CHAPTER X

SENTENCE

1. Sentence /clause interface

In the pyramid of syntactic ranks, the structural unit of sentence occupies the utmost position.
Its hierarchic supremacy implies that the sentence is realized by/made up of clause/s and that
it is a structural unit capable of serving an independent communicative goal 1. Sentence is the
rank whereby the valency-based grammatical abstractions realized on the level of clauses are
used as units of actual communication. At the sentence rank the arrangement of clause
elements is exposed to the principles governing the distribution of communicative dynamism
(FSP, see Chapter XXX), and various pragmatic considerations involved in speakers´
responses to the extralinguistic factors.2

Sentence may be realized by one or more clauses, and it is delimited by intonation both
externally as well as by special intonation arrangement of its internal components. In the
English linguistics the term sentence is used to cover both single-clause as well as non-single
clause sentences. In Slovak grammars, the two of the types are referred to as jednoduchá veta
and súvetie, respectively. The non-single clause sentences may be composed of 2 clauses
(which is considered to be the base type), or more than 2 clauses, sometimes also referred to
as multiple sentences. The Slovak terminological counterparts are jednoduché súvetie for the
former and zložené súvetie for the latter. The English/Slovak terminological discrepancies are
summarized in the following chart, along with suggested translation solutions:

1
Mathesius Mathesius – (1975, p. 79 A functional Analysis of Present-Day English on a
General Linguistic Basis. Praha: Academia: [sentence] the basic element of the
communicative process (of the process in which the naming units are brought into mutual
relations)… The sentence is an elementary communicative unit through which the speaker
reacts to some reality or several items of the reality in a manner that appears to be formally
customary and subjectively complete.
2
For Dušková the basic sentence-forming syntactic relation is predication and she
distinguishes between sentence as abstract linguistic unit (sentence type) and sentence as
utterance, i.e. as a concrete communicative unit. (Dušková, 1988: 309). Quirk detto 1985,
p.78,47,719 ??????????????,
Table X Sentence/súvetie - terminological counterparts (target-oriented translation strategy)
Structural unit SENTENCE
Composed of 1 clause 2 clauses more than 2
clauses
ENG term Sentence
ENG term (simple) sentence multiple
sentence sentence
SK term jednoduchá veta Súvetie
composition subtype holá, rozvitá jednoduché súvetie zložené súvetie
ENG term ---- compound complex ---
sentence sentence
SK term ---- priraďovacie podraďovacie ---
súvetie súvetie

As might be noticed, the English term sentence shows a high level of polysemy and is thus
quite confusing inter-linguistically. The following concept-based translation solutions are
suggested to facilitate the inter-linguistic discussions:
jednoduchá veta – single-clause sentence
súvetie – non-single-clause sentence
jednoduché súvetie – two-clause sentence
zložené súvetie – three-and-more clause sentence/multiple-clause sentence

The syntactic analysis of sentences containing more than one clause (súvetie), which is the
composition type on which this unit is focused, derives from two-clause sentences.
Depending on the kind of internal relationship between the clauses within such sentences, two
major types of two-clause sentence may be identified: compound sentence and complex
sentence which have the following direct counterparts in Slovak (as is suggested in the above
Table X):
compound sentence – priraďovacie súvetie
complex sentence – podraďovacie súvetie
The compound sentence contains two main clauses which are grammatically independent
from each other, each of them being capable of making up a communicatively independent
sentence. The complex sentence contains one superordinate and one subordinate clause,
i.e. the subordinate clause cannot be turned into an independent sentence, it is dependent on
the superordinate clause from a point of view of its ability to accomplish an independent
communicative goal, and is structurally involving a connector (conjuctions or conjoining
pronouns that, which, what…). According to Dušková (1988:588), the subordinative
relationship is restricted to two components only, whereas parataxis may involve two or more
members.

2. Compound sentence
To exemplify the syntactic relations within a compound sentence, the following sentence is
used:

John was reading a book, Ann was writing a letter.

