The Types of English Sentence

The following article defines the four types of sentence constructions in English—simple sentences, compound sentences, complex sentences, and compound-complex sentences—and includes examples to illustrate the sentence structures.

 

Simple Sentences

The first sentence structure in English is the simple sentence. Simple sentences consist of one verb clause. A verb clause is an independent clause that is formed by a subject and a predicate. Verb clauses are also referred to as main clauses or matrix clauses. For example, the following sentences are simple sentences:

 

Subject | Predicate

The dancer | sat on the pie.

The flower and the pumpkin | have blown away.

That Max likes cucumbers | surprises his mother.

Dancing | is my favorite exercise.

Compound Sentences

The second sentence structure in English is the compound sentence. Compound sentences consist of two or more verb clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction or a correlating and coordinating conjunction pair. For example, the following sentences are compound sentences:

 

Correlating Conjunction | Verb Clause | Coordinating Conjunction | Verb Clause

Ø | Jack Sprat did not eat fat, | and | his wife would not eat lean.

Ø | The storm destroyed our squash, | so we ate eggplant instead.

Both | the shed fell down | and | the garage blew up.

Either | you need to study harder | or | you need to drop the class.

Complex Sentences

The third sentence structure in English is the complex sentence. Complex sentences consist of one verb clause and one or more adverb clauses. An adverb clause is a dependent clause that is formed by a subordinating conjunction followed by a clause. The adverb clauses may either precede or follow the verb clause. For example, the following sentences are complex sentences:

 

Adverb Clause | Verb Clause

Because of the rain, | the museum cancelled the picnic.

Although she studied all weekend, | she still failed the test.

Verb Clause | Adverb Clause

I will join you for lunch | after I wash my hands.

Linus will be sad | if he misses the Great Pumpkin again.

Adverb Clause | Verb Clause | Adverb Clause

Even though he enjoyed the movie, | he will not buy the DVD | because he only watches films once.

After she left work, | the woman stopped at the store | before she went home.

Compound-Complex Sentences

The fourth sentence structure in English is the compound-complex sentence. Compound-complex sentences consist of two or more verb clauses and one or more adverb clauses. In other words, compound-complex sentences are combinations of one or more compound sentences and one or more complex sentences. For example, the following sentences are compound-complex sentences:

 

Verb Clause | Adverb Clause | Conjunction | Verb Clause

He went to the market | because he needed more milk, | and | then he made pudding.

Adverb Clause | Verb Clause | Conjunction | Verb Clause

Unless the coffee is hot, | I will not drink it, | so | please put on a fresh pot.

Verb Clause | Adverb Clause | Conjunction | Verb Clause | Adverb Clause

I went to the bathroom | before I sat down, | but | my husband visited the facilities | after he watched the movie.

Types of Sentences by Purpose

· Declarative Sentence – “I love chocolate.” Used to make a simple statement. Most sentences are declarative.

· Interrogative Sentence – “Do you love chocolate?” Used to ask a question. See also Rhetorical Question.

· Exclamatory Sentence – “I need chocolate!” Used for emphasis and emotion.

· Imperative Sentence – “Please buy me some chocolate.” Used for commands, with the pronoun you always implied.

· Conditional Sentence – “If I had a billion dollars, I would buy a castle made of chocolate.” Used to express what one would do if a condition were met. There are several types of conditional sentences: the present general (or zero condition), the future more-vivid (or first condition), thefuture less-vivid (or second condition), the present contrafactual (also sometimes called the second condition), and the past contrafactual (or third condition).

·

Types of Clauses

1. Independent clauses 2.Dependent clauses

contain both a subject and a verb contain both a subject and a verb, but cannot stand

and can stand alone as a sentence. alone as a sentence. Dependent clauses are introduced

Example: Jet lag affects most long by subordinating conjunctions such as because, what, if

distance travelers. Example: Although there is no sure way to prevent jet lag.

Types of Clauses

Like a phrase, a clause is a group of related words; but unlike a phrase, a clause has a subject and verb. An independent clause, along with having a subject and verb, expresses a complete thought and can stand alone as a coherent sentence. In contrast, a subordinate or dependent clause does not express a complete thought and therefore is not a sentence. A subordinate clause standing alone is a common error known as a sentence fragment.

Independent clauses

He saw her. The Washingtons hurried home. Free speech has a price. Grammatically complete statements like these are sentences and can stand alone. When they are part of longer sentences, they are referred to as independent (or main) clauses.

Two or more independent clauses can be joined by using coordinating conjunctions (and, but, for, nor, or, so, and yet) or by using semicolons. The most important thing to remember is that an independent clause can stand alone as a complete sentence.

In the following example, the independent clause is a simple sentence.

