# a result adverbial clause or an object clause



## brian&me

Hi friends, please read this.

_Brian: Let’s do an experiment. I fill a jar with water and I cover the top with a piece of cardboard and hold it there, and then I turn the jar upside down and take my hand off the cardboard. Can you guess what will happen?
...
Jenny: I am so sure of my theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet._

(from an English textbook for junior high school students in China, co-published by DC Canada Education Publishing and Hebei Education Press)

For this clause: _that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet_, I wonder if it’s a result adverbial clause or an object clause.

Many thank in advance.


----------



## MarceloVC

None of those. Result adverbial clauses are introduced by conjunctions such as: in order to, so that, etc.
For example: _He was helping me pack so that I could arrive at the station in time to get on the bus._

The clause you highlighted is a _dependent_ or _subordinate adjective clause_, because it acts as an adjective for *theory*.


----------



## PaulQ

I see it differently from MarceloVC. To me, it is a "so...that" adverbial clause of result - it modifies how "sure" the person is as a result of her being "sure".

It can be reduced to "_I am so sure that I could do this"_

Adverb clauses of result from the "English Practice" website is helpful.


----------



## lingobingo

_I am so sure of my theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet._​​In that sentence, *so* is an adverb (meaning to such a great extent) and *that* is a conjunction. Together they make the construction “*so* [adjective] *that*…”, which is followed by a clause stating the significance or consequence of whatever the *so+adjective* refers to. As in:

She was so happy that she couldn’t stop smiling / It’s so dark outside that you’ll need a torch/flashlight​​It’s not a conventional use of the construction. A clearer way of saying it would be:

_I am so sure of my theory that even if Brian does the experiment over your head, I know you won’t get wet._​


----------



## Steven David

brian&me said:


> Hi friends, please read this.
> 
> _Brian: Let’s do an experiment. I fill a jar with water and I cover the top with a piece of cardboard and hold it there, and then I turn the jar upside down and take my hand off the cardboard. Can you guess what will happen?
> ...
> Jenny: I am so sure of my theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet._
> 
> (from an English textbook for junior high school students in China, co-published by DC Canada Education Publishing and Hebei Education Press)
> 
> For this clause: _that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet_, I wonder if it’s a result adverbial clause or an object clause.
> 
> Many thank in advance.




The clause tells the degree to which the speaker, Jenny, is sure of her theory.

"that Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet"

This clause tells us how sure Jenny is of her theory.

This is a noun clause that tells us the degree to which something is so, which, in this case, is the degree to which someone is sure or certain. The clause is a representation of the speaker's certainty.

Let's alter the sentence just a bit and get another perspective.

I'm sure "that Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won't get wet".

sure = that Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won't get wet

The certainty is "what" Brian can do. This is a noun clause because it answers the question "what" in the above sentence and in the original example sentence.

In the original example sentence, the clause tells us "to what degree".

Something that tells us "what" is a noun, in this case a noun clause.

Note: If this has something to do with what's in a grammar method book or on a grammar worksheet, then the "correct answer" is "adverbial clause".


----------



## lingobingo

Sorry, but…


Steven David said:


> This is a noun clause …


No it isn’t.


Steven David said:


> I'm sure "that Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won't get wet".


That’s not what she’s sure of. What she’s sure of is her theory. In fact, she’s SO sure of it that in her opinion…

_Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won't get wet _​​…which is a subordinate clause expressing consequence, and which completes the correlative construction *so/such … that* *…* (see #4).


Steven David said:


> Note: If this has something to do with what's in a grammar method book or on a grammar worksheet, then the "correct answer" is "adverbial clause".


What happened to its being a noun clause?


----------



## Steven David

lingobingo said:


> Sorry, but…




You do not agree with me. There's  no need to apologize, though I appreciate this as a polite and kind gesture.  




lingobingo said:


> No it isn’t.




That's your viewpoint, and I understand where it comes from. However, contradicting me does not falsify my statement. So you disagree with me. It is a noun clause. In any event, I would not call this an "adverbial clause". (That's really another discussion. I've replied directly to the original question.)

Another poster here, I believe, might call this a "content clause". I would have to ask him. I believe, as well, that he would not call it an "adverbial clause".




lingobingo said:


> That’s not what she’s sure of. What she’s sure of is her theory. In fact, she’s SO sure of it that in her opinion…
> 
> _Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won't get wet _​​…which is a subordinate clause expressing consequence, and which completes the correlative construction *so/such … that* *…* (see #4).




I'm well aware that this is not what the speaker, Jenny, is sure of. This is part of a recasting of the original example sentence (included in my first and previous post here) in order to make a point about the clause in question. I know what Jenny, the speaker, is sure of. She's sure of her theory.

It is a subordinate clause, yes. The clause expresses the degree to which she is sure of her theory.




lingobingo said:


> What happened to its being a noun clause?




Nothing at all happened to it. The purpose of the comment with "adverbial clause" is to acknowledge what grammar method books and reference books usually say, which, I predict, will eventually change. Though it's impossible to say when.


----------



## lingobingo

I don’t need to falsify your statement. It’s already false. That’s my point.  