The above sentence is composed of two clauses (containing two finite verb phrases, i.e. was
reading and was writing, the number of verb-phrases overlaps with the number of clauses),
whose clause members alignments are grammatically independent, i.e. they are not
syntactically intermingled (none of them is involved in the realization of the clause alignment,
including its reduced form, i.e. valency, of the other). They are independent of each other both
onomasiologically and semasiologically, which means that they can be turned into
independent sentences serving independent communicative goals. In linguistics, this
relationship of equality is also termed parataxis or coordination (Aarts, 2006:252 )and the
structural units engaged in such a relationship are termed main clauses.
In sentence 1 there is main clause 1 and main clause 2, abbreviated as M1 and M2:
M1: John was reading a book.
M2: Ann was writing a letter.

According to Dušková, main clauses in a compound sentence may be joined either

asyndetically (by juxtaposition without a coordinative item, or in form of inversion), or
syndetically (by a coordinative item, usually conjunction or conjunct). If clauses are
introduced by coordinative conjunctions their position is fixed (the clause introduced by a
coordinative conjunction cannot be anteposed (Dušková, 1988: 589).
From a point of view of the clause range, as was mentioned above, each of the main clauses
have their own clause alignments and their Verbs activate separate valency chains and frames,
independently of each other.
Based on the semantic-logical relations between M1 and M2, the following subtypes are
generally listed in the literature:

1. Copulative compound sentence

She likes him and he likes her.
2. Adversative compound sentence
I have worked with him for ten years but I don´t know much about him.
3. Disjunctive compound sentence
Is it a joke or are you serious?
4. Reason compound sentence
It was by no means an ease ascent, for the wall was high, and it was surmounted by broken
glass.
5. Consequence compound sentence
Her health is rather delicate, she can´t therefore engage in strenuous undertakings.
6. Conditional compound sentence
Give a dog a bad name, and he´ll live up to it.

As surface realizations, the sentences 4, 5 and 6 display a paratactical relationship between

their component clauses as each of them are capable of realizing independent sentences. On
the other hand, the syntactic semantic relationship between the two of the clauses is
hypotactical, which is indicated by the use of conjucts in ex. 4 and 5, and the inversion in
sentence 6, and the syntactic meaning activated them. Onomasiologically, they can therefore
be considered as paratactical realizations of Circumstantial Frames (conveying reason,
consequence and condition, respectively); this phenomenon may also be referred to as false
parataxis.

3.Complex sentence3

3
Dušková 1991 The complex sentence in British and Czech grammar .Sborník prací
Filozofické fakulty brnenské university. Pp.65-75
A Superord.|I want to find out Subord./ how it happened /|.
B /I come to Denny's all the time/
Superord. Subord.
/because I love the chicken salad /. (After Dark,
Haruki Murakami, p.9)
The sentences A and B are composed of two clauses since each of them contains two finite
verb phrases. The relationship between the clauses in these sentences; grammatically unequal,
they are syntactically intermingled, i.e. one clause realizes a clause element of the other, it
falls within its clause alignment. Such clause is usually introduced by a conjunction and is not
syntactically independent (it cannot stand on its own as an independent communicative unit);
it is termed subordinate/dependent. On the other hand, the clause whose clause element is
realized by a subordinate clause, and whose clause alignment ties and governs the subordinate
clause is called superordinate. The superordinate clause is capable of independent existence
and it can fulfil a particular communicative goal if turned into a sentence. The relationship of
syntactic dependence is also known as subordination or hypotaxis. The tests by clause
alignment engagement and ability of existing as an independent sentence may serve as
diagnostic tests to delineate the borderline between the superordinate and the subordinate
clauses within complex sentences. Moreover, delineation of subordinate clauses is aided by
the fact that they are introduced either by subordinate conjunctions, relative or interrogative
pronouns or are indicated by inversion (Dušková, 1988: 593).
Subordinate conjunction: Subord./If he loses an ear/, he's got nothing to hang his glasses on.
Contingency Adjunct of condition. (After Dark, Haruki Murakami, p.78)
Relative pronoun: I have two dogs Subord./that I love./
Interrogative pronoun: I don’t know Subord./whose blood it could be./ (Kafka on the Shore, Haruki
Murakami, p.180)
Inversion: Subord./Should you need any further information/, do not hesitate to contact us.

