Object clauses and attributive clauses

OBJECT CLAUSES

Object clauses are less easily defined and less easily recognizable than either subject or predicative clauses. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that views differ as to what the limits of the notion "object clause" should be. We may try to apply the same criterion that worked well in the case of subject and predicative clauses, viz. omit the subordinate clause and see what part of the sentence is missing and by what part of a simple sentence the vacant position might be occupied. But we shall not always arrive at a clear decision.

The easiest cases are those in which the subordinate clause can be replaced by a noun which would then be an object in a simple sentence. This applies, for instance, to sentences of the type He bought what he wanted. If we drop the subordinate clause what he wanted we get the unfinished sentence He bought..., which has no definite meaning until we add some word that will function as an object. This may of course be any noun denoting a thing that can be bought, for instance, He bought a briefcase. The similarity in syntactical position between a briefcase and the subordinate clause what he wanted appears to be sufficient reason for saying that what he wanted is an object clause. Compare the following example: Owen had grown larger to her: he would do, like a man, whatever he should have to do. (H. JAMES)

The same may be said about the sentence Tom may marry whom he likes. ¹ Here the clause whom he likes may be replaced by any noun that will fit into the context, for instance, by any feminine name: Tom may marry Jane, where Jane will be an object. This, again, seems sufficient reason for stating that the clause whom he likes is an object clause: its syntactical function is the same as that of the noun Jane which we put in its place. This sentence differs from the preceding in one respect: the subordinate clause may be eliminated without the sentence becoming impossible or incomplete: Tom may marry. This of course depends on the meaning of the verb marry, which in the sense 'enter upon a married state' does not necessarily require a noun or pronoun to make the meaning of the sentence complete.

Here are some more examples: And Cecil was welcome to bring whom he would into the neighbourhood. (FORSTER) But Steitler, no more than six or seven years the older as Motley correctly guessed, had made use of his seniority by developing what Motley was quick to recognise as a definite way with him, a generally

¹ O. Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar, Part III, p. 62.

280 Object Clauses and Attributive Clauses

constant manner under cover — or in easy despite — of which he met the world, was recognised always as quite uniquely himself. (BUECHNER) The object clause coming after developing seems to go on as far as the noun manner, where a subordinate clause of the second degree begins, namely an attributive one to this noun. Object clauses of this type are very characteristically English, and in translating such sentences into another language, for example, into Russian, the turn of the sentence has usually to be changed altogether. Compare also: Fes, my father can seldom be prevailed on to give the waters what I think a fair trial. (J. AUSTEN) Give somebody (something) a fair trial is a phraseological unit, with both nominal elements in it necessary for its existence. This has not prevented, in the last example, the substitution of an object clause (what I call a fair trial) for the phrase a fair trial. This plainly shows that the subordinate clause is here exactly similar in function to the object in a simple sentence, and that the term "object clause" is therefore fully justified.

There is also another type of object clause. This is found in sentences having in the main clause a predicate verb which combines almost exclusively with object clauses and only with a very few possible objects (within a simple sentence). A typical verb of this kind is the verb say. Compare the following example: She could not say what is was. (LAWRENCE) If we drop the subordinate clause we get the unfinished sentence She could not say... The words that can come after the verb say and perform the function of object in a simple sentence are very few indeed: these are chiefly the pronouns this, that, anything, everything, and the noun the truth.

On the whole it may be said that subordinate clauses are much more characteristic of the verb say than an object in a simple sentence.

The same may be said about the verb ask. If we take the sentence She asked whether this was true, and drop the subordinate clause, we shall get the unfinished sentence She asked... The possibilities of completing this sentence by means of an object within the framework of a simple sentence are again very limited: there may be the pronouns this, that, something, nothing, and the noun a question. In this case, too, a subordinate clause is much more characteristic of the verb than an object in a simple sentence. Compare also the following example: He merely suggested that Motley's peculiar gifts tended to make him animate and inflate whatever might, seem to him the most appealing among the host of potentialities attending any unextraordinary human situation; that if, as certainly might be the case, there were validity in his suspicions, he, Tristram, could be no more than very interested to hear of it. (BUECHNER) The object clause, whatever might seem to him the most appealing among the host of potentialities attending any unextraordinary human situation, is rather long; yet it does not pro-

Object Clauses 281

duce any difficulty for the reader to identify the that which comes immediately after it as a conjunction parallel to the first that (the one coming after suggested) and, consequently, to range the clause introduced by the second that as standing on the same level as the first that- clause (that Motley's peculiar gifts...).

The idea will naturally suggest itself of treating the subordinate clause as the typical element following the verb say or ask, rather than as something to be defined by comparing it to an object in a simple sentence.

Now let us pass on to the verbs with which a subordinate clause is the only formation that can follow them to express the contents of the action expressed by the verb.

The verb exclaim is a case in point. Completing it by a word functioning as an object in a simple sentence is impossible: none of the words suggested for the verbs say and ask will do here. Neither the pronouns this, that, something, everything, nor any noun could come after the verb exclaim. So if we apply the criterion which served for the preceding verbs, we cannot find an object of this kind in a simple sentence with this verb and argue that, since the subordinate clause is identical in function to that object, it is bound to be an object clause. The argument in favour of the view that it is an object clause would then have to be more far-fetched and it would have to be something like this: the subordinate clause after the verb exclaim is an object clause because its syntactical function is similar to that of the subordinate clause after the verb say or ask, and that clause is to be recognised as an object clause because its function is the same as that of a few pronouns and nouns which can come after the verb say or ask in a simple sentence.

