 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
144
functions is brought about in language by the communicative need of expressing not only rough and plain
ideas, but also innumerable variations of thought reflecting the ever developing reality.
Furthermore, there are certain (and not at all casual) clauses that do not find ready correspondences among
the non-clausal parts of the sentence at all. This concerns, in particular, quite a number of adverbial clauses.
Still, a general functional analogy (though not identity) between clausal and lexemic parts of the sentence
does exist, and, which is very important, it reflects the underlying general similarity of their semantic purpose.
So, the functional classification of subordinate clauses on the simple sentence-part analogy does reflect the
essential properties of the studied syntactic units and has been proved useful and practicable throughout many
years of application to language teaching.
Now, according to the categorial principle, subordinate clauses are to be classed by their inherent
nominative properties irrespective of their immediate positional relations in the sentence. The nominative
properties of notional words are reflected in their part-of-speech classification. A question arises, can there be
any analogy between types of subordinate clauses and parts of speech?
One need not go into either a detailed research or heated argument to see that no direct analogy is possible
here. This is made clear by the mere reason that a clause is a predicative unit expressing an event, while a
lexeme is a pure naming unit used only as material for the formation of predicative units, both independent and
dependent.
On the other hand, if we approach the categorial principle of the characterization of clauses on a broader
basis than drawing plain part-of-speech analogies, we shall find it both plausible and helpful.
As a matter of fact, from the point of view of their general nominative features all the subordinate clauses
can be divided into three categorial-semantic groups. The first group includes clauses that name an event as a
certain fact. These pure fact-clauses may be tenninologically denned as "substantive-nominal". Their
substantive-nominal nature is easily checked by a substitute test:
That his letters remained unanswered annoyed him very much. > That fact annoyed him very much. The
woman knew only too well what was right and what was wrong. > The woman knew those matters well.
The second group of clauses also name an event-fact, but, as different from the first group, this event-fact is
referred to as giving a characteristic to some substantive entity (which, in its turn, may be represented by a
clause or a phrase or a substantive lexeme). Such clauses, in compliance with our principle of choosing
explanatory terminology, can be tentatively called "qualification-nominal". The qualification-nominal nature of
the clauses in question, as is the case with the first group of clauses, is proved through the corresponding
replacement patterns:
The man who came in the morning left a message. > That man left a message. Did you find a place where
we could make a fire? > Did you find such kind of place?
Finally, the third group of clauses make their event-nomination into a dynamic relation characteristic of
another event or a process or a quality of various descriptions. In keeping with the existing practices, it will be
quite natural to call these clauses "adverbial". Adverbial clauses are best tested not by a replacement, but by a
definitive transformation. Cf.:
Describe the picture as you see it. > Describe the picture in the manner you see it All will be well if we
arrive in time. > All will be well on condition that we arrive in time.
§ 5. When comparing the two classifications in the light of the systemic principles, it is easy to see that only
by a very superficial observation they could be interpreted as alternative (i.e. contradicting each other). In
reality they are mutually complementary, their respective bases being valid at different levels of analysis. The
categorial features of clauses go together with their functional sentence-part features similar to the categorial
features of lexemes going together with their functional characteristics as parts of the simple sentence.
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:.