In terms of clause alignment, the complex sentence externally behaves as a simple sentence. It
is the clause alignment of the superordinate clause that is the supreme one, although the
dependent clause retains its own clause alignment. If the subordinate clause fills in an
Argument slot in the superordinate clause, i.e. its valency slot, the superordinate clause is
termed matrix clause. Actually, the matrix clause is not truly capable of independent
existence as a sentence since it cannot do without its mandatory clause element realized by the
dependent clause. It rather serves as a kind of valency matrix:
 Subject: Matrix|That Jane is so honest annoys me|. SVO
Object: Matrix|I wish you had been there|. (Austen, J. Pride and Prejudice (pp. 11). 2008. ISBN:
978-0-393-27064-8) SVO
Subject complement: Matrix|The important thing is that Eri was holding me|. (After Dark,
Haruki Murakami, p.189) SVCs

On the other hand, the superordinate clause is termed main clause if the subordinate clause
fills one of its Non-Argument syntactic slots (valency-facultative clause element). Such
superordinate clause has the same quality as the main clause in the compound sentence:

Sentential relative: She didn´t like it, which I found strange.

Reason Adverbial: They couldn't sleep last night, because they're worried about me.
Time Adverbial: Don't call us until you're ready to send the check.

3. Major subtypes of complex sentence

Complex sentences are sub-classified according to the kind of dependent (subordinate)

clauses they incorporate, which may be:
I. NOMINAL/CONTENT dependent clauses (obsahové vedľajšie vety)
II. RELATIVE dependent clauses (vzťažné vedľajšie vety)
III. ADVERBIAL dependent clauses (adverbiálne vedľajšie vety)

I. Nominal/content dependent clauses

The term nominal in the name of this type of dependent clauses implies that these clauses
function syntactically as nouns/substantatives, or, to be more precise, as noun phrases. They
can fulfil the syntactic functions of Subject, Object, Subject Complement and Postmodifier.
But for the latter, the function of Subject, Object and Subject Complement are obviously
Argument syntactic functions, so their governing superordinate clauses are of matrix type.
The term content is usually used to indicate that these clauses express the proposition as a
mentally indivisible whole (this is their unique distinctive feature separating them from the
nominal relative clauses which are inherently bi-componential).
The content nominal dependent clauses may viewed as indirect speech transpositions of direct
speech propositions:
Declarative sentence I like it. >>> He says that he likes it.
Wh-question: What do you like? >>> He asks what I like.

Depending on the intentional sentence types4 of their underlying direct counterparts, content
subordinates further subcategorize into:
I.A Declarative nominal/content dependent clauses
II.B Interrogative nominal/content dependent clauses
III.C Imperative nominal/content dependent clauses
IV.D Wish nominal/content dependent clauses
V.E Exclamative nominal/dependent clauses

I.A Declarative nominal/content dependent clauses

Communicatively, declarative nominal subordinates can be treated as transformed direct
declaratives. This is reflected in their being introduced by the conjunction that (which
translates as že into Slovak in contrast to ktorý which correlates with that functioning as a
relative pronoun introducing adjectival relative clauses). The list of syntactic functions in this
sub-category includes Subject, Object, Subject Complement and Postmodifier.

Subject realized by nominal/content dependent clause is introduced by verbs or predicative

adjective conveying mental states:
That people don´t follow the rules disgusts me. ((To), že ľudia nedodržujú pravidlá ma
znechucuje.)

It may also be postponed/extraposed if introduced by the anticipatory “it”:

It makes me sad that some Chelsea fans are angry at me.= That some Chelsea fans are
angry at me makes me sad.
With cognitive verbs such as seem, occur, or Subject Complement realized by an adjective
phrase with a similar meaning, the Cognizer may, but need not, be expressed in the chain:

4
According to Dušková,the basic sentence types according to the speaker/writer´s communicative goal include
declarative sentences (oznamovacie vety), interrogative sentences (opytovacie vety), imperative sentences
(rozkazovacie vety), optative sentences (želacie vety) and exclamative sentences (zvolacie vety) (XXXXX,
author´s translation). For Dušková, intentional modality is an obligatory feature of a sentence which is displayed
by each sentence, although its concrete communicative function is not limited to the canonical function of that
particular intentional type. (XXXXXXXXX)
It´s clear that we made a mistake. SVCs
It seems (to me ) that they haven't completed the task yet. SV(O)

Object is most frequently introduced by the Experience verbs of cognition, emotions (answer,
doubt, admit, suppose, mean, think, feel, sense), or the corresponding adjectives. If the
introductory verb is in the past tense, the dependent clause is subject to the rules of tense
sequence:
He thought: “I have a perfect alibi.” → He thought he has a perfect alibi.
Analecta sensed the anger underlying those words.
My mom believed that I would pass my exams.
It normally realizes Focus with cognitive processes in SVO chains, but it may also oscillate
between Focus and Adjunct of Respect in SVOO/SVOA chains with such verbs as convince,
persuade, satisfy, assure… :
Serena Williams convinced Maria Sharapova that it was time to retire from tennis.
The court should satisfy itself by inquiry of the defendant that his conduct constitutes the
offence charged in the indictment.
An Object content clause may be anticipated by a pronoun it in the Object: (especially with
such verbs as to owe, to rely on, to take for, to find)
I owe it to you that I am still alive. = I owe that I am still alive to you.
You may rely on it, that monotheism will destroy all your pulpit sophistry.

Subject Complement content declaratives typically follow the copular verb to be:
The most important thing is that we should have freedom of thought.
And the best part is that I love working with them.
An important difference between morphemes and words is that a morpheme cannot contain
more than one element of meaning and cannot be further analysed.
The rumour is that their mother refused to help the Death Eaters.

Adjunct of Respect is used with Subject Complement realized by an adjective phrase

(SVCsA):
I am quite sure that I loved her.
Qualifying these clauses as realizing Adjunct of Reason, which is Adverbial in fact, while
complementing Subject Complement, does not contradicts the diagnostic test of content
clauses, i.e. that they should express the proposition as a whole.
Postmodifying declarative nominal clauses follow abstract nouns derived from verbs or
adjectives conveying mental states (belief, conviction, hope, fact, fear):

The idea that only councils should build social housing is nonsense. (Predstava, že iba obce
by mali stavať sociálne byty, je nezmysel.)
The thought that he could die did not occur to her.
The news that the team had won calls for a celebration.

Postmodifying nominal that clauses may also be treated as a kind of syntactic apposition since
they meet the diagnostic requirements of Syntactic Identity Test and Single Referent Test:
The idea is nonsense. – That only councils should build social housing is nonsense. – both can
fill out the Subject slot and they refer to one and the same referent, i.e. the proposed fact.
Since their Head noun may occur in any syntactic slot, they may occur as postmodifiers of
Subjects, Objects or Subject Complements or even Prepositional Complements. However, the
appositive value may safely be assigned only to the Subject slot:
Syntactic Apposition in Subject: S/The idea/ S/that only councils should build social housing/
is nonsense. → That only councils should build social housing is nonsense.
Syntactic Apposition in Object: I like O/the idea/ O/that love conquers all/. → I like that love
conquers all.*?
Postmodifier of Extraposed Subject in Existential Frame: In Britain there is S/a general
principle/ S/that people who knowingly get themselves intoxicated must be held responsible
for their acts./ → That people who knowingly get themselves intoxicated must be held
responsible for their acts is.*
Postmodifier of Subject Complement:
Postmodifier of Prepositions Complement:

I.B Interrogative nominal/content dependent clauses

This communicative intentional sub-type of nominal clauses is usually introduced by verbs or
predicative adjectives functioning as Cs conveying some kind of enquiry. The list typically
includes such verbs and predicative adjectives requiring Adjunct of Respect, such as ask,
wonder, know (I don´t know), doubt, I am not sure, … In contrast to their direct interrogative
counterparts, these clauses do not show Operator/Subject inversion, they are subject to the
rules of tense sequence, and they are introduced by interrogative pronouns or conjunctions
(whether, if, when, who, why…):
He asked: “What is the answer?” → He asked what the answer was.
The most important diagnostic marker is the missing information which is enquired about.
Their introductory matrix clauses can be paraphrased by the test: ´I want to know the answer
to the question5.
I don´t know who she is. → I want to know the answer to the question “Who is she?”.
I’m not sure what that means in this context. → I´m not sure about the answer to the
question “What that means in this context?”.
However, direct questions may be transposed to the indirect form also when introduced by
verbs indicating the knowledge of the fact rather than the enquiry (also see note 5):
I told her what it was. = I told her the answer to the question 'What was it? (Huddleston,
Pullum, 2005:178) (also see Dušková 1988: 604)

Basically, there are two sub-types of interrogative dependent clauses: yes/no dependent
interrogatives (including alternatives) and who dependent interrogative clauses,

I.B.1 Yes/No dependent interrogative6

Subject: Whether she can be pregnant or not/ is still questionable.
Object: I do not know whether the end of the world has come.
Subject Complement: My question is whether it is appropriate for the bride or groom to tell
a guest how to dress for their wedding
Postmodifier: The question emerged whether methadone has deteriorating effects on
cognitive functioning.
Adjunct of Respect with Cs: I’m not sure whether I should do it.
Alternative dependent interrogative clauses involving both variants:
Object: I don´t care whether/if my conduct is approved of or criticized.

1.B.2 Wh-dependent interrogative clauses7

Subject: How long she was gone is impossible to know.
Object: I always wondered who Josephine was.
Subject Complement: An important question is what happens next.

5
According to Huddleston & Pullum: “ Main clause interrogatives are characteristically used to ASK questions;
subordinate interrogatives EXPRESS questions, but do not themselves ask them. Usually (but not always) the
construction can be glossed with the formula "the answer to the question". I told her what it was. = I told her the
answer to the question 'What was it? (2005:178)
6
Also termed ´closed interrogative´ (Huddleston & Pullum, 2005:175)
7
Also termed ´open interrogative´ (Huddleston: 175)
Postmodifier: He had no idea how they lived. (Hem, shortstories, p. 43)
Adjunct of Respect as Prepositional Complement: Where the judge is uncertain as to
where the truth lies on any issue he must find against the party bearing the burden of proof.
What she was, and where she was born, he never informed us.

I.C Imperative nominal/content dependent clauses

Imperative dependent clauses may either be considered as indirect orders, suggestions or other
types of mandatives. They occur in the Object slot following the verbs or structures
expressing deontic modality of direction: to suggest, to ask, to demand, to order, to decree, it
is important/essential/vital. The verb phrase of the imperative subordinate clause can take the
form of subjunctive, or it may involve the modal auxiliary should or take the form of covert
mandative (Huddleston & Pullum, 2005:177).
Subjunctive mandative:
It is ordered that the Defendant do pay to the office of this court the total sum mentioned
above.
It is essential that he be told immediately. (Huddleston & Pullum, 2005: 177)
He insisted that he meet her. (Huddleston & Pullum, 2005: 177)
Should mandative: I suggest that we should go.
Covert mandative: It´s important that he drinks a lot. (which is ambiguous as it may be
interpreted either as "He should take plenty of fluids!" or "The fact that he's a heavy drinker is
significant!" (Huddleston & Pullum, 2005: 177) which is an extraposed Subject declarative
content dependent clause.
As demonstrated by the above examples imperative dependent clauses function as Objects of
kernel/active matrixes or as Subjects of their passive counterparts, and they also realize
Subjects in Evaluative Qualifying Frames.