Now this argument may or may not be found convincing. If it is, all clauses of this kind after the verbs exclaim, wonder, and a number of other "verba sentiendi et declarandi" will have to be accepted as object clauses (which of course is the traditional view). If it is not found convincing the subordinate clauses after such verbs will have to be taken as a special type of clauses, which in this case will not fit into the system of subordinate clause parallel to parts of a simple sentence but will have to be organised on some other principle. They might be termed "subordinate clauses of indirect speech". This is a possible view but it entails some inconvenience. In the first place, this type of clause would remain outside the system which is based on analogy with parts of a simple sentence; secondly, if we recognise clauses of indirect speech as a separate type, we shall obviously have to include in it the clauses following the verbs say, ask, etc. as well, though with these verbs a few pronouns and nouns are possible as objects in a simple sentence.

In this case, as in so many others, no binding decision is possible: the solution a scholar arrives at will largely depend on his

282 Object Clauses and Attributive Clauses

own opinion of the relative value of the arguments brought forward in favour of this or that view.

Occasionally an object clause may come before the main clause:.. .whatever courtesy I have shown to Mrs Hurtle in England I have been constrained to show her. (TROLLOPE) In this example the object clause, which of course depends on the predicate have been constrained to show of the head clause, comes first. This is a clear indication that the object clause represents the theme of the sentence, whereas the rheme is represented by the head clause, and the most important element in this rheme is of course the word constrained. In fact the essential meaning of the sentence might have been put briefly in these words: My courtesy to Mrs Hurtle was constrained. In that case the theme would be represented by the subject group, and the rheme by the predicate.

In speaking of object clauses, special attention must be paid to clauses introduced by prepositions. These clauses may be termed prepositional object clauses, on the analogy of prepositional objects in a simple sentence.

We must note that a prepositional object in a simple sentence does not always correspond to a prepositional object clause: for instance, the verb insist, which always combines with the preposition on (or upon) in a simple sentence, never has this preposition when followed by an object clause.

Most verbs, however, which combine with a preposition in a simple sentence, do so in a complex sentence as well: a case in point is the verb depend, which always combines with the preposition on (or upon), no matter what follows: compare It depends on what you will say, It depends on whether you will come. Here are some examples: The conversation was as brief and uncomplicated as that, freed from whatever implication the memory of their earlier encounter might have added to it. (BUECHNER) This is a peculiarly English way of putting it, and it appears to be more idiomatic than the other way, which, however, is also possible, namely, The conversation was as brief and uncomplicated as that, freed from any implication that the memory of their earlier encounter might have added to it.

The following example is very illuminating since a prepositional clause going with the verb think is then followed by prepositional objects within the main clause: He thought for a few minutes of what she had said — of Arthur's rottenness — socially and personally — and of all that they stood for — individually alive, socially progressive. (A. WILSON) As the prepositional clause of what she had said stands on the same syntactic level as the prepositional phrases of Arthur's rottenness and of all that they stood for (the latter including an attributive subordinate clause), it is quite clear that their functions are identical, that is, the clause is an object clause.

Object Clauses 283

A prepositional clause is also found in this sentence from a novel by A. Trollope: After what had passed, young Round should have been anxious to grind Lucius Mason into powder, and make money of his very bones! After what had passed clearly performs the same function in the sentence that would be performed, say, by the prepositional phrase after these events in a simple sentence. Since that prepositional phrase would have been an adverbial modifier of time (and this is seen from the lexical meanings of the words making it up), the same function must be ascribed to the prepositional clause that we have here.

Compare also the following example: He questioned me on what Caroline had said. (SNOW) By substituting a phrase for the clause introduced by the preposition on, we get a simple sentence with a prepositional object, e. g. He questioned me on Caroline's opinion. So the prepositional clause is clearly shown to be the equivalent, in a complex sentence, of a prepositional object in a simple one. Compare also the following example: How far back did you burrow, Julia? To when our hearts were young and gay at Wellesley? (TAYLOR)

An example of the syntactical equivalence of a word (or phrase) and a clause is also seen in the following sentence.

Vitiate the minds or what pass for the minds of the people with education, teach them to read and write, feed their imaginations with sexual and criminal fantasies known as films, and then starve them in order to pay for these delightful erotic celluloids. (A. WILSON) What pass for the minds stands obviously in the same relation as the minds, on the one hand to the words of the people with education, and on the other to the verb vitiate, to which both of them are objects. The syntactic equivalence of the noun the minds and the clause what pass for the minds is made especially clear by this syntactical tie in two directions. Such examples as these are the strongest argument in favour of classifying subordinate clauses on the same principle as parts of a simple sentence.

In our next example there are no homogeneous parts of this kind, but otherwise the function of the subordinate clause is seen very clearly: I could not write what is known as the popular historical biography. (A. WILSON) The corresponding simple sentence would be, I could not write a popular historical biography. So» if we term the noun a biography the direct object in the latter sentence, there seems to be no reason whatever to deny that the subordinate clause in the former sentence is an object clause. Compare also: I've no doubt about that he is an estimable young man, but I knew nothing about him except what you have told me. (LINKLATER)

Such sentences may be cited as an argument for recognising noun clauses" in Modern English (see above, p. 272 ff.). It is clear that constructions of this kind are only possible if prepositions in

284 Object Clauses and Attributive Clauses

a language do not require any special case and may be followed by practically any kind of word, including a conjunction.

The specific qualities of an object clause as distinct from an object in a simple sentence are not difficult to state.

An object clause (clauses of indirect speech included) is necessary when the notion to be expressed cannot conveniently be summed up in a noun, or a phrase with a noun as its head word, or a gerund and a gerundial phrase, but requires an explicit predicative unit, that is, a subject and a predicate of its own. Or, to put it in a different way: an object clause is necessary when what is to be added to the predicate verb is the description of a situation, rather than a mere name of a thing.

