The Compound Sentences.

CS – a composite sentence the clauses of which are connected by coordinate relations expressed either syndetically or asyndetically.

Semantic relations between the clauses in a compound sentence may be of different character:

• copulative

• adversative

• causative-consecutive

• disjunctive

Causative-consecutive is often regarded as belonging to a sphere of complex sentence or at least as a borderline between the two types.

Semantic relations existing between the clauses in a compound sentence are similar to those in separate sentences in the text.

Basing on it some scholars deny the existence before such sentences.

Arguments:

• possible to use the falling tone to indicate the end of the clause as in a separate sentence.

• Independent sentences can also be introduced by the same conjunction as clauses in a compound sentence (# and, but, for, as etc.) --- the two points by Iofik

Another point of view is that semantic relations between independent sentences aren’t the same as the ones of the parts of the compound sentence, they are more loose.

• some subordinate clauses of a complex sentence can also be separated in the text, thus, being changed into independent sentences (# with conjunction because) – position of Blokh

• Coordinate clauses in a compound sentence form a succession, the first one is called a leading clause, all the others – sequential.

Sequential clauses have connective elements in their structure (adverbs, conjunctions, pronouns, etc.)

One more type of compound sentence which may be thought of as a borderline, the connection of clauses in a compound sentence is loose, shown in writing by semicolon which separates it and such structures are regarded as ones with cumulative connection.

The Complex Sentences.

Complex sentence – a polypredicative construction the clauses of which are connected by the relations of subordination. Two clauses – principal and subordinate. They form a semantic syntactic unity (both types of relations).

Syndetically (pronouns, conjunctions, adverbs) and asyndetically connected.

Principal and subordinate clauses are interdependent. Various types of subordinate clauses may affect the principal ones from the point of view of its completeness.

With subject and predicative clauses – the principal one is incomplete.

The central problem – choosing criteria for classifying complex sentences – 2 approaches:

• Functional

• Categorial

Functional approach – clauses are subdivided on the analogy with positional parts of a simple sentence. Syntactical positions in a complex sentence are taken by clause. This analogy is far from being absolute because subordinate clauses don’t repeat exactly the specific character of a corresponding part of a simple sentence.

Categorial approach – subordinate clauses are classified by their nominative properties irrespective of their positional relations in the sentence.

All the subordinate clauses: three categorical semantic groups:

1. name an event as a certain fact. These fact clauses are substantive nominal and can be replaced by a noun.

2. Name an event fact but it’s referred to as giving a characteristic to some substantive entity. Qualification nominal = adjective, adjectival pronoun

3. Contain dynamic characteristic of an event or a process -> adverbial can be replaced by adverbs.

These two classifications are regarded as mutually complementary in the same way as parts of speech go together with functional features.

Functional classification of clauses:

1. Subject clause:

• function of a subject;

• introduced by conjunctions, adverbs, pronouns.

• In complex sentences with subject clauses introductory “it” is often used (usually viewed as a formal subject, but sometimes as a real one and clause becomes attributive appositional);

2. Attributive clause:

• found after linking verbs;

• introduced by conjunctions;

• function – predicative;

3. Object clause:

• function – object.

Sometimes object clauses present a kind of difficulty because they can’t be substituted by nouns in all the cases that is why we can’t say they perform its function.

# wonder, exclaim – can’t take direct object (by nouns)

While object clauses are used after them.

Ilyish calls them subordinate clauses of indirect speech.

Object clause – with and without a preposition.

In modern linguistics there’s a tendency to recognize noun clauses without distinguishing subject, predicative and object between them.

Attributive clause functions as an attribute, characterizes antecedent, subdivided into types: - relative (restrictive/ non-restrictive); - appositive.

One more type of attributive clauses: continuative which is introduced relative pronouns, adverbs, conjunctions.

Adverbial clauses:

• correspond to adverbial modifiers;

• same types;

• introduced by adverbs, conjunctions.

Another way of treating subordinate clauses (Leech, Greenbau, Swartwik).

Complex sentence – a sentence with non-symmetrical relation holding between two clauses in such a way that one is a constituent of the other.

Dependent clauses may be classified either by structural types or by functions.

Structural type  three main clauses:

1. finite clause (always has a subject) – its verb element is a finite verb-phrase;

2. non-finite clause (always has a subject unless it’s a command or analytical sentence) – its verb element is non-finite verb-phrase; 4 subtypes:

   1. infinitive with a particle to (without a subject)  # The best thing would be to tell everybody.

Infinitive with subject;

2. infinitive without ‘to’ – without subject  # All I did was tell him the truth;

• with subject  # Rather than John do it I’d prefer to give the job to her.

1. participle I – without subject  # Living in Rome he loved it;

• with subject  # My mom having left the room I declared the news.

1. participle II – without subject  # Covered with mud I took a nap;

• with subject  # We left home the job finished.

3. verbless clause – no verb element.

The absence of a finite verb for non-finite clauses means they have no distinctions of person, number, modal auxiliary.

Together with frequent absence of a subject this suggests their value as a means of syntactic compression.

With the verbless clauses we can usually infer ellipsis of the verb ‘to be’. The subject when omitted can be treated as recoverable from the context.

# Whether right or wrong he always comes of worst in an argument.

Whether he is right or wrong he always comes of worst in an argument.

Verbless clauses can also be treated as reduction of non-finite.

# Too nervous to reply he started at the floor.

Being too nervous to reply he started at the floor.

Verbless clauses are obviously regarded as finite or non-finite.

In Russian linguistics this classification is criticized because using full constructions instead of contracted ones may be misleading accompanied by semantic ones.

Functional classification of dependent clauses.

Dependent clauses in our tradition are referred to as subordinate ones. They may function as subject, object, complement or adverbial as a super ordinate clause.

# That we need more equipment is obvious [subject].

I know that she’s pretty [direct object].

The point is that we are leaving [subject complement].

I imagined him overcome with grief [indirect object, objective predicative construction].

When we meet I’ll explain everything [adjunct, adverbial].

To be honest, I’ve never liked him [disjunct].

What is more [linking element], he has lost the friends he had [conjunct].

Adjuncts are adverbials integrated within the structure of the sentence.

Disjuncts and conjuncts aren’t. they refer to the sentence as a whole, connect the ideas or express attitudes to them.

Semantically, disjuncts – evaluation to what is being said, conjunct – connective function.

There are some more types of clauses (e.g. comparative), are difficult to fit into any of functional categories.

There are also so called comment clauses, close to disjuncts, are also used to express speaker’s attitudes.