The Predicative / Subject Complement Clause

The Predicative / Subject Complement Clause

On the simple sentence level, this type of clauses have as correspondents the Subject Complements (Cs) of the so-called Compound Nominal Predicates .

The most common copulas, besides be, are: appear, feel, lie, look, remain, seem, smell, sound, taste, become, come, get, go, grow, fall, run, turn, etc. (Quirk, op. cit., p. 821)

The Predicative / Cs can be: NP, AdjP, PrepP or AdvP. With Predicative Clauses the type of embedding most frequently used is the so-called intensive complementation which may be: nominal, adjectival, and adverbial.

Intensive complementation applies to sentences where there is a co-reference relation between the Subject and the Subject Complement / Predicative. A special kind of such sentences are the so-called equative sentences (showing equality / with the equal sign between the Subject and the Cs). These can be that clauses or dependent interrogative clauses, relative clauses after abstract Subjects such as: fact, idea, statement, claim, reason, problem, point, question, etc.

e.g. The reason was 1/ that I couldnt come. 2/

The problem is 1/ whether you are coming or not. 2/ (S2 = dependent interrogative clause)

The important question is (the question ) 1/ how to do it. 2/ (S2 = IRC, a less typical way of embedding)

1. Nominal Intensive Complementation

Within nominal intensive complementation the same categories can be distinguished as within the Nominal Subject Clauses, that is: that clauses, infinitive clauses, -ing clauses, dependent interrogative clauses.

1.1. The That Predicative Clause

As already mentioned, such clauses appear in the equative clauses:

1.a. The point is 1/ that you have lost. 2/

2.a. The problem is 1/ that they have already left. 2/

3.a. The important fact is 1/ that we know about their intention. 2/

In formal use, The Predicative That Clause is sometimes anticipated by so which acts as a Predicative substitute or formal Predicative:

e.g. Yet, so it is 1/ that people can bear any quality better than beauty. 2/ (For emphasis, so is placed before the Subject, but the less emphatic formulation it is so / that is also used.)

Since there exists a co-reference relation between the Subject and the Predicative / Cs, it is sometimes hard to say whether the clause in question is a Subject Clause or a Predicative Clause. Thus, in the example above the that clause may also be interpreted as an extraposed Subject Clause.

Alice Badescu in Gramatica Limbii Engleze (1984, p. 645) considers the that clause in the following sentence can be interpreted either as a Predicative Clause or as an extraposed Subject Clause:

It seemed 1/ that the river banks were flooded. 2/

For comparison, consider again one of the earlier examples:

It seems 1/ that he is very tired. 2/ (obligatory extraposition followed by it insertion

In a simple sentence, the Predicative / Cs may be a NP or an AdjP. On the other hand, an AdjP may stand in the Subject position, being turned into a NP by conversion:

e.g. The colour is blue. (blue = AdjP) → Blue is the colour. (blue = NP)

This is on the basis that co-referential Subject NP and Cs / Predicative NP are interchangeable:

Subject NP Cs NP

That man is our teacher.

Subject NP Cs NP

Our teacher is that man.

This brings us to the extreme case where the Subject and the Subject Complement / Predicative are interchangeable. In other words, a clause may be considered either the Subject or the Predicative of the complex sentence, this depending on its position. In initial position it will be the Subject, in final position, the Predicative. This happens in the case of equative clauses. Thus, all the Predicative that clauses that have been given as examples so far may be placed in initial position and become the Subject of the complex sentence, whereas the former is turned into a Predicative:

1b. That you may have lost 1/ is the point. 2/ (S1=Subject Clause; the point = Cs / Predicative)

2b. That they have already left 1/ is the problem.2/ (S1 = S Clause; the problem = Cs)

3b. That we know about their intention 1/ is the important thing. 2/ (S1=S Clause; the important thing = Cs)

The difference between 1a and 1b may be explained in terms of resolution (i.e. maximum emphasis at the end) and of end-focus (i.e. new information at the end).

