Subject clauses

The notion of a subject clause is not quite clearly defined, The idea at the bottom of the category is this: a clause which performs within a complex sentence the same function that the subject performs within a simple sentence. But in some cases this definition does not appear to be sufficient To make the essence of what a subject clause is quite clear let us first take some examples in which no other interpretation appears to be possible. Clauses of this kind are introduced either by a relative or interrogative pronoun or adverb, or by the conjunction that. We give some examples of each variety. What had happened was that J had spent too much time in the French Quarter, mostly in jazz bars along Bourbon Street, but I plarned to make up for it by getting my order book filled in Baton Rouge and Shreveport and thereby make a good showing at the sales conference in Dallas. (E. CALDWELL) What she considered his monkey's, Simon's, value, for instance, was not lost upon her, (BUECHNER) In the following sentence there is one subject clause and two predicative clauses to it: What they learn from me is that they're never going to have it so good again; that the great ones,, the ones they read, saw it all as pretty black. (Idem)

The following two examples are from A. Trollope: That she must fear the result of the trial, he thought, was certain, but he could not bring himself to have any such fear. The clause he thought is an inserted clause, so the clause that she must fear the result of the trial can only be the subject clause to the first half of the composite sentence, the predicate being was certain. Indeed, if the clause that she must fear the result of the trial is dropped, the predicate was certain has nothing to be attached to. A similar situation is found in the following sentence: That this should be so cut Mr Mason of Groby to the very soul. If the clause that this should be so is dropped the predicate of the main clause cut has no subject to perform (he action of "cutting". How they could get through it all, had often amazed Mrs Allen; and, when Catherine saw what was necessary here, she began to be amazed herself. (J. AUSTEN) If the subordinate clause is dropped, and the sentence is allowed to begin with the words had often amazed, there is no subject in it; and that is sufficient reason for terming the subordinate clause a subject clause. That the General, having erected such a monument, should be able to face it, was not perhaps very strange; and yet that he could sit so boldly collected Within its view, maintain so elevated an air, look so fearlessly around, nay, that he should even enter the church, seemed wonderful to Catherine. (J. AUSTEN) Each of the two complex sentences making up this passage has a subject clause, and indeed the second one has two of them. It is characteristic of this type that the subject clauses have (two out of the three) the group "should + infinitive" as their predicate, and that the predicates of the two main clauses contain adjectives expressing assessment (strange and wonderful).

The reason for calling these clauses subject clauses would seem to be clear: if the clause is dropped, the subject is missing. Since in the sentences as they are the position which might be occupied by a noun-subject is occupied by a subordinate clause, this seems to be sufficient reason for terming the clause a subject clause.

Things are somewhat more difficult and controversial in sentences like the following: It had seemed, certain that their meeting was fortunate. (R. WEST) Here the main clause has the pronoun it (in its impersonal use) occupying the position assigned to the subject of the sentence, and after the main clause comes a subordinate clause whose syntactical function we are to consider now. Two views appear to be possible here. One of them is that the pronoun it at the beginning of the main clause is only a "formal subject", or, as it is sometimes termed, a "sham subject", whereas the subordinate clause coming after the main one is the real subject. The other view is, that the position of the subject is occupied by the pronoun it, and, whether "formal" or not, it is the subject of the sentence, so that no room is left for any other subject. If this view is accepted, the clause will have to be some other kind of clause, not a subject clause. The best way of treating it in that case would be to take it as a kind of appositional clause referring to the subject of the main clause, namely the pronoun it.

The choice of either alternative must necessarily remain a matter of subjective decision, as no objective proof in favour of the! one or the other view seems possible. The situation so far is the same as with some types of simple sentences, where the choice was between taking a certain part as a "real" subject as distinct from the "formal" one, or as an apposition to it. We would definitely prefer the second view and we will therefore discuss this type of subordinate clauses when we come to appositional clauses (see p. 303).