I.D Wish nominal/content dependent clauses

These dependent clauses follow mostly asyndetically, or after the conjunction that, the verb
wish in the Object slot. The tense of the verb phrase of dependent wish clauses takes the form
of the past or past perfect tense or conditional mood conveying the simultaneity, precedence
or subsequence of the action expressed in the dependent clause relative to the matrix clause
action, respectively (Dušková, 1988: 606)
Past tense: I wish we could go back to school.
Past subjunctive: I wish I were with you now.
Past perfect: I wish I had won a million.
Conditional: I wish she would wake up.

I.E Exclamative nominal/content dependent clauses

Exclamative dependent clauses are introduced by the initial exclamative phrase containing
adjuncts how or what, similarly to their direct counterparts. Their verb phrases are subject to
tense sequence.
How beautiful she is! → He could not believe how beautiful she was.
What a fool I am! → I did not know what a fool I was.
The governing verb phrases of exclamative dependent clauses, by contrast to the wh-
interrogative dependent clauses, do not indicate the missing information and their
introductory how and what serve as adjuncts, i.e. intensifier and evaluative measure adjuncts,
respectively, whereas with the interrogative dependent clauses wh-items function as measure
adjuncts proper:
Do you remember how big it was? (Huddleston and Pullum, 2007: 181)
Interpretation 1 exclamative dependent: do you have recollections of how remarkably big
something was
Interpretation 2 wh-interrogative: do you remember the answer to the question How big was
it?
Exclamative dependent clauses function as Object:
I never realised what a big deal this boat race has developed into.
I have seen what a wonderful and devoted wife you have been.
It's amazing how realistic it was.
I didn´t think how wrong it was.

II. RELATIVE DEPENDENT CLAUSES

Relative dependent clauses add characteristics to their heads which may be either overt or
covert. Based on this distinction relative dependent clauses are subdivided into adjectival
relative clauses and nominal relative clauses. Both types of relative clauses are introduced by
wh-relative pronouns. Adjectival relative clauses function as postmodifiers of their explicit
heads and are therefore incorporated in noun phrases. On the other hand, the heads of nominal
relative clauses are implicit, activating concrete referents, whereas the nominal relative
clause can be paraphrased by an adjective relative clause. This is the reason why both the
adjective and nominal relative dependents are ranked with the relative subtype (although
some authors may treat the nominal relative clauses as a sub-type of nominal clauses??????).
Although the nominal relative clauses are inherently bi-componential (implied Head +
Postmodifier relative clause), externally they acts as noun phrases realizing the Subject,
Object, Subject Complement, Prepositional Complement and Postmodifier slots. The
following compound sentence contains both types of relative clauses; their coordination
emphasizes their common and distinct features:

She liked NOM RELO/what he wrote/ and NPO/the Head|life| ADJ RELPostm|that he led|/. (Hem Shortst, p.
51)
Table XXX Differences between Feature

Nominal relative clauses Adjectival relative clauses

Common features Introduced by Wh-pronouns
Activating a feature of their head as postmodifiers
Implicitly Explicitly
Differences
Function as Syntactic noun: S, O, Cs, Postmod, Syntactic adjective:
PrepCompl Postmodifier
Head implied overtly expressed
The Implied Head( books) The Head(life)
Implied Postmod Postm(
(that he wrote) that he led)
Components of Matrix clause Noun phrase

II.A Nominal relative clauses

In each of the following syntactic slots, nominal relative clauses are paraphrasable as implied
Head + transposed Adjectival Relative clause (so called “That Which.... Test“)
Subject:
What they're doing is outrageous. → /That which they are doing/ is outrageous.
What they had witnessed in the last hour required the silence of personal reflection. → That
which they had witnessed in the last hour required the silence of personal reflection.
What you should do is quit lying to yourself. → That which you should do is quit lying to
yourself.
Object:
She enjoyed what he was doing. → She enjoyed /that which he was doing/.
She had finished what she wanted to say. → She had finished /that which she wanted to say/.
What you don't measure, you can't manage. → You can´t manage /that which you don´t
measure/.
Subject Complement:
That is what I said. → That is that which I said.
That's what I miss more than anything. → That´s that which I miss more than anything.
This is what your animal testing does to innocent animals all for beauty. → This is that
which your animal testing does to innocent animals all for beauty.
Prepositional Complement as Postmodifier:
Signs of what could go wrong are already obvious. → Signs of that which could go wrong
are already obvious.
In fact, the list of what he did is really quite impressive. → The list of that which he did is
impressive.
Prepositional Complement as Adjunct: Service Provider shall not be liable for any loss or
damage resulting from errors or delays in transmitting the information, regardless of what
caused such errors or delays. (PrepP - Adjunct of Concession) → regardless of that which
caused such errors…

