Object clauses and attributive clauses

OBJECT CLAUSES

Object clauses are less easily defined and less easily recognizable than either subject or predicative clauses. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that views differ as to what the limits of the notion "object clause" should be. We may try to apply the same criterion that worked well in the case of subject and predicative clauses, viz. omit the subordinate clause and see what part of the sentence is missing and by what part of a simple sentence the vacant position might be occupied. But we shall not always arrive at a clear decision.

The easiest cases are those in which the subordinate clause can be replaced by a noun which would then be an object in a simple sentence. This applies, for instance, to sentences of the type He bought what he wanted. If we drop the subordinate clause what he wanted we get the unfinished sentence He bought..., which has no definite meaning until we add some word that will function as an object. This may of course be any noun denoting a thing that can be bought, for instance, He bought a briefcase. The similarity in syntactical position between a briefcase and the subordinate clause what he wanted appears to be sufficient reason for saying that what he wanted is an object clause. Compare the following example: Owen had grown larger to her: he would do, like a man, whatever he should have to do. (H. JAMES)

The same may be said about the sentence Tom may marry whom he likes. ¹ Here the clause whom he likes may be replaced by any noun that will fit into the context, for instance, by any feminine name: Tom may marry Jane, where Jane will be an object. This, again, seems sufficient reason for stating that the clause whom he likes is an object clause: its syntactical function is the same as that of the noun Jane which we put in its place. This sentence differs from the preceding in one respect: the subordinate clause may be eliminated without the sentence becoming impossible or incomplete: Tom may marry. This of course depends on the meaning of the verb marry, which in the sense 'enter upon a married state' does not necessarily require a noun or pronoun to make the meaning of the sentence complete.

Here are some more examples: And Cecil was welcome to bring whom he would into the neighbourhood. (FORSTER) But Steitler, no more than six or seven years the older as Motley correctly guessed, had made use of his seniority by developing what Motley was quick to recognise as a definite way with him, a generally

¹ O. Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar, Part III, p. 62.

280 Object Clauses and Attributive Clauses

constant manner under cover — or in easy despite — of which he met the world, was recognised always as quite uniquely himself. (BUECHNER) The object clause coming after developing seems to go on as far as the noun manner, where a subordinate clause of the second degree begins, namely an attributive one to this noun. Object clauses of this type are very characteristically English, and in translating such sentences into another language, for example, into Russian, the turn of the sentence has usually to be changed altogether. Compare also: Fes, my father can seldom be prevailed on to give the waters what I think a fair trial. (J. AUSTEN) Give somebody (something) a fair trial is a phraseological unit, with both nominal elements in it necessary for its existence. This has not prevented, in the last example, the substitution of an object clause (what I call a fair trial) for the phrase a fair trial. This plainly shows that the subordinate clause is here exactly similar in function to the object in a simple sentence, and that the term "object clause" is therefore fully justified.

There is also another type of object clause. This is found in sentences having in the main clause a predicate verb which combines almost exclusively with object clauses and only with a very few possible objects (within a simple sentence). A typical verb of this kind is the verb say. Compare the following example: She could not say what is was. (LAWRENCE) If we drop the subordinate clause we get the unfinished sentence She could not say... The words that can come after the verb say and perform the function of object in a simple sentence are very few indeed: these are chiefly the pronouns this, that, anything, everything, and the noun the truth.

On the whole it may be said that subordinate clauses are much more characteristic of the verb say than an object in a simple sentence.

The same may be said about the verb ask. If we take the sentence She asked whether this was true, and drop the subordinate clause, we shall get the unfinished sentence She asked... The possibilities of completing this sentence by means of an object within the framework of a simple sentence are again very limited: there may be the pronouns this, that, something, nothing, and the noun a question. In this case, too, a subordinate clause is much more characteristic of the verb than an object in a simple sentence. Compare also the following example: He merely suggested that Motley's peculiar gifts tended to make him animate and inflate whatever might, seem to him the most appealing among the host of potentialities attending any unextraordinary human situation; that if, as certainly might be the case, there were validity in his suspicions, he, Tristram, could be no more than very interested to hear of it. (BUECHNER) The object clause, whatever might seem to him the most appealing among the host of potentialities attending any unextraordinary human situation, is rather long; yet it does not pro-

Object Clauses 281

duce any difficulty for the reader to identify the that which comes immediately after it as a conjunction parallel to the first that (the one coming after suggested) and, consequently, to range the clause introduced by the second that as standing on the same level as the first that- clause (that Motley's peculiar gifts...).