For (what I think is) your interpretation to work, “*so*” would have to be deleted — or, less workably, it would have to mean *very* (which it doesn’t) — and so would “*I know*”. In other words, the sentence could be _changed_ to fit your reading of it. But as it stands, the sentence does not fit your interpretation. Yet another point being that if, as you seem to be saying, *that* were a relative pronoun rather than a conjunction and everything after it a noun clause representing the theory, then the sentence would have no main verb, no complement.


----------



## Steven David

lingobingo said:


> I don’t need to falsify your statement. It’s already false. That’s my point.




That's your opinion. My statement is not any more false than your statement is. It could be that both our statements are false.      

Additionally, your comment is nothing more than the gainsaying of my comment, which calls to mind the simple back and forth of "Is to" - "Is not" - "Is to" -"Is not".






lingobingo said:


> For (what I think is) your interpretation to work, “*so*” would have to be deleted — or, less workably, it would have to mean *very* (which it doesn’t) — and so would “*I know*”. In other words, the sentence could be _changed_ to fit your reading of it. But as it stands, the sentence does not fit your interpretation. Yet another point being that if, as you seem to be saying, *that* were a relative pronoun rather than a conjunction and everything after it a noun clause representing the theory, then the sentence would have no main verb, no complement.




For my interpretation to work, "so" would not have to be deleted. A word that can be deleted without changing the meaning of the sentence is "that". I would say it's not a good idea to omit, or delete, "that" in this example sentence even though the sentence would still be correct and maintain its meaning. Deleting, or omitting, "that" would detract from the clarity of the sentence in this case.

No, I'm not saying "that" is a relative pronoun in this particular example sentence. The idea of "relative pronoun" does not apply in this example sentence.

I'll reply here only to clarify my reading of the sentence, which is to say "what the sentence means".

_Jenny: I am so sure of my theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet._

1) Jenny: I am so sure of my theory << Jenny is sure of her theory, and "so" tells us that she is sure of her theory to some greater degree. In other words, "so" intensifies "the sureness of her theory" or "so" intensifies the adjective "sure".

2) Jenny has a theory, and she's sure of this theory. Her sureness or certainty results in "the experiment being completed successfully without someone getting wet".

3) ... ... that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet.  *<<* The result is that Brian completes the experiment over the "unnamed person's" head and the "unnamed person" does not get wet. That's how sure Jenny is of her theory.

This interpretation of the sentence is supported by the text below in blue. In my view, additional text from this excerpt could further support this interpretation, or it could prove this interpretation wrong. Without additional context, this interpretation is justified just the same.

It seems that Jenny and Brian may (only possible) each have different ideas about what the result of the experiment will be. Jenny is so certain of her theory (relating to what Jenny predicts as the result) that the experiment does not result in the "unnamed person's" head getting wet. It seems that Jenny does not believe the water will leave the jar. And, maybe, it seems that Brian believes the water will leave the jar. Jenny is so sure of her theory that she believes that water will not leave the jar as a result of the experiment, and therefore the "unnamed person's" head will not get wet. A way for Jenny to prove her theory is this: Do the experiment over the "unnamed person's" head and find out if the "unnamed person's" head gets wet. Jenny believes that the unnamed person's head will not get wet, and this represents, or tells us, how certain Jenny is of her theory.

_Brian: Let’s do an experiment. I fill a jar with water and I cover the top with a piece of cardboard and hold it there, and then I turn the jar upside down and take my hand off the cardboard. Can you guess what will happen?_


----------



## PaulQ

Steven David said:


> "that Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet"
> 
> This clause tells us how sure Jenny is of her theory.
> 
> This is a noun clause that tells us the degree to which something is so,


I have difficulty with its being a noun clause:
The difficulty with its being a noun clause in that sentence is that noun clauses can be replaced by “it”:
_*"that Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet"*_ is a demonstration of my certainty. <- Here, it is a noun clause.-> *it* is a demonstration of my certainty. 

Whereas:
"I am so sure of my theory *that Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet"* -> "I am so sure of my theory _*it*_.”


Steven David said:


> This is a noun clause that tells us the degree to which something is so,


Clauses that tell us the degree to which something is so are adverbial -> He did it completely/partly -> the degree of doing it is complete or part.
I am sure [and I am sure] to the greatest degree.


----------



## Steven David

PaulQ said:


> I have difficulty with its being a noun clause:
> The difficulty with its being a noun clause in that sentence is that noun clauses can be replaced by “it”:
> _*"that Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet"*_ is a demonstration of my certainty. <- Here, it is a noun clause.-> *it* is a demonstration of my certainty.
> 
> Whereas:
> "I am so sure of my theory *that Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet"* -> "I am so sure of my theory _*it*_.”




"I am so sure of my theory *that (I say or assert that) Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet"* -> "I am so sure of my theory _*it*_.”   <<

The speaker is asserting or saying something based on the certainty of her theory. The assertion comes in the following clause, and I would not call this clause "adverbial" because it doesn't affect our perception of an action or activity. Adverbs affect our perception of an action, an activity, a condition, or an event. This is why they're called adverbs. "Verb" means "word", and "ad" means "add", so adverbs add to a word or affect our perception of a word, which means our perception of a "verb". And a verb represents an action, an activity, an event or a condition. (This comment is referenced below.)

The clause in question, which is an assertion illustrating the speaker's certainty or sureness, provides information, which we can also say is content. I would not call this an "adverbial" or an adverb.