An apparent surface similarity of Nominal relative clauses and Nominal/Content Interrogative

clause might be some confusion that should be cleared up. Since both are introduced by the
same type of wh-pronouns (who, if, what, when, where, how,…..) and as syntactic nouns
function as Subjects, Objects, Subject Complements in the matrix clauses and Postmodifiers.
Semantically, the Interrogative dependent clauses express facts, events, ideas as one
proposition and involve enquiring about a missing information. On the other hand, Nominal
relative dependent clauses imply a head that is known to the speaker and that is characterised
by the postmodifying adjectival relative paraphrase, so called “That Which Test”.

Table XXX Interrogative versus nominal relative clauses

Interrogative nominal clause Nominal relative clause
Subject What the solution will be cannot What has been said cannot be
now be determined. unsaid.
I want to know the answer to the question That which has been said cannot be
What will the solution be? unsaid.
Object I wonder what they did to them. Her mask was slipping away but I
I want to know the answer to the question couldn´t yet see what was
What did they do to them?
underneath.
I couldn´t see that which was underneath.

Subject My concern is what will happen in “That's what I worry about.

Complement 20, 30 years. That is that which I worry about.
I want to know the answer to the question
What will happen in 20,30 years?

Postmodifier He had no idea what was going on. His story of what happened was
I want to know the answer to the question horrific.
What was going on? His story of that which happened was
horrific.

In some cases only a particular context may disambiguate the actual reading of dependent
clause:
I study what makes people happy.
1. I want to know the answer to the question what makes people happy?
2. I study that which makes people happy (I know what it is).
Or the two syntactic interpretations remain ambiguous and should be seen as cases of
categorial transition:
I don’t remember where I first saw it.
1. I don´t know the answer to the question Where did I see it first?
2. I don´t remember the place where I first saw it.
Sometimes I forget where I am.
1. I don´t know where I am. I forget the answer to the question where am I?
2. I forget the place where I am./ I forget that I am here.

II.B Adjectival relative clauses

Adjectival Relative Clauses, functioning as Postmodifiers of explicit heads in the NP may be
subdivided further into restrictive and non-restrictive, depending on whether they are or not
indispensable for identification of the referent of the head. This distinction is pragmatic rather
than syntactic in terms of chains and frames, which means that it depends on the situational
and experiential context.
Restrictive Non-restrictive
pragmatically
indispensable dispensable
for identification of
referent of the head of
the NP
not separated with a comma separated with a comma

I have a sister, /who is a computer engineer/, and a brother, /who is a football player./
(I only have one sister and one brother)
I have a sister /who is a computer engineer/ and a sister /who is a football player/.
(I have two sisters and the postmodifying clauses allow the recipient to identify who is who).

II.C Sentential Relative Clause

Sentential relative clauses may be treated as postmodifying the whole of the preceding clause
(their head is the whole main clause). In fact, they are rather evaluating the content of the
proposition in the preceding clause rather than postmodifying it, which is similar to the
function of evaluating content disjuncts.

Some employees know how to cheat the inspections, which I could not stand for.
The next round of surgeries started almost immediately, which I found cruel.
He walks for an hour each morning, which would bore me.

Sentential relative clauses may therefore be used as a testing paraphrase for content disjuncts.

Unfortunately, there’s no writing in the notebook.→

There´s no writing in the notebook, which I find unfortunate.

Interestingly, subsequent chapters deal with run-in processes. →

Subsequent chapters deal with run-in process, which I found interesting.

