Lecture 7 Compound sentence

A compound sentence is a sentence which consists of two or more clauses coordinated with each other. A clause is part of a sentence which has a subject and a predicate of its own.

In a compound sentence the clauses may be connected:

(a) syndetically, i.e. by means of coordinating conjunctions (and, or, else, but, etc.) or conjunctive adverbs (otherwise, however, nevertheless, yet, etc.);

(b) asyndetically, i.e. without a conjunction or conjunctive adverb.

We can distinguish the following types of coordination:

1. Copulative coordination, expressed by the conjunctions ‘and, nor, neither…nor, not only…but (also)’. With the help of these conjunctions the statement expressed in the clause is simply added to that expressed in another.

2. Disjunctive coordination, expressed by the conjunctions ‘or, else, or else, either…or’, and the conjunctive adverb ‘otherwise’. By these a choice is offered between the statements expressed in two clauses.

3. Adversative coordination, expressed by the conjunctions ‘but, while, whereas’ and the conjunctive adverbs ‘nevertheless, still, yet’. These are conjunctions and adverbs connecting two clauses contrasted in meaning.

4. Causative-consecutive coordination, expressed by the conjunctions ‘for, so’ and the conjunctive adverbs ‘therefore, accordingly, consequently, hence’. ‘For’ introduces coordinate clauses explaining the preceding statement. ‘Therefore, so, consequently, hence, accordingly’ introduce coordinate clauses denoting cause, consequence and result.

In every compound sentence there is one member that is, syntactically speaking, the leading element; this is called the main clauses; the other clauses are called the sub-clauses.

The main clause is the leading clause of the whole sentence. The sub-clauses may form a group of which each member is directly connected with the main clause (a); but it may also be that two or more sub-clauses form a closer group, one serving as the leading clause of this group (b).

(a) It was seized by Saxons, who speedily reached the limits of their expansion and settled down as the small and backward kingdom of Sussex.

(b) The authority for it all is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which certainly does tell a story that can be read in this way…

From what has been said it follows that the distinction of main and sub-clauses is a purely grammatical one, without any bearing on the meaning of the whole sentence.

There has been some discussion about the degree of independence of the clauses making up a compound sentence. The older view was that they were completely independent of each other. It was supposed that these clauses were nothing but independent sentences with coordinating conjunction between them indicating their semantic relations. Lately, however, the opinion has been expressed that the clauses, and especially of the second clause (and those which follow it, if any) is not complete, and that the structure of the second and following clauses is to some extent predetermined by the first. This view was put forward in the Academy’s Grammar of the Russian language. It is pointed out here that the word order of the second clause may be influenced by the connection it has with the first, and that the verb forms of the predicates in co-ordinate clauses are frequently mutually dependent. Part of this is more significant for the Russian language with its freer word order than for the English, but a certain degree of independence between the clauses is found in English, too.

As it is known 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 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, finalizing 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 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 substational 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 context of continual speech. Namely, by means of different distributions of the expressed ideas are 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, nay 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 artistic judgment, and that aroused prolonged arguments.

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

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

On the other hand, some subordinate clauses of the 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. Suddenly Laura paused as if 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 finalizing 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 context.

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.

It has been suggested that the compound sentence should be regarded as a mere juxtaposition of two or more simple sentences rather than a specific sentence type. However, there are a few arguments against this approach. In the first place, the joining of two clauses within one sentence is based on closer logical and semantic relationship. Secondly, some of structural patterns are restricted to compound sentence and are hardly ever found in independent sentences. Thirdly, in terms of communicative function, a compound sentence mostly serves to express an utterance marked by a particular pragmatic meaning: that of assertion, advice, threat, etc.

Besides compound sentences consisting of asyndetically or syndetically coordinated clauses, there are a number of constructions whose elements are not normally analyzed as coordinate clause, even though they are grammatically independent of each other. Rather, they are seen as examples of a more general category known as paratactic construction, i.e. syntactic constructions made up of several constituents of equal grammatical status. Parataxis is distinguished from hypotaxis, the relation between two items of which one is subordinated to the other.

Paratactic constructions include sentences with direct speech, e.g.:

Shakespeare said, “Neither a borrower nor a lender be.”

Here also belong tag questions and commas:

She’s away at the moment, isn’t she?

Answer the door, would you?

Cut it out, can’t you?

Asyndetic sentences composed of two one-member clauses of which the first implies a condition or contingency represent a borderline case between paratactic constructions and compound sentences. This model seems to be non-productive, i.e. confined to idiomatic expressions built up according to a definite pattern, although many of them are quite frequently used:

Once bitten, twice shy.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

First come, first served.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Two or more clauses can be made into one sentence without a coordinator being used. The resulting structure is referred to as asyndetic compound sentence:

Don’t worry, I’ll care of it.

Philosophy class meets on Tuesday; Spanish class meets three times a week.

Please help me – I’m stuck in the lift!

Asyndetically joined coordinate clauses convey related ideas. They are linked together so as to add or elaborate a point, to express contrast, reason or consequence. Grammatically, these relations remain implicit: the speaker / writer has them in mind when reducing an utterance, and the listener / reader deduces them from the semantic content, intonation contour and, sometimes, structural features of the coordinate clauses.

(A)Structure and meaning

If both asyndetic clauses are negative in meaning and second clause opens with still less, much less or even less, this second clause has inverted word order, similar to interrogative sentence inversion, e.g.:

She doesn’t even like him; much less does she want to marry him.

I didn’t accuse anyone in your family; still less did I blame your cousin.

Note that the negative meaning in the second clause is conveyed by the comparative adverbs less, with the negative particle missing.

Compound sentences with inversion in one of the clauses prove yet again that a compound sentence is not a mere juxtaposition of two simple sentences, because the syntactic features of the conjoins are to a large extent interrelated.

(B)Set expressions

Asyndetic compound sentences are found in a number of proverbs and idiomatic expressions, for example:

Absence sharpens love; presence strengthens it.

Bear wealth; poverty will bear itself.

Two is company; three is none / a crowd.

Heads, I win; tails, you lose.

The King is dead, long live the King.

You name it, we / they have it (e.g., of a supply of goods).