In some cases, though, an object in a simple sentence may have a synonymous object clause, as in the following cases: I heard of his arrival — I heard that he had arrived, etc. The meaning of the two sentences in each case is exactly the same, but there is a certain stylistic difference: the simple sentence with the prepositional object sounds rather more literary or even bookish than the complex sentence with the object clause, which is fit for any sort of style.

A peculiar case of a prepositional object clause is seen in this sentence: George had drunk a. cup of coffee with himself and Simon that morning, had told them of a play he planned to write, then, on to the subject of his weekend, all that he had seen, a good amount of what he had thought or wanted people to think that he had thought, and to the description of a, young man named Steitler. (BUECHNER) The noun amount is head word to a prepositional clause, with two homogeneous predicates, had thought, and wanted; with the second of these predicates there is the complex object people to think, and the infinitive to think is head word to an object clause, that he had thought. Now this had thought in the object clause is understood to have as its object the pronoun what which immediately follows the words amount of. Thus, the word what, while being part of the first-degree subordinate clause, is object to the predicate of the second-degree clause.

ATTRIBUTIVE CLAUSES

A subordinate clause is said to be attributive if its function in the complex sentence is analogous to that of an attribute in a simple sentence. It differs from an attribute in so far as it characterises the thing denoted by its head word through some other action or situation in which that thing is involved. This could not, in many cases at least, be achieved within the limits of a simple sentence. Compare, for example, the sentence By October Isabelle was settled in the house where, she intended, she would live until she died. (R. WEST) The clause where... she would live with the dependent

Attributive Clauses 285

clause until she died contains information which could not be compressed into an attributive phrase within a simple sentence.

It is common knowledge that attributive clauses can be defining (or restrictive, or limiting) and non-defining (or non-restrictive, or descriptive). The non-defining ones do not single out a thing but contain some additional information about the thing or things denoted by the head word, e. g. Magnus, who was writing an article for Meiklejohns newspaper, looked up and said, "That's an interesting little essay, isn't it?" (LINKLATER) Non-defining attributive clauses pose the question of boundary line between subordination and co-ordination, which in this case becomes somewhat blurred. This is especially evident in the so-called continuative clauses, which are used to carry the narrative a step further, namely in sentences like the following: But in the morning he went to see Meiklejohn, whose enthusiasm on hearing the news was very comforting. (LINKLATER) We shall have the governess in a day or two, which will be a great satisfaction. (BAIN, quoted by Poutsma) Sentences of this kind may be taken as specimens of subordination weakened and a subordinate clause passing on to something like a co-ordinate position in the sentence. We shall see other varieties of this development in our next chapter.

The question about the place of an attributive clause deserves a few remarks. Most usually, of course, an attributive clause comes immediately after its head word. This is too common to need illustration. But that is by no means an absolute rule. Sometimes an attributive clause will come, not immediately after its head word, but after some other word or phrase, not containing a noun. This is the case, for instance, in the following sentence: He wanted Ann to die, whom his son passionately loved, whom he had himself once come near to loving. (SNOW) The intervening infinitive to die, coming between the attributive clauses and their head word Ann, does not in any way impede the connection between them.

A different kind of separation is found in the following sentence: Jeremy saw the scene breaking upon him that he had dreaded all day and he felt no energy to withstand it. (A. WILSON) The subordinate clause that he had dreaded all day has the noun scene as its head word. Now this noun forms part of the complex object the scene breaking upon him. No ambiguity is created by the separation, as the subordinate clause cannot possibly refer to the pronoun him, and there is no noun between scene and the subordinate clause. That the word that is the relative pronoun and not the conjunction, is seen from the fact that dreaded, being a transitive verb, has no object coming after it; that the phrase all day is not an object is obvious because if the thing denoted by it were thought of as the object of the action the phrase must have been all the day.

Chapter XXXVII

ADVERBIAL CLAUSES

We must start the discussion of adverbial clauses by pointing out that the term "adverbial" should not be taken as an adjective derived from the noun "adverb" (which would make it a morphological term), but as a syntactical term, in the same way that it is used in the phrase "adverbial modifier" denoting a secondary part of the sentence.

With reference to adverbial clauses a question arises that is not always easy to answer, namely: whether they modify some part of the main clause or the main clause as a whole. The answer may prove to be different for different types of adverbial clauses and the question will have to be considered for each type separately. The criteria to be applied in settling this question have, however (at least partly), to be stated in advance.

We will first try out a method that has proved valid, on the whole, for determining whether a clause is an object clause or not. It will serve both for finding whether a clause is an adverbial clause or not, and if it is one, what it modifies. The method consists in dropping the clause in question and finding out what has been lost by dropping it and what part of the main clause has been affected by the omission (it may be the whole of the main clause). If this method does not yield satisfactory results in some particular case we will think of possible other ways of ascertaining the function of the subordinate clause.

The conjunctions introducing adverbial subordinate clauses are numerous and differ from each other in the degree of definiteness of meaning. While some of them have a narrow meaning, so that, seeing the conjunction, we may be certain that the adverbial clause belongs to a certain type (for example, if the conjunction is because, there is no doubt that the adverbial clause is a clause of cause), other conjunctions have so wide a meaning that we cannot determine the type of adverbial clause by having a look at the con-junction alone: thus, the conjunction as may introduce different types of clauses, and so can the conjunction while. With these conjunctions, other words in the sentence prove decisive in determining the type of adverbial clause introduced by the conjunction. ¹

TYPES OF ADVERBIAL CLAUSES

Some adverbial clauses can be easily grouped under types more or less corresponding to the types of adverbial modifiers in a simple

¹ A word of caution is necessary here. A subordinate clause introduced by the conjunction because, or when, etc., need not necessarily be an adverbial clause at all. It may, for instance, be a predicative clause, as in the sentence This was because he had just arrived. Since the subordinate clause comes immediately after the link verb be it cannot possibly be an adverbial clause but must be a predicative one.