III.ADVERBIAL CLAUSES
Adverbial dependent clauses can be subclassified according to semantic classes of adjuncts
they convey. Adverbial clauses may qualify as Arguments or Non-Arguments depending on
whether they complete a matrix clause or are incorporated in the main clause:

Adverbial dependent clauses as MATRIX clause fillers

Place: There was only an empty bed where Audrey laid moments ago. SVA space localizer
With an amazing slight of hand she put it where it was supposed to be, and no one was the
wiser. SVOA directional localizer
Langdon felt as if time has stopped. SVA Manner Qualifier
She looked as though she was trying to do everything she could think of to stop her pain.
(M.Hudák, Bc thesis) SVA Manner Qualifier
The band sounded as though it were continuously shedding its own skin. (M.Hudák, Bc.
thesis)

Adverbial Clauses as MAIN clause fillers

Place: Where the fire had been, we saw nothing but blackened ruins. SVO(A
I parked my car where I usually leave it. SVO(A)
Time: Don't call us until you're ready to send the check. SVO(A)
Leave before / it gets awkward. (S)V(A)
I stopped believing in Santa Claus when I was six. SVO(A)
After the game has finished, the king and pawn go into the same box. SVA(A)
I’s easy /to find fault in what others are doing/. (S)VO(A) (M. Hudák, Bc. thesis)
Reason: I wear a necklace, because I wanna know when I'm upside down. SVO(A)
I didn’t answer because I didn’t have an answer. SV(A)
Contingency: If you attack my son again, I shall ensure that it is the last thing you ever do.
SVO(A)
Purpose: The school closes earlier so that the children can get home before dark.
SV(Atime)(Apurpose)
Concession: Wherever it was, she had no doubt that by day’s end, her world would look a lot
different. SVCs(A)
Manner: She could use my body however she wanted. SVO(A) Knižková, Bc. thesis
Tricky cases

Since adverbial dependent clauses are introduced with wh-items similarly to nominal
interrogative and nominal relative and adjectival clauses, in order to arrive at a correct
syntactic interpretation of a dependent clause it is necessary to make a difference between the
nominal syntactic function of interrogative dependent clauses (O, S, Cs) tested by the
Nominal Question Test (explains what?, the only reason is what?, he should have told her
what?...), and Nominal Replaceability Test ensuing therefrom (it explains that, the only
reason is this/such, he should have told her this), and the adverbial syntactic function
(Adjuncts) of adverbial dependent clauses tested by the Circumstantial Question Test and
Adverb Replaceability Test. Moreover, with nominal interrogative dependent clauses it
should be possible to identify the missing information, i.e. to use the paraphrase ´I want to
know the answer to the question´. In the following sentences dependent clauses are
interrogative rather than adverbial (which is the case of the sentences above), functioning as
Objects in their matrix clauses:
But none of this explains where she went yesterday. SVO (the answer to the question where
did she go)
He shouldn’t have mentioned the prophecy. He shouldn’t have told her where it had come
from. SVOO
I do not know when he will be back. SVO
I don’t know where I want to go for my vacation. SVO
You might forget to wonder about why the prosecutor is letting the victim's parents make
this choice. (M.Hudák, Bc, thesis) SVO

In the following example, despite a dependent clause being introduced by the reason
conjunction because it is a nominal declarative clause as its matrix clause is SVCs – the
reason is that fact/the reason that she wants it that badly:
The only reason she's doing it is because she wants it that badly. Nominal declarative Cs

The borderline between adverbial and nominal relative clauses is even more obscure as in
certain cases it is possible to interpret the clause as characterising a covert head and being
replaceable by a nominal item, on the one hand, but also by an adverb activating a
circumstantial meaning:
And I went out to where we buried them. → two interpretations possible
I went out to the place where we buried them. nominal relative dependent clause
and also I went out there. adverbial dependent clause
With an explicit head the dependent clause is considered as adjective relative clause:
Tom knew the Head(place) Postmod(where the pirates had hidden treasures).