In syndetic compound sentences the type of coordinating is expressed explicitly by means of coordinators, i.e. coordinating conjunctions (and, or, but, for, etc.) and conjunctive adverbs (however, yet, therefore, etc.):

The garage lock was broken, but nobody seemed to care.

The process of coordination, simply stated, involves the linking of structures of equal grammatical rank — single words and phrases in elementary compound groups or independent clauses in compound sentences. The coordinative conjunctions and the correlatives serve to produce this coordination by joining the grammatically equivalent elements in question. Two or more clauses equal in rank can together be given the status of a single sentence. Such co-ordinated units make up a compound sentence.

It is overtly simple to describe the conjunctions as coordinators without certain qualifications. Even and is not purely a coordinator. Whatever the units it combines, and usually indicates an additive relationship, and sometimes it intensifies, or indicates continuous and repeated action, as in: She waited and waited. She talked and talked and talked. They went around and around. The words but and yet indicate contrast, opposition, or negation; so and for show several relationships, among them purpose, cause, result, or inference or and nor indicate what might be described as alternation, choice or opposition. Obviously conjunctions cannot be considered as empty connecting words, and there is always selection in their use in terms of style and purpose.

There is usually a sense of grammatical balance that characterises coordination, even if there is a logical inequality between the coordinated elements.

As a matter of fact, the only situations in which the process of coordination seems to combine elements of both grammatically and logically equal rank with significant frequency is at the level of single words and short phrases.

The traditional trichotomy — the classification of sentences into simple, compound and complex — arose in English prescriptive grammar in the middle of the nineteenth century on the basis of a simple-compound dichotomy, which can be traced to at least two non-grammatical sources. The first was the concept of the period (as a rhetorical unit expressing complete sense) and its parts, colons and commas, evolved by classical and medieval rhetoric. This concept was the guiding principle of English punctuation not only in the sixteenth century, before the appearance of the earliest English grammars, but also later, when the notion of the sentence came to be included into syntax proper (since the beginning of the eighteenth century).

The second non-grammatical source of this classification was the logical concept of simple and compound axioms or propositions, which furnished the basis for classifying punctuation units (periods) into simple and compound sentences, according to the number of "nouns" and "verbs", that is, subjects and predicates, contained within these punctuation units (in the grammars of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century).

Coordination within a multi-clause sentence is a means of joining a series of parallel subordinate clauses in joint dependence upon a subordination centre in the leading clause, or a means of connecting two or more independent main clauses, which jointly subordinate, a common member, mostly expressed by a dependent clause. In other words, coordination in this monograph is recognised as a syntactic means of connecting the constituent parts of multi-clause sentences only when it is made use of in the same way as in single-clause sentences, which contain a member in common subordinating or subordinated by coordinated syntactic elements. In all other cases independent coordinated subject predicate units are viewed as syntactically independent though contextually related sentences, regardless of the marks of punctuation which divide them.

Relative annexation is described by L. Iofik as a mode of connection which has no parallel in the single-clause sentence. Such connectives introduce sentences which are not subordinated to any part of the preceding sentence and are therefore viewed as semi-dependent contextually related sentences.

The patterns of multi-clause sentences containing more than two clauses (from three to twelve or thirteen) are based upon two fundamental principles of connection. The first is the principle of consecutive (step-wise) subordination, according to which in each clause (except the last one) there is a single subordination centre, nominal or verbal. It subordinates only one dependent clause. According to L. Iofik the resulting sentence-pattern may be described as a chain of clauses, in which there is one absolute principal clause, one absolute dependent clause (the last in the chain) and one or more clauses both subordinating and subordinated. The number of clauses corresponds to the number of syntactic levels in the multi-clause sentence.

Coordinative conjunctions are rather few in number: and, but, or, yet, for.

Sentence-linking words, called conjunctive advebs are: consequently, furthermore, hence, however, moreover, nevertheless, therefore.

Some typical fixed prepositional phrases functioning as sentence linkers are: at least, as a result, after a while, in addition, in contrast, in the next place, on the other hand, for example, for instance.

It comes quite natural that the semantic relations between the coordinate clauses depend to a considerable degree on the lexical meaning of the linking words.

The functional meaning of some of them is quite definite and unambiguous. Such is, for instance, the conjunction but implying contrast or dissociation between the related items; its meaning is so distinct that there can hardly be any item in the sentence to change the adversative signification as made explicit by this linking word.

Things are different however with copulative conjunctions, which are known to be synsemantic in character and may lead to structural ambiguity if the necessary meaning is not signalled by the meaning of other words in the sentence. This may be well illustrated by the functional use of the conjunction and which may imply various shades of meaning, such as result or consequence, cause or contrast.

Coordinating conjunctions are restricted to initial position in the clause, whereas most conjunctive adverbs can be shifted to another position, e.g.:

The book contains a wealth of valuable information; moreover, the material is conveniently organized.

The book contains a wealth of valuable information; the material, moreover, is conveniently organized.

However, it is only with certain reservations that the latter type of sentence can be regarded as syndetic compound sentence. In the present section, therefore, we are going to deal only with those structures that actually open with a coordinator.

Sometimes conjunctive adverbs are preceded by conjunctions: but nevertheless, but still, and yet, and therefore, and neither, etc. In this case, the type of coordination is determined by the conjunctive adverb:

Your information is quite accurate, and therefore, your conclusions are reliable.

Some of the coordinators can provide multiple coordinations, occurring as they do in the compound sentence more than once and thus linking more than two clauses:

The horses did not come back, nor did the members of the expedition, nor did the local bearers.

Perhaps the pump was broken, or there was a blockage in one of the pipes, or the drainage hole was clogged.

A friend of mine was shopping, and she came back to this multistory car-park, and it was kind of deserted.

Clauses linked by means of coordinating conjunctions can be separated by a comma for the sake of clarity, as the examples above show.

Clauses linked by means of conjunctive adverbs are normally separated by a semicolon, with a comma after the adverbs. Adverbs of four letters or fewer are not normally set off. Cf.:

The editor didn’t approve of the arrangement of paragraphs; furthermore, she insisted on eliminating a number of illustrations.

It’s pitch dark; besides, the road is nearly impassable.

He was quite well off; also (,) his whole family was rich.

There was a traffic jam on the road, yet they arrived on time.

