 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
148
content of a mental action, such as the following:
You may tell me whatever you like. Will you tell me what the matter is?
The object clauses in the cited sentences, as different from the foregoing examples, describe the information
allowed by the speaker-author (the first sentence) or wanted by the speaker-author (the second sentence),
thereby not differing much from non-speech-rendering clauses. As for the speech-rendering object clauses, they
are quite special, and it is by right that, as a rule, they are treated in grammar books under the separate heading
of "rules of reported speech". Due to their semantic nature, they may be referred to as "reportive" clauses, and
the same term will helpfully apply to the corresponding sentences as wholes. Indeed, it is in reportive sentences
that the principal clause is more often than not reduced to an introductory phrase akin to a parenthesis of
additionally specifying semantics, so that the formally subordinate clause practically absorbs all the essential
information rendered by the sentence. Cf.:
Wainright said that Eastin would periodically report to him. > Periodically, Wainrtght said, Eastin would
report to him (A. Hailey).
§ 7. Subordinate clauses of secondary nominal positions include attributive clauses of various syntactic
functions. They fall into two major classes: "descriptive" attributive clauses and "restrictive" ("limiting")
attributive clauses.
The descriptive attributive clause exposes some characteristic of the antecedent (i.e., its substantive
referent) as such, while the restrictive attributive clause performs a purely identifying role, singling out the
referent of the antecedent in the given situation. The basis of this classification, naturally, has nothing to do
with the artistic properties of the classified units: a descriptive clause may or may not possess a special
expressive force depending on the purpose and mastery of the respective text production. Moreover, of the two
attributive clause classes contrasted, the restrictive class is distinguished as the more concretely definable one,
admitting of the oppositional interpretation as the "marked element": the descriptive class then will be
oppositionally interpreted as the "non-restrictive" one, which precisely explains the correlative status of the two
types of subordinate clauses.
It should be noted that, since the difference between descriptive and restrictive clauses lies in their functions,
there is a possibility of one and the same clausal unit being used in both capacities, depending on the
differences of the contexts. Cf:.
At last we found a place where we could make a fire. The place where we could make a fire was not a lucky
one.
The subordinate clause in the first of the cited examples informs the listener of the quality of the place (>
We found such a place) thereby being descriptive, while the same clause in the second example refers to the
quality in question as a mere mark of identification (> The place was not a lucky one) and so is restrictive.
Descriptive clauses, in their turn, distinguish two major subtypes: first, "ordinary" descriptive clauses;
second, "continuative" descriptive clauses.
The ordinary descriptive attributive clause expresses various situational qualifications of nounal
antecedents. The qualifications may present a constant situational feature or a temporary situational feature of
different contextual relations and implications. Cf.:
It gave me a strange sensation to see a lit up window in a big bouse that was not lived in. He wore a blue
shirt the collar of which was open at the throat They were playing such a game as could only puzzle us.
The continuative attributive clause presents a situation on an equal domination basis with its principal clause,
and so is attributive only in form, but not in meaning. It expresses a new predicative event (connected with the
antecedent) which somehow continues the chain of situations reflected by the sentence as a whole. Cf.:
In turn, the giris came singly before Brett, who frowned, blinked, btt his pencil, and scratched his head with
it, getting no help from in audience, who applauded each girl impartially and hooted at every swim suit, as if
they could not see hundreds any day round the swimming pool (M. Dickens).
It has been noted in linguistic literature that such clauses are essentially not subordinate, but coordinate, and
hence they make up with their principal clause not a complex, but a compound sentence. As a matter of fact,
for the most part such clauses are equal to coordinate clauses of the copulative type, and their effective test is
the replacement of the relative subordinator by the combination and + substitute. Cf.:
I phoned to Mr. Smith, who recognized me at once and invited me to his office. > I phoned to Mr. Smith,
and he recognized me at once...
Still, the form of the subordinate clause is preserved by the continuative clause, the contrast between a
dependent form and an independent content constituting the distinguishing feature of this syntactic unit as such.
Thus, what we do see in continuative clauses is a case of syntactic transposition; i.e. the transference of a
subordinate clause into the functional sphere of a coordinate clause, with the aim of achieving an expressive
effect. This transpositional property is especially prominent in the which-continuative clause that refers not to a
single nounal antecedent, but to the whole principal clause. E.g.: