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 ascould 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.:
The tower clock struck the hour, which changed the train of his thoughts. His pictures were an immediate success on the varnishing day, which was nothing to wonder.
The construction is conveniently used in descriptions and reasonings.
To attributive clauses belongs also a vast set of appositive clauses which perform an important role in the formation of complex sentences. The appositive clause, in keeping with the general nature of apposition, does not simply give some sort of qualification to its antecedent, but defines or elucidates its very meaning in the context. Due to this specialization, appositive clauses refer to substantive antecedents of abstract semantics. Since the role of appositive clauses consists in bringing about contextual limitations of the meaning of the antecedent, the status of appositive clauses in the general system of attributive clauses is intermediary between restrictive and descriptive.
In accordance with the type of the governing antecedent, all the appositive clauses fall into three groups: first, appositive clauses of nounal relation; second, appositive clauses of pronominal relation; third, appositive clauses of anticipatory relation.
Appositive clauses of nounal relation are functionally nearer to restrictive attributive clauses than the rest. They can introduce information of a widely variable categorial nature, both nominal and adverbial. The categorial features of the rendered information are defined by the type of the antecedent.
The characteristic antecedents of nominal apposition are abstract nouns like fact, idea, question, plan, suggestion, news, information, etc. Cf.:
The news that Dr. Blare had refused to join the Antarctic expedition was sensational. We are not prepared to discuss the question who will chair the next session of the Surgical Society.
The nominal appositive clauses can be tested by transforming them into the corresponding clauses of primary nominal positions through the omission of the noun-antecedent or translating it into a predicative complement. Cf.:
...→ That Dr. Blare had refused to join the Antarctic expedition was sensational. → That Dr. Blare had refused to join the Antarctic expedition was sensational news.
The characteristic antecedents of adverbial apposition are abstract names of adverbial relations, such as time, moment, place, condition, purpose, etc. Cf:.
We saw him at the moment he was opening the door of his Cadillac. They did it with the purpose that no one else might share the responsibility for the outcome of the venture.
As is seen from the examples, these appositive clauses serve a mixed or double function, i.e. a function constituting a mixture of nominal and adverbial properties. They may be tested by transforming them into the corresponding adverbial clauses through the omission of the noun-antecedent and, if necessary, the introduction of conjunctive adverbializers. Cf:.
...→ -We saw him as he was opening the door of his Cadillac. ... → They did it so that no one else might share the responsibility for the outcome of the venture.
Appositive clauses of pronominal relation refer to an antecedent expressed by an indefinite or demonstrative pronoun. The constructions serve as informatively limiting and attention focusing means in contrast to the parallel non-appositive constructions. Cf:.
I couldn't agree withall that she was saying in her irritation. → I couldn't agree with what she was saying in her irritation. (Limitation is expressed.)That which did strike us was the inspector's utter ignorance of the details of the case. → What did strike us was the inspector's utter ignorance of the details of the case. (The utterances are practically equivalent, the one with a clausal apposition being somewhat more intense in its delimitation of the desired focus of attention.)
Appositive clauses of anticipatory relation are used in constructions with the anticipatory pronoun (namely, the anticipatory it, occasionally the demonstratives this, that). There are two varieties of these constructions - subjective and objective. The subjective clausal apposition is by far the basic one, both in terms of occurrence (it affects all the notional verbs of the vocabulary, not only transitive) and functional range (it possesses a universal sentence-transforming force). Thus, the objective anticipatory apposition is always interchangeable with the subjective anticipatory apposition, but not vice versa. Cf:.
I would consider it (this) a personal offence if they didn't accept the forwarded Invitation.→ It would be a personal offence (to me) if they didn't accept the forwarded invitation. You may depend on it that the letters won't be left unanswered. → It may be depended on that the letters won't be left unanswered.
The anticipatory appositive constructions, as is widely known, constitute one of the most peculiar typological features of English syntax. Viewed as part of the general appositive clausal system here presented, it is quite clear that the exposure of their appositive nature does not at all contradict their anticipatory interpretation, nor does it mar or diminish their "idiomatically English" property so emphatically pointed out in grammar books.
The unique role of the subjective anticipatory appositive construction, as has been stated elsewhere, consists in the fact that it is used as a universal means of rheme identification in the actual division of the sentence.