Conjunctive adverbs are closely approached by set expressions known as transitional phrases: as a result, in like manner, in fact, for example, for instance, for this reason, on the contrary, etc. Some of them admit of structural modification (in actual fact; for this reason alone; it is for this reason that …); others invariably occur in the same form (for instance). For example:

People are made mentally old by having to retire; in the like manner, they may be made physically old.

Semantically, they express the meaning relationship between the clauses, just as coordinators do. Syntactically, however, they function as parenthetical phrases within the second clause in asyndetic sentences, and therefore, they will not be dealt with in this section.

The compound sentence is derived from two or more base sentences which are connected on the principle of coordination 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 predicative units signify without its syntactic leader?

The coordinating connectors, or coordinators, are divided into conjunctions proper and semi-functional clausal connectors of adverbial character [4, p.363].

The semantic relations between the clauses making up the compound sentence depend partly on the lexical meaning of the conjunction uniting them, and partly on the meanings of the words making up the clauses themselves. It should be noted that the co-ordiinating conjunctions differ from each other in definiteness of meaning: the conjunction but has an adversative meaning which is clear and definite that there can hardly be anything in the sentence to materially alter the meaning conveyed by this conjunction. The meaning of the conjunction and, on the other hand, which is one of “addition”, is wide enough to admit of shades being added to it by the meanings of the words in the sentence. This will be quite clear if we compare following two compound sentences with clauses joined by this conjunction:

The old lady had recognized Ellen’s handwriting and her fat little mouth was pursed in a frightened way, like a baby who fears a scolding and hopes to ward it off by tears. (M.Mitchell)

The bazaar had taken place Monday night and today was only Thursday. (Idem)

The first sentence has a shade of meaning of cause – result, and this is obviously due to the meanings of the words recognize and frightened. In the second sentence there is something like an adversative shade of meaning, and this is due to the relation meaning between the word Monday in the first clause and that of the words Thursday in the second. In a similar way other shades of meaning may arise from other semantic relations between words in two co-ordinate clauses.

Compound sentences with clauses joined by the conjunction or (or by the double conjunction either – or) seem to be very rare. Here are few examples:

The light fell either upon the smooth grey black of a pebble, or the shell of a snail with its brown, circular reins, or falling into a raindrop, it expanded with such intensity of red, blue, and yellow the thin walls of water that one expected them to burst, and disappear. (V.Woolf)

I think I see them now with sparkling looks; or have they vanished while I have been writing this description of them? (Hazlitt)

Are you afraid of their biting, or is it a metaphysical antipathy? (Lawrence)

As to the use of tenses in clauses making up a compound sentence, we should note that there is no general rule of their interdependence. However, in a number of cases we do find interdependence of a co-ordinate clause from this point of view. For instance, in the following compound sentence the tense of the first predicate verb is past perfect and that of the second past indefinite:

She had come to meet the Marquise de Trayas, but she was half an hour too early. (R. West)

The number of clauses in a compound sentence may of course be greater than two, and in that case the conjunctions uniting the clauses may be different; thus, the second clause may be joined to the first by one conjunction, while the third is joined to the second by another, and so forth. We will only give one example:

Gerald was disappointed, for he had wanted a son, but he nevertheless was pleased enough over his small black-haired daughter… (M. Mitchell) .

From the point of view of the relationship between coordinate clauses, we distinguish four kinds of coordinate connection: copulative, adversative, disjunctive and causative-consecutive. The type of connection is expressed not only by means of coordinating connectives, but also by the general meaning of clauses conveyed by their lexical and grammatical content. This accounts for asyndetic coordination and for various uses of the conjunction and, when it expresses other relations – that of contrast of consequence.

Copulative coordination implies that the information conveyed by coordinate clauses is in some way similar.

The copulative connectors are: the conjunctions and, nor, neither…nor, not only…but (also), as well as, and conjunction adverbs then, moreover, besides.

And is the conjunction most frequently used to realize copulative coordination. It may suggest mere addition.

Then she went home and wrote Brody a thank-you note for being so nice, and she also wrote a note to the chief of police commending young Martin Brody.

The events described in copulative coordinate clauses may be simultaneous or successive.

The black Cadillac made its hunting sound through the night, and the types sang on the slab, and the black fields stretched with mist swept by. (simultaneity)

The front door to the house opened, and a man a woman stepped out on the wooden porch. (succession)

Occasionally the second clauses may contain some commentary on the previous clause.

She was familiar with the petty social problems, and they bored her.

Owing to its vague copulative meaning the conjunction and may also link clauses with adversative or causative-consecutive connections. The meaning of the second clause is either contrasted to the first or contains its consequence.

Why were her own relations so rich, and Phil never knew where the money was coming from for to-morrow’s tobacco?

In sentences beginning with a verb in the imperative mood, the first clause implies a condition for the fulfillment of the action in the second clause.

Take these pills, and you will feel better. (If you take … )

The conjunction nor joins two negative clauses.

I didn’t recognize the girl, nor did I remember her name.

The correlative pairs neither … nor, not only … but (also) expresses mere addition, sometimes with accentuation on the second clause.

I not only remembered the girl’s name, but I also knew everything about her family.

The conjunctive adverb then joins clauses describing successive events.

We went along the street, then we turned to the left.

Copulative connection may also be expressed asyndetically, the clauses so joined may describe simultaneous or successive events.

Our Elsie was looking at her with big imploring eyes; she was frowning; she wanted to go. (simultaneity)

Adversative coordination joins clauses containing opposition, contradiction or contrast. Adversative connectors are: the conjunctions but, while, whereas, the conjunctive adverbs however, yet, still, nevertheless, and the conjunctive particle only. Adversative coordination may also be realized asyndetically. The main adversative conjunction is but, which expresses adversative connection in a very general way. The clause introduced by but conveys some event that is opposite to what is expected from the contents of the first clause.

The story was amusing, but nobody laughed.

But may join clauses contrasted in meaning.

The English system of noun forms is very simple, but the system of verb forms is most intricate.

The conjunctions while and whereas specialized in expressing contrastive relations.

Peter is an engineer, while his brother is a musician.

Some people prefer going to the theatre, whereas others will stay at home watching TV programmes.

Contrastive relation may be conveyed by asyndetic coordination.

Two or three scenes stood out vividly in his mind – all the rest become a blur.

