Сложные предложения

 

         Contents 

         Introduction

         I. The Sentence

             1.1 Classification of Sentences

              1.2 Types of Subordinate Clauses

         II. The Composite Sentence

                2.1 Compound Sentence

                2.2 Complex Sentence

         Conclusion

         Bibliography 
 

 

          INTRODUCTION

         The theme of my course work sounds as following: «the structure of sentences». Before beginning of investigation in our theme, I would like to say some words dealt with the theme of my course work.

         Sentences with only one predication are called simple sentences. Those with more than one predication have usually no general name. We shall call them composite sentences.

         In a composite sentence each predication together with the words attached is called a clause.

         Composite sentences with coordinated clauses are compound sentences.

         She's a very faithful creature and I trust her. (Cronin).

         Composite sentences containing subordinated clauses are complex sentences.

         If I let this chance slip, I'm a fool. (Cronin).

         In a complex sentence we distinguish the principal clause (I'm a fool) and the subordinate clause (If I let this chance slip) or clauses.

         Standing on such ground, I would like to point out tasks and aims of my work:

• The first task of my work is to give definition to term «sentence».
• The second task is to give the classification of sentences in English.
• The last task of my work is to characterize types of composite sentences.

         In our opinion the practical significance of our work is hard to be overvalued. This work reflects modern trends in linguistics and we hope it would serve as a good manual for those who wants to master modern English language. Also this work can be used by teachers of English language for teaching English grammar.

         The present work might find a good way of implying in the following spheres:

         1. In High Schools and scientific circles of linguistic kind it can be successfully used by teachers and philologists as modern material for writing research works dealing with English verbs.

         2. It can be used by teachers of schools, lyceums and colleges by teachers of English as a practical manual for teaching English grammar.

         3. It can be useful for everyone who wants to enlarge his/her knowledge in English.

         After having proved the actuality of our work, I would like to describe the composition of it:

         My work consists of four parts: introduction, the main part, conclusion and bibliography. Within the introduction part we gave the brief description of our course paper. The main part of the work includes several items. There we discussed such problems as the types of sentences in English, their classification, the problem of composite sentences and etc. In the conclusion to our work we tried to draw some results from the scientific investigations made within the present course paper. In bibliography part we mentioned some sources which were used while compiling the present work. It includes linguistic books and articles dealing with the theme, a number of used dictionaries and encyclopedias and also some internet sources. 
 

 

          UNIT I. The Sentence 

         The sentence is the central object of study in syntax. It can be defined as the immediate integral unit of speech built up by words according to a definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative purpose.

         The correlation of the word and the sentence shows some important differences and similarities between these two main level-forming lingual units. Both of them are nominative units, but the word just names objects and phenomena of reality; it is a purely nominative component of the word-stock, while the sentence is at the same time a nominative and predicative lingual unit: it names dynamic situations, or situational events, and at the same time reflects the connection between the nominal denotation of the event, on the one hand, and objective reality, on the other hand, showing the time of the event, its being real or unreal, desirable or undesirable, etc. A sentence can consist of only one word, as any lingual unit of the upper level can consist of only one unit of the lower level, e.g.: Why? Thanks. But a word making up a sentence is thereby turned into an utterance-unit expressing various connections between the situation described and actual reality. So, the definition of the sentence as a predicative lingual unit gives prominence to the basic differential feature of the sentence as a separate lingual unit: it performs the nominative signemic function, like the word or the phrase, and at the same time it performs the reality-evaluating or predicative function.

         Another difference between the word and the sentence is as follows: the word exists in the system of language as a ready-made unit, which is reproduced in speech; the sentence is produced each time in speech, except for a limited number of idiomatic utterances. The sentence belongs primarily to the sphere of speech; earlier logical and psychological oriented grammar treated the sentence as a portion of the flow of words of one speaker containing a complete thought.

         Being a unit of speech, the sentence is distinguished by a relevant intonation: each sentence possesses certain intonation contours, including pauses, pitch movements and stresses, which separate one sentence from another in the flow of speech and, together with various segmental means of expression, participate in rendering essential communicative-predicative meanings (for example, interrogation).

         But speech presents only one aspect of language in the broad sense of the term, which dialectically combines the system of language, language proper (“langue”), and the immediate realization of it in the process of intercourse, speech proper (“parole”). The sentence as a unit of communication also includes two sides inseparably connected with each other: fixed in the system of the language are typical models, generalized sentence patterns, which speakers follow when constructing their own utterances in actual speech. The number of actual sentences, or utterances, is infinite; the number of “linguistic sentences” or sentence patterns in the system of language is definite, and they are the object of study in grammar.

         The definition of the category of predication is similar to the definition of the category of modality, which also shows a connection between the named objects and actual reality. However, modality is a broader category, revealed not only in grammar, but in the lexical elements of language; for example, various modal meanings are expressed by modal verbs (can, may, must, etc.), by word-particles of specifying modal semantics (just, even, would-be, etc.), by semi-functional modal words and phrases of subjective evaluation (perhaps, unfortunately, by all means, etc.) and by other lexical units. Predication can be defined as syntactic modality, expressed by the sentence.

         The center of predication in the sentence is the finite form of the verb, the predicate: it is through the finite verb’s categorial forms of tense, mood, and voice that the main predicative meanings, actual evaluations of the event, are expressed. L. Tesnière, who introduced the term “valency” in linguistics, described the verbal predicate as the core around which the whole sentence structure is organized according to the valencies of the predicate verb; he subdivided all verbal complements and supplements into so-called “actants”, elements that identify the participants in the process, and “circonstants”, or elements that identify the circumstances of the process. Besides the predicate, other elements of the sentence also help express predication: for example, word order, various functional words and, in oral speech, intonation. In addition to verbal time and mood evaluation, the predicative meanings of the sentence include the purpose of communication (declaration – interrogation – inducement), affirmation and negation and other meanings .

         As the description above shows, predication is the basic differential feature of the sentence, but not the only one. There is a profound difference between the nominative function of the word and the nominative function of the sentence. The nominative content of a syntagmatically complete average sentence, called a proposition, reflects a processual situation, an event that includes a certain process (actional or statal) as its dynamic center, the agent of the process, the objects of the process, and various conditions and circumstances of the realization of the process. The situation, together with its various elements, is reflected through the nominative parts (members) of the sentence, distinguished in the traditional grammatical or syntactic division of the sentence, which can also be defined as its nominative division. No separate word, no matter how many stems it consists of, can express the situation-nominative semantics of a proposition.

         To some extent, the nomination of situational events can be realized by expanded substantive or nominal phrases. Between the sentence and the substantive phrase of situational semantics direct transformations are possible; the transformation of a sentence into a nominal phrase is known as “nominalization”, e.g.: His father arrived unexpectedly à his father’s unexpected arrival, the unexpected arriving of his father, etc. When a sentence is transformed into a substantive phrase, or “nominalized”, it loses its processual-predicative character. This, first, supports once again the idea that the content of the sentence is a unity of two mutually complementary aspects: of the nominative aspect and the predicative aspect; and, second, this specifies the definition of predication: predication should be interpreted not simply as referring the content of the sentence to reality, but as referring the nominative content of the sentence to reality. 

         1.1 Classification of Sentences 

         The problem of classification of sentences is a highly complicated one, and we will first consider the question of the principles of classification, and of the notions on which it can be based.

         Let us begin by comparing a few sentences differing from each other in some respect. Take, for example, the following two sentences:

         (1) But why did you leave England? (GALSWORTHY)

         (2) There are to-day more people writing extremely well, in all departments of life, than ever before; what we have to do is to sharpen our judgement and pick these out from the still larger number who write extremely badly. (CRUMP)

         Everyone will see that the two sentences are basically different. This is true, but very general and not grammatically exact. In order to arrive at a strictly grammatical statement of the difference (or differences) between them we must apply more exact methods of observation and analysis.

         Let us, then, proceed to a careful observation of the features which constitute the difference between the two sentences.

         1. The first sentence expresses a question that is the speaker expects an answer which will supply the information he wants. The second sentence expresses a statement, that is, the author (or speaker) states his opinion on a certain subject. He does not ask about anything, or expect anybody to supply him any information. This difference is expressed in writing by the first sentence having a question mark at the end, while the second sentence has a full stop.

         2. The first sentence is addressed to a certain hearer (or a few hearers present), and is meant to provoke the hearer's reaction (answer). The second sentence is not addressed to any particular person or persons and the author does not know how anybody will react to it.