The idea will naturally suggest itself of treating the subordinate clause as the typical element following the verb say or ask, rather than as something to be defined by comparing it to an object in a simple sentence.

Now let us pass on to the verbs with which a subordinate clause is the only formation that can follow them to express the contents of the action expressed by the verb.

The verb exclaim is a case in point. Completing it by a word functioning as an object in a simple sentence is impossible: none of the words suggested for the verbs say and ask will do here. Neither the pronouns this, that, something, everything, nor any noun could come after the verb exclaim. So if we apply the criterion which served for the preceding verbs, we cannot find an object of this kind in a simple sentence with this verb and argue that, since the subordinate clause is identical in function to that object, it is bound to be an object clause. The argument in favour of the view that it is an object clause would then have to be more far-fetched and it would have to be something like this: the subordinate clause after the verb exclaim is an object clause because its syntactical function is similar to that of the subordinate clause after the verb say or ask, and that clause is to be recognised as an object clause because its function is the same as that of a few pronouns and nouns which can come after the verb say or ask in a simple sentence.

Now this argument may or may not be found convincing. If it is, all clauses of this kind after the verbs exclaim, wonder, and a number of other "verba sentiendi et declarandi" will have to be accepted as object clauses (which of course is the traditional view). If it is not found convincing the subordinate clauses after such verbs will have to be taken as a special type of clauses, which in this case will not fit into the system of subordinate clause parallel to parts of a simple sentence but will have to be organised on some other principle. They might be termed "subordinate clauses of indirect speech". This is a possible view but it entails some inconvenience. In the first place, this type of clause would remain outside the system which is based on analogy with parts of a simple sentence; secondly, if we recognise clauses of indirect speech as a separate type, we shall obviously have to include in it the clauses following the verbs say, ask, etc. as well, though with these verbs a few pronouns and nouns are possible as objects in a simple sentence.

In this case, as in so many others, no binding decision is possible: the solution a scholar arrives at will largely depend on his

282 Object Clauses and Attributive Clauses

own opinion of the relative value of the arguments brought forward in favour of this or that view.

Occasionally an object clause may come before the main clause:.. .whatever courtesy I have shown to Mrs Hurtle in England I have been constrained to show her. (TROLLOPE) In this example the object clause, which of course depends on the predicate have been constrained to show of the head clause, comes first. This is a clear indication that the object clause represents the theme of the sentence, whereas the rheme is represented by the head clause, and the most important element in this rheme is of course the word constrained. In fact the essential meaning of the sentence might have been put briefly in these words: My courtesy to Mrs Hurtle was constrained. In that case the theme would be represented by the subject group, and the rheme by the predicate.

In speaking of object clauses, special attention must be paid to clauses introduced by prepositions. These clauses may be termed prepositional object clauses, on the analogy of prepositional objects in a simple sentence.

We must note that a prepositional object in a simple sentence does not always correspond to a prepositional object clause: for instance, the verb insist, which always combines with the preposition on (or upon) in a simple sentence, never has this preposition when followed by an object clause.

Most verbs, however, which combine with a preposition in a simple sentence, do so in a complex sentence as well: a case in point is the verb depend, which always combines with the preposition on (or upon), no matter what follows: compare It depends on what you will say, It depends on whether you will come. Here are some examples: The conversation was as brief and uncomplicated as that, freed from whatever implication the memory of their earlier encounter might have added to it. (BUECHNER) This is a peculiarly English way of putting it, and it appears to be more idiomatic than the other way, which, however, is also possible, namely, The conversation was as brief and uncomplicated as that, freed from any implication that the memory of their earlier encounter might have added to it.

The following example is very illuminating since a prepositional clause going with the verb think is then followed by prepositional objects within the main clause: He thought for a few minutes of what she had said — of Arthur's rottenness — socially and personally — and of all that they stood for — individually alive, socially progressive. (A. WILSON) As the prepositional clause of what she had said stands on the same syntactic level as the prepositional phrases of Arthur's rottenness and of all that they stood for (the latter including an attributive subordinate clause), it is quite clear that their functions are identical, that is, the clause is an object clause.

