 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
146
The contamination here consists in pressing into one construction the clausal expression of cause and the
expression of the genuine theme-subject to which the predicate of the sentence refers. The logical implication
of the statement is that the event in question cannot be taken as impossible by the mere reason of the interlocu-
tor's considering it as such. Thus, what can be exposed of the speaker's idea by way of "de-contaminating" the
utterance is approximately like this: "Your saying that I wouldn't have doesn't prove anything."
Another characteristic type of syntactic contamination of the subject-clause pattern is its use as a frame for
an independent sentence. E.g.:
You just get yourselves into trouble is what happens (M. Bradbury).
The cited contamination presents a feature of highly emotional speech. The utterance, as it were, proves to
be a living illustration of the fact that where strong feelings are concerned the logic of lingual construction is
liable to be trespassed upon. The logic in question can be rehabilitated by a substitution pattern: "You just get
yourselves into trouble, this is what happens."
As is known, the equivalent subject-clausal function can be expressed by the construction with an
anticipatory pronoun (mostly the anticipatory it). This form of expression, emphasizing the rheme-clause of the
sentence, at the same time presents the information ot the subject clause in a semantically stronger position than
the one before the verb. Therefore the anticipatory construction is preferred in cases when the content of the
subject clause is not to be wholly overbalanced or suppressed by the predicate of the sentence. E.g.:
How he managed to pull through is a miracle. > It is a miracle how he managed to pull through.
Some scholars analyse the clause introduced by the anticipatory construction as presenting two possibilities
of interpretation which stand in opposition to each other. According to the first and more traditional view, this
is just a subject clause introduced by the anticipatory it, while in the light of the second, the clause introduced
by it is appositive. In our opinion, the latter explanation is quite rational; however, it cannot be understood as
contrary to the "anticipatory" theory. Indeed, the appositive type of connection between the introducer it and the
introduced clause is proved by the very equivalent transformation of the non-anticipatory construction into the
anticipatory one; but the exposition of the appositive character of the clause does not make the antecedent it
into something different from an introductory pronominal element. Thus, the interpretation of the subject clause
referring to the introducer it as appositive, in fact, simply explains the type of syntactic connection underlying
the anticipatory formula.
The predicative clause, in conformity with the predicative position as such, performs the function of the
nominal part of the predicate, i.e. the part adjoining the link-verb. The link-verb is mostly expressed by the pure
link be, not infrequently we find here also the specifying links seem and look; the use of other specifying links
is occasional. E.g.:
The trouble is that I don't know Fanny personally. The question is why the decision on the suggested
innovation is still delayed. The difficulty seems how we shall get in touch with the chief before the conference.
After all those years of travelling abroad, John has become what you would call a man of will and experience.
Besides the conjunctive substitutes, the predicative clause, the same as other nominal clauses, can be
introduced by some conjunctions (that, whether, as if, as though). The predicative clause introduced by the
conjunctions as if, as though has an adverbial force, which is easily shown by contrast:
She looks as though she has never met him. > She behaves as though she has never met him.
While considering subordinate clauses relating to the finite be in the principal clause, care should be taken to
strictly discriminate between the linking and non-linking (notional) representations of the verb. Indeed, the
linking be is naturally followed by a predicative clause, while the notional be, featuring verbal semantics of
existence, cannot join a predicative. Cf.:
It's because he's weak that he needs me. This was because he had just arrived.
The cited sentences have been shown by BA. Ilyish as examples of predicative clauses having a non-
conventional nominal-clause conjunction [llyish, 276-277]. However, the analysis suggested by the scholar is
hardly acceptable, since the introducing be in both examples does not belong to the class of links.
The predicative clause in a minimal complex sentence regularly expresses its rheme. Therefore there is an
essential informative difference between the two functional uses of a categorially similar nominal clause: that
of the predicative and that of the subject. Cf.:
The impression is that he is quite competent. That he is quite competent is the impression.
The second sentence (of an occasional status, with a sentencetress on the link-verb), as different from the
first, suggests an implication of a situational antithesis: the impression may be called
in question, or it may be
contrasted against another trait of the person not so agreeable as the one mentioned, etc.