1.2. Dependent Interrogative Predicative Clauses

a). Dependent Yes / No Questions are introduced by whether or if:

The problem is 1/ whether we should stay. 2/ (S1 = Main Clause; S2 = Predicative Clause)

The problem is 1/ whether to stay. 2/ (S2 = Infinitive Predicative Clause; this formulation is preferred to that above)

The question is 1/ if we should leave. 2/

The question is 1/ whether to leave. 2/

Mind that:

* The question is 1/ if to leave. 2/ (If cannot be used before an Infinitive; it can only introduce a finite dependent interrogative clause)

b). Dependent Wh- Questions are introduced by wh- words, which are either conjunctive pronouns: who, which, what, or conjunctive adverbs: when, where, how, why.

The important fact is 1/ how we should solve this problem. 2/

The problem was 1/ who had done it. 2/

Dependent Interrogative Predicative Clauses may be treated in the same way as the that Predicative Clauses in the equative clauses[3]:

The question is 1/ how to escape. 2/

How to escape 1/ is the question. 2/

In the peculiar case when both the Subject and the Subject Complement of a sentence are expressed by a clause, the two clauses are interchangeable, each becoming, in turn, Subject and Predicative:

What I like about her 1/ is 2/ how she sings. 3/ (S1 = Subject Clause; S2 = Main Clause; S3 = Predicative Clause)

How she sings 1/ is 2/ what I like about her. 3/ (S1 = S Clause; S2 = Main Clause; S3 = Predicative Clause)

1.3. The Infinitive Predicative Clause

Such clauses are always subjectless and most that clauses may be reduced to infinitive clauses:

The point is 1/ to win the game. 2/

The important fact is 1/ to know about their intention. 2/

Infinitival Predicative Clauses may also appear as a non-finite version of Dependent Interrogative Predicative Clauses:

The problem is 1/ how to win the game. 2/

The problem is 1/ whether to stay. 2/

In complex sentences having a pseudo-cleft sentence as Subject, the Predicative (at the same time the focus of information) is usually in the form of an Infinitive Clause (with or without to):

What I need most 1/ is 2/ (to) see my family again. 3/

But Infinitive Predicative Clauses occur especially after the verb to do in the Subject Clause, the verb which permits marked focus to fall on a Predicative expressed by a verb in the Infinitive:

What he has done 1/ is 2/ (to) spoil the game. 3/

What you did 1/ was 2/ (to) ruin my suit. 3/

What Im going to do 1/ is 2/ (to) teach him a lesson. 3/

1.4. Independent Relative Predicative Clauses

What was said about independent wh- interrogative clauses or IRCs in the Subject position holds here as well. Their antecedent, however, is co-referential with the Subject and is deleted, and, therefore, in another sense, the Subject may be considered the antecedent. This means that they are not true IRCs after all:

The question is [the question] 1/ what to do now. 2/

The problem is [the problem] 1/ how to get there. 2/

The important thing is [the thing] 1/ when we will leave. 2/

Copula switch may apply in all the cases above.

1.5. The -ing Predicative Clause

This clause usually appears as the Continuous / Progressive Aspect variant of Infinitive clauses, which express a non-progressive action.

Thus, to the pseudo-cleft sentences given above, with do in the Subject Clause, we can add Progressive Aspect variants, the verb do taking on the Progressive Aspect and the Predicative Clause becoming an ing clause:

What he has done 1/ is 2/ (to) spoil the game. 3/ (non-progressive)

What hes been doing 1/ is 2/ spoiling the game. 3/ (progressive)

What you did 1/ was 2/ (to) ruin my suit. 3/

What you were doing 1/ was 2/ ruining my suit. 3/

What I shall do 1/ is 2/ (to) teach him a lesson.

What I shall be doing 1/ is 2/ teaching him a lesson. 3/

2. Adjectival Intensive Complementation

We start from the assumption that the adjective in the Predicative position, as in the simple sentence John is bright. may be replaced by a subordinate clause:

John is 1/ as he always was. 2/

Such clauses may also be called adjective clauses.

Predicative Adjective Clauses are introduced by as and especially by as if. Besides be there are some other copulas which may be followed by an as or as if clause: appear, feel, look, remain, seem, smell, sound, taste, become, and a few more.