Types of Adverbial Clauses 287

sentence, which have been considered above (p. 225 ff.). Others are more specific for the complex sentence and do not fit into "pigeonholes" arranged in accordance with the analysis of the simple sentence. Among those that will easily fit into such "pigeonholes" are clauses denoting place, those denoting time (or temporal clauses), clauses of cause, purpose, and concession, and also those of result. There are also clauses of comparison and of degree.

We may mention briefly the types of clauses which do not give much occasion for theoretical discussion, and turn our chief attention to those which do, and also to comparing subordinate clauses to the corresponding adverbial modifiers in a simple sentence, as stated above.

Clauses of Place

There appears to be only one way of introducing such clauses, and this is by means of the relative adverb where, and in a very few cases by the phrase from where. For instance,.. .Miss Dotty insisted on looking into all the cupboards and behind the curtains to see, as she said, "if there were any eyes or ears where they were not wanted." (A. WILSON) This way of indicating the whereabouts of "eyes or ears" serves to characterise it by referring to a situation expressed by the subordinate clause, rather than to indicate the precise places meant. Then go where you usually sleep at night. (E. CALDWELL) Here the room where the person addressed is asked to go is characterised by what takes place there.

Here is an example of a prepositional where-clause denoting place in the literal sense of the term: From where he stood, leaning in an attitude of despair against the parapet of the terrace, Denis had seen them... (HUXLEY) The clause from... the terrace denotes the place from which the action of the main clause (Denis had seen) was performed. Occasions for this particular way of denoting the place of an action appear to be rather rare. Here, however, is another example: / gathered up my damp briefcase and ancient mackintosh and made my way down to where a thin penetrating drizzle swept the streets from the direction of the sea. (DURRELL)

Here are some more examples: But Magnus stayed where he was... (LINKLATER) But Meiklejohn lay where he had fallen. (Idem) This time she did not wave gaily, but went directly to where he stood... (E. CALDWELL)

Occasionally a where- clausecan be used together with an adverb indicating place, as in the sentence "Come on here where I am, honey," Lujean called, at the same time beckoning urgently to her. (E. CALDWELL) The adverbial modifier here would seem to indicate clearly enough where the speaker wants her friend to come, so the clause where I am serves to state the point more emphatically, rather than give any essentially new information.

288 Adverbial Clauses

There has been some discussion whether the word where introducing a subordinate clause of place is an adverb or a conjunction. The latter view was suggested by a certain analogy with the conjunction when introducing clauses of time. However, the possibility of the word where being preceded by the preposition from, as in some of the above examples, is a definite argument against its being a conjunction.

The number of sentences with an adverbial clause of place is negligible as compared with those containing an adverbial clause of time. The cause of this is plain enough. It is only in exceptional cases that the speaker or writer deems it necessary to denote the place of an action by referring to another action which occurred at the same place. In the vast majority of cases he will rather indicate the place by directly naming it (at home, in London, at the nearest shop, and so forth). Sentences with adverbial clauses of place are therefore used only in cases where the speaker or writer avoids naming the place of the action, or in sentences of a generalising character, or again in sentences where the place is perhaps hard to define and the name is unimportant.

Clauses of place can also be used in a metaphorical sense, that is, the "place" indicated may not be a place at all in the literal meaning of the word but a certain generalised condition or sphere of action. This of course is made clear by the context, that is, by the lexical meanings of the other words in the sentence. Compare the following sentences. Where people wish to attach, they should always be ignorant. (J. AUSTEN) Wherever the choice has had to be made between the man of reason and the madman, the world has unhesitatingly followed the madman. (DURRELL) Both the adverb wherever and the meaning of the sentence as a whole show that not a concrete place but a general review of conditions is meant.

Two very well known sentences are also cases in point: the proverb Where there is a will there is a way and the famous line from Thomas Gray's poem "On a Distant Prospect of Eton College": Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.

It is of no special importance whether we shall term such clauses of metaphorical meaning clauses of place or invent a new term to denote them. Anyway, there would seem to be no basic objection to give them that name, provided we keep in mind that spatial notions are apt to be interpreted metaphorically.

Clauses of Time (Temporal Clauses)

The number of conjunctions used to introduce temporal clauses is very considerable, and it seems to be growing still at the ex-

Types of Adverbial Clauses 289

pense of nouns denoting time units, with the definite article, such as the moment, the instant, etc. Temporal clauses are used much more frequently than clauses of space.

On the one hand, time relations are much more varied than space relations. If we want to indicate the time when an action occurred by referring it to another action, the time relations between the two may be various. The one action may be taking place at the very time when the other action was being carried out; or it may have begun a short while after the other action was finished, or it may have ended just as the other action was about to begin, etc., etc.

On the other hand, it is a very common occurrence to indicate the time of an action by referring it to the time of another action, with which it happens to be connected either by some causal link or by a fortuitous coincidence in time. The speaker or writer may in many cases use this way of indicating the time of an action, rather than an adverbial modifier of time in a simple sentence (such as, at five o'clock, etc.), because the exact time may be either unknown (this especially refers to actions in the future), or irrelevant. The time relation between the action of the main clause and that of the subordinate clause may be expressed with a very great degree of exactness: the two actions may be simultaneous, or the one may precede the other, or follow it, or it may last until the other has begun, etc.

There is one more point to be noted here. The action of the head clause may be connected with that of the temporal clause by some causal tie, that is, if the action of the temporal clause did not take place, that of the main clause would not take place either; or the connection may be purely temporal, with no causal relation implied. This is especially characteristic of temporal clauses indicating natural phenomena, such as sunrise, sunset, etc., which are not the cause of anything happening in human relations but merely an external method of reckoning time as it passes. The cases of the first kind (with causal relation implied) are to be seen in the following examples: She made a little curtsy as he bowed... (M. MITCHELL) So, between sport and pedantry, she was busy enough, and on most nights her eyes closed the minute her head touched the pillow. (R. WEST) A case of the second kind (with no causal relation implied) is seen in an example of a different character: As she stood hanging to the sill, a deafening explosion burst on her ears, louder than any cannon she had ever heard. (M. MITCHELL) Of course this difference depends entirely on the lexical meanings of the words making up the main and the subordinate clause.