PaulQ said:


> Clauses that tell us the degree to which something is so are adverbial -> He did it completely/partly -> the degree of doing it is complete or part.
> I am sure [and I am sure] to the greatest degree.




completely finished
partly finished

Both "completely" and "partly" modify "finished", which is in an adjective. Adverbs can modify adjectives.

He did it completely.
He did it partly.

The suffix "ly" means "in a like manner" or "like". So I would say that "completely" and "partly" affect our perception of the verb, which is to say the action or activity.

I would not say that these sentences are very likely sentences. However, I accept them as examples in our dialogue here, as they are grammatically correct possibilities.

I understand what you mean to say. Our opposing viewpoints come down to what each of us classifies as an adverb ("adverbial").

Adverbs affect our perception of an action, an activity, a condition, or an event. Please, reference my comment above, which is in parentheses.

Again, the clause in question provides information. It tells us what the speaker asserts based on the certainty or sureness of her theory.

Calling the clause we speak of, here, a noun clause could be open for question, or it could be questionable. However, I would not call this clause an adverb or anything like an adverb (adverbial) at all. Again, it provides information, which, as an assertion, is additional to what the speaker says first. What the speaker says first is that she "is so sure of her theory".

In the structural approach to English grammar, the more traditional way of approaching English grammar, whatever cannot be classified in one of the "parts of speech" is classified as an "adverb", which is not reasonable or logical given what an adverb really is and was from the start. This, also, complicates the idea of what an adverb is unnecessarily. It's really confusing, in a way. I understand this way of thinking and how it works, but I still call it confusing.

I recognize the clause in question as providing information that is related to the speaker's assertion and the sureness or certainty of her theory. And, again, this does not affect our perception of her certain or sure state. She's in a state of sureness or certainty because of her theory. The verb "be", of course, is a state of being, and she says, "I am so sure". The clause we speak of does not affect our perception of her state of being.

It seems that we agree on the function of the clause in question.

It's only a matter of whether we want to classify this clause as an adverb or "adverbial".

I understand your viewpoint, and I once held the same viewpoint. I believe that grammar method books and reference books will one day stop calling clauses "adverbial".

"Adverb grab bag" is what one linguist (and likely others) calls "the expansion of what can be called an adverb (or "adverbial")" in the traditional structural approach to English grammar.

About substituting "it" for a noun clause: Yes, you make a valid and good point here. However, I do not believe that this means that a clause, including the clause we we speak of, is an adverb or "adverbial".

If not a noun clause, then, again, I think it's reasonable to say that this clause provides information or content. *Maybe*, a way to refer to this clause is "information clause"

*I would summarize as follows:*

We seem to agree on what the clause means and how it functions. However, we do not agree on what to call the clause.

I have explained my reasoning.

You have explained your reasoning.

I do not expect, nor do I suspect, that either of us will change our viewpoint as a result of this dialog or discussion.

In conclusion, I believe that we can say that we understand each other.

If anyone disagrees with this conclusion, then this conclusion might be an overestimation, I might say.


----------



## Steven David

(This is an addition to my reply to PaulQ's comments, which PaulQ posted to me. It is further clarification.)

"I am so sure of my theory *that (I say or assert that) Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet"* -> "I am so sure of my theory _*it*_.” <<

I recognize that "I assert", or "I say", is contained and understood within the meaning of the sentence. Here, "I" before "assert" and "say" refers to the speaker, "Jenny".

I assert it. I say it.

It is what I assert, or it is what I say.

What do you say? What do you assert? I assert that Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet.

This is what I assert. That is what I assert. It is what I assert.

The clause following "that" is the speaker's assertion. It is an assertion of the certainty or sureness of her theory. Or, in other words, the assertion comes from her sureness or certainty.

(that) Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet.

These clauses represent the certainty or sureness of the speaker's theory. These clauses tell us the degree to which the speaker is certain or sure of her theory.

The speaker is so sure of her theory that she can say that.

The speaker is so sure of her theory that she can say it.

_______________

She is so sure.
She is very sure.
She's completely sure.
She's entirely sure.
She is absolutely sure.

The words that come before "sure" in the above sentences affect our perception of how sure she is, or they affect our perception of her state of sureness or her state of certainty. These words are adverbs. They modify the adjective "sure". Adverbs can modify adjectives.

The words before "sure" tell us the degree to which she is sure or how sure she is.


----------



## Steven David

lingobingo said:


> _I am so sure of my theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet._​
> It’s not a conventional use of the construction. A clearer way of saying it would be:
> 
> _I am so sure of my theory that even if Brian does the experiment over your head, I know you won’t get wet._​




I'm sorry to inform you that it is a conventional use of the construction.  

Using "if" in this sentence makes the clause a condition. And the speaker clearly does not want to communicate this clause as a condition.

Here's a way to illustrate how this clause works.

Are you sure of your theory?

Yes, I'm sure of my theory.

Are you really sure of your theory?

Yes, I am really sure of my theory. I am so very sure of my theory.

Tell me, then. How sure are you of your theory? To what degree are you sure of your theory? Can you expand upon this just a little?

Of course, I can. One theory expanded upon coming up! *I am so sure of my theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet.*

No way. Brian's not going to do the experiment over my head because I know what's going to happen then.

What do you think is going to happen?

If Brian does the experiment over my head, I am going to get wet.

You don't think my theory is good, then?

