That-Clauses 309
a rticle, and this makes it clear that the word
that is not a demonstrative pronoun. So it can only be a conjunction.
As the clause introduced by the conjunction
that immediately follows a form of the verb
hear, the clause can only be an object clause (provided we accept the view of object clauses laid down on page 281).
In our second example things are quite different. The word
that immediately
follows the noun hair and is followed by a form of the verb
be and the adjective
full. The preceding noun
hair does not in itself give any decisive information about the status of the word
that: it may, in different contexts, be either a relative pronoun, or a demonstrative pronoun (for instance, in the context
she did her hair that day, or
she did her hair, that being essential for ... etc., or it may be a conjunction, for example, in the context
she did her hair that she might look... etc.). It is the words that come after
that which are decisive: the words
was full show that the word
that is not a conjunction: if it were a conjunction there would be no subject
in the subordinate clause, and the predicate
was full must have a subject coming before it.
That might after all be a demonstrative pronoun; if this were so, the clause which begins here would be an independent clause and the sentence a compound sentence. This is, however, most unlikely, as such a use of the demonstrative
that in this context would be stylistically awkward. So the only likely possibility is, that
that is the relative pronoun, and the clause which begins here, a relative attributive clause.
As may be seen from these examples, quite a number of factors have to be taken into account if we are to find out by reasoning
what part of speech the word that is in each case and what kind of clause it introduces.
A somewhat similar analysis might be given of clauses introduced, for instance, by the word
when. This would show whether it was an adverb or a conjunction, and what kind of subordinate clause it introduced. The latter question (about the kind of clause) would also have to be considered with clauses introduced by the conjunction
whether, and possibly with some other types of clauses too.
In dealing with syntactical connections within a complex sentence, it will be well to bear in mind that special cases are always possible, which cannot be foreseen by any general theory. Thus, a very peculiar use of conjunctions is seen in the following complex sentence:
He did not know why, exactly, he wrote, he said, unless perhaps that she might know to what extent he was guilty in that he could not bring himself with any sincerity to repent a sin that had for him such charm and value. (BUECHNER) The conjunction
unless would seem to introduce a clause, as it always does. But in this sentence
unless is followed by
perhaps, after which a clause
310
Some General Remarks on Syndetic Composite Sentences
b egins which is introduced by the conjunction
that. It is quite clear from the predicate of this clause
(might know) and
also from the adverb why in the object clause
why, exactly, he wrote, that this
that-clause
is a clause of purpose. But what, then, is the function of the conjunction
unless? Its function would be clear if the sentence ran like this:
He did not know why, exactly, he wrote, he said, unless perhaps it were that she might know..., or, alternatively,
He did not know why, exactly, he wrote, unless perhaps he wrote that she might know... In each of these variants the conjunction
unless would introduce a subordinate clause of its own, to which the clause of purpose would, in its turn, be subordinated. In the original text
unless in a peculiar way connects with the head clause a clause of purpose which already has its own conjunction, namely,
that.
Share with your friends: