Compound Sentence

Compound Sentence

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

The two simple sentences joined into one CS lose their independent status to some and become coordinate clauses - parts of a composite unity.

The first clause is “leading” (the “leader”  clause), the successive clauses are  
successive, sequential. This distinction is essential not only from the point of view of outer 
structure (clause order), but also from the point of view of the semantico-syntaclic 
if 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.

The  main  coordinating  conjunctions  are:   and.   but.  or.   nor.   neither,   for. either...or..., yet, so, thus, consequently, nevertheless, however, etc.

The length of the CS in terms of the number of its clausal parts is in principle unlimited, since it is determined by the informative purpose of the speaker. The commonest type in this respect is a two - clause construction..

6. Compound Sentence When discussing simple sentences we had to deal with communication types: declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory sentences. With compound sentences this problem requires special treatment. If both (or all) clauses making up a compound sentence belong to the same communication type it is clear that the compound sentence belongs to this type, too. But there are also compound sentences consisting of clauses belonging to different communication types. In that case it is impossible to state to what type the compound sentence as a whole belongs. Let us consider a few instances of this kind. There are sentences in which one clause is declarative and the other exclamatory, as in the following example: After all, she concluded, a monkey is a ridiculous animal, and how clever of Tristram to recognize the need for just such a ridiculousness among all his dinner parties… (BUECHNER) Such examples, however, appear to be rare. The following sentence had best be considered a compound sentence, with the first clause declarative, and the second elliptical and interrogative: These came nearer than most to meaning something to her, but what? (BUECHNER) The second clause, if completed, would apparently run something like this: but what did they mean? or, what could they mean? This absence of a unified communication type in some compound sentences has given rise to doubts whether what we call a compound sentence can be called a sentence at all. The solution of the problem-will of course depend on what we consider to be the necessary features of a sentence. If we accept unity of communication type as one of them, formations lacking this feature will have to be excluded. This view would then make it necessary to develop a theory of units other than a sentence stretching between a full stop and another full stop, or a question mark, or an exclamation mark. We will not pursue this analysis any further but we will take the view that unity of communication type is not an indispensable feature, and go on recognizing compound sentences as a special sentence type. Compound sentences consist of clauses joined together by coordinating conjunctions. These are very few: and, bat, or, for, yet, so (compare the chapter on conjunctions, p. 158). Concerning some of them there may be doubts whether they are conjunctions (thus, yet may also be supposed to be an adverb), and concerning the word for it may be doubtful whether it is coordinating or subordinating. The meanings of the conjunctions themselves are of course a question of lexicology. What concerns us here is the type of connection between the clauses in a compound 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 a coordinating conjunction between them indicating their semantic relations. Lately, however, the opinion has been expressed that the independence of 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 Academys 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 coordinated 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 interdependence between the clauses is found in English, too. We will now consider some questions of the grammatical structure of compound sentences in English. 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 coordinating conjunctions differ from each other in definiteness of meaning: the conjunction ~but has an adversative meaning which is so 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 other words in the sentence. This will be quite clear if we compare the following two compound sentences with clauses joined by this conjunction: The old lady had recognized Ellens 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 recognized and frightened. In the second sentence there is something like an adversative shade of meaning, and this is due to the relation in meaning between the word Monday in the first clause and that of the words only 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 a few examples: The light fell either upon the smooth grey black of a pebble, or the shell pf a snail with its brown, circular veins, 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) / 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) Besides the conjunctions so far considered, there are a few more, which are generally classed as subordinating, but which in certain conditions tend to become coordinating, so that the sentences in which they occur may be considered to be compound rather than complex, or perhaps we might put it differently: the distinction between co-ordination and subordination, and consequently that between compound and complex sentences, is in such cases neutralized. This concerns mainly the conjunction while and the adverbial clauses of time introduced by it, and the conjunction though and the adverbial clauses of concession introduced by it. We will discuss these cases when we come to the respective types of adverbial subordinate clauses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE   COMPOUND  SENTENCE.   THE  STRUCTURE  AND TYPES   OF  

SEMI-COMPOSITE  SENTENCES  IN  MODERN  ENGLISH  

 

I.  The problem of a compound sentence as a polypredicative unit.

II. The structure of a semi-composite sentence. Types of semi-composite 

     sentences.

 

       I. The problem of a compound sentence as a polypredicative unit.

       Compound sentence is a composite sentence, the clausal parts of which are equal in their status and are connected on the principle of coordination. The main semantic relations between the clauses in the compound sentence  are  copulative (соединительные), adversative (противительные), disjunctive (разделительные), causal (причинные), consequential (следственные), resultative (результативные). Similar relations are observed between independent sentences in the text. Proceeding from this fact some linguists deny the existence of the compound sentence as a polypredicative unit (for details see: Иофик Л.Л. Сложное предложение в новоанглийском языке. – Л., 1968). But this idea should be rejected on  account  of both  syntactic and semantic difference between the compound sentence and the corresponding sequence of independent sentences in the text. The compound sentence denotes the closeness  of connection between the reflected events, while the independent sentences present the looseness of this connection.

       The first clause in the compound sentence is called leading and the successive clause is sequential. From the structural point of view the connection between the clauses can be either syndetical (e.g.: She did it on her own initiative, but no one noticed it), or asyndetical (e.g.: It was too late, the papers were destroyed.)

       From a semantico-syntactical point of view the connection between clauses can be regarded as marked or unmarked.

       The unmarked coordination is realized by the coordinative conjunction “and” and also asyndetically. The semantic nature of the unmarked connection is not explicitly specified. The unmarked connection presents mainly copulative and enumerative relations, e.g.: Police troops engaged in battle with a militant group of 15 people and six of the militants were killed.  Police troops  engaged in battle with a militant group of 15 people, six of the militants were killed.

       The broader connective meanings of these constructions can be exposed by equivalent marked connectors: the sentence  “I had to stay at home, he was about to come.” presents causal relation which is explicated in the construction “I had to stay at home, for (because) he was about to come.”

      The marked coordination is effected by the connectors. Each semantic relation is marked by the semantics of the connector. In particular, connectors

- but, yet , still, however express adversative relations;   

- the discontinuous  connectors   both…and, neither … nor express correspondingly positive and negative copulative relations;

- the connectors so, therefore, consequently express causal consequence.  

        Compound sentence can often be transformed into complex sentences, because coordinative connectors and subordinative ones correlate semantically, e.g., the sentence “ The place had a sinister look, and (so) we decided to leave the Marbles  as soon as possible. ” may be transformed into a complex one: “We decided to leave the Marbles as soon as possible  because the place had a sinister look.” – the sentence exposes causal relation  (семантическая маркированность связок увеличивается от

 “and”, “so”     в сложносочиненном  к “because”  в сложноподчиненном).

         Thus, the subordinative connection is regularly used as a diagnostic model for the coordinative connection, since the latter is semantically less “refined”, i.e. more general.  The diagnostic role of the subordinative connections is especially important for the unmarked coordination. The correlation between the complex and compound sentences  gives the reason to speak about syntactic synonymy  of the level of the composite sentence.

          II. The structure and types  of  semi-composite sentences.

         The described composite sentences are formed by minimum 2 clauses each having a subject and a predicate of its own. It means that the predicative lines in these sentences are expressed separately and explicitly. Alongside of these completely composite sentences there exist polypredicative constructions in which one predicative line is not explicitly or completely expressed. These   sentences, containing 2 or more predicative lines, which are presented in fusion with one another, are called semi-composite sentences. One of this lines can be identified as  the leading while the others make their semi-predicative expansion of the sentence. The semi-composite sentence presents an intermediary construction between the composite sentence and the simple sentence. Its surface structure is similar to that of an expanded simple sentence  because it displays only one completely expressed predicative line. Its deep structure is similar to that of a composite sentence since it is derived from more than one base sentences, e.g.: She saw him dancing. – is derived from 2 base sentences: “She saw him. He was dancing”; Trapped by the fire, the animal could hardly escape. - ( adverbial,  not attributive, as it can be transformed into “As the animal was trapped by the fire, it could hardly escape”) – is derived from: “The animal was trapped by the fire. The animal could hardly escape”.