         3. The two sentences differ greatly in length: the first consists of only 6 words, while the second has 39.

         4. The first sentence has no punctuation marks within it, while the second has two commas and a semicolon.

         5. The first sentence has only one finite verb (did… leave), while the second has three (are, have, write).

         These would seem to be some essential points of difference. We have riot yet found out which of them are really relevant from a grammatical viewpoint. We have not included in the above list those which are quite obviously irrelevant from that viewpoint; for example, the first sentence contains a proper name (England), while the second does not contain any, or, the second sentence contains a possessive pronoun (our) while the first does not, etc.

         Let us now consider each of the five points of difference and see which of them are relevant from a purely grammatical point of view, for a classification of sentences.

         Point 1 states a difference in the types of thought expressed in the two sentences. Without going into details of logical analysis, we can merely say that a question (as in the first sentence), and a proposition (as in the second) are different types of thought, in the logical acceptation of that term. The problem now is, whether this difference is or is not of any importance from the grammatical viewpoint. In Modern English sentences expressing questions (we will call them, as is usually done, interrogative sentences) have some characteristic grammatical features. These features are, in the first place, a specific word order in most cases (predicate – subject), as against the order subject – predicate in sentences expressing, propositions (declarative sentences). Thus word order may, with some reservations, be considered as a feature distinguishing this particular type of sentence from others. Another grammatical feature characterizing interrogative sentences (again, with some reservations) is the structure of the predicate verb, namely its analytical form «do + infinitive» (in our first sentence, did., leave…, not left), where in a declarative sentence there would be the simple form (without do). However, this feature is not restricted to interrogative sentences: as is well known, it also characterizes negative sentences. Anyhow, we can (always with some reservations) assume that word order and the form «do + infinitive» are grammatical features characterizing interrogative sentences, and in so far the first item of our list appears to be grammatically relevant. We will, accordingly, accept the types «interrogative sentence» and «declarative sentence» as grammatical types of sentences.

         Point 2, treating of a difference between a sentence addressed to a definite hearer (or reader) and a sentence free from such limitation, appears not to be grammatical, important as it may be from other points of view. Accordingly, we will not include this distinction among grammatical features of sentences.

         Point 3, showing a difference in the length of the sentences, namely in the number of words making up each of them, does not in itself constitute a grammatical feature, though it may be more remotely connected with grammatical distinctions.

         Point 4 bears a close relation to grammatical peculiarities; more especially, a semicolon would be hardly possible in certain types of sentences (so-called simple sentences). But punctuation marks within a sentence are not in themselves grammatical features: they are rather a consequence of grammatical features whose essence is to be looked for elsewhere.

         Point 5, on the contrary, is very important from a grammatical viewpoint. Indeed the number of finite verbs in a sentence is one of its main grammatical features. In this particular instance it should be noted that each of the three finite verbs has its own noun or pronoun belonging to it and expressing the doer of the action denoted by the verb: are has the noun people, have the pronoun we, and write the pronoun who. These are sure signs of the sentence being composite, not simple. Thus we will adopt the distinction between simple and composite sentences as a distinction between two grammatical types.

         The items we have established as a result of comparing the two sentences given earlier certainly do not exhaust all the possible grammatical features a sentence can be shown to possess. They were only meant to illustrate the method to be applied if a reasonable grammatical classification of sentences is to be achieved. If we were to take another pair or other pairs of sentences and proceed to compare them in a similar way we should arrive at some more grammatical distinctions which have to be taken into account in making up a classification. We will not give any more examples but we will take up the grammatical classification of sentences in a systematic way.

         It is evident that there are two principles of classification. Applying one of them, we obtain a classification into declarative, interrogative, and imperative sentences. We can call this principle that of «types of communication».

         The other classification is according to structure. Here we state two main types: simple sentences and composite sentences. We will not now go into the question of a further subdivision of composite sentences, or into the question of possible intermediate types between simple and composite ones. These questions will be treated later on (see pages 200 and 254 respectively). Meanwhile, then, we get the following results:

         Types of Sentences According to Types of Communication

         (1) Declarative

         (2) Interrogative

         (3) Imperative

         Sentences belonging to the several types differ from each other in some grammatical points, too. Thus, interrogative sentences are characterized by a special word order. In interrogative sentences very few modal words are used, as the meanings of some modal words are incompatible with the meaning of an interrogative sentence. It is clear that modal words expressing full certainty, such as certainly, surely, naturally, etc., cannot appear in a sentence expressing a question. On the other hand, the modal word indeed, with its peculiar shades of meaning, is quite possible in interrogative sentences, for instance, Isn't so indeed? (SHAKESPEARE)