Английского

§ 6. Clauses of primary nominal positions — subject, predicative, 
object — are interchangeable with one another in easy reshufflings 
of sentence constituents. Cf.: 
What you saw at the exhibition is just what I want to know. → 
What I want to know is just what you saw at the exhibition. → I 
just want to know what you saw at the exhibition. 
However, the specific semantic functions of the three respective 
clausal positions are strictly preserved with all such interchanges, 
so that there is no ground to interpret positional rearrangements 
like the ones shown above as equivalent. 
The subject clause, in accord with its functional position, regularly 
expresses the theme on the upper level of the actual division of the 
complex sentence. The thematic property of the clause is well ex-
posed" in its characteristic uses with passive constructions, as well 
as constructions in which the voice opposition is neutralised. E.g.: 
Why he rejected the offer has never been accounted for. • What 
small reputation the town does possess derives from two things. 

---

312
It should be noted that in modern colloquial English the formal po-
sition of the subject clause in a complex sentence is open to spe-
cific contaminations (syntactic confusions on the clausal level). 
Here is one of the typical examples: Just because you say I would-
n't have (seen a white elephant— M. B.) doesn't prove anything 
(E.Hemingway). 
The contamination here consists in pressing into one construction 
the clausal expression of cause and the expression of the genuine 
theme-subject to which the predicate of the sentence refers. The 
logical implication of the statement is, that the event in question 
cannot be taken as impossible by the mere reason of the interlocu-
tor's considering it as such. Thus, what can be exposed of the 
speaker's idea by way of "de-contaminating" the utterance is ap-
proximately like this: Your saying that I wouldn't have doesn't 
prove anything. 
Another characteristic type of syntactic contamination of the sub-
ject-clause pattern is its use as a frame for an independent sentence. 
E. g.: You just get yourselves into trouble is what happens (M. 
Bradbury). 
The cited contamination presents a feature of highly emotional 
speech. The utterance, as it were, proves to be a living illustration 
of the fact that where strong feelings are concerned the logic of 
lingual construction is liable to be trespassed upon. The logic in 
question can be rehabilitated by a substitution pattern: You just get 
yourselves into trouble, this is what happens. 
As is known, the equivalent subject-clausal function can be ex-
pressed by the construction with an anticipatory pronoun (mostly 
the anticipatory it). This form of expression, emphasising the 
rheme-clause of the sentence, at the same time presents the infor-
mation of the subject clause in a semantically stronger position 
than the one before the verb. Therefore the anticipatory construc-
tion is preferred in cases when the content of the subject clause is 
not to be wholly overbalanced or suppressed by the predicate of the 
sentence. E. g.: How he managed to pull through is a miracle. —» 
It is a miracle how he managed to pull through. 
Some scholars analyse the clause introduced by the anticipatory 
construction as presenting two possibilities of interpretation which 
stand in opposition to each other. Accord-ing to the first and more 
traditional view, this is just a subject clause introduced by the an-
ticipatory it, while in the light of the second, the clause introduced 
by it is appositive, 

---

313
In our opinion, the latter explanation is quite rational; however, it 
cannot be understood as contrary to the "anticipatory" theory. In-
deed, the appositive type of connection between the introducer it 
and the introduced clause is proved by the very equivalent trans-
formation of the non-anticipatory construction into the anticipatory 
one; but the exposition of the appositive character of the clause 
does not make the antecedent it into something different from an 
introductory pronominal element. Thus, the interpretation of the 
subject clause referring to the introducer it as appositive, in fact, 
simply explains the type of syntactic connection underlying the an-
ticipatory formula. 
The predicative clause, in conformity with the predicative position 
as such, performs the function of the nominal part of the predicate, 
i. e. the part adjoining the link-verb. The link-verb is mostly ex-
pressed by the pure link be, not infrequently we find here also the 
specifying links seem and look; the use of other specifying links is 
occasional. E. g.: 
The trouble is that I don't know Fanny personally. The question is