Among coordinative connectives the particle only is frequently used to join clauses with adversative connection, mainly in colloquial English.

There was an electric light, only Arthur had not switched it on.

Disjunctive coordination implies a choice between two mutually exclusive alternatives. The disjunctive conjunctions are or, either … or, the conjunctive adverbs are else (or else), otherwise.

You can join us at the station, or we can wait for you at home.

The correlative either emphasizes the exclusion of one of the alternatives.

Either listen to me, or I shall stop reading to you.

The clause introduced by or may express a restatement or correction of what is said in the first clause.

We were talking about a lot of things, or rather he was talking and I was listening.

Coordinate clauses joined by disjunctive connectors may contain an implied condition, real or unreal.

Hurry up, or you will be late. (real condition implied) (If you don’t hurry, you will late.)

If the first part is negative, the implied condition is positive.

Don’t be late, otherwise you may not be let in. (If you are late, you may not be let in.)

John is busy, or he would have come. (If John were not busy, he would have come.)

John was busy last night, otherwise he would have come. (If he hadn’t been busy, he would have come.)

Causative-consecutive coordination joins clauses connected in such a way that one of them contains a reason and the other – a consequence. The second clause may contain either the reason or the result of the event conveyed by the previous clause. The only causative coordinating conjunction is for.

The days become longer, for it was now springtime.

A causative clause may be also joined asyndetically.

At first I thought that they were brother and sister, they were so much alike.

The conjunction for is intermediate between subordination and coordination. It is most often treated as a coordinating conjunction, because its semantic application is to introduce clauses containing an explanation or justification of the idea expressed by the previous clause.

The land seemed almost as dark as the water, for there was no moon.

Sometimes the consequence may serve as a justification of the previous statement.

John must have gone, for nobody answers the call.

A for-clause differs from a subordinate clause of reason in that it never precedes the clause it is joined to. If a sentence begins with for, it means that the sentence is linked with the previous one.

When I saw her in the river I was frightened. For at the point the current was strong.

Consecutive connectives are conjunctions so, so that, and conjunctive adverbs therefore, hence, then, thus.

The weather was fine, so there were many people on the beach.

So that is a conjunction intermediate between subordinate and coordination. When used after a comma in writing or a pause in speaking its connection with the previous clause is looser and it performs the function of a coordinating conjunction

Semantically, conjunctive adverbs express the meaning relationship between the clauses, just as coordinators do. Syntactically, however, they function as parenthetical phrases within the second clause in asyndetic sentences, and therefore, they will not be dealt with in this section.

Coordinators in a compound sentence express four logical types of coordination: copulative, disjunctive, adversative, and causative-consecutive.

Compound sentences with copulative coordination

In compound sentences with copulative coordination, the clauses are simply linked together to express two or more related facts. This is done with the help of the conjunctions and, not only … but (also), and neither … nor [rare]:

Joan had apple-pie for dessert and Mary had ice-cream.

You can neither elegantly, nor can you write clearly.

Not only did the students demand new training facilities, but they also insisted on a revision of tuition fees.

A similar meaning relationship is expressed by the conjunctive adverbs also, besides, furthermore [formal], moreover [formal], likewise, nor, neither, plus [informal], etc.:

The project was completed on schedule; moreover, a considerable amount of money has been saved.

An address book with everybody’s address in it would be awfully big, plus people move all the time, plus some people wouldn’t want their address in the book.

The conjunction and, which is probably the most frequently used coordinator, can imply a number of relations that could be expressed unambiguously by other means:

There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile. [simple addition]

The clock struck five and the first visitor arrived. [chronological sequence]

We heard a strange noise on the roof, and mother suggested calling the police. [cause and consequence]

Liz is blonde and Helen is dark. [contrast]

Give me some money and I’ll get us something to eat. [condition]

There is only one thing to do now – and that’s to sell our shares. [comment or explanation]

In spontaneous informal discourse, the speaker can make very long copulative sentences with multiple coordination, adding more and more and-conjunctions so as to hang on to particular topic. However, in formal context, especially in writing, it is advisable to avoid overusing and by employing other links that bring out the logical relationship between the clauses.

If two negative statements are linked with the help of and, we often find either at the end of the second clause:

Tony didn’t turn up the Student Union meeting, and Keith didn’t either.

Copulative sentences can be used in an informal style to express advise, threat or warning. This done by conjoining an imperative clause and a clause opening with and and containing a verb in the future tense:

Go by train and you’ll get to Bath at 7 a.m.

(You) do this again and I’ll tell your parents.

(A) Structure and meaning

(1) Clause containing the endorsing item not only (they come first in a compound sentence) have direct word order when this element is found in mid-position, and inverted word order, similar to the interrogative sentence word order, when not only is found in the initial position. The structure of the second clause, containing the correlative but (… also), remains unchanged in either case:

Harry not only lost his pocket-book, but he was also robbed of his Swiss watch.

Not only did Harry lose his pocket-book, but he was also robbed of his Swiss watch.

The structure with inverted word order sounds more dramatic and is chiefly found in a formal literary style. The correlative but … also can be represented by both these elements or by either one used alone. Therefore, the above example could read:

Not only did Harry lose his pocket-book; he was also robbed of his Swiss watch.

Not only did Harry lose his pocket-book, but he was robbed of his Swiss watch.

(2) Clause opening with neither, nor, and neither, and nor (they come second in a compound sentence) always have inverted word order similar to the interrogative sentence word order, e.g.:

I don’t blame you, and neither do I doubt younger honesty.

The Smiths could neither describe the stranger to the police, nor could they recollect the exact time of the encounter.

The same structure occurs when and is followed by the substitute word so.

Harry was late and so were his friends.

I take a cold shower every morning, and so does my brother.

(3) In a formal literary style, the second coordinate clause can have inverted word order if the statement expressed in the first clause by using equally or just as:

Marion’s reaction was a disgrace, and equally/ just as scandalous was her departure in the middle of the interview.

Inversion is optional in this kind of structure (… and her departure in the middle of the inverted was equally scandalous).

(B) Set expressions

Copulative sentences are found in a number of proverbs and idiomatic expressions:

Gave him an inch, and he’ll take a mile.

Keep a thing seven years and you’ll find a use for it.