Erica brushed her long, black hair.

Next, the coordinating conjunction and joins two independent clauses.

Fernando left, and Erica brushed her long, black hair.

Next, a semicolon joins two independent clauses.

Fernando left; Erica brushed her long, black hair.

All sentences must include at least one independent clause.

After she told Fernando to leave, Erica brushed her long, black hair.

In the previous sentence, the independent clause is preceded by a clause that can't stand alone: After she told Fernando to leave.

Erica brushed her long, black hair while she waited for Fernando to leave.

Here, the independent clause is followed by a clause that can't stand alone: while she waited for Fernando to leave.

Beginning sentences with coordinating conjunctions

Any of the coordinating conjunctions (and, but, for, nor, or, so, and yet) can be used to join an independent clause to another independent clause. Can you begin a sentence with one of these conjunctions?

No one knew what to do. But everyone agreed that something should be done.

An old rule says that you shouldn't. But beginning a sentence with a coordinating conjunction is acceptable today. (Notice the preceding sentence, for example.) Sometimes beginning a sentence this way creates exactly the effect you want. It separates the clause and yet draws attention to its relationship with the previous clause.

Subordinate clauses

A subordinate clause has a subject and verb but, unlike an independent clause, cannot stand by itself. It depends on something else in the sentence to express a complete thought, which is why it's also called a dependent clause. Some subordinate clauses are introduced by relative pronouns (who, whom, that, which, what, whose) and some by subordinating conjunctions (although, because, if, unless, when, etc.). Subordinate clauses function in sentences as adjectives, nouns, and adverbs.

Relative clauses

A relative clause begins with a relative pronoun and functions as an adjective.

In the following sentence, the relative pronoun that is the subject of its clause and won the Pulitzer Prize is the predicate. This clause couldn't stand by itself. Its role in the complete sentence is to modify novel, the subject of the independent clause.

The novel that won the Pulitzer Prize didn't sell well when it was first published.

In the next example, which is the relative pronoun that begins the subordinate clause. Celebrities is the subject of the clause and attended is the verb. In the complete sentence, this clause functions as an adjective describing ceremony.

The ceremony, which several celebrities attended, received widespread media coverage.

Note that in a relative clause, the relative pronoun is sometimes the subject of the clause, as in the following sentence, and sometimes the object, as in the next sentence.

Arthur, who comes to the games every week, offered to be scorekeeper.

Who is the subject of the clause and comes to the games every week is the predicate. The clause modifies Arthur.

In the following sentence, mothers is the subject of the clause, adored is the verb, and whom is the direct object of adored. Again, the clause modifies Arthur.

Arthur, whom the team mothers adored, was asked to be scorekeeper.

Noun clauses

A noun clause functions as a noun in a sentence.

What I want for dinner is a hamburger. (subject of the verb is)

The host told us how he escaped. (direct object of the verb told)

A vacation is what I need most. (complement of the linking verb is)

Give it to whoever arrives first. (object of the preposition to)

Pronoun case in subordinate clauses

Who, whom, whoever, whomever. In deciding which case of who you should use in a clause, remember this important rule: The case of the pronoun is governed by the role it plays in its own clause, not by its relation to the rest of the sentence. Choosing the right case of pronoun can be especially confusing because the pronoun may appear to have more than one function. Look at the following sentence.

They gave the money to whoever presented the winning ticket.

At first, you may think whomever is correct rather than whoever, on the assumption that it is the object of the preposition to. But in fact the entire clause, not whoever, is the object of the preposition. Refer to the basic rule: The case should be based on the pronoun's role within its own clause. In this clause, whoever is the subject of the verb presented.

 

A good way to determine the right pronoun case is to forget everything but the clause itself: whoever presented the winning ticket is correct; whomever presented the winning ticket is not.

The following two sentences show how you must focus on the clause rather than the complete sentence in choosing the right pronoun case.

We asked whomever we saw for a reaction to the play.

We asked whoever called us to call back later.

In each sentence the clause is the direct object of asked. But in the first sentence, whomever is correct because within its clause, it is the object of saw. In the second sentence, whoever is correct because it is the subject of called.

Adverbial clauses

Many subordinate clauses begin with subordinating conjunctions. Examples of these conjunctions are because, unless, if, when, and although. What these conjunctions have in common is that they make the clauses that follow them unable to stand alone. The clauses act as adverbs, answering questions like how, when, where, why, to what extent, and under what conditions.

When Mauna Loa began erupting and spewing lava into the air, we drove away as quickly as we could.

In the preceding sentence, when is a subordinating conjunction introducing the adverbial clause. The subject of the clause is Mauna Loa and the predicate is began erupting and spewing lava into the air. This clause is dependent because it is an incomplete thought. What happened when the volcano began erupting? The independent clause we drove away as quickly as we could completes the thought. The adverbial clause answers the question “When did we drive?”

