 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
145
That was the day when she was wearing her pink dress. Sally put on her pink dress when she decided to join
the party downstairs.
The relative pronominal when in the first of the cited sentences syntagmatically replaces the antecedent the
day, while the conjunction when in the second sentence has no relative pronominal status. From the point of
view of paradigmatics, though, even the second when cannot be understood as wholly devoid of substitute
force, since it remains associated systemically with the adverb then, another abstract indicator of time. So, on
the whole the non-substitute use of the double-functional subordinators should be described not' as utterly "non-
positional", but rather as "semi-positional".
On the other hand, there is another aspect of categorial difference between the subordinators, and this
directly corresponds to the nature of clauses they introduce. Namely, nominal clauses, being clauses of fact, are
introduced by subordinators of fact (conjunctions and conjunctive subordinators), while adverbial clauses,
being clauses of adverbial relations, are introduced by subordinators of relational semantic characteristics
(conjunctions). This difference holds true both for monofunctional subordinators and bifunctional
subordinators. Indeed, the subordinate clauses expressing time and place and, correspondingly, introduced by
the subordinators when and where may be used both as nominal nominators and adverbial nominators. The said
difference is quite essential, though outwardly it remains but slightly featured. Cf:.
I can't fmd the record where you put it yesterday. I forget where I put the record yesterday.
It is easy to see that the first place-clause indicates the place of action, giving it a situational periphrastic
definition, while the second place-clause expresses the object of a mental effort. Accordingly, the subordinator
where in the first sentence introduces a place description as a background of an action, while the subordinator
where in the second sentence introduces a place description as a fact to be considered. The first where and the
second where differ by the force of accent (the first is unstressed, the second is stressed), but the main marking
difference between them lies in the difference between the patterns of their use, which difference is noted by
the chosen terms "nominal" and "adverbial". This can easily be illustrated by a question-replacement test: ... >
Where can't I find the record? ... > What do I forget?
Likewise, the corresponding subdivision of the nominal subordinators and the clauses they introduce can be
checked and proved on the same lines. Cf:.
The day when we met is unforgettable.
>
Which day is unforgettable? When we met is of no consequence
now. > What is of no consequence now?
The first when-pattern is clearly disclosed by the test as a qualification-nominal, while the second, as a
substantive-nominal.
Thus, the categorial classification of clauses is sustained by the semantic division of the subordinators which
are distinguished as substantive-nominal clausalizers, qualification-nominal clausalizers and adverbial
clausalizers. Since, on the other hand, substantive nomination is primary in categorial rank, while qualification
nomination is secondary, in terms of syntactic positions all the subordinate clauses are to be divided into three
groups: first, clauses of primary nominal positions to which belong subject, predicative and object clauses;
second, clauses of secondary nominal positions to which belong attributive clauses; third, clauses of adverbial
positions.
§ 6. Clauses of primary nominal positions - subject, predicative, object-are interchangeable with one
another in easy reshufflings of sentence constituents. Cf.:
What you saw at the exhibition is just what I want to know. > What I want to know is just what you saw at
the exhibition. > I iust want to know what you saw at the exhibition.
However, the specific semantic functions of the three respective clausal positions are strictly preserved with
all such interchanges, so that there is no ground to interpret positional rearrangements like the ones shown
above as equivalent.
The subject clause, in accordance with its functional position, regularly expresses the theme at the upper
level of the actual division of the complex sentence. The thematic property of the clause is well exposed in its
characteristic uses with passive constructions, as well as constructions in which
the voice opposition is
neutralized. E.g.:
Why he rejected the offer has never been accounted for. What small reputation the town does possess
derives from two things.
It should be noted that in modern colloquial English the formal position of the subject clause in a complex
sentence is open to specific contaminations (syntactic confusions on the clausal level). Here is one of the typical
examples:
Just because you say I wouldn't have (seen a white elephant-M.B.) doesn't prove anything (E. Hemingway).