SYNTACTICAL CONNECTIONS OF SUBORDINATE CLAUSES

With some types of subordinate clauses the question may be raised, whether they are connected with the head clause as a whole, or with some part of it. Of course this question does not arise with reference to subject and predicative clauses, for example: they quite obviously refer to the head clause as a whole. ¹

But most types of subordinate clauses have to be considered from this point of view. Since it is by no means certain that there are clear objective criteria to be applied in every particular case, and since the decision in some cases may prove arbitrary, it is as well to set down in advance what our method is going to be in such cases. It would appear that there are two methods to choose from: (1) we may decide that we will consider a subordinate clause to be subordinated to the whole main clause unless there are objective signs to show that it is subordinated to one part of it, or, (2) we may decide that we will consider a subordinate clause to be subordinated to a part of the head clause unless there are clear objective signs to show that it is subordinate to the main clause as a whole. Now, the second alternative does not appear to be convincing. Subject clauses and predicative clauses, which require no special consideration from this viewpoint, are clearly subordinated to the sentence as a whole, and this indeed appears the chief and essential kind of subordination. We will accordingly settle on the first alternative and state that we will consider a clause as subordinated to the whole unless there is clear evidence that it is subordinated to some part of the head clause. Such a decision will make our task easier and will at the same time point out in advance the degree of arbitrariness inherent in this problem.

Let us begin by two types which present least difficulty from this viewpoint, namely by attributive and appositional clauses. These

¹ In speaking about subject clauses and predicative clauses, we are faced with a peculiar difficulty. There appears to be some contradiction between the subject and predicate being the main parts of the sentence, and subject and predicative clauses being subordinate clauses: a subordinate clause is said to be the main part of the sentence. However, it appears that this difficulty is to be met by observing that the notions of main and secondary parts of a sentence and those of co-ordinate and subordinate clauses belong to different aspects of syntactic theory: if a clause (e.g. the clause Whoever said this...) cannot exist outside a certain type of context (e.g. Whoever said this must have been misinformed) we call it a subordinate clause, even though it represents the subject of the complex sentence. That is to say, a subject clause (and a predicative clause, too) should be called a subordinate clause on the grounds given above. However, this question certainly requires further analysis.

Syntactical Connections of Subordinate Clauses 307

obviously belong to a part of the head clause, namely the word denoting the thing which is further characterised in the attributive or appositional clause. If the part of the sentence to which an attributive clause belongs is dropped, the attributive clause must obviously be dropped along with it, as without that part there is nothing left for it to be attached to.

The same reasoning applies to appositional clauses. They refer to an abstract noun, which is a part of the head clause, and would have to go if that noun were dropped. It is another clear case of a subordinate clause connected with one part of the head clause, not with the head clause as a whole.

Now let us consider the adverbial clauses. Here matters are somewhat less clear, as different types of adverbial clauses appear to be different from this viewpoint. With temporal, causal concessive, conditional, and resultative clauses, it is obvious that they belong to the head clause as a whole, not to any particular part of it. Let us consider a complex sentence with a conditional clause, that is, a conditional sentence, as an example. Take the sentence And if you tell father, he might tell the police, and set them hunting for them. (R. MACAULAY) There would not seem to be any doubt that the conditional clause belongs to the head clause as a whole. There is no reason to say that it belongs only to the predicate of the head clause. And the same will be true of other types of adverbial subordinate clauses which we have just mentioned.

Doubts are possible about clauses of manner and comparison. As a clause introduced by the conjunction than is necessitated by the comparative degree alone, and would be absolutely impossible in its absence, the conclusion seems to impose itself that the clause belongs to that part of the head clause which is expressed by the adjective or adverb in the comparative degree. (If it is an adjective, it may be either a predicative, or an attribute; if an adverb, it can only be an adverbial modifier of some kind.)

Now we proceed to object clauses, and this part of the problem appears to be the most difficult. For instance, in the sentence He bought what he wanted, does the object clause what he wanted belong to the head clause as a whole, or to the predicate bought alone? Or again, in the sentence She may marry whom she likes, does the object clause whom she likes belong to the head clause as a whole, or to the predicate may marry alone? There appears to be no clear evidence either way. On the one hand, it may be argued that the object clause is a part of the sentence just as an object is part of a simple sentence; it may also be pointed out that there is some parallelism between a subject clause and an object clause; compare, for instance, What he knew worried him and He told me what he knew. On the other hand, it may be argued that the object clause fully depends on the predicate verb and must go if that verb

308 Some General Remarks on Syndetic Composite Sentences

is dropped. For want of unmistakable evidence either way, let us apply the principle agreed and draw the conclusion that an object clause belongs to the head clause as a whole.

Parenthetical clauses, in the vast majority of cases, refer to the head clause as a whole. They express the speaker's or writer's attitude to the statement contained in the head clause. However, there may be sentences in which the parenthetical clause refers not to the whole of the head clause but only to some fraction of it. Here are two examples: Fleda found Mrs Gereth in modest apartments and with an air of fatigue in her distinguished face — a sign, as she privately remarked, of the strain of that effort to be discreet of which she herself had been having the benefit. (H. JAMES) The parenthetical clause as she privately remarked refers only to the loose apposition a sign... discreet (with the attributive clause of which... the benefit belonging to it). Yes, but I hadn't heard from you then that you could invent nothing better than, as you call it, to send him back to her. (Idem) Such cases appear to be very rare.