Сложные предложения

         2. The sentence discussed is not simple because it contains two predications. This becomes especially evident when we compare It is past ten, I think with I think it is past ten.

         3. Since we regard parenthetical elements as parts of the sentence we must treat It is past ten, I think as a complex sentence, i.e. a sentence having one of its parts (parenthetical element) expressed by a clause (a parenthetical clause).

         In most cases parenthetical clauses are introduced asyndetically, though now and again the conjunctions as, if, etc. are used.

         He is, as I told you, their only son. (Dickens).

         The happiness was a private, if you like, a happy one. (Snow).

         Like parenthetical words and word-combinations they express the speaker's attitude towards the contents of the sentence or they show the relation of the given thought to some thought previously mentioned or to the source of information.

         Nursing a wounded heart, he thought cynically, would not lead to happiness. (Randall). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

         II UNIT. The Composite Sentence 

         Composite sentences, as we know divide into compound and complex sentences. The difference between them is not only in the relations of coordination or subordination, as usually stated. It is also important to know what is coordinated or subordinated. In compound sentences the whole clauses are coordinated, together with their predications.

         In complex sentences a clause is mostly subordinated not to the whole principal clause but to some word in it which may be regarded as its head-word. In I know where he lives the subordinate clause is an adjunct of the objective verb know. In I know the place where he lives the subordinate clause is the adjunct of the noun place. In The important thing is where he lives the subordinate clause is an adjunct of the link-verb is. The only exception is the subordinate clause in a sentence like Where he lives is unknown in which it functions as the subject.

         These peculiarities of compound and complex sentences may account for the difference in their treatment. The clauses of compound sentences are often regarded as independent. Some linguists are even of the opinion that compound sentences are merely sequences of simple sentences, combinations of sentences. x The clauses of a complex sentence, on the contrary, are often treated as forming a unity, a simple sentence in which some part is replaced by a clause a. Such extreme views are, to our mind, not quite justified, especially if we take into consideration that the border lines between coordination (parataxis) and subordination (hypotaxis are fluid. A clause may be introduced by a typical subordinating conjunction and yet its connection with the principal clause is so loose that it can hardly be regarded as a subordinate clause at all.

         Cf. I met John, who told me (= and he told me) the big news.

         Or, conversely, a coordinating conjunction may express relations typical of subordination.

         E.g. You must interfere now; for (cf. because) they are getting quite beyond me. (Shaw).

         As already noted, the demarcation line between a compound sentence and a combination of sentences, as well as that between compound words and combinations of words, is somewhat vague. Yet, the' majority of compound words and compound sentences are established in the language system as definite units with definite structures. Besides, a similar vagueness can be-observed with regard to the demarcation line between complex sentences and combinations of sentences.

         E. g. They are not people, but types. Which makes it difficult for the actors to present them convincingly. (D.W.).

         Though coordinating conjunctions may be found to connect independent sentences, they are in an overwhelming majority of cases used to connect clauses.

         As to the asyndetically connection of clauses, it is found both in compound and in complex sentences. In either case the relations between the clauses resemble those expressed by the corresponding conjunctions.

         E.g. They had a little quarrel, he soon forgot. (London). Here the asyndeton might be replaced by which or but.

         Semantically the clauses of a compound sentence are usually connected more closely than independent sentences. These relations may be reduced to a few typical cases that can be listed.

         The order of clauses within a compound sentence is often more rigid than in complex sentences. He came at six and we had dinner together, (the place of the coordinate clauses cannot be changed without impairing the sense of the sentence).

         Cf. If she wanted to do anything better she must have a great deal more. (Dreiser). She must have a great deal more if she wanted to do anything better.

         Especially close is the connection of the coordinate clauses in a case like this.

         He expected no answer, and a dull one would have been reproved. (Dreiser).

         The prop-word one is an additional link between the clauses.

         Though there is some similarity in the function and combinability of subordinate clauses and parts of the sentence, which is justly used as a criterion for the classification of clauses, we must not identify clauses and parts of simple sentences.

