M. Iriskulov, A. Kuldashev a course in Theoretical English Grammar Tashkent 2008

a complex sentence. Within this set of syntactic structures L. Talmy distinguishes 
complex sentences with subordinating preposition and complex sentences with 
subordinating conjunction. They express relations of: 
“concession” with the help of prepositions: in spite of, despite; 
conjunctions: although, though, even though; 
“reason” – with the help of preposition: because of; 
conjunctions: because, since, as: 
a) (concession) They went out in spite of their feeling tired. 
b) (concession) They went out even though they were feeling tired.
The Figure event is expressed by a finite (principal) clause, and the Ground event 
is represented by a subordinate clause introduced by a subordinating preposition or 
subordinating conjunction.
Copy-cleft sentences, as it has been said, represent the Ground event twice.
Copy-cleft sentences can express a cross-event relation either explicitly or 
implicitly, i.e. there are copy-cleft sentences with the explicit representation of a 
cross-event relation and copy-cleft sentences without the explicit representation of 
a cross-event relation.
Copy-cleft sentences which explicitly express a cross-event relation can be of 
two types: the paratactic copy-cleft sentences and connective copy-cleft sentences.
Paratactic sentences can be regarded as a succession of 2 separate sentences. 
The reference to the Ground-event appears once in the finite form and once as a 
nominalized clause: 
a) (concession) They were feeling tired; they went out despite their feeling
tired.
Connective copy-cleft sentences retain the constituents of a paratactic sent.
and adds a connective, which is a coordinating conjunction and or but: 
a) They were feeling tired, but they went out despite their feeling tired.
We have seen the copy-cleft sentences with subordinate clauses in a full

---

153 
form; but there are cases of copy-cleft sentences where subordinate clauses are 
replaced by pro-forms or pro-clauses. They can be of different types: nominal pro- 
clauses, adverbial pro-clauses and conjunctional pro-clauses. The pro-forms 
represent the second reference to the Ground-event. 
Nominal pro-clause is typically expressed by the form that and takes part in 
the prepositional phrases, e.g.: despite that, because of that, after that, in addition 
to that, e.g.: They were feeling tired, but they went out despite that.
Adverbial pro-clause stands as a substitution for a subordinating 
prepositional phrase with nominal pro-clause. For example, the form despite that 
can be replaced for the form anyway, e.g.: They were feeling tired, but they went 
out anyway.
Adverbial pro-clauses express the semantic relation of: 
- “concession” is expressed by: anyway , even so, all the same, nevertheless, still, 
yet, however, though;
-“reason” is expressed by  so, as a counterpart of because of that: 
-”posteriority” is expressed by then as a counterpart of after that:
-“additionality” is expressed by also as a counterpart of in addition to that: 
Conjunctional pro-clause is an equivalent to the combination of
a coordinating conjunction and an adverbial pro-clause. These forms express the 
semantic relations of “negative additionality” and “exceptive counterfactuality”: 
-“negative additionality” is expressed by nor as a counterpart of and қ any of the 
adverbial pro-clauses – also, either, neither, e.g.:He does not hold a regular job, 
nor does he take odd jobs. 
- “exceptive counterfactuality” is expressed by or as an equivalent to a but қ the 
adverbial pro-clauses – otherwise, else ,e.g.: I was busy, or I would have joined 
you.
The phenomenon of copy-cleft sentences with pro-clauses illustrates
the language capacity for conflation and carrying substitution relationship,