No, I do not think that your theory is good. In fact, I think it's a very bad theory. It's a horrible theory.

Okay, then, we'll have to find someone who will allow Brian to do the experiment over his or her head.


----------



## billj

brian&me said:


> For this clause: _that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet_, I wonder if it’s a result adverbial clause or an object clause.
> 
> Many thank in advance.


No: the clause is neither of those; it's a declarative content clause functioning as* complement* of the noun "theory".


----------



## Loob

billj said:


> No: the clause is neither of those; it's a* complement* of the noun "theory".


Are you sure, billj? I read it as _*so sure ... that* _not_* my theory that....*_


----------



## Steven David

billj said:


> No: the clause is neither of those; it's a declarative content clause functioning as* complement* of the noun "theory".




Thank you, @billj.

 

You have provided new terms which seem to, or do, make more sense than noun clause in speaking of this sentence. And it definitely makes more sense than calling the clause in question an "adverbial clause", which I find to be completely inaccurate considering what an adverb does.

I'm going to bookmark this so that I remember how to apply the terms and so that I don't forget them.

> ... it's a declarative content clause functioning as* complement* of the noun "theory". <


----------



## billj

Loob said:


> Are you sure, billj? I read it as _*so sure ... that* _not_* my theory that....*_


The content clause 'expands' the meaning of "theory". We know that the expression "my theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head ..."  is a constituent because it is mobile, compare:

_My theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won't get wet is something I'm quite certain of._


----------



## grassy

billj said:


> My theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head a and you won't get wet is something I'm quite certain of.


Except that it doesn't make sense in that context. We wouldn't call it a theory.


Loob said:


> I read it as _*so sure ... that* _not_* my theory that....*_


Me too.


----------



## Steven David

> lingobingo said:
> I don’t need to falsify your statement. It’s already false. That’s my point.




Here is a follow-up to the comment below, which is from a previous post.

@Steven David said, "That's your opinion. My statement is not any more false than your statement is. It could be that both our statements are false.  "

Reference: @billj's posts

As I suspected, it turns out that both of our statements were false. However, I'll still take noun clause over "adverbial clause" in consideration of what's under discussion here.

Therefore, noun clause is more accurate than "adverbial clause". Or noun clause is more correct than "adverbial clause" in what we are discussing here.


----------



## Loob

billj said:


> The content clause 'expands' the meaning of "theory". We know that the expression "my theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head ..."  is a constituent because it is mobile, compare:
> 
> _My theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won't get wet is something I'm quite certain of._



Ah, then we _are_ reading it differently. 

I read it as _I am very sure of my theory - so sure of it, indeed, that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won't get wet._

------
Edit. I see that's how grassy reads it too.


----------



## Steven David

Loob said:


> Ah, then we _are_ reading it differently.
> 
> I read it as _I am very sure of my theory - so sure of it, indeed, that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won't get wet._




We are all reading this sentence the same way. 

What has come under discussion, here, is the term we should, or must, apply to the clause we are speaking of here, which is part of the example sentence in the original post.


----------



## Steven David

> Loob said:
> Are you sure, billj? I read it as _*so sure ... that* _not_* my theory that....*_





billj said:


> The content clause 'expands' the meaning of "theory". We know that the expression "my theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head ..."  is a constituent because it is mobile, compare:
> 
> _My theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won't get wet is something I'm quite certain of._




Perfect.     

Yes, this content clause expands the meaning of "theory", which the speaker is "so sure of".

The speaker is so sure of her theory that she's able to expand on it. She expands on it with the clause that begins with "that".

It makes sense to call it a content clause because it is information. It is information that expands on the speaker's theory, which the speaker "is so sure of".

Information expands our understanding, and information is content.

It is a declarative content clause functioning as complement of "theory".


----------



## Loob

Steven,  billbj's suggestion in post 14 only works if you read the sentence the way he explains he does in post 17.


Steven David said:


> We are all reading this sentence the same way.


We aren't, I'm afraid.


----------



## Steven David

Loob said:


> Steven,  billbj's suggestion in post 14 only works if you read the sentence the way he explains he does in post 17.
> We aren't, I'm afraid.




We are.     

He recast the sentence, or used part of it, to make his point. This is what I did in one of my previous posts here. I recast the sentence to make a point about the clause, which, at this point, I'm not going to revive unless someone directly quotes it and asks a specific question about it.

Anyway, these two instances of recasting a sentence to make a point seem to elude other posters, somehow.


----------



## billj

Loob said:


> Steven,  billbj's suggestion in post 14 only works if you read the sentence the way he explains he does in post 17.
> We aren't, I'm afraid.


It's actually very simple syntax. In basic terms, the expression _that Brian can do the experiment ..._ is a clausal complement to the noun "theory", expressing what it is that the theory is all about.


----------



## billj

grassy said:


> Except that it doesn't make sense in that context. We wouldn't call it a theory.
> 
> Me too.


Now you're being pedantic. The point is that the whole expression can be moved to elsewhere in the sentence and hence must be constituent. The content clause is thus shown to be a complement of the noun "theory".

What could be simpler than that?


----------



## Loob

Let's agree to disagree, then, billj.