Occasionally a when- clauseindicates an action opposed to that of the main clause, rather than the time when that main action occurred: Where on earth was the double game, when you've

290 Adverbial Clauses

behaved like such a saint? (H. JAMES) Here, too, it is the lexical meanings of the words which make the relation clear. Of course a when- clauseof this kind can only come after its head clause.

There are two more points to be mentioned in connection with temporal clauses, and they both bear on the temporal clause losing its subordinate character and tending to become independent of the clause with which it is connected.

One of these is the type of sentence which consists of a clause narrating some situation and followed by a when -clause telling of an event which burst into the situation and which is the central point of the whole sentence. Such a when -clause always comes after the main clause and this may be considered its grammatical peculiarity. A clear example of this type may be seen in the following sentence: Judith had just gone into her room and closed the door when she heard a man's voice in the parlour, and in a few minutes she heard the closing of Eve's bedroom door. (E. CALDWELL) It is quite clear here that the when- clausedoes not indicate the time when the action of the first clause took place but contains the statement which is the centre of the whole composite sentence. It is also evident that a when- clauseof this kind must necessarily come after the head clause within the composite sentence. Compare also the following passages: It was the middle of the August afternoon when Harry Emory got back to his office at the canning factory after lunch and he felt drowsy and sluggish and downright lazy in the summer heat. (E. CALDWELL) Once more, we see from the lexical meanings of the words that the when- clausedoes not indicate the time when the action of the other clause took place. It might indeed be argued that it is the other way round: the first clause indicates the time when the action of the when -clause took place. This way of constructing the sentence seems to be designed to lay the main stress on the time indication, that is, to mark it out as the rheme of the whole sentence.

In the meanwhile, they proceeded on their journey without any mischance; and were within view of the town of Keynsham, when a halloo from Morland, who was behind them, made his friend pull up, to know what was the matter. (J. AUSTEN) That the when- clause does not indicate the time of the action of the main clause but contains the most important information of the sentence is clear from the character of the predicate were within view, which denotes something static, and of the predicate group made his friend pull up (the subject being a halloo), which indicates a sudden momentary action. Compare also: The next Friday afternoon Fern was walking slowly along the street in front of the court-house when Judge Price crossed the lawn. (E. CALDWELL)

In such a sentence the reasons for calling the when -clause a subordinate one are very much weakened. It most certainly does not

Types of Adverbial Clauses 291

indicate the time when the action of the first clause took place, nor does it in any way correspond to an adverbial modifier of time in a simple sentence. This appears to be sufficient proof that the when- clause is not a subordinate clause, and the sentence which contains it is not a complex sentence. This might be termed "emancipation" of a subordinate clause.

Another phenomenon of "emancipation" affects clauses introduced by the conjunction while and following the main clause. The conjunction while, as is well known, expresses simultaneity of an action with another action. However, this meaning of simultaneity can, under certain conditions, change into a different meaning altogether. If, say, two people simultaneously perform quite different actions, possibly opposed to one another in character, this state of things may serve to characterise the two people as opposed to each other. This may be the meaning of a sentence like the following: Magnus briefly outlined the case for the independent sovereignty of Scotland, while Frieda listened without any remarkable interest. (LINKLATER) It is clear that the while-clause does not here express the time when the action of the first clause took place: it rather expresses an action opposed in its character to the first action, and in this much it serves to characterise the doer of the action. We might here put the conjunction and instead of while and the actual meaning would be the same, though the sentence would now be a compound one. Since, therefore, the function of the second clause is quite different from the usual function of a subordinate adverbial temporal clause, and since no purely grammatical peculiarities make it necessary to term the second clause a subordinate one, we may say that it is not subordinate and the sentence not complex.

A subordinate clause introduced by the conjunction while may sometimes express contrast, rather than time relation, even when it occupies front position, that is, when it precedes the main clause. Here is an example containing three while-clauses of this kind: Thus, while I have a certain amount of intelligence, I have no aesthetic sense; while I possess the mathematical faculty, I am wholly without, the religious emotions; while I am naturally addicted to venery, I have little ambition and am not at all avaricious. (HUXLEY) The lexical meanings of the words, both in the main and in the subordinate clauses, show beyond doubt that the connection between each of the while -clauses and the main clause following it is based not on time but on contrast. The sentence gives a characteristic of the man, and not a description of what he is doing at one time or another. Such examples, though they may not be numerous, go far to show that a while- clausemay express contrast even though it precedes its head clause.

We shall meet with another case of "emancipation" when we come to clauses of concession.

10*

292 Adverbial Clauses

There is some affinity between temporal and causal clauses, and also between temporal and conditional ones.

Causal Clauses

The affinity between temporal and causal clauses is manifested by the fact that both kinds of clauses can be introduced by the conjunction as, and nothing but the context, i. e. the lexical meanings of the words involved, will enable us to tell whether the clause is temporal or causal. Thus the difference between the two kinds is not grammatical in these cases. Let us consider the following two examples: The rain neither enticed nor repelled, but only trickled down his big umbrella off onto the upturned collar of his old army-officer jacket as he walked down the path. (BUECHNER) There obviously cannot be a causal tie between the fact stated in the main. clause and that stated in the as -clause. As they (Beaumont and Fletcher) are indissolubly associated in the history of English literature, it is convenient to treat of them in one place. (COUSIN) Here the causal connection between the clauses is obvious.