Object Clauses 283

A prepositional clause is also found in this sentence from a novel by A. Trollope: After what had passed, young Round should have been anxious to grind Lucius Mason into powder, and make money of his very bones! After what had passed clearly performs the same function in the sentence that would be performed, say, by the prepositional phrase after these events in a simple sentence. Since that prepositional phrase would have been an adverbial modifier of time (and this is seen from the lexical meanings of the words making it up), the same function must be ascribed to the prepositional clause that we have here.

Compare also the following example: He questioned me on what Caroline had said. (SNOW) By substituting a phrase for the clause introduced by the preposition on, we get a simple sentence with a prepositional object, e. g. He questioned me on Caroline's opinion. So the prepositional clause is clearly shown to be the equivalent, in a complex sentence, of a prepositional object in a simple one. Compare also the following example: How far back did you burrow, Julia? To when our hearts were young and gay at Wellesley? (TAYLOR)

An example of the syntactical equivalence of a word (or phrase) and a clause is also seen in the following sentence.

Vitiate the minds or what pass for the minds of the people with education, teach them to read and write, feed their imaginations with sexual and criminal fantasies known as films, and then starve them in order to pay for these delightful erotic celluloids. (A. WILSON) What pass for the minds stands obviously in the same relation as the minds, on the one hand to the words of the people with education, and on the other to the verb vitiate, to which both of them are objects. The syntactic equivalence of the noun the minds and the clause what pass for the minds is made especially clear by this syntactical tie in two directions. Such examples as these are the strongest argument in favour of classifying subordinate clauses on the same principle as parts of a simple sentence.

In our next example there are no homogeneous parts of this kind, but otherwise the function of the subordinate clause is seen very clearly: I could not write what is known as the popular historical biography. (A. WILSON) The corresponding simple sentence would be, I could not write a popular historical biography. So» if we term the noun a biography the direct object in the latter sentence, there seems to be no reason whatever to deny that the subordinate clause in the former sentence is an object clause. Compare also: I've no doubt about that he is an estimable young man, but I knew nothing about him except what you have told me. (LINKLATER)

Such sentences may be cited as an argument for recognising noun clauses" in Modern English (see above, p. 272 ff.). It is clear that constructions of this kind are only possible if prepositions in

284 Object Clauses and Attributive Clauses

a language do not require any special case and may be followed by practically any kind of word, including a conjunction.

The specific qualities of an object clause as distinct from an object in a simple sentence are not difficult to state.

An object clause (clauses of indirect speech included) is necessary when the notion to be expressed cannot conveniently be summed up in a noun, or a phrase with a noun as its head word, or a gerund and a gerundial phrase, but requires an explicit predicative unit, that is, a subject and a predicate of its own. Or, to put it in a different way: an object clause is necessary when what is to be added to the predicate verb is the description of a situation, rather than a mere name of a thing.

In some cases, though, an object in a simple sentence may have a synonymous object clause, as in the following cases: I heard of his arrival — I heard that he had arrived, etc. The meaning of the two sentences in each case is exactly the same, but there is a certain stylistic difference: the simple sentence with the prepositional object sounds rather more literary or even bookish than the complex sentence with the object clause, which is fit for any sort of style.

A peculiar case of a prepositional object clause is seen in this sentence: George had drunk a. cup of coffee with himself and Simon that morning, had told them of a play he planned to write, then, on to the subject of his weekend, all that he had seen, a good amount of what he had thought or wanted people to think that he had thought, and to the description of a, young man named Steitler. (BUECHNER) The noun amount is head word to a prepositional clause, with two homogeneous predicates, had thought, and wanted; with the second of these predicates there is the complex object people to think, and the infinitive to think is head word to an object clause, that he had thought. Now this had thought in the object clause is understood to have as its object the pronoun what which immediately follows the words amount of. Thus, the word what, while being part of the first-degree subordinate clause, is object to the predicate of the second-degree clause.