         Apart from their having predications, clauses differ from parts of the simple sentence in some other respects, too.

         a) Very often it is not the clause itself but the conjunction that defines its function and combinability. He speaks the truth may be a simple sentence, a coordinate or a subordinate clause, depending on the conjunction; and he speaks the truth is normally a coordinate clause, when he speaks the truth is often a subordinate clause of time, if he speaks the truth is mostly a subordinate clause of condition, etc.

         Thus a conjunction is often a definite marker of a clause, which distinguishes such clauses from most English words having no markers. That probably accounts for the fact that clauses with such markers have a greater freedom of distribution than most parts of a simple sentence.

         b) There is often no correlation between clauses and parts of simple sentences. I know that he is ill is correlated with I know that. I am afraid tint he is ill is not correlated with.

         I am afraid that. I hope that he is well is not correlated with I hope that, etc.

         The most important part of the sentence, the predicate, has no correlative type of clause.

         Certain clauses have, as a matter of fact, no counterparts among the parts of the sentence.

         E.g. I am a diplomat, aren't I? (Hemingway). 
 
 
 
 
 
 

         2.1 The Compound Sentence 

         The compound sentence is a composite sentence built on the principle of coordination. Coordination, the same as subordination, can be expressed either syndetically (by means of coordinative connectors) or asyndetically.

         The main semantic relations between the clauses connected coordinatively are copulative, adversative, disjunctive, causal, consequential, resultative. Similar semantic types of relations are to be found between independent, separate sentences forming a continual text. As is known, this fact has given cause to some scholars to deny the existence of the compound sentence as a special, regular form of the composite sentence.

         The advanced thesis to this effect states that the so-called "compound sentence" is a fictitious notion developed under the school influence of written presentation of speech; what is fallaciously termed the "compound sentence" constitutes in reality a sequence of semantically related independent sentences not separated by full stops in writing because of an arbitrary school convention.

         To support this analysis, the following reasons are put forward: first, the possibility of a falling, finalising tone between the coordinated predicative units; second, the existence, in written speech, of independently presented sentences introduced by the same conjunctions as the would-be "coordinate clauses"; third, the possibility of a full stop-separation of the said "coordinate clauses" with the preservation of the same semantic relations between them.

         We must admit that, linguistically, the cited reasons are not devoid of a rational aspect, and, which is very important, they appeal to the actual properties of the sentence in the text. However, the conception taken as a whole gives a false presentation of the essential facts under analysis and is fallacious in principle.

         As a matter of fact, there is a substantial semantico-syntactic difference between the compound sentence and the corresponding textual sequence of independent sentences. This difference can escape the attention of the observer when tackling isolated sentences, but it is explicitly exposed in the contexts of continual speech. Namely, by means of differences in syntactic distributions of predicative units, different distributions of the expressed ideas is achieved, which is just the coordinative syntactic functions in action; by means of combining or non-combining predicative units into a coordinative polypredicative sequence the corresponding closeness or looseness of connections between the reflected events is shown, which is another aspect of coordinative syntactic functions. It is due to these functions that the compound sentence does not only exist in the syntactic system of language, but occupies in it one of the constitutive places.

         By way of example, let us take a textual sequence of independent monopredicative units:

         Jane adored that actor. Hockins could not stand the sight of him. Each was convinced of the infallibility of one's artistic judgment. That aroused prolonged arguments.

         Given the "negative" theory of the compound sentence is correct, any coordinative-sentential re-arrangements of the cited sentences must be indifferent as regards the sense rendered by the text. In practice, though, it is not so. In particular, the following arrangement of the predicative units into two successive compound sentences is quite justified from the semantico-syntactic point of view:

         → Jane adored that actor, but Hockins could not stand the sight of him. Each was convinced of the infallibility of one's judgment, and that aroused prolonged arguments.

         As different from this, the version of arranging the same material given below cannot be justified in any syntactic or semantic sense:

         → Jane adored that actor. But Hockins could not stand the sight of him, each was convinced of the infallibility of one's judgment. And that aroused prolonged arguments.

         On the other hand, some subordinate clauses of a complex sentence can also be separated in the text, thus being changed into specific independent sentences. Still, no one would seek to deny the existence of complex sentence patterns based on optional subordinative connections. Cf.:

         Suddenly Laura paused as if she was arrested by something invisible from here. → Suddenly Laura paused. As if she was arrested by something invisible from here.