The day is short and the work is long.

Ask no questions and you will be told no lies.

Compound sentences with disjunctive coordination

Compound sentences with disjunctive coordination express an alternative. This is achieved with the help of the following conjunctions: or, or else, and either … or:

We can meet this afternoon, or (else) we can discuss the matter at dinner.

Either the pump is broken or the drainage is clogged.

A similar meaning relationship is expressed by the conjunctive adverb otherwise:

It’s perfectly legitimate; otherwise I wouldn’t have done it.

If the conjunction or introduces a reservation or rewording, it can combine with the adverbs rather and at least:

Polly has a talent for acting, or rather/or at least her parents think so.

Disjunctive sentences can be used to give advice, a warning, or an order. This is done by conjoining an imperative clause and a clause opening with or or otherwise and containing a verb in the future tense:

Hurry up, or you’ll be late again.

Go away, otherwise I’ll call the police.

Usage notes.

(A) Structure and meaning.

(1) Interrogative disjunctive sentences with the conjunction or can have a parallel structure. This rhetorical question pattern is used of effect, often with an implication of approval:

Do we have a house or do we (have a house)? (=We have a very nice house).

(2) When both addition and alternative are possible, and/or can be used in scientific and legal writing:

The checks in this joint account must be signed by Norman Briggs and/or they must be signed by Angela Briggs.

Compound sentences with adversative coordination

In compound sentences with adversative coordination the statements expressed by the clauses are contrasted in meaning. Thus is achieved with the help of the conjunctions but, while, whereas, whilst [formal, old fashioned], and only [informal]:

It was a high climb but it was worth it.

Some people don’t mind passive smoking, while/whereas others hate it.

I would’ve asked you to my party, only my dad told me not to.

A similar semantic relationship can be expressed by the following conjunctive adverbs: however, nevertheless, nonetheless [formal], still, and yet:

At first she refused to join us; however, she soon changed her mind.

A conjunction can combine with a conjunctive adverb, e.g.:

His first novel was not a pronounced success, but yet it was not a failure.

The car crashed into a tree, and yet the driver escaped without a scratch.

Although the conjunction except (that) is not traditionally classed with adversative coordinators, the relationship between the classes it connects is similar to adversative coordination:

I would pay you now, except that (= ‘but’, ‘only’) I don’t have any money on me at the moment.

Usage notes.

(A) Structure and meaning.

(1) There is a marginal type of interrogative adversative sentence containing a one-member clause. As in the case of one-member clauses in the sentences with asyndetic coordination, this use seems to be confined to a definite model:

Her tastes are somewhat extravagant, but what of that/it?

This indicates that the statement expressed in the first clause seems unimportant or irrelevant to the speaker. The same attitude can be expressed using so what? in sentences with causative-consecutive coordination.

(2) The relations of contrast appear to be symmetrical; however, the order of clauses in adversative sentences could not be reversed, because the implications of the whole sentence would be different. Compare:

He has treated you badly; still, he is your brother.

He is your brother; still, he has treated you badly.

(3) Adversative sentences with the conjunction but and the auxiliary may in the first clause express an added meaning of concession, e.g.:

Time may be a good healer but it’s a poor beautician (= ‘Although time is a good healer, it’s a poor beautician’)

(B) Set expressions.

Adversative sentences are found in a number of proverbs and idiomatic expressions:

It never rains but it pours.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

The tongue is not steel, yet it cuts.

Compound sentences with causative-consecutive coordination

Compound sentences with causative-consecutive coordination express the idea of cause and consequence. This is done with the help of the conjunction for:

They parted sadly, for there was so much left to say.

A similar semantic relationship is expressed by the conjunctive adverbs hence [formal], consequently, then therefore, thus [formal], accordingly, and so [informal]:

I’m off on holiday, so I won’t be seeing you for a while.

It would be impossible for us to pay such prices: therefore, we must content ourselves with other kinds of products.

Nick has been getting more exercise; hence, he has lost weight.

The coordinator for is sometimes interchangeable with the subordinator because, although the use of for in place of because is regarded as dated. Generally speaking, for, which sounds less direct than because, gives a reason for something that is taken for granted. The clause joined with for is normally punctuated, e.g.:

Marie did not answer his letters, for how else could she have shown her contempt?

Besides, for presents the reason as subjective or inferential, with the implication ‘my reason for saying so is that…’. Compare:

Mother must have disapproved of our plan, for she was unusually reticent.

Mother disapproved of our plan because it sounded impractical.

Usage notes.

(A) Structure and meaning.

(1) Hence occurs in one-member as well as two-member clauses:

The sculptor grew up in the Sudan; hence her interest in Nubian art.

The sculptor grew up in the Sudan; hence she developed an interest in Nubian art.

(2) There is a marginal type of interrogative causative-consecutive sentence containing a one-member clause confined to a definite pattern:

My wife didn’t go to university; so what?

This indicates that the statement expressed in the first clause seems unimportant or irrelevant to the speaker.

(B) Set expressions.

Causative-consecutive sentences are found in a number of proverbs and idiomatic expressions:

God help the poor, for the rich can help themselves.

God send you joy, for sorrow will come fast enough.

I’m going to tell the truth, so help me God [used when the speaker is making a very serious promise, for example in a law court].

In this chapter I tried to give general notion of compound sentence with Coordinators in Modern English.

A sentence may consist of elements that have more or less completely the appearance of sentences. An example is: I believe you are right. In this sentence we have the group you are right, which may have the function of a sentence in a given context. The first element I believe can hardly have such a function, although it is evidently not impossible. But we should not be justified in considering the sentence I believe you are right as a group of two sentences, for neither of the two elements fully express its meaning except as part of the whole sentence; this is expressed by calling the two elements clauses, and giving the name sentence to the whole group only. A compound sentence consists of two or more clauses of equal rank which form one syntactical whole in meaning and intonation. Clauses that are parts of a compound sentence are called coordinate, as they are joined by coordination..

The main semantic feature of the compound sentence is that it follows the flow of thought; thus the content of each successive clause is related to the previous one. Hence come two syntactical features of the compound sentence which distinguish it from the complex sentence.

The first is follows. The opening clause mostly plays the leading role, and each successive clause is joined to the previous clause.