----------



## Steven David

Here is some content, or information, to expand upon, or complement, the information that @billj has provided and to further help us understand why the clause in question is not an adverbial clause.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_clause
In grammar, a *content clause* is a subordinate clause that provides content implied or commented upon by its main clause. The term was coined by Danish linguist Otto Jespersen. They are also known as *noun clauses*. There are two main kinds of content clauses: *declarative content clauses* (or *that-clauses*), which correspond to declarative sentences, and *interrogative content clauses*, which correspond to interrogative sentences.


----------



## Steven David

billj said:


> Now you're being pedantic. The point is that the whole expression can be moved to elsewhere in the sentence and hence must be constituent. The content clause is thus shown to be a complement of the noun "theory".
> 
> What could be simpler than that?




It's a good, logical, sound, and reasoned explanation.


----------



## lingobingo

The full exercise can be found here: 冀教版九年级英语Lesson 25课文和录音 – Geili English

According to Quirk et al. (1985: 1142f) the correlative pair *so … (that)* is used to introduce “constructions that combine the notion of sufficiency or excess with the notion of result” (1985: 1142). 
— quote from the book _Adjective Complementation: an empirical analysis of adjectives followed by that-clauses_

The correlative (paired) construction referred to above takes two forms: 
explanative — e.g. I’m *so sorry [that] *things turned out so badly
resultative or consequential — e.g. I’m *so hungry [that]* I could eat a horse

In the sentence we’re talking about in this thread, it’s the resultative construction that applies:

_I am *so sure* of my theory *that* Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet._​
But the syntax is a little unconventional. It would be more logical with “I know” repositioned:

_I’m *so sure* of my theory *that* I know [that] Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won’t get wet._​


----------



## bennymix

_Jenny: I am so sure of my theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet._

The clause indicates the degree to which Jenny is sure.   

As Lingo said in post #4, with examples:

In that sentence, *so* is an adverb (meaning to such a great extent) and *that* is a conjunction. Together they make the construction “*so* [adjective] *that*…”, which is followed by a clause stating the significance or consequence of whatever the *so+adjective* refers to. As in:

{examples}She was so happy that she couldn’t stop smiling / It’s so dark outside that you’ll need a torch/flashlight
===
Words indicating degree are adverbs.   Jenny is VERY sure, (=so sure that she will stand in the rain overnight, asserting it)
====
Paul concurs as do I.   Paul notes that 'it' can't be substituted.  "I so sure of my theory {it=noun}".   Makes no sense.

Steven's first argument, post #5,  (since) modified for noun clause: 

Steven: Let's alter the sentence just a bit and get another perspective.

I'm sure "that Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won't get wet". //
==
This fails to address the issue on several counts:   First, Steven is arguing based on a self-modified version of the original.  He leaves out 'so', which would indicates something adverbial is going on.   Arguments based on self-constructed differing sentences simply carry no weight, esp. when the meaning is substantially altered.

Second.  Steven says, it answers the question "what" in the above {Steven's new} sentence.   "I'm sure"  "What?".  But that makes no sense.   The question would be "Of what" "Of it"    We see that "I'm sure of it" would indeed contain a noun.  The "of what" question does generate a noun, as answer.  However "I'm sure of it" is not the original, nor does it have the same meaning.   

Third, we see that Steven's analysis does not fit even his self constructed sentence.

I'm sure "that Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won't get wet". =  "I'm sure of it"

It's quite plain that the clause being discussed (in a new setting) is equivalent to "of it,"  where 'it' is a noun.  Yes, 'it' is a noun, but clearly "of it" is possibly in a different category.   "I'm sure that's the sound of a goose";  perhaps adjectival or complementary?
===

Steven's second argument, post #11, turns out to have the same issues, and show the same type of defect.   In reply to Paul's decisive point, Steven replies:

"I am so sure of my theory *that (I say or assert that) Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet"* -> "I am so sure of my theory _*it*_.”   <<

The speaker is asserting or saying something based on the certainty of her theory. The assertion comes in the following clause, and I would not call this clause "adverbial" because it doesn't affect our perception of an action or activity. 
===

Steven has recast the sentence so that a noun clause is contained.   So again I say, arguments based on self-constructed modifications of the original do not necessarily have any bearing on the original.


Adverbial clause would seem to be the conclusion of [CORR] lingo*  and Paul that stands, as far as I can see.

*ADDED:  More exactly, Lingo did not opine on 'adverbial' clause, but rejected the 'noun clause' arguments.


----------



## bennymix

Hi Bill,

Billj (post #14):
No: the clause is neither of those; it's a declarative content clause functioning as* complement* of the noun "theory".

So Bill says "theory" is being adverted to.

Bill expands his point, post #17:

The content clause 'expands' the meaning of "theory". We know that the expression "my theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head ..." is a constituent because it is mobile, [etc.]
==

Well the word 'complement' suggests we're moving in one of two directions, nominal or adjectival. My impression is the latter. Marcello in post #2 proposed this and no one until Bill supported it. Is it correct.

Notice that Bill bases his argument around the "expression"   "my theory ...".  "My theory ..." indeed looks like a nominal item. Compare "I'm sure of it". 'It' is a noun.

Bill has (post #17) a new sentence, a new variation of the original, designed to explicate:

_My theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won't get wet is something I'm quite certain of.

A_gain, Bill argues from a self constructed sentence. His argument then has no necessary connection with the original

It seems, however,  to lead in the "noun" direction, which is why Steven like it. However it does not stand.

