indeed! — and of what nature?" "That I do not know, nor who is the author." (J. AUSTEN) This extract is interesting in more than one respect. On the one hand, the demonstrative pronoun that is here used to replace a clause, as implied from the question "...of what nature?" The full answer might have been "Of what nature it is, I do not know." On the other hand, in the last sentence of the extract, the object that is connected with the clause who is the author by the co-ordinating conjunction nor, which shows that they are parallel elements of the sentence, standing in the same relation to the predicate do not know. Again, if we term the pronoun that an object, there seems no valid reason for denying the status of object to the clause who is the author.

A similar parallel use of a secondary part of a sentence and of a subordinate clause is also seen in the following example: During the evening, and until they finally went to bed at midnight, Judith attempted several times to get Eve to tell her what kind of job she had and about the kind of work she did, but Eve always laughed and said it was too unimportant to discuss at a time like that when they had not seen each other for so long and had so many interesting things to talk about. (E. CALDWELL) There are two cases of such parallel use in this sentence. (1) The adverbial modifier during the evening and the subordinate clause until they finally went to bed at midnight are joined together by the conjunction and. Their similarity in meaning is seen from the fact that they are both introduced by words referring to time (during and until) and both contain nouns expressing temporal units (evening, midnight). So if we term the phrase during the evening an adverbial modifier of time, there is every reason to term the clause an adverbial clause of time. (2) With the verb tell there are two syntactical units denoting the contents of the action denoted by this verb: the subordinate clausewhat kind of job she had, and the phrase about the kind of work she did, and they are also joined together by the conjunction and. Their closeness in meaning is also shown by the fact that the subordinate clause contains the words kind of job, and the following phrase the words kind of work (job and work being of course synonyms), though this lexical closeness is not here essential to prove the syntactical parallelism of the two units. Again, if we term the phrase about the kind of work she did an object, there is every reason to term the subordinate clause an object clause.

What had seemed his defeat, her unsuccessful reaction to his account of Bone in the chapel, could be altered completely now by her consent. (BUECHNER) The two syntactical elements, the subordinate clause what had seemed his defeat, and the phrase her unsuccessful reaction to his account of Bone in the chapel, are clearly connected with each other. Probably the best way to take this connection is to say that the phrase her... chapel is an apposition to the subordinate clause, which then apparently must be the subject clause: if both the clause and the phrase are dropped there will be no subject in the sentence; and if the clause alone is dropped, the phrase will be the subject in its place, which of course is quite the rule with an apposition to the subject, in whatever way it may happen to be expressed.