Complex sentence

     The descriptive attributive clause exposes some characteristic of the antecedent (i. e., its substantive referent) as such, while the restrictive attributive clause performs a purely identifying role, singling out the referent of the antecedent in the given situation.

     It should be noted that, since the difference between descriptive and restrictive clauses lies in their functions, there is a possibility of one and the same clausal unit being used in both capacities, depending on the differences of the contexts.

  e.g. At last we found a place where we could make a fire. The place where we could make a fire was not a lucky one.

     Descriptive clauses, in their turn, distinguish two major subtypes: first, "ordinary" descriptive clauses; second, "continuative" descriptive clauses.

     The ordinary descriptive attributive clause expresses various situational qualifications of nounal antecedents 

  e.g. It gave me a strange sensation to see a lit up window in a big house that was not lived in. 

     The continuative attributive clause presents a situation on an equal domination basis with its principal clause, and so is attributive only in form, but not in meaning. It expresses a new predicative event (connected with the antecedent) which somehow continues the chain of situations reflected by the sentence as a whole.

  e.g. In turn, the girls came singly before Brett, who frowned, blinked, bit his pencil, and scratched his head with it, getting no help from the audience, who applauded each girl impartially and hooted at every swim suit, as if they could not see hundreds any day round the swimming pool.

  To attributive clauses belongs also a vast set of appositive clauses which perform an important role in the formation of complex sentences. The appositive clause, in keeping with the general nature of apposition, does not simply give some sort of qualification to its antecedent, but defines or elucidates its very meaning in the context.

     In accord with the type of the governing antecedent, all the appositive clauses fall into three groups: first, appositive clauses of nounal relation; second, appositive clauses of pronominal relation; third, appositive clauses of anticipatory relation.

Clauses of adverbial positions constitute a vast domain of syntax which falls into many subdivisions each distinguishing its own field of specifications, complications, and difficulties of analysis. The structural peculiarities and idiosyncrasies characterising the numerous particular clause models making up the domain are treated at length in grammatical manuals of various practical purposes; here our concern will be to discuss some principal issues of their functional semantics and classification.

     The whole system of adverbial clauses is to be divided into four groups.

     The first group includes clauses of time and clauses of place. Their common semantic basis is to be defined as "localisation" — respectively, temporal and spatial. Both types of clauses are subject to two major subdivisions, one concerning the local identification, the other concerning the range of functions.

     With subordinate clauses of time the particularising localisation is expressed by such conjunctions as while, as, since, before, after, until, as soon as, now that, no sooner than, etc.

  e.g. We lived here in London when the war ended. While the war was going on we lived in London.

     With clauses of place proper the particularising localisation is expressed but occasionally, mostly by the prepositional conjunctive combinations from where (bookish equivalent — whence) and to where.

  e.g. The swimmers gathered where the beach formed a small promontory. The swimmers kept abreast of one another from where they started.

     From the functional point of view, clauses of localisation should be divided into "direct" (all the above ones) and "transferred", the latter mostly touching on matters of reasoning.

  e.g. When you speak of the plain facts there can't be any question of argument. But I can't agree with you where the principles of logic are concerned.

     The second group of adverbial clauses includes clauses of manner and comparison. The common semantic basis of their functions can be defined as "qualification", since they give a qualification to the action or event rendered by the principal clause.

  e.g. He spent the Saturday night as was his wont.

     All the adverbial qualification clauses are to be divided into "factual" and "speculative", depending on the real or unreal propositional event described by them.

     Clauses of comparison are subdivided into those of equality (subordinators as,

   as ... as, as if, as though) and those of inequality (subordinators not so ... as, than). The discontinuous introducers mark, respectively, a more intense rendering of the comparison in question.

  e.g. That summer he took a longer holiday than he had done for many years.

     The third and most numerous group of adverbial clauses includes "classical" clauses of different circumstantial semantics, i.e. semantics connected with the meaning of the principal clause by various circumstantial associations; here belong clauses of attendant event, condition, cause, reason, result (consequence), concession, purpose. Thus, the common semantic basis of all these clauses can be defined as "circumstance". The whole group should be divided into two subgroups, the first being composed by clauses of "attendant circumstance"; the second, by clauses of "immediate circumstance".

     All the clauses of attendant circumstance can be classed into "contrastive" (clauses of contrast) and "non-contrastive".

     Clauses of immediate circumstance present a vast and complicated system of constructions expressing different explanations of events, reasonings and speculations in connection with them. The system should relevantly be divided into "factual" clauses of circumstance and "speculative" clauses of circumstance depending on the real or unreal predicative denotations expressed.

     The fourth group of adverbial clauses is formed by parenthetical or insertive constructions. Parenthetical clauses, as has been stated elsewhere, are joined to the principal clause on a looser basis than the other adverbial clauses; still, they do form with the principal clause a syntactic sentential unity, which is easily proved by the procedure of diagnostic elimination.

     Parenthetical clauses distinguish two semantic subtypes. Clauses of the first subtype, illustrated by the first example in this paragraph, are "introductory", they express different modal meanings. Clauses of the second subtype, illustrated by the latter example, are "deviational", they express commenting insertions of various semantic character. Deviational parenthesis marks the loosest possible syntactic connection of clauses combined into a composite sentence.[2, 306-327]

  We can find such vision of types of subordinate clauses in Blokh. As for Ilish, he sums up various possibilities, and distiguish , for the first two clauses, the following terms: declarative clause, or subordinate statement; apposition clause, or subject clause; noun clause. For the second two clauses: declarative clause, or subordinate statement; attributive clause; adjective clause. For the clause coming last: declarative, or subordinate statement; adverbial clause of time; adverb clause.[4, 277] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Conclusion 

  In the conclusion I want to point out that in Modern Theoretical Grammar are given a huge variety of different classification of complex sentences, classification of subordinate clauses and their types, which depends on numerous kind of  its investigation. And still there is no definite classification. Linguists are study this question and most famous of them are Ilyish, Blokh, Raevskaya.   
 

  Sources  

1.  Иванова  П.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почепцова Г.Г. Теор. Грамматика современного английского языка: Учебник. – М.: Высш. школа,1981. – 285с.

 

2. Блох М.Я. Теор. Грамматика англ.яз.: Учебник. Для  студентов филол. Фак. Ун-тов и  фак. Англ. Яз. Педвузов. – М.: Высш. школа,1983 – с. 383

 

3. Раєвська  Н.М. Теор. Граматика сучасної англ. Мови. – К.: Вища школа, 1976 - 303с.

 

4. Ильиш Б.А. Строй современного английского языка. Ленинград: Просвещение, 1971 – 881 с.