       According to the  structure of the semi-composite sentences, they are divided into semi-complex and semi-compound ones, which correspond to the proper complex and compound sentences.

      The semi-complex sentence is built up on the principle of subordination. It is derived from 2 or more base sentences, one is matrix and the other is insert. The matrix sentence becomes the dominant part of the  resulting construction and the insert sentence – its subordinate semi-clause. The insert sentence becomes embedded in one of the syntactic positions of the matrix sentence, e.g.: I could see a tall man, coming in our direction.

(- embedded in the attributive position)

     The semi-compound sentence is built up on the principle of coordination. It is derived from 2 or more base sentences having an identical element. These sentences being fused into a semi-compound construction share this element either syndetically or asyndetically. These are sentences with homogeneous (coordinated) subjects or predicates, e.g.: I  composed my thoughts and gave a proper answer. – I composed my thoughts. I  gave a proper answer.    

      The semi-complex sentences fall into a number of subtypes according to the character of predicative fusion. Predicative units can be fused by the process of position-sharing (word-sharing) or by the process of direct linear expansion. The sentences based on position-sharing are divided into those of subject-sharing and those of object-sharing.  

       The semi-complex sentences of subject-sharing are built round the common subject, e.g.: She entered the room an unhappy woman.- She entered the room. + She was an unhappy woman.

In the position of the predicative of the construction different classes of words are used: 1) nouns, e.g.:  He turned up at the party a handsome, grown-up man.

2) adjectives, e.g.: The wind blew cold.

3) participles both present and past, e.g.: She appeared  bewildered. He stood staring at her (во всех случаях заполняется именная часть составного сказуемого матричного предложения).

        Semi-complex sentences of object-sharing are built up round the word which performs the function of the object in the matrix sentence and that of the subject in the insert sentence, e.g.: She saw him coming. She saw him + come.

The adjunct to the shared object is expressed by:

1. an infinitive, e.g.: She let  him come in.
2. a present or past participle, e.g.: I’ve never seen the man acting  like that.

                                                          I’ve never heard the story told like that.

3. a noun, e.g.: He announced the performance  a flop.
4. an adjective, e.g.: He cooked the stove black (заполняется позиция дополнения, определения, обстоятельства в матричной конструкции).

The semantic relations between the 2 connected events expressed by the object-sharing sentence can be of three basic types:

- simultaneity in the same place, e.g.: She saw him dancing;

- cause and result, e.g.: I helped him out of the car;

- mental attitude, e.g.: I find the place great.      

      The sentences based on semi-predicative linear expansion fall into those of attributive complication, adverbial complication, nominal-phrase complication.

     Semi-complex sentences of attributive complication are derived from 2 base sentences. The insert sentence drops out its subject and is transformed into a semi-predicative post-positional attribute to any notional part of the matrix sentence.

The attributive semi-clause may contain:

1. a past participle, e.g.: That was the book written by a famous French writer.
2. present participle, e.g.: Soon we found a room opening onto the sea.  
3. an adjective, e.g.: I loved the place,  calm and  romantic.

       Semi-complex sentences of adverbial complication are derived from 2 base sentences, one of which (the insert one) is reduced and performs an adverbial function in the matrix sentence, e.g.:

1. When a young  girl, she liked to travel on foot.

2. Being late, we failed to see the beginning of the film.

3.  The windows being closed, she did not hear the noise in the street.

Semi-complex sentences of adverbial complication  are classed into:

- conjoint (совмещенные) constructions, where  the subject of the insert sentence is identical with that of the matrix sentence , as in (1,2);

- absolute constructions, where the subjects of the insert and the matrix sentences are not identical, as in (3).