Compare also two since -clauses: For ever since he had fled from Kansas City, and by one humble device and another forced to make his way, he had been coming to the conclusion that on himself alone depended his future (DREISER), with a clearly temporal meaning, and "So," said Helen, "since you obviously don't know how to behave in Great Britain, I shall take you back to France directly, you are well enough to travel" (R. MACAULAY), where the connection is causal.

There would be no necessity to analyse the meanings of the words, etc., if the subordinate clause were introduced by a conjunction which can have one meaning only, for instance, the conjunction because. No clause introduced by this conjunction could ever be a temporal clause.

A special problem, which has received much attention, attaches to clauses introduced by the conjunction for. In many ways they are parallel to clauses with because, and we may wonder whether there is any valid reason for saying that because -clauses are subordinate and far- clausesco-ordinate. Indeed the following two examples seem to prove the parallelism: It was Richie who played, for Lucien had discouraging business paper to read. (R. MACAULAY) On earth there may be some truth in this, because the people are uneducated... (SHAW)

But at the same time there is a basic difference between the two types. Because -clauses indicate the cause of the action expressed in the main clause. They can be used separately as an answer to the question why...?, as in the following bit of dialogue: "I must have come." "Why?" "Because I must. Because there would have been no

Types of Adverbial Clauses 293

other way." (SHAW) A for -clause could not possibly be used in this way. The reason is that a far- clauseexpresses an additional thought, that is, it is added on to a finished part of the sentence, as in the following extract: "What game are they all playing?" poor Fleda could only ask; for she had an intimate conviction that Owen was now under the roof of his betrothed. (H. JAMES)

It would also be impossible to replace because by for in the following sentence: But either because the rains had given a freshness, or because the sun was shedding a most glorious heat, or because two of the gentlemen were young in years and the third young in the spirit — for some reason or other a change came over them. (FORSTER)

This peculiarity of for -clauses as distinct from because -clauses is in full harmony with the fact that for- clausescan also come after a full stop, thus functioning as separate sentences, much as sentences introduced by the conjunction but do, as in the following extract: This thought, together with one other — that once more after dinner he was to see Roberta and in her room as early as eleven o'clock or even earlier — cheered him and caused him to step along most briskly and gaily. For, since having indulged in this secret adventure so many time, both were unconsciously becoming bolder. (DREISER) The following solutions appear to be plausible:

(1) for -clauses are always co-ordinate, never subordinate ones,

(2) for -clauses are subordinate ones in all cases, and no objective difference is to be found between them and because -clauses, (3) for - clauses occupy an intermediate position, the difference between coordination and subordination being here neutralised, and tend sometimes toward the one, sometimes toward the other extreme. Possibly the last solution is the most acceptable.

Conditional Clauses

Conditional clauses may be introduced by several conjunctions such as if (the most general one), unless, provided, supposing (with more specialised meanings), and the phrase in case.

An essential peculiarity of conditional clauses, or, we should rather say, of conditional sentences (including both the main and the subordinate clause), is the use of verbal forms. Here the actual meaning of" a verbal form depends entirely on the syntactical context: it may acquire a meaning which it would never have outside this context.

The classification of conditional sentences is familiar enough. The main types are three: (1 ) If we can get to the bicycles, we shall beat him. (R. MACAULAY) (2 ) If they could derive advantage from betraying you, betray you they would... (Idem) (3 ) If you had

294 Adverbial Clauses

been arguing about a football match I should have been ready to take a more lenient view of the case,.. (LINKLATER)

There may, however, also be other types, with the action of the subordinate clause belonging to the past and its consequence to the present, e. g. Anyhow, if you hadn't been ill, we shouldn't have you here (A. WILSON), etc.

As we have discussed the possible interpretations of forms like knew, had known, should know, should have known in Chapter XI, we need not go into that question here.

Subordinate conditional clauses can also, like some types of clauses considered above, get emancipated and become independent sentences expressing wish. From a sentence like If I had known this in advance 1 should have done everything to help, etc., the conditional clause may be separated and become an independent exclamatory sentence: If I had known this in advance! The conjunction if in such a case apparently ceases to be a conjunction, since there is no other clause here. The conjunction then becomes a particle typical of this kind of exclamatory sentence. ¹ The following examples will illustrate this point: If only she might play the question loud enough to reach the ears of this Paul Steitler. (BUECHNER) Compare the following sentence: If you will just send that back to him, — without a word. (TROLLOPE) In the first example it is quite evident that the word if does not connect anything with anything else and can therefore hardly be termed a conjunction at all: it rather approaches the status of a particle used to introduce an exclamatory sentence. As to our second example, things are less clear. It might be possible to assume that this is a subordinate conditional, clause, with a main clause, something like it will be all right, or, perhaps, something like I shall be grateful, but this of course could never be proved to be the case. If that view is rejected, nothing seems to remain but to assume that we have here an independent sentence, which is to all intents and purposes imperative (as it amounts to a request), and that here, too, the conjunction if has practically become a particle used to introduce that sort of sentence. Transition cases of this kind are most valuable for understanding the mechanism, as it were, of grammatical development.

The same is found in the third clause of the following compound sentence: It's really rather ghastly and one oughtn't to laugh, but if you could see them, my dear. (A. WILSON) One might say that this clause is subordinate and that a head clause is "omitted" after it, e. g. you would understand me. But it seems simpler to take the if -clause as an independent clause expressing something like wish and co-ordinated with the two preceding clauses.

¹ There are similar developments in other languages, such as Russian_a French, and German.

Types of Adverbial Clauses 295

Clauses of Result

Clauses of result give rise to some discussion, since the distinction between them and some other types of subordinate clauses is in some cases doubtful and to a certain extent arbitrary.