Compare:  I am certain that he came.      This is the type of sentence Bill is connecting to the issue under discussion.

Yes, it seems a kind of complement, but it's a different sentence.   "I'm certain of it" is also a basic sentence with some similarities,  but 'of it' would not seem to have the same nominal status as 'it'.


----------



## Steven David

bennymix said:


> _Jenny: I am so sure of my theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet._
> 
> The clause indicates the degree to which Jenny is sure.
> 
> As Lingo said in post #4, with examples:
> 
> In that sentence, *so* is an adverb (meaning to such a great extent) and *that* is a conjunction. Together they make the construction “*so* [adjective] *that*…”, which is followed by a clause stating the significance or consequence of whatever the *so+adjective* refers to. As in:
> 
> {examples}She was so happy that she couldn’t stop smiling / It’s so dark outside that you’ll need a torch/flashlight
> ===
> Words indicating degree are adverbs.   Jenny is VERY sure, (=so sure that she will stand in the rain overnight, asserting it)
> ====
> Paul concurs as do I.   Paul notes that 'it' can't be substituted.  "I so sure of my theory {it=noun}".   Makes no sense.
> 
> Steven's first argument, post #5,  (since) modified for noun clause:
> 
> Steven: Let's alter the sentence just a bit and get another perspective.
> ==
> This fails to address the issue on several counts:   First, Steven is arguing based on a self-modified version of the original.  He leaves out 'so', which would indicates something adverbial is going on.   Arguments based on self constructed differing sentences simply carry no weight, esp. when the meaning is substantially altered.
> 
> Second.  Steven says, it answers the question "what" in the above {Steven's new} sentence.   "I'm sure"  "What?".  But that makes no sense.   The question would be "Of what" "Of it"    We see that "I'm sure of it" would indeed contain a noun.  The "of what" question does generate a noun, as answer.  However "I'm sure of it" is not the original, nor does it have the same meaning.
> 
> Third, we see that Steven's analysis does not fit even his self constructed sentence.
> 
> I'm sure "that Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won't get wet". =  "I'm sure of it"
> 
> It's quite plain that the clause being discussed (in a new setting) is equivalent to "of it,"  where it is a noun.  Yes, 'it' is a noun, but clearly "of it" is possibly in a different category.   "I'm sure that's the sound of a goose";  perhaps adjectival or complementary?
> ===
> 
> Steven's second argument, post #11, turns out to have the same issues, and show the same type of defect.   In reply to Paul's decisive point, Steven replies:
> 
> "I am so sure of my theory *that (I say or assert that) Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet"* -> "I am so sure of my theory _*it*_.”   <<
> 
> The speaker is asserting or saying something based on the certainty of her theory. The assertion comes in the following clause, and I would not call this clause "adverbial" because it doesn't affect our perception of an action or activity.
> ===
> 
> Steven has recast the sentence so that a noun clause is contained.   So again I say, arguments based on self-constructed modifications of the original do not necessarily have any bearing on the original.
> 
> 
> Adverbial clause would seem to be the conclusion of Loob and Paul that stands, as far as I can see.




Certainly, Anyone who reads, and rereads or reviews, my posts will discover just how logical and well-reasoned they are.

What is your view of billj's posts?

He hasn't posted as much as I have here. However, when it comes right down to it, we are essentially saying the same thing. The result is the same.

(I would note that three of my posts are awaiting moderation because they contain links. These posts are in direct reply, or indirect reply, to what billj has posted.)


----------



## Steven David

bennymix, "Adverbial clause would seem to be the conclusion of lingo and Paul that stands, as far as I can see." <<


I agree.


----------



## bennymix

Hi Steven,
My view of Bill's position was being posted (#28) while you were posting.   I do not agree with Bill that 'theory' is somehow being adverted to.   Yes, his conclusion is similar to yours (your earlier posts).   Complements are either nominal or adjectival, and so in the former case he's saying the same thing as you.   I can't quite decide which way he lean (I also reject adjectival).


----------



## Loob

lingobingo said:


> The full exercise can be found here: 冀教版九年级英语Lesson 25课文和录音 – Geili English


Thanks for this, lingobingo.  It's very clear from the original context that Jenny's theory is not "that Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won't get wet" but "that the cardboard will keep the water in the glass".


lingobingo said:


> In the sentence we’re talking about in this thread, it’s the resultative construction that applies:
> 
> _I am *so sure* of my theory *that* Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet._​
> But the syntax is a little unconventional. It would be more logical with “I know” repositioned:
> 
> _I’m *so sure* of my theory *that* I know [that] Brian can do the experiment over your head and you won’t get wet._​


----------



## bennymix

Steven David said:


> bennymix, "Adverbial clause would seem to be the conclusion of Loob and Paul that stands, as far as I can see." <<
> 
> 
> I agree.



Note 'Loob' was a typo.  Should be lingo.   But in fact they agree.


----------



## Steven David

bennymix said:


> Hi Steven,
> My view of Bill's position was being posted (#28) while you were posting.   I do not agree with Bill that 'theory' is somehow being adverted to.   Yes, his conclusion is similar to yours (your earlier posts).   Complements are either nominal or adjectival, and so in the former case he's saying the same thing as you.   I can't quite decide which way he lean  (I also reject adjectival).




