Delahunty and Garvey
an embedded sentence.
As we hope you remember from our chapter on Minor Parts of Speech,
the complementizer that must be distinguished from the demonstrative pro-
noun that. The two words just happen to be spelled identically, but within
the system of English grammar they function rather differently. The de-
monstrative that contrasts with this, these and those, with which it forms a
subsystem within the grammar. The complementizer that does not contrast
with the demonstratives. There are no sentences of English in which an em-
bedded clause is introduced by this or those:
(12) *We believe this/these/those he is a great grammarian.The complementizer that is optional when the embedded clause is a direct
object, though not when the embedded clause is the subject:
(13) a. That he is a great grammarian is not widely known.
b. *He is a great grammarian is not widely known.
Exercise
From newspapers collect 10 sentences containing finite subordinate
clauses introduced by the complementizer that and 10 more without
that. Is that truly optional or does its presence or absence convey some
meaning? You might consult Biber et al (2002: pp. 321ff.)
Further support for our claim that these embedded clauses are direct ob-
jects comes from the fact that they can be passivized, as is typical of object
NPs:
(14) a. That he has earned his first million already is claimed by John.
b. That he exaggerates is believed by many.
Exercise
- Make up 5 new complex sentences with finite subordinate clauses as
their direct objects. - Make a list of the tests for direct object clauses presented above.
Using these tests, show that, in each of the sentences you constructed