It should first of all be noted that the term "clauses of result" must not be taken to imply that the result was necessarily planned in advance, or that it was consciously aimed at. The result may have been brought about without anybody's intention. So these clauses might be termed "clauses of consequence", but since that term is also liable to different interpretations, we may as well stick to the usual term "clauses of result".

Clauses of result may be connected with the head clause in either of two ways: (1) the clause is introduced by the conjunction that, while in the head clause there is the pronoun such or the adverb so, which is correlative with the conjunction; (2) the subordinate clause is introduced by the phrase so that.

The latter variety does not give rise to any special discussion. Lot us, for instance, take the sentence: In the centre of the chamber candlesticks were set, also brass, but polished, so that they shone like gold. (BOWEN, quoted by Poutsma)

The head clause describes a situation, and the subordinate clause says what the result (or consequence) of that action was. ¹

Things are somewhat less clear with clauses of the first variety (those introduced by the conjunction that, with a correlative such or so in the head clause). Here two possible ways of interpreting the facts appear. Let us take a sentence with the adverb so in the head clause correlative with the conjunction that introducing the subordinate clause: She was so far under his influence that she was now inclined to believe him. (LINKLATER) One way to look at this sentence is this: the head clause tells of some state of things, and the subordinate clause of another state of things which came as a result or consequence of the first. Taken in this way, the clause appears as a clause of result. However, that is not the only possible way of taking it. The other way would be this: the subordinate clause specifies the degree of the state of things expressed in the head clause by illustrating the effect it had. If the sentence is taken in isolation, it is absolutely impossible to tell which of the two views gets closer to the mark. The question might be settled by finding (or adding) a sequel to this sentence, which would make the situation quite clear: one possible sequel would show that the state of things described in the subordinate clause had some interest in itself, so that it was not mentioned merely to illustrate the

¹ However, the phrase so that can also introduce clauses of purpose (see p. 296).

296 Adverbial Clauses

intensity of the state described in the head clause and in that case the subordinate clause would have to be taken as an adverbial clause of result. With another sequel, it would be obvious that the state of things described in the second clause had no interest as such, but was mentioned exclusively in order to illustrate the degree of the state of things described in the head clause. In that case the clause may be taken as an adverbial clause of degree.

Now reasonings of this sort are quite obviously non-grammatical. They are founded on an examination of a context outside the sentence, and a lexical, not a grammatical context at that. So from the grammatical viewpoint all this is irrelevant. The choice between the two interpretations appears to be arbitrary: neither of the two can be proved to be the only correct one.

It remains now for us to consider the mutual relations between an adverbial clause of result and an adverbial modifier of result in a simple sentence.

Adverbial modifiers of result in a simple sentence are extremely rare. Here is a case in point: She was shaken almost to tears by her anger. (BUECHNER) Taking into account the lexical meanings of the words involved, we may perhaps term the phrase almost to tears an adverbial modifier of result.

In the vast majority of cases the result is an action or a situation which cannot be adequately expressed without a subordinate clause.

Clauses of Purpose

Clauses expressing purpose may, as is well known, be introduced either by the conjunction that or by the phrase in order that. There is a basic difference between the two variants. A clause introduced by in order that is sufficiently characterised as a clause of purpose, and nothing else is needed to identify it as such. A clause introduced by that, on the other hand, need not necessarily be a clause of purpose: it can also belong to one of several other types (see p. 308 ff.). To identify it as a clause of purpose other indications are needed, and the most usual of these is the verb may (might) or should as part of its predicate.

A clause of purpose can also be introduced by the phrase so that, and some special signs are needed to distinguish it from a clause of result.

Let us take as an example the following sentence with two clauses introduced by the phrase so that. Although slightly nearsighted, Elisabeth, so that nothing might damage the charm of her dark brown eyes, tragic and wide apart under straight brows, wore no glasses but carried instead a miniature lorgnette, for which she now searched in her purse, unobtrusively and on her lap so that Steitler, who was speaking to her son, would not notice. (BUECHNER)

 

Types of Adverbial Clauses 297

Both clauses here are clauses of purpose, not result, and this is seen from the following facts: as to the first clause, its position between the subject of the main clause (Elizabeth), and its predicate (wore), shows beyond doubt that it cannot express result: the result could not possibly be mentioned before the action bringing it about was stated. Another point speaking in favour of the clause being one of purpose is its predicate (might damage). As to the second clause introduced by so that, its position at the end of the sentence does not tell anything about its being a clause of purpose or of result. That it is a clause of purpose is seen from the predicate (would not notice), which would have no reasonable sense in a clause of result. If we make a slight change and replace the predicate would not notice by did not notice, the clause will decidedly be a clause of result. So the meaning of the clause appears to depend entirely on the verb would.

Compare also the following sentence: Mrs Cox did not object to this so long as they talked English, so that she could keep a line on the conversation; if it was French, she did not know what they were up to. (R. MACAULAY) Here the words talked English and could keep a line point to the meaning of purpose, rather than result.

 

Clauses of Concession

These clauses express some circumstance despite which the action of the main clause is performed. They are of several types. One type comprises clauses introduced by the conjunctions though, although, and (in a somewhat high-flown style) albeit, which can have no other meaning but the concessive. Another type is represented by clauses of the pattern "predicative (noun or adjective) + as + subject + link verb", in which the concessive meaning is not directly expressed by the conjunction as or, indeed, by any other single word, but arises out of the combined lexical meanings of different words in the sentence.

The first type may be illustrated by such sentences as: Resolutely she smiled, though she was trembling. (R. WEST) It does not call for any special comment for the time being. The second type may be seen, for example, in the sentence Clever as he was, he jailed to grasp the idea, where the concessive meaning arises from the contrast in meaning between the word clever, on the one hand, and the phrase failed to grasp, on the other. If this needs any proof, it can be provided by the simple expedient of introducing a change into the head clause, namely, replacing the phrase failed to grasp by the word grasped: Clever as he was, he grasped the idea — here the meaning is causal, rather than concessive, and this of course depends only on the combination of lexical meanings of the words clever and grasped. The pattern of the sentence, with the conjunction

298 Adverbial Clauses

as a part of it, merely expresses some kind of connection between what is expressed in the subordinate clause and what is said in the head clause.