A sentence may begin with coordinating connector, but in this case the whole sentence is joined to the previous sentence in the text.

The first time Mrs Moffat invited him to watch television with her, Simon declined. He would rather read, he said. So she gave him books, she gave him classic. But the books he craved were garden books.

The second feature is that the clauses are sequentially fixed. Thus a coordinate clause cannot change place with the previous one without changing or distorting the meaning of the whole sentence, as in:

It was pitch dark, for the fog had come down from London in the night, and all Surbiton was wrapped in its embraces.

However the change is possible if the clauses contain description.

The third feature is that coordinate clauses, either opening or subsequent, may belong to different communicative types.

You may go, but don’t be late for dinner! (declarative and imperative clauses)

I had to leave at once, for whatever else could I have done? (declarative and interrogative clauses).

Compound sentences are very natural for English speakers - small children learn to use them early on to connect their ideas and to avoid pausing (and allowing an adult to interrupt):

Today at school Mr. Moore brought in his pet rabbit, and he showed it to the class, and I got to pet it, and Kate held it, and we coloured pictures of it, and it ate part of my carrot at lunch, and ...

Of course, this is an extreme example, but if you over-use compound sentences in written work, your writing might seem immature.

A compound sentence is most effective when you use it to create a sense of balance or contrast between two (or more) equally-important pieces of information:a

It was dawn outside, a glowing gray, and birds had plenty to say out in the bare trees; and at the big window was a face and a windmill of arms.

One can contrast the compound sentence with both the simple sentence and the complex sentence. A simple sentence is a sentence in which there is a subject and a predicate, and in which a complete thought is expressed, allowing it to stand alone. For example, We run outside every day. Is a simple sentence, as is The moon is white. A complex sentence, on the other hand, includes both an independent clause and a dependent clause. For example, the sentence, When stars fall, I like to make wishes. Is a complex sentence, with stars fall the dependent clause, and I like to make wishes the independent clause.

To form a compound sentence, you take two independent clauses, which could serve as simple sentences by themselves, and link them with a conjunction. The most common type of conjunction used is the coordinating conjunction. There are seven coordinating conjunctions in English: for, and, nor, but, or, yet, and so. These seven can be easily remembered by the mnemonic FANBOYS, with each letter representing the first letter of each coordinator.

For example, we can take two simple sentences: Jane likes to watch football. and Bob learned to knit. We can then connect them with a coordinating conjunction to create a compound sentence like: Jane likes to watch football, and Bob learned to knit. Or Jane likes to watch football, so Bob learned to knit. The coordinating conjunction we use determines the meaning of our compound sentence, and of course not all coordinators work for all independent clauses, but all independent clauses need to have at least one conjunction to be joined together.

A compound sentence can also use a pairing of words that help each other out, known as correlative conjunctions. There are four common pairings of correlative conjunctions: both and and, not only and but also, either and or, and neither and nor. For example, we can take the independent clauses: The moon is ful and The stars are out. We can then join them together using one of our pairings to get: Both the moon is full, and the stars are out. Or Neither the moon is full, nor the stars are out.

A semicolon can also act as a conjunction to form a compound sentence. For example, we can take the two independent clauses we just used, and join them together with a semicolon to form: The moon is full; the stars are out. In this way we link the two clauses more closely than if we were to have them as fully independent simple sentences, but we don’t link them more explicitly than that.

The compound sentence is derived from two or more base sentences which are connected on the principle of coordination either syndetically. 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 predicative units 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 expositions are the connectors yet and so):

Mrs. Dyre stepped into the room, however the host took no notice of it.

Mrs. Dyre stepped into the room, the host, however, took no notice of it.

The intensity of cohesion between the coordinate clauses can become loose, and in this case the construction is changed into a cumulative one:

Nobody ever disturbed him while he was at work; it was one of the unwritten laws.

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 analyzed into two basic types: first, the unmarked coordinative connection; second, the marked coordinative connection.

The unmarked coordinative connection is realized 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.

You will have a great deal to say to her, and she will have a great deal to thank you for. She was tall and slender, her hair was light chestnut, her eyes had a dreamy expression.

The broader connective meanings of the considered constructions can be expressed by equivalent substitutions:

The money kept coming in every week, and the offensive gossip about his wife began to be replaced by predictions of sensational success.

→ The money kept coming in every week, so the offensive gossip about his wife began to be replaced by predictions of sensational success.

The boy obeyed, the request was imperative.

→ The boy obeyed, for the request was imperative.

The marked coordinative connection is effected by the pure and adverbial coordinators mentioned above. Each semantic type of connection is inherent in the marking semantic of the connector. In particular, the connectors but, yet, still, however, etc. express different varieties of adversative relations of clauses; the discontinuous connectors both … and, neither … nor express, correspondingly, positive and negative (exclusive) copulative relations of events; the connectors so, therefore, consequently express various subtypes of clausal consequence, etc.

In order to give a specification to the semantics of clausal relations, the coordinative conjunction can be used together with an accompanying functional particle-like or adverb-like word. As a result, the marked connection, as it were, becomes doubly marked. In particular, the conjunction but forms the conjunctive specifying combinations but merely, but instead, but also and the like; the conjunction or forms the characteristic coordinative combinations or else, or rather, or even, etc.

The workers were not prepared to accept the conditions of the administration, but instead they were considering a mass demonstration.

She was frank with him, or rather she told him everything concerning the mere facts of the incident.

The coordinative specifiers combine also with the conjunction and, thus turning the marked coordinative connection into a marked one. Among the specifiers here used are included the adverbial coordinators so, yet, consequently and others:

The two friends didn’t dispute over the issue afterwards, and yet there seemed a hidden discord growing between them.

It should be specially noted that in the described semantic classification of the types of coordinative relations, the asyndetic connection is not included in the upper division of the system, which is due to its nonspecific functional meaning. This fact serves to sustain the thesis that asyndetic connection of clauses is not to be given such a special status in syntax as would raise it above the discrimination between coordination and subordination.

It is easily seen that coordinative connectors are correlated semantically with subordinative, besides the basic oppositions to the latter by their ranking quality, are more general, they are semantically less discriminatory, less “refined”. That is why the subordinative connection is regularly used as a diagnostic model for the coordinative connection, while the reverse is an exception rather than a rule.

Our host had rung the bell on our entrance and now a Chinese cook came in with more glasses and several bottles of soda.

→ On our entrance, as our host had rung the bell, a Chinese cook came in with more glasses and several bottles of soda.

There was nothing else to do, so Alice soon began talking again.

→ Alice soon began talking again because there was nothing else to do.

Speaking of diagnostic role of subordinative constructions in relation to coordinative, it should be understood that this is of especial importance for the unmarked constructions, in particular for those realized by the conjunction and.

On the other hand, the coordinative connection of clauses is in principle not reducible to the subordinative connection, which fact, as in other similar cases of correlations, explains the separate and parallel existence of both types of clausal connection in language. This can be illustrated by the following example:

I invited Mike to join us, but he refused.

It would appear at first sight that the subordinative diagnostic-specifying exposition of the semantic relations between the clauses of the cited sentence can be achieved by the concessive construction:

Though I invited Mike to join us, he refused.

But the proper observation of the corresponding materials shows that this diagnosis is only valid for part of the possible contexts. Suffice it to give the following two contextual expansions to the sentence in question, of which only one corresponds to the cited diagnosis.

The first expansion: You are mistaken if you think that Mike was eager to receive an invitation to join us.

I invited him, but he refused.

The given concessive reading of the sentence is justified by the context: the tested compound sentence is to be replaced here by the above complex one on a clear basis of equivalence.

The second expansion: It was decided to invite either Mike or Jesse to help us with our work. First I invited Mike, but he refused. Then we asked Jesse to join us.

It is quite clear that the devised concessive diagnosis is not at all justified by this context: what the analysed construction does render here is a stage in a succession of events, for which the use of a concessive model would be absurd.

The length of the compound sentence in terms of the number of its clausal parts (its predicative volume), the same as with the complex sentence, is in principle unlimited; it is determined by the informative purpose of the speaker. The commonest type of the compound sentence in this respect is a two-clause construction.

On the other hand, predicatively longer sentences than two-clause ones, from the point of view of semantic correlation between the clauses, are divided into “open” and “closed” constructions. Copulative and enumerative types of connection, if they are not varied in the final sequential clause, form “open” coordinations. These are used as descriptive and narrative means in a literary text:

They visited house after house. They went over them thoroughly, examining them from the cellars in the attics under the roof. Sometimes they were too large and sometimes they were too small; sometimes they were too far from the center of things and sometimes they were too close; sometimes they were too expensive and sometimes they wanted too many repairs; sometimes they were too stuffy and sometimes they were too airy, sometimes they were too dark and sometimes they were too bleak. Roger always found a fault that made the house unsuitable (S. Maugham).

In the multi-clause compound sentence of a closed type the final part is joined on an unequal basis with the previous ones (or one), whereby a finalization of the expressed chain of ideas is achieved. The same as open compound sentences, closed compound constructions are very important from the point of view of a general text arrangement. The most typical closures in such compound sentences are those effected by the conjunctions and (for an asyndetic preceding construction) and but (both for an asyndetic and copulative syndetic preceding construction).

His fingernails had been cleaned, his teeth brushed, his hair combed, his nostrils cleared and dried, and he had been dressed in formal black by somebody or other (W. Saroyan).

Pleasure may turn a heart to stone, riches may make it callous, but sorrow – oh, sorrow cannot break it (O. Widle).

The semantic relations between the clauses making up the compound sentence depend partly on the lexical meaning of the conjunction uniting them, and partly on the meanings of the words making up the clauses themselves. It should be noted that the co-ordinating conjunctions differ from each other in definiteness of meaning: the conjunction but has an adversative meaning which is clear and definite that there can hardly be anything in the sentence to materially alter the meaning conveyed by this conjunction. The meaning of the conjunction and, on the other hand, which is one of “addition”, is wide enough to admit of shades being added to it by the meanings of the words in the sentence. This will be quite clear if we compare following two compound sentences with clauses joined by this conjunction:

The old lady had recognized Ellen’s handwriting and her fat little mouth was pursed in a frightened way, like a baby who fears a scolding and hopes to ward it off by tears. (M.Mitchell)

The bazaar had taken place Monday night and today was only Thursday. (Idem)

The first sentence has a shade of meaning of cause – result, and this is obviously due to the meanings of the words recognize and frightened. In the second sentence there is something like an adversative shade of meaning, and this is due to the relation meaning between the word Monday in the first clause and that of the words Thursday in the second. In a similar way other shades of meaning may arise from other semantic relations between words in two co-ordinate clauses.

Compound sentences with clauses joined by the conjunction or (or by the double conjunction either – or) seem to be very rare. Here are few examples:

The light fell either upon the smooth grey black of a pebble, or the shell of a snail with its brown, circular rains, or falling into a raindrop, it expanded with such intensity of red, blue, and yellow the thin walls of water that one expected them to burst, and disappear. (V.Woolf)

I think I see them now with sparkling looks; or have they vanished while I have been writing this description of them? (Hazlitt)

Are you afraid of their biting, or is it a metaphysical antipathy? (Lawrence)

As to the use of tenses in clauses making up a compound sentence, we should note that there is no general rule of their interdependence. However, in a number of cases we do find interdependence of co-ordinate clauses from this point of view. For instance, in the following compound sentence the tense of the first predicate verb is past perfect and that of the second past indefinite:

She had come to meet the Marquise de Trayas, but she was half an hour too early. (R. West)

The number of clauses in a compound sentence may of course be greater than two, and in that case the conjunctions uniting the clauses may be different; thus, the second clause may be joined to the first by one conjunction, while the third is joined to the second by another, and so forth. We will only give one example:

Gerald was disappointed, for he had wanted a son, but he nevertheless was pleased enough over his small black-haired daughter… (M. Mitchell)

A typical example of a compound sentence with the conjunction so is the following:

The band has struck, so we did our best without it. (Fitch.

Sometimes there is information that or repeated in a compound sentence.

a) My classmates went to the parade, and I went to the parade.

Because we feel that there is unnecessary repetition of the information in example a, we restate the sentence.

b) My classmates and I went to the parade.

This process is called ellipsis. Ellipsis is the shortening of a sentence by the elimination of repeated information. When ellipsis is done correctly, the sentence is shorter, but the full meaning is still clear. Thus the reader or listener could expand the sentence and reconstruct the longer one.

c) The result must be equal to or greater than 90%.

Example c is a shortened sentence. Because the ellipsis was done correctly, we can expand the sentence.

d) The result must be equal to 90%, or it must be greater than 90%.

In addition to the type of ellipsis shown in the example c, there is another type of ellipsis, shown in example e.

e) My classmates went to the parade, and I did, too.

One important use of shortening is to make a simple sentence from a compound sentence.

f) compound sentence

It was cold, and it was very windy.

g) simple sentence after removing repeated information

It was cold and very windy.

When ellipsis results in a simple sentence, the sentence will have a compound structure; that is there will be a list of two or more items. The compound structure can be subject, the verb, the predicate, objects, prepositional phrases, or any other structure.

h) compound subject

My classmates and I went to the parade.

i) compound predicate

After parade, we went to a restaurant and ate lunch.

j) compound verb

We waited and talked until the end of the parade.

k) compound direct object

We met Annette and her sister at the restaurant.

l) compound prepositional phrase

We discussed going to the movies or to a restaurant.

Compound structure consist of (1) lists of two or more items, (2) coordinate conjunctions, and (3) sometimes commas.

1. Each list has items of equal importance (which is why the structure is considered compound)

2. A coordinate conjunction joins the items in a list or joins two items, as in example m.

m) I need a raincoat or an umbrella.

Some coordinate conjunctions appear in pairs, as in example n.

n) I need either a raincoat or an umbrella.

The coordinate conjunctions that are used in compound structures are: and/or, (both…) and, not only…but also, (either…) or, (neither…) nor, but, and yet. When the list has more than two items, we have only one conjunction, which is between the last two items.

o) I took gloves, a hat, and a muffler.

3. When the compound structure is a list of three or more items, it is called a series. A series is made up of a coordinate conjunction between the last two items and compass between the other items.

p) I took gloves, a hat, and a muffler.

You can also write the series without a comma before the coordinate conjunction.

q) I took gloves, a hat and a muffler.

Both examples are correct. Choose one style or the other, but be consistent.

Example r is not correct.

r) We went to a restaurant, and ate lunch.

The list is not a series, since is has only two items. Therefore, the use of comma is incorrect.

There is no comma after the items in a series.

s) I wore gloves, a hat, and a muffler, when I went out this morning.

Example s is incorrect; the comma is not used after the series of three items.

When compound sentence is shorted by ellipsis, there is a new, simple sentence with a list. As we saw the information given above that list has two or more items joined with a coordinate conjunction. A coordinate conjunction is used because the items in the list are equal in importance.

Grammar structure helps the reader or to hearer to understand that the items in a list are equal. The items should have the same grammar structure: all nouns, all adverbs, all predicates, all prepositional phrases, etc. the use of the same grammar is called parallelism.

t) I like parties and to read good books for relaxation.

Example t is not correct, because it does not have grammatical parallelism where it should. The compound direct object has two parts, parties and to read good books, joined by the coordinate conjunction and. But the first item is a noun; the second one is a an infinitive phrase. Example u has correct grammatical parallelism.

21. I like to go parties and to read good books for relaxation.

One way to check parallelism is to take the items out of the sentence and write them in a regular list.

I like 1. parties for relaxation.

2. to read good books

This way is easier to see that the items in the list are not parallel.

When a sentence has a compound subject, it is especially important to check the subject-verb agreement. For example, when two or more items are joined with and, or not only … but, the subject is plural, and so is the verb.

Not only my books but also my calculator were found in the auditorium.

Clarice and Diane are not going to the parade.

Note: sometimes and connects several parts of one idea. In this case, the verb is singular because the meaning of the subject is singular.

The analysis and evaluation of reports of UFOs is very difficult.

In example above there is one process which includes both analysis nd evaluations.

When the coordinate conjunction express a choice (or or nor), the last item is the one to use to determine subject-verb agreement.

My roommates are going to drive to the parade.

My roommates or Frank is going to drive to the parade.

My roommates, Frank, or I am going to drive to the parade.

Some people feel that such sentences sound strange. They use another type of ellipsis to avoid such sentences, keeping the information separated in different clauses.

Ellipses can be used to shorten a compound sentence by removing repeated information from the second clause.

1. compound sentence with repeated information

My classmates went to the parade, and I went to the parade.

2. compound sentence without repeated information

My classmates went to the parade, and I did too.

3. compound sentence without repeated information

My classmates went to the parade, and so I did.

Although the sentence has been shortened, it is still a compound sentence. Therefore, it has a comma after the first independent clause.

This type of ellipsis is used when we present a comparison, a contrast, or a choice between two actions or situations. For instance, in example 2 and 3, we are presenting the similarity between my classmates’ action and mine. In tjis type of sentence, the first clause is not affected. It is the second clause that is shortened by ellipsis.

There are three important pieces of information in the second part of these sentences:

1. A coordinate conjunction that presents the meaning between the clauses;

2. An indication of which person(s), place(s), thing(s), or idea(s) are involved;

3. An indication of whether the second action or situation is like or unlike the first one.

When the sentence expresses a comparison, the comparison may be shown two ways: (1) the coordinate conjunction and; and (2) an emphasizing word in the second clause.

I had a good time, and Marie did too.

The emphasizing words reinforce the fact that the two situations are similar. Another use of these words is to emphasize information in the second clause. This is done with inverted word order (and so did Marie). Emphasizing words and their uses are shown in the following chart and illustrated in the examples below:

Table 2

	Usual word order	Inverted word order
Affirmative clauses	too also	so
Negative clauses	either	neither

1) affirmative clauses; usual word order: too or also comes at the end of the clause

I had a good time, and Marie did too.

2) affirmative clauses; inverted word order: so comes at the beginning of the clause

I had a good time, and so did Marie.

Note: with inverted word order, subject (S) comes at the end of the sentence.

3) negative clause; usual word order: either comes at the end of the clause

Phil did not have a good time, and Alice didn’t either.

Note: the negative meaning either is different in meaning and placement from the choice either.

4) negative clause; inverted word order: neither comes at the beginning of the clause

Phil did not have a good time, and neither did Alice.

The inverted order emphasizes the meaning of negation.