8. Clauses of adverbial positions constitute a vast domain of syntax which falls into many subdivisions each distinguishing its own field of specifications, complications, and difficulties of analysis. The structural peculiarities and idiosyncrasies characterizing the numerous particular clause models making up the domain are treated at length in grammatical manuals of various practical purposes; here our concern will be to discuss some principal issues of their functional semantics and classification.
Speaking of the semantics of these clauses, it should be stressed that as far as the level of generalized clausal meanings is concerned, semantics in question is of absolute syntactic relevance; accordingly, the traditional identification of major adverbial clause models based on "semantic considerations" is linguistically rational, practically helpful, and the many attempts to refute it in the light of the "newly advanced, objective, consistently scientific" criteria have not resulted in creating a comprehensive system capable of competing with the traditional one in its application to textual materials.
On the other hand, it would be a mistake to call in question the usefulness of the data obtained by the latest investigations. Indeed, if their original negative purpose has failed, the very positive contribution of the said research efforts to theoretical linguistics is not to be overlooked: it consists in having studied the actual properties of the complicated clausal system of the sentence, above all the many-sided correlation between structural forms and functional meanings in the making of the systemic status of each clausal entity that admits of a description as a separate unit subtype.
Proceeding from the said insights, the whole system of adverbial clauses is to be divided into four groups.
The first group includes clauses of time and clauses of place. Their common semantic basis is to be defined as "localization" - respectively, temporal and spatial. Both types of clauses are subject to two major subdivisions, one concerning the local identification, the other concerning the range of functions.
Local identification is essentially determined by subordinators. According to the choice of connector, clauses of time and place are divided into general and particularizing. The general local identification is expressed by the non-marking conjunctions when and where. Taken by themselves, they do not introduce any further specifications in the time or place correlations between the two local clausal events (i.e. principal and subordinate). As for the particularizing local identification, it specifies the time and place correlations of the two events localizing the subordinate one before the principal, parallel with the principal, after the principal, and possibly expressing further subgra-dations of these correspondences.
With subordinate clauses of time the particularizing localizationisexpressed by such conjunctions as while, as, since, before, after, until, as soon as, now that, no sooner than, etc. E.g.:
We lived here in London when the war ended. While the war was going on we lived in London. We had lived in London all through the war until it ended. After the war ended our family moved to Glasgow. Etc.
With clauses of place properthe particularizing localization is expressed but occasionally, mostly by the prepositional conjunctive combinations fromwhere (bookish equivalent - whence) and towhere. E.g.:
The swimmers gathered where the beach formed a small promontory. The swimmers kept abreast of one another from where they started.
For the most part, however, spatial specifications in the complex sentence are rendered not by place-clauses proper, but by adverbial-appositive clauses. Cf;.
We decided not to go back to the place from where we started on our journey.
From the functional point of view, clauses of localization should be divided into "direct" (all the above ones) and "transferred", the latter mostly touching on matters of reasoning. E.g.:
When you speak of the plain facts there can't be any question, of argument. But I can't agree with you where the principles of logic are concerned.
A special variety of complex sentence with a time clause is presented by a construction in which the main predicative information is expressed in the subordinate clause, the actual meaning of temporal localization being rendered by the principal clause of the sentence. E.g.:
Alice was resting in bed when Humphrey returned. He brought his small charge into the room and presented her to her "aunt" (D.E. Stevenson).
The context clearly shows that the genuine semantic accents in the first sentence of the cited passage is to be exposed by the reverse arrangement of subordination: it is Humphrey's actions that are relevant to the developing situation, not Alice's resting in bed: → Humphrey returned when Alice was resting in bed...
This type of complex sentence is known in linguistics as "inversive"; what is meant by the term, is semantics taken against the syntactic structure. The construction is a helpful stylistic means of literary narration employed to mark a transition from one chain of related events to another one.
The second group of adverbial clauses includes clauses of manner and comparison. The common semantic basis of their functions can be defined as "qualification", since they give a qualification to the action or event rendered by the principal clause. The identification of these clauses can be achieved by applying the traditional question-transformation test of the how-type, with the corresponding variations of specifying character (for different kinds of qualification clauses). Cf:.