ATTRIBUTIVE CLAUSES

A subordinate clause is said to be attributive if its function in the complex sentence is analogous to that of an attribute in a simple sentence. It differs from an attribute in so far as it characterises the thing denoted by its head word through some other action or situation in which that thing is involved. This could not, in many cases at least, be achieved within the limits of a simple sentence. Compare, for example, the sentence By October Isabelle was settled in the house where, she intended, she would live until she died. (R. WEST) The clause where... she would live with the dependent

Attributive Clauses 285

clause until she died contains information which could not be compressed into an attributive phrase within a simple sentence.

It is common knowledge that attributive clauses can be defining (or restrictive, or limiting) and non-defining (or non-restrictive, or descriptive). The non-defining ones do not single out a thing but contain some additional information about the thing or things denoted by the head word, e. g. Magnus, who was writing an article for Meiklejohns newspaper, looked up and said, "That's an interesting little essay, isn't it?" (LINKLATER) Non-defining attributive clauses pose the question of boundary line between subordination and co-ordination, which in this case becomes somewhat blurred. This is especially evident in the so-called continuative clauses, which are used to carry the narrative a step further, namely in sentences like the following: But in the morning he went to see Meiklejohn, whose enthusiasm on hearing the news was very comforting. (LINKLATER) We shall have the governess in a day or two, which will be a great satisfaction. (BAIN, quoted by Poutsma) Sentences of this kind may be taken as specimens of subordination weakened and a subordinate clause passing on to something like a co-ordinate position in the sentence. We shall see other varieties of this development in our next chapter.

The question about the place of an attributive clause deserves a few remarks. Most usually, of course, an attributive clause comes immediately after its head word. This is too common to need illustration. But that is by no means an absolute rule. Sometimes an attributive clause will come, not immediately after its head word, but after some other word or phrase, not containing a noun. This is the case, for instance, in the following sentence: He wanted Ann to die, whom his son passionately loved, whom he had himself once come near to loving. (SNOW) The intervening infinitive to die, coming between the attributive clauses and their head word Ann, does not in any way impede the connection between them.

A different kind of separation is found in the following sentence: Jeremy saw the scene breaking upon him that he had dreaded all day and he felt no energy to withstand it. (A. WILSON) The subordinate clause that he had dreaded all day has the noun scene as its head word. Now this noun forms part of the complex object the scene breaking upon him. No ambiguity is created by the separation, as the subordinate clause cannot possibly refer to the pronoun him, and there is no noun between scene and the subordinate clause. That the word that is the relative pronoun and not the conjunction, is seen from the fact that dreaded, being a transitive verb, has no object coming after it; that the phrase all day is not an object is obvious because if the thing denoted by it were thought of as the object of the action the phrase must have been all the day.

Chapter XXXVII

ADVERBIAL CLAUSES

We must start the discussion of adverbial clauses by pointing out that the term "adverbial" should not be taken as an adjective derived from the noun "adverb" (which would make it a morphological term), but as a syntactical term, in the same way that it is used in the phrase "adverbial modifier" denoting a secondary part of the sentence.

With reference to adverbial clauses a question arises that is not always easy to answer, namely: whether they modify some part of the main clause or the main clause as a whole. The answer may prove to be different for different types of adverbial clauses and the question will have to be considered for each type separately. The criteria to be applied in settling this question have, however (at least partly), to be stated in advance.

We will first try out a method that has proved valid, on the whole, for determining whether a clause is an object clause or not. It will serve both for finding whether a clause is an adverbial clause or not, and if it is one, what it modifies. The method consists in dropping the clause in question and finding out what has been lost by dropping it and what part of the main clause has been affected by the omission (it may be the whole of the main clause). If this method does not yield satisfactory results in some particular case we will think of possible other ways of ascertaining the function of the subordinate clause.

The conjunctions introducing adverbial subordinate clauses are numerous and differ from each other in the degree of definiteness of meaning. While some of them have a narrow meaning, so that, seeing the conjunction, we may be certain that the adverbial clause belongs to a certain type (for example, if the conjunction is because, there is no doubt that the adverbial clause is a clause of cause), other conjunctions have so wide a meaning that we cannot determine the type of adverbial clause by having a look at the con-junction alone: thus, the conjunction as may introduce different types of clauses, and so can the conjunction while. With these conjunctions, other words in the sentence prove decisive in determining the type of adverbial clause introduced by the conjunction. ¹