especially of a detached type) and attributive subordinate clauses has always been pointed out in grammar-books of various destination. The common pre-positional attribute is devoid of a similar half-predicative character and is not to be considered as forming a semi-composite construction with the dominant predicative unit. Cf.: The bored family switched off the TV. - The family, bored, switched off the TV. p align="justify"> As for the possible detachment of the defining element (construction) in pre-position, this use is rather to be analysed as adverbial, not attributive, the circumstantial semantic component prevailing over the attributive one in this case . Cf.: Bored, the family switched off the TV. ? As the family was bored, it switched off the TV. p align="justify">, Naturally, the existence of some intermediary types cannot be excluded, which should be exposed in due course by the corresponding contextual observation.
As is seen, the base syntactic material for producing attributively complicated semi-composites is similar to the derivation base of position-sharing semi-composites. The essential difference between the constructions, though, lies in the character of joining their clausal parts: while the process of overlapping deprives the position-sharing expansion of any self-dependent existence, however potential it might be, the process of linear expansion with the attributive complication preserves the autonomous functional role of the semi-clause. The formal test of it is the possibility of inserting into the construction a relative conjunctive plus the necessary verbal element, changing the attributive semi-clause into the related attributive pleni-clause. Eg: 'This is a novel translated from the French. ? This is a novel which has been translated from the French,
This test resembles a reconstruction, since an attributive complication in many respects resembles a reduced clause. The position-sharing expansion does not admit of this kind of procedure: the very process of overlapping puts it out of the question. The other factor of difference is the obligatory status of the position-sharing expansion (even in constructions of '"free"'' object-sharing) against the optional status of the attributive complicator. p align="justify"> The attributive semi-clause may contain in its head position a present participle, a past participle and an adjective. The present participial attributive semi-clause corresponds to the attributive subordinate clause with a verbal predicate in the active. Eg: We found dry ground at the base of a tree looking toward the sun. ? We found dry ground at the base of a tree that looked toward the sun. p align="justify"> Naturally, the present participial semi-clause of the attributive type cannot express an event prior to the event of the dominant clause. So, an attributive clause of complete predicative character expressing such an event has no parallel in a participial attributive semi-clause. Eg: The squad that picked me up could have been scouts. ? (*) The squad picking me up ...
The past participial attributive semi-clause corresponds to the passive attributive subordinate clause. Eg: You can never rely on the information received from that office. ? You can never rely on the information which is received from that office. p align="justify"> The adjectival attributive semi-clause corresponds to the nominal attributive subordinate clause. Eg: We admired the lilies white against the blue water. ? We admired the lilies which were white against the blue water. p align="justify"> Semi-complex sentences of participial attributive complication formed by introducer constructions resemble subject-sharing semi-complex sentences. Cf.: p align="justify"> There is a river flowing through the town. ? There is a river which flows through the town. This is John speaking. ? This is John who is speaking. p align="justify"> Still closer to the subject-sharing semi-composite sentence stands the peculiar introducer or demonstrative construction whose attributive semi-clause has a finite verb predicate. This specific semi-complex sentence, formed much on the pattern of common subject overlapping, is called the "apo-koinou" construction (Greek "with a common element"). E.g.:
It was you insisted on coming, because you didn't like restaurants (S. O'Casey), He's the one makes the noise at night (E. Hemingway). And there's nothing more can be done (A. Christie). p align="justify"> The apo-koinou construction is considered here under the heading of the semi-complex sentence of attributive complication on the ground of its natural relation to the complex sentence with an attributive subordinate clause, similar to any common semi -complex sentence of the type in question. The apo-koinou construction should be classed as a familiar ...