       Conjoint adverbial semi-clauses are introduced by conjunctions, expressing temporal, local, causal, conditional, comparative relations; or are joined to the dominant clause asyndetically, revealing temporal or causal semantics, e.g.: Being tired, I could not read the article (causal semi-clause, it can be transformed into  “As I was tired I could not read...”)   (for more examples see Bloch M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. - p. 349).        

       Absolute adverbial semi-clauses are joined asyndetically or by the conjunction with, revealing temporal, causal, circumstantial semantics, e.g.: With all these people waiting for me, I could not postpone the meeting (causal semi-clause).

       Semi-complex sentences of nominal phrase complication are derived from 2 base sentences , one of which  is partially nominalized and performs one of the nominal (subject or object positions) or prepositional adverbial functions in the matrix sentence. The nominalization can be of 2 types: the gerundial nominalization and the infinitival nominalization, e.g.:

        1. His coming late annoyed everybody. - The fact that he came late …      

        2. For him to come so late was unusual.- It was unusual that he came late. 

        3. Let’s consider our going to the country.

Gerundial and infinitival phrases in these examples are used in nominal semi-clauses, performing either the function of subject (as in “His coming late…” and “For him to come…”) or that of object (as in “Let’s consider our…).

         In contrast with infinitival phrases, gerundial phrases perform the function of adverbial and are used with prepositions, e.g.: She went away without saying a word. – As she went away she didn’t  say a word.

The prepositional use of gerundial adverbial phrases differentiates it from the participial adverbial phrase as a constituent of the semi-complex sentence of adverbial complication.

         Semi-compound sentence is a semi-composite sentence built up on the principle of coordination. Semi-compound sentence is derived from 2 base sentences having an identical element performing the syntactic function of the subject or that of the predicate. The semi-compound sentences fall into those with coordinated subjects or coordinated predicates with syndetic or asyndetic connection.

       The semi-compound  sentence of subject coordination is derived from base sentences having identical predicates, e.g.: First Simon entered  the room and then his friend.

       The semi-compound sentence of predicate coordination is derived from base sentences having identical subjects, e.g.: She sat down and looked up at him.

                                                           He opened the door to see a young woman outside.

       The syndetic formation of  semi-compound sentences with coordinated predicates is effected by pure conjunctions, such as: “and”  (copulative); “but”, “or”, “nor” (adversative); “both … and” (simple copulative relation); “not only…but also” (copulative antithesis); “either … or”  (disjunctive);  “neither… nor” (copulative exclusion); and by conjunctive adverbials such as: “then” (action ordering), “so” (consequence), “just” (limitation), “only”  (limitation),  “yet” (adversative-concessive),

e.g.: They can neither read nor write, nor comprehend such concepts., (for more examples see Bloch M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. - p. 354-355).          

Thus, the semantic relations which are expressed by conjunctions and conjunctive adverbials are as follows: copulative connection of events, contrast, disjunction, consequence, limitation:

- copulative: and; both…and (simple copulative)

                      not only …but (copulative antithesis)

                      neither … nor (copulative exclusion)

- disjunction: either …or;

- consequence: so;

- adversative or contrast: but, yet, still, however;

- limitation: just, only.

      The asyndetic formation of the semi-compound sentence with coordinated predicates is close to the syndetic “and”-formation (without a definite mark of the semantic relations). The central connective meaning of the asyndetic connection of predicative parts is enumeration of events, either parallel or consecutive,

e.g.: The crowd shouted, pushed, elbowed at the doors  (parallel);  

He stopped at the shop for a minute, cast a glance at the shop-window, made some recommendations (consecutive).

       In conclusion it should be stressed that alongside of the complete composite sentences there exist in Modern English semi-composite sentences in which polypredication is expressed in a fused implicit way.