In some grammars (e.g. Quirk, p. 755) such clauses are treated as Adverbial Clauses of Comparison, but this is rather inappropriate since they may be replaced by an AdjP functioning as a Predicative / Cs:

He looks 1/ as if he is sick. 2/ vs. He looks sick.

John is 1/ as he always was. 2/ vs. John is bright.

Such clauses only look like Adverbial Clauses of Comparison, which are also introduced by as and as if but follow after verbs of complete predication, not after copulas:

e.g. He speaks to me 1/ as if I were a servant. 2/ (S2 = Adverbial Clause of Comparison, because speaks is a verb of complete predication, not a copulative verb / link.)

3. Adverbial Intensive Complementation

Before discussing the problem of Predicative Clauses embedded through adverbial intensive complementation, we should first see if an adverb of place or time (or PrepP expressing place or time) can form the Predicative / Cs of a Compound Nominal Predicate (that is, if the term nominal predicate is still justified). For this, we will have to consider sentences like:

They are here. (adverb) The meeting will be tomorrow. (adverb)

They are in Iasi. (PrepP) The meeting will be in the evening. (PrepP)

The traditional view, which had remained undoubted for a long time, was that these were sentences with a Simple Verbal Predicate (the verb be being in this case a verb of complete or full predication) and an Adverbial modifier of place or time, expressed either by an adverb (here, tomorrow) or by a PrepP (in Iasi, in the evening). This would mean that there is a difference in the function of to be in sentences like:

He is here.

He is tall.

It is doubtful whether such difference really exists.

More recently it has been pointed out that the verb to be should be considered a copula in all cases and whatever follows it should be taken as a Predicative. If the Predicative is an adverb or a PrepP, the term suggested was Adverbial Predicative / Adverbial Subject Complement .

It is rather difficult to decide which of the two approaches is the right one. A strong argument in favour of the altter view is that Adverbial Predicatives / Adverbial Complements (Ca), and predicatives in general, cannot be omitted, and that without them we do not have a grammatical sentence:

* They are.

* He is.

On the other hand, Adverbial modifiers of place or of time can always be omitted and the sentence still remains grammatical:

They work here. The meeting will take place tomorrow.

They work.  The meeting will take place.

In favour of the older view is the fact that both what are called adverbial predicative and adverbial modifier answer the question where? or when? And show the place or time of the action or state and should therefore be analysed alike.

It seems, however, that the arguments in favour of the other alternative are more convincing since it can hardly be said that the verbs in sentences like the following are of the same type and would therefore ask for the same type of modification (that is, by adverbial modifiers):

They are here. The session is today.

They work here. The session opens today.

If we accept Adverbial Predicatives / Ca, we will also have to accept Predicative Clauses. Indeed, we can replace an Adverbial Predicative / Ca or one expressed by a PrepP by a subordinate clause:

They are here.

They are 1/ where they have always been. 2/ (S2 = Adverbial Predicative Clause)

The meeting will be tomorrow.

The meeting will be 1/ when everything is ready. 2/

Adverbial Predicative clauses are introduced by where and when and are very much like IRCs introduced by the same conjunctive adverbs discussed earlier. But there are also important differences.

Let us compare the following pairs:

1a. The question is when to start.

1b. The meeting will be when everything is ready.

2a. The important thing is where to begin.

2b. They are where they have always been.

In 1b and 2b, the Deep Structure antecedent is not co-referential with the Subject (since these are not equative sentences). They can be transformed in such a way as to contain a dependent relative clause (i.e. with an antecedent expressed in the Surface Structure), the antecedent being an adverbial or rather a PrepP:

1c. The meeting will be then when everything is ready.

1d. The meeting will be at a time when everything is ready.

2c. They are here where they have always been.

2d. They are in the place where they have always been.

1c and 2c are less usual, especially 1c, but 1d and 2d sound very normal.

It should also be noted that Adverbial Predicative Clauses cannot occur in the form of a non-finite clause (Infinitival or -ing / Gerund Clause); on the other hand, in the Predicative IRCs of equative sentences the Infinitive is preferred. Given the non-equative status, of course, there is no copula switch in Adverbial Predicative Clauses.