I completely agree with billj.

I would not say that his conclusion is similar to mine. We both say that the clause in question is not an "adverbial clause".

In fact, in an earlier post I made mention of the term content, which is a reference to "declarative content clause".

I posted a Wikipedia article excerpt (now  in moderation) which calls these clauses noun clauses, as well. This is to say that some people call declarative content clauses "noun clauses". However, whichever one of these someone chooses, someone that uses one of these terms would not call the clause in question an "adverbial clause". And this would be for the reasons I posted previously. This would also be for the reasons that we call this clause a declarative content clause that functions as complement for the noun "theory".


----------



## Steven David

bennymix said:


> Note 'Loob' was a typo.  Should be lingo.   But in fact they agree.




Noted.


----------



## Steven David

bennymix said:


> Hi Steven,
> My view of Bill's position was being posted (#28) while you were posting.   I do not agree with Bill that 'theory' is somehow being adverted to.   Yes, his conclusion is similar to yours (your earlier posts).   Complements are either nominal or adjectival, and so in the former case he's saying the same thing as you.   I can't quite decide which way he lean  (I also reject adjectival).




Noted.

So it seems that we have here the structured adverbials versus the cognitive declarative content: two different states of English grammar analysis and resulting terminology.


----------



## bennymix

Content clauses with examples:  Wiki:   Content clause - Wikipedia.

(Thanks Steven for the reference.)


----------



## Steven David

bennymix said:


> Content clauses with examples:  Wiki:   Content clause - Wikipedia




The examples listed there do not include the type of sentence we have been discussing here. However, the type of sentence we are discussing here fits among those listed at the Wikipedia article in speaking of declarative content clauses.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Were I Brian&me I'd hang on to this helpful quote from Lingobingo:


lingobingo said:


> According to Quirk et al. (1985: 1142f) the correlative pair *so … (that)* is used to introduce “constructions that combine the notion of sufficiency or excess with the notion of result” (1985: 1142).
> — quote from the book _Adjective Complementation: an empirical analysis of adjectives followed by that-clauses_
> 
> The correlative (paired) construction referred to above takes two forms:
> explanative — e.g. I’m *so sorry [that] *things turned out so badly
> resultative or consequential — e.g. I’m *so hungry [that]* I could eat a horse
> 
> In the sentence we’re talking about in this thread, it’s the resultative construction that applies:


The parallel is close between the 'resultative' example here and the sentence in the OP - _I am so sure of my theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet._

The that-clause is expressing the degree to which Jenny is sure of her theory.

Several members have taken this view and I'm with them wholeheartedly.

This interpretation seems to me so obvious that I don't see how native speakers might see it otherwise.  I could never take the that-clause as indicating the substance of Jenny's theory.

Where I have difficulty is finding the correct up-to-date technical words to describe the components of this common resultative construction, particularly as grammarians change their technical terms from time to time.  However there is an analogous sentence which has been analysed in a thread and that should be useful.

Sentence analysis:  The flat they moved into is so big that ....


----------



## Loob

Thanks, TT - helpful & interesting!


----------



## Steven David

lingobingo said:
According to Quirk et al. (1985: 1142f) the correlative pair *so … (that)* is used to introduce “constructions that combine the notion of sufficiency or excess with the notion of result” (1985: 1142).
— quote from the book _Adjective Complementation: an empirical analysis of adjectives followed by that-clauses_

The correlative (paired) construction referred to above takes two forms:
explanative — e.g. I’m *so sorry [that] *things turned out so badly
resultative or consequential — e.g. I’m *so hungry [that]* I could eat a horse

In the sentence we’re talking about in this thread, it’s the resultative construction that applies:




Thomas Tompion said:


> Were I Brian&me I'd hang on to this helpful quote from Lingobingo:
> 
> The parallel is close between the 'resultative' example here and the sentence in the OP - _I am so sure of my theory that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet._
> 
> The that-clause is expressing the degree to which Jenny is sure of her theory.
> 
> Several members have taken this view and I'm with them wholeheartedly.
> 
> This interpretation seems to me so obvious that I don't see how native speakers might see it otherwise.  I could never take the that-clause as indicating the substance of Jenny's theory.
> 
> Where I have difficulty is finding the correct up-to-date technical words to describe the components of this common resultative construction, particularly as grammarians change their technical terms from time to time.  However there is an analogous sentence which has been analysed in a thread and that should be useful.
> 
> Sentence analysis:  The flat they moved into is so big that ....





These are all very good comments, @Thomas Tompion, and I mostly agree. So I would like to reply to your comments, here.


"... ... there is an analogous sentence which has been analysed in a thread and that should be useful. > Sentence analysis:  The flat they moved into is so big that ...." <<

Here's an interesting thing about this thread, to which you have posted a link: A poster there also calls such a "that-clause" which we speak of here a "noun clause", and, with another sentence, shows and explains how this is so. 

Of interest, as well, is that there does not seem to be any poster in that thread that refers to such resultative "that-clauses" as "adverbial clauses". The idea of "adverbial clause" versus "noun clause, and in turn, versus "declarative content clause is largely the point of contention in this discussion taking place, here, now.

________________________________________________________

I think we all agree that the clause is resultative.

Despite other comments, I also believe that all of us read and interpret the sentence in the same way.