Adverbial modifiers of concession are occasionally found in a simple sentence, and the preposition despite or the phrase in spite of is the usual way of introducing them. When the obstacle opposing the performance of the action is some other action, especially when it is performed by another agent, the more usual way of expressing it is by a subordinate clause.

Clauses introduced by the conjunction though can also, in certain circumstances, go beyond their essential concessive meaning; that is, in these circumstances they do not denote an action or situation in spite of which the action of the other clause takes place. Such clauses may be emancipated, that is, they may acquire an independent standing, and even become a separate sentence, as in the following example: I suppose that I am ticketed as a Red there now for good and will be on the general blacklist. Though you never know. You never can tell. (HEMINGWAY) The sentence Though you never know does not express an obstacle to the statement contained in the preceding sentence, but a new idea, or an afterthought limiting what had been said before.

The second type of concessive clause is seen in the following sentences:... and great as was Catherine's curiosity, her courage was not equal to a wish of exploring them (the mysterious apartments. — B. I.) after dinner. (J. AUSTEN) It is the combination of lexical meanings great... curiosity, courage... not equal that shows the meaning to be concessive. But deplorable as it might be, and undoubtedly was, there was another aspect of the case that more vitally concerned himself. (DREISER) It is the words another and more vitally that point to the concessive meaning. Compare also: And yet somewhere through all this gentleness ran a steel cord, for his staff was perpetually surprised to find out that, inattentive as he appeared to be, there was no detail of the business which he did not know; while hardly a transaction he made did not turn out to be based on a stroke of judgement. (DURRELL)

Another type again may be seen in a sentence like this: Coinciding with his holiday inclinations this request might have been successful in whatever words it had been couched. (LINKLATER) Here it seems to be the meaning of the pronoun whatever which lies at the bottom of the concessive meaning of the clause.

Clauses of Manner and Comparison

These two kinds of adverbial clauses are not easily kept apart. Sometimes the clause is clearly one of manner, and does not contain or imply any comparison, as in the following sentences: You must

Types of Adverbial Clauses 299

explain Barbary to him as best you can. (R. MACAULAY) Sometimes, on the other hand, the clause is clearly one of comparison, and does not contain or imply an indication of manner, as in the following sentence: His wife must be a lady and a lady of blood, with as many airs and graces as Mrs Wilkes and the ability to manage Тага as well as Mrs Wilkes ordered her own domain. (M. MITCHELL)

But there are also sentences where it may be argued, either that the comparison is merely a way of indicating the manner of an action, or that the comparison is the essential point, and the indication of manner merely an accompanying feature. ¹

Since the problem of which view is the correct one, that is, whether the comparison or the indication of manner is the essential point, cannot be solved by objective methods, it is best to say that in such cases the distinction between the two types is neutralised, and that is what makes us treat the two types under a common bending, "clauses of manner and comparison".

The most typical conjunction in such clauses is the conjunction asand indeed, historically speaking, this is its earliest application in the language. The conjunction as is of course also used to introduce clauses of time and of cause, and it is only the context, that is, the lexical meanings of the words, that makes it clear what the function of the clause is. For instance, in the following example it is the meaning of the words make money, repeated as they are, that shows the clause to be a clause of comparison and not a clause of time or cause: With the idea that she was as capable as a man came a sudden rush of pride and a violent longing to prove it, to make money for herself as men made money! (M. MITCHELL) It is typical of as -clauses of comparison that the conjunction may have a correlative element in the head clause, which is usually another as. This may be seen in the following example, which is somewhat peculiar: Do you find Bath as agreeable as when I had the honour of making the enquiry before? (J. AUSTEN) The when -clause as such is a temporal clause: it indicates the time when an action ("his earlier enquiry") took place. However, being introduced by the conjunction as, which has its correlative, another as, in the main clause, it is at the same time a clause of comparison. It would seem that these two characteristics do not contradict each other but are, as it were, on different levels: the temporal clause occupies a position which might also be occupied by an adverbial modifier of time within a simple sentence, if, for instance, the sentence ran like this: Do you find Bath as agreeable as last year? In that case the phrase as last year would have been a subordinate part expressing

¹ The possibility of a twofold interpretation of such clauses appears to bo based on the primary meaning of comparison inherent in the conjunction as.

300 Adverbial Clauses

comparison, while last year as such would have been an adverbial modifier of time. Such different levels of syntactical analysis do not appear to have received sufficient attention so far.

There may be some argument about the exact status of the as in the head clause. It may be said either that it is an adverb modifying the adjective or adverb which follows it, or that it makes part of a double conjunction as... as, whose first element is within the head clause, while the second element introduces the subordinate clause. The first view is distinctly preferable, as the idea of an element of a subordinating conjunction coming within the head clause and tending to modify one of its parts is theoretically very doubtful.

Another variant including the conjunction as is the phrase in the same way as (in the same manner as), whose composition and function may be a matter of discussion. It may be taken as a phrase equivalent in function to a conjunction, and thus belonging in its entirety to the subordinate clause. Or else the phrase in the same way as may be viewed as divided between the head clause and the subordinate clause, only as belonging to the subordinate, and in the same way making part of the head clause as an adverbial modifier of manner. There seems to be no valid objective method of setting this question and it remains largely a matter of individual opinion. It may perhaps be argued that some sentences rather incline toward one interpretation, and others toward the other.

Another conjunction used to introduce clauses of comparison is than. It is naturally always associated w