In the following sentence, because introduces the adverbial clause in which van is the subject and needed the verb. This clause is an incomplete thought. What happened because the van needed repairs? The independent clause The group of tourists decided to have lunch in the village is necessary to complete the thought. Again, the subordinate clause as a whole acts as an adverb, telling why the tourists decided to have lunch in the village.

Complex Sentence

§ 1. The complex sentence is a polypredicative construction built up on the principle of subordination. It is derived from two or more base sentences one of which performs the role of a matrix in relation to the others, the insert sentences. The matrix function of the corresponding base sentence may be more rigorously and less rigorously pronounced, depending on the type of subordinative connection realised.

When joined into one complex sentence, the matrix base sentence becomes the principal clause of it and the insert sentences, its subordinate clauses.

The complex sentence of minimal composition includes two clauses — a principal one and a subordinate one. Although the principal clause positionally dominates the subordinate clause, the two form a semantico-syntactic unity within the framework of which they are in fact interconnected, so that the very existence of either of them is supported by the existence of the other.

The subordinate clause is joined to the principal clause either by a subordinating connector (subordinator), or, with some types of clauses, asyndetically. The functional character of the subordinative connector is so explicit that even in traditional grammatical descriptions of complex sentences this connector was approached as a transformer of an independent sentence into a subordinate clause. Cf.:

Moyra left the room. → (I do remember quite well) that Moyra left the room. → (He went on with his story) after Moyra left the room. → (Fred remained in his place) though Moyra left the room. → (The party was spoilt) because Moyra left the room. → (It was a surprise to us all) that Moyra left the room...

This paradigmatic scheme of the production of the subordinate clause vindicates the possible interpretation of contact-clauses in asyndetic connection as being joined to the principal clause by means of the "zero"-connector. Cf.: —» (How do you know) 0 Moyra left the room?

Needless to say, the idea of the zero-subordinator simply stresses the fact of the meaningful (functional) character of the asyndetic connection of clauses, not denying the actual absence of connector in the asyndetic complex sentence.

The minimal, two-clause complex sentence is the main volume type of complex sentences. It is the most important type, first, in terms of frequency, since its textual occurrence by far exceeds that of multi-clause complex sentences; second, in terms of its paradigmatic status, because a complex sentence of any volume is analysable into a combination of two-clause complex sentence units.

§ 2. The structural features of the principal clause differ with different types of subordinate clauses. In particular, various types of subordinate clauses specifically affect the principal clause from the point of view of the degree of its completeness. As is well known from elementary grammatical descriptions, the principal clause is markedly incomplete in complex sentences with the subject and predicative subordinate clauses. E.g.:

And why we descend to their level is a mystery to me. (The gaping principal part outside the subject clause: " — is a mystery to me".) Your statement was just what you were expected to say. (The gaping principal part outside the predicative clause: "Your statement was just — ")

Of absolutely deficient character is the principal clause of the complex sentence that includes both subject and predicative subordinate clauses: its proper segment, i. e. the word-string standing apart from the subordinate clauses is usually reduced to a sheer finite link-verb. Cf.: How he managed to pull through is what baffles me. (The principal clause representation: " — is — ")

A question arises whether the treatment of the subject and predicative clauses as genuinely subordinate ones is rational at all. Indeed, how can the principal clause be looked upon as syntactically (positionally) dominating such clauses as perform the functions of its main syntactic parts, in particular, that of the subject? How can the link-verb, itself just a little more than an auxiliary element, be taken as the "governing predicative construction" of a complex sentence?

However, this seeming paradox is to be definitely settled on the principles of paradigmatic theory. Namely, to understand the status of the "deficiently incomplete and gaping" principal clause we must take into consideration the matrix nature of the principal clause in the sentence: the matrix presents the upper-level positional scheme which is to be completed by predicative constructions on the lower level.

In case of such clauses as subject and predicative, these are all the same subordinated to the matrix by way of being its embedded elements, i. e. the fillers of the open clausal positions introduced by it. Since, on the other hand, the proper segment of the principal clause, i. e. its "nucleus", is predicatively deficient, the whole of the clause should be looked upon as merged with the corresponding filler-subordinate clauses. Thus, among the principal clauses there should be distinguished merger principal clauses and non-merger principal clauses, the former characterising complex sentences with clausal deployment of their main parts, the latter characterising complex sentences with clausal deployment of their secondary parts.