"The that-clause is expressing the degree to which Jenny is sure of her theory. Several members have taken this view and I'm with them wholeheartedly." *<<*

And this is so, as well. That's what I've posted here, as well.

"This interpretation seems to me so obvious that I don't see how native speakers might see it otherwise.  I could never take the that-clause as indicating the substance of Jenny's theory." *<< *

This "that clause", which we speak of here, complements "theory". It adds to what Jenny says about her theory. Or, in other words, it adds content to Jenny's theory. Jenny predicts the result of the experiment based on the sureness, strength, or certainty of her theory: Jenny says, "I'm so sure of my theory that > content clause < > noun clause <..."

This is so in the same way that a speaker predicts the possible result (likely imaginary) of being so hungry. The result of being so hungry in the example sentence cited above is "eat a horse".

I’m *so hungry [that]* I could eat a horse.

So this "that clause" tells us the degree to which Jenny is sure of her theory, and it this "that clause" complements the noun "theory". Or this "that clauses" adds to "theory".

________________________________________________________

Just to make this more interesting, let's allow the clauses to trade places:

Jenny: I'm so sure of my theory that I could eat horse.

Jenny must be really sure of her theory if she thinks this can cause her to eat a horse. That's how sure Jenny is of her theory. Whenever Jenny is sure enough of a theory, she goes to the stable and picks out a horse for dinner. <   

Jenny: I'm so hungry that Brian can do this experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet.    

Now, that's *hungry*. Jenny must be *really hungry* if she thinks that her hunger is going to determine the result of an experiment that takes place over someone's head. 

Jenny: Brian, you had better do the experiment now because I'm about to have lunch, and I don't know whether the experiment will have the expected result after I've eaten and I'm no longer hungry.  Whenever Jenny is hungry enough, she knows Brian is able to do an experiment over someone's head, and she's knows that they won't get wet. But that's only while she's hungry. After she eats lunch or dinner, Brian's experiment powers return to normal, and then there's no telling what will happen.      

________________________________________________________

I would say there's more common understanding or agreement among us than may be revealed by the posts here in this thread.

It seems that what it comes down to is just this: Some people say "resultative that clauses" are adverbial or adverbial clauses. And others say that "resultative that clauses" are declarative content clauses or noun clauses.

This would be reflected by, I would say, available reference books, online resources posted here, other online references, and possibly additional discussion on the same topic but with other example sentences of the same form. 

As for why some people say such clauses are "adverbial clauses" and others say such clauses are "declarative content clauses", or "noun clauses" -- That would be probably another topic or discussion, though this has been part of this discussion, here, now.


----------



## Loob

I don't have a problem with labelling _that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet _a content clause.

But if we label it a content clause, it's definitely - to my mind - a content clause licensed by "so" with a resultative meaning, and not a complement of the noun "theory".

Perhaps we can leave things there?


----------



## Steven David

Loob said:


> I don't have a problem with labelling _that Brian can do the experiment over your head and I know you won’t get wet _a content clause.
> 
> But if we label it a content clause, it's definitely - to my mind - a content clause licensed by "so" with a resultative meaning, and not a complement of the noun "theory".
> 
> Perhaps we can leave things there?





I can call it both. I can't say that there would be any problem with that.

A resultative clause can complement a noun and even an adjective, which is to say a predicative. Refer to the sentence with "important". Going on this idea, I'd say that the resultative clause in the original example sentence also complements "sure". Jenny: I'm so *sure *of my theory that > *clause *<. The result complements the sureness or the certainty as well as the theory. The sureness is represented by the result of the experiment spoken of in the result clause.

I think the idea of "linking them to adjectives" makes sense, as noted below.

_______________________________

Content clause - Wikipedia

Finally, they can serve as subjects, or as direct objects of verbs that *link** them to adjectives *or other predicatives. In this use, they are commonly postponed to the end of their main clause, with an expletive _it_ standing in their original place:


_*It* startled me *that the students were so advanced*._
_*It* is important *that we remember this day*._
_I find *it* sad *that he doesn't know the answer*._
_*It* annoys me *that she does that*._
_______________________________

Content clauses, as noted above, commonly go at the end of the main clause or independent clause in this type of sentence. This means the "that clause" can be move to the subject position. If this happens, then the above sentences do not require "it" and using "it" is wrong. Such a sentence sounds emphatic, as is often case when we change the usual order of words.


_*It* is important *that we remember this day*._
_*That we remember this day *is important*. *_

Here's another example based on the original example sentence. 

*That Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet,* I'm *sure*.

I'm sure *that Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet.*

This is not the same type of result clause, though it's an example that can fit among the Wikipedia page examples. 

*That Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know won't get wet,* I'm so *sure*. *(That's how I sure I am of my theory.)*

I'm so sure *that Brian can do the experiment over your head, and I know you won't get wet. (That's how I sure I am of my theory.)*

theory - water stays in the container when it's turned upside down and covered with cardboard


----------



## Loob

Steven David said:


> theory - water stays in the container when it's turned upside down and covered with cardboard


Yes.
Then let's stop and not make Brian&me wade through any more of this.


----------



## Cagey

People have explained their answers.  They are not going to reach a consensus. 

Brian&me and anyone else who consults the thread can read over the answers and select the one they find most helpful.

This thread is closed. 

Cagey, moderator


----------

