Английского

§ 5. When comparing the two classifications in the light of the sys-
temic principles, it is easy to see that only by a very superficial ob-
servation they could be interpreted as alternative (i. e. contradicting 
each other). In reality they are mutually complementary, their re-
spective bases being valid on different levels of analysis. The cate-
gorial features of clauses go together with their functional sen-
tence-part features similar to the categorial features of lexemes go-
ing together with their functional characteristics as parts of the 
simple sentence. 
Subordinate clauses are introduced by functional connective words 
which effect their derivation from base sentences. Categorially 
these sentence subordinators (or subordinating clausalisers) fall 
into the two basic types: those that occupy a notional position in 
the derived clause, and those that do not occupy such a position. 
The non-positional subordinators are referred to as pure conjunc-
tions. Here belong such words as since, before, until, if, in case, 
because, so that, in order that, though, however, than, as if, etc. 
The positional subordinators are in fact conjunctive substitutes. 
The main positional subordinators are the pronominal words who, 
what, whose, which, that, where, when, why, as. Some of these 
words are double-functional (bifunctional), entering also the first 
set of subordinators; such are the words where, when, that, as, used 
both as conjunctive substitutes and conjunctions. Together with 
these the zero subordinator should be named, whose polyfunctional 
status is similar to the status of the subordinator that. The substitute 
status of positional subordinators is disclosed in their function as 
"relative" pronominals, i. e. pronominals referring to syntagmatic 
antecedents. Cf.: 
That was the day when she was wearing her pink dress. Sally put 
on her pink dress when she decided to join the party downstairs. 
The relative pronominal "when" in the first of the cited sentences 
syntagmatically replaces the antecedent "the day", 

---

310
while the conjunction "when" in the second sentence has no rela-
tive pronominal status. From the point of view of paradigmatics, 
though, even the second "when" cannot be understood as wholly 
devoid of substitute force, since it remains associated systemically 
with the adverb "then", another abstract indicator of time. So, on 
the whole the non-substitute use of the double-functional subordi-
nators should be described not as utterly "non-positional", but 
rather as "semi-positional". 
On the other hand, there is another aspect of categorial difference 
between the subordinators, and this directly corresponds to the na-
ture of clauses they introduce. Namely, nominal clauses, being 
clauses of fact, are introduced by subordinators of fact (conjunc-
tions and conjunctive subordinators), while adverbial clauses, be-
ing clauses of adverbial relations, are introduced by subordinators 
of relational semantic characteristics (conjunctions). This differ-
ence holds true both for monofunctional subordinators and bifunc-
tional subordinators. Indeed, the subordinate clauses expressing 
time and place and, correspondingly, introduced by the subordina-
tors when and where may be used both as nominal nominators and 
adverbial nominators. The said difference is quite essential, though 
outwardly it remains but slightly featured. Cf.: 
I can't find the record where you put it yesterday. I forget where I 
put the record yesterday. 
It is easy to see that the first place-clause indicates the place of ac-
tion, giving it a situational periphrastic definition, while the second 
place-clause expresses the object of a mental effort. Accordingly, 
the subordinator "where" in the first sentence introduces a place 
description as a background of an action, while the subordinator 
"where" in the second sentence introduces a place description as a 
fact to be considered. The first "where" and the second "where" 
differ by the force of accent (the first is unstressed, the second is 
stressed), but the main marking difference between them lies in the 
difference between the patterns of their use, which difference is 
noted by the chosen terms "nominal" and "adverbial". This can eas-
ily be illustrated by a question-replacement test: ... → Where can't I 
find the record? ...→ What do I forget? 
Likewise, the corresponding subdivision of the nominal 

---

311
subordinators and the clauses they introduce can be checked and 
proved on the same lines. Cf.: 
The day when we met is unforgettable. → Which day is unforgetta-
ble? When we met is of no consequence now. → What is of no con-
sequence now? 
The first when-раttеrn is clearly disclosed by the test as a qualifica-
tion-nominal, while the second, as a substantive-nominal. 
Thus, the categorial classification of clauses is sustained by the 
semantic division of the subordinators which are distinguished as 
substantive-nominal clausalisers, qualification-nominal clausalisers 
and adverbial clausalisers. Since, on the other hand, substantive 
nomination is primary in categorial rank, while qualification nomi-
nation is secondary, in terms of syntactic positions all the subordi-
nate clauses are to be divided into three groups: first, clauses of 
primary nominal positions to which belong subject, predicative and 
object clauses; second, clauses of secondary nominal positions to 
which belong attributive clauses; third, clauses of adverbial posi-
tions.