         As for the factor of intonation, it should indeed be invariably taken into account when considering general problems of sentence identification. The propositional intonation contour with its final delimitation pause is one of the constitutive means of the creation and existence of the sentence as a lingual phenomenon. In particular, the developing intonation pattern in the process of speech sustains the semantic sentence strain from the beginning of the sentence up to the end of it. And there is a profound difference between the intonation patterns of the sentence and those of the clause, no matter how many traits of similarity they may possess, including finalising features. Moreover, as is known, the tone of a coordinate clause, far from being rigorously falling, can be rising as well. The core of the matter is that the speaker has intonation at his disposal as a means of forming sentences, combining sentences, and separating sentences. He actively uses this means, grouping the same syntactic strings of words now as one composite sentence, now as so many simple sentences, with the corresponding more essential or less essential changes in meanings, of his own choice, which is determined by concrete semantic and contextual conditions.

         Thus, the idea of the non-existence of the compound sentence in English should be rejected unconditionally. On the other hand, it should be made clear that the formulation of this negative idea as such has served us a positive cause, after all: its objective scientific merit, similar to some other inadequate ideas advanced in linguistics at different times, consists in the very fact that it can be used as a means of counter-argumentation in the course of research work, as a starting point for new insights into the deep nature of lingual phenomena in the process of theoretical analysis sustained by observation. . The compound sentence is derived from two or more base sentences which, as we have already stated above, are connected on the principle of coordination either syndetically or asyndetically. The base sentences joined into one compound sentence lose their independent status and become coordinate clauses — parts of a composite unity. The first clause is "leading" (the "leader" clause), the successive clauses are "sequential". This division is essential not only from the point of view of outer structure (clause-order), but also in the light of the semantico-syntactic content: it is the sequential clause that includes the connector in its composition, thus being turned into some kind of dependent clause, although the type of its dependence is not subordinative. Indeed, what does such a predicative unit signify without its syntactic leader?

         The coordinating connectors, or coordinators, are divided into conjunctions proper and semi-functional clausal connectors of adverbial character. The main coordinating conjunctions, both simple and discontinuous, are: and, but, or, nor, neither, for, either ... or, neither ... nor, etc. The main adverbial coordinators are: then, yet, so, thus, consequently, nevertheless, however, etc. The adverbial coordinators, unlike pure conjunctions, as a rule can shift their position in the sentence (the exceptions are the connectors yet and so). The intensity of cohesion between the coordinate clauses can become loose, and in this case the construction is changed into a cumulative one.

         As has been stated elsewhere, such cases of cumulation mark the intermediary status of the construction, i.e. its place in syntax between a composite sentence and a sequence of independent sentences.

         When approached from the semantico-syntactic point of view, the connection between the clauses in a compound sentence should be analysed into two basic types: first, the unmarked coordinative connection; second, the marked coordinative connection.

         The unmarked coordinative connection is realised by the coordinative conjunction and and also asyndetically. The unmarked semantic nature of this type of connection is seen from the fact that it is not specified in any way and requires a diagnostic exposition through the marked connection. The exposition properly effected shows that each of the two series of compound predicative constructions falls into two principal subdivisions. Namely, the syndetic and-constructions discriminate, first, simple copulative relations and, second, broader, non-copulative relations. The asyndetic constructions discriminate, first, simple enumerative relations and, second, broader, non-enumerative relations. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

         2.2 The Complex Sentence 

         The principal clauses of complex sentences are usually not classified, though their meanings are not neutral with regard to the meanings of the subordinate clauses.

         Cf. He will come because he needs your help.

         He will come if he needs your help.

         Two criteria are most often used in classifying the subordinate clauses of complex sentences: meaning and combinability. When he came is a clause of time according to the meaning imparted by when.

         E.g. Wheti he came, it was already late.

         But in the sentence I know when he came the same clause is considered objective owing to its subordination to the objective verb know.

         There are two ways of using the criterion of combinability. Either subordinate clauses are classified in accordance with their relation to the word of the principal clause «they are attached to, or they are likened to some part of speech •with similar combinability… In the sentences When he came is ' of no importance, I remember when he came the combinability of the subordinate clause resembles that of a noun.