§ 3. The principal clause dominates the subordinate clause positionally, but it doesn't mean that by its syntactic status it must express the central informative part of the communication. The information perspective in the simple sentence does not repeat the division of its constituents into primary and secondary, and likewise the information perspective of the complex sentence is not bound to duplicate the division of its clauses into principal and subordinate. The actual division of any construction, be it simple or otherwise, is effected in the context, so it is as part of a continual text that the complex sentence makes its clauses into rheme-rendering and theme-rendering on the complex-sentence information level.

When we discussed the problem of the actual division of the sentence, we pointed out that in a neutral context the rhematic part of the sentence tends to be placed somewhere near the end of it (see Ch. XXII, § 4). This holds true both for the simple and complex sentences, so that the order of clauses plays an important role in distributing primary and secondary information among them. Cf.: The boy was friendly with me because I allowed him to keep the fishing line.

In this sentence approached as part of stylistically neutral text the principal clause placed in the front position evidently expresses the starting point of the information delivered, while the subordinate clause of cause renders the main sentential idea, namely, the speaker's explanation of the boy's attitude. The "contraposition" presupposed by the actual division of the whole sentence is then like this: "Otherwise the boy wouldn't have been friendly". Should the clause-order of the utterance

be reversed, the informative roles of the clauses will be re-shaped accordingly: As I allowed the boy to keep the fishing line, he was friendly with me.

Of course, the clause-order, the same as word-order in general, is not the only means of indicating the correlative informative value of clauses in complex sentences; intonation plays here also a crucial role, and it goes together with various lexical and constructional rheme-forming elements, such as emphatic particles, constructions of meaningful antithesis, patterns of logical accents of different kinds.

Speaking of the information status of the principal clause, it should be noted that even in unemphatic speech this predicative unit is often reduced to a sheer introducer of the subordinate clause, the latter expressing practically all the essential information envisaged by the communicative purpose of the whole of the sentence. Cf.:

You see that mine is by far the most miserable lot. Just fancy that James has proposed to Mary! You know, kind sir, that I am bound to fasting and abstinence.

The principal clause-introducer in sentences like these performs also the function of keeping up the conversation, i.e. of maintaining the immediate communicative connection with the listener. This function is referred to as "phatic". Verbs of speech and especially thought are commonly used in phatic principals to specify "in passing" the speaker's attitude to the information rendered by their rhematic subordinates:

I think there's much truth in what we hear about the matter. I'т sure I can't remember her name now.

Many of these introducer principals can be re-shaped into parenthetical clauses on a strictly equivalent basis by a mere change of position:

I can't remember her name now, I'т sure. There's much truth, I think, in what we hear about the matter.

§ 9. Clauses in a complex sentence may be connected with one another more closely and less closely, similar to the parts of a simple sentence. The intensity of connection between the clauses directly reflects the degree of their proposemic self-dependence and is therefore an essential characteristic of the complex sentence as a whole. For instance, a predicative clause or a direct object clause are connected with the principal clause so closely that the latter cannot exist without them as a complete syntactic unit. Thus, this kind of clausal connection is obligatory. Cf.:

The matter is, we haven't received all the necessary instructions yet. → (*) The matter is — I don't know what Mike is going to do about his damaged bike. → (*)I don't know —

As different from this, an ordinary adverbial clause is connected with the principal clause on a looser basis, it can be deleted without destroying the principal clause as an autonomous unit of information. This kind of clausal connection is optional. Cf.:

The girl gazed at him as though she was struck by some-thing extraordinary in his appearance. → The girl gazed at him.

The division of subordinative clausal connections into obligatory and optional was employed by the Russian linguist N. S. Pospelov (1950) for the introduction of a new classification of complex sentences. In accord with his views, all the complex sentences of minimal structure (i.e. consisting of one principal clause and one subordinate clause) should be classed as "one-member" complex sentences and "two-member" complex sentences. One-member complex sentences are distinguished by an obligatory subordinative connection, while two-member complex sentences are distinguished by an optional subordinative connection. The obligatory connection is determined both by the type of the subordinate clause (subject, predicative, object clauses) and the type of the introduction of the clause (demonstrative correlation). The optional connection characterises adverbial clauses of diverse functions and attributive clauses of descriptive type. Semantically, one-member complex sentences are understood as reflecting one complex logical proposition, and two-member complex sentences as reflecting two logical propositions connected with each other on the subordinative principle.

The rational character of the advanced conception is quite obvious. Its strong point is the fact that it consistently demonstrates the correlation between form and meaning in the complex sentence structure. Far from rejecting the traditional teaching of complex sentences, the "member conception" is based on its categories and develops them further, disclosing such properties of subordinative connections which were not known to the linguistic science before.

Speaking not only of the complex sentence of minimal composition, but in terms of complex sentences in general, it would be appropriate to introduce the notions of "monolythic" and "segregative" sentence structures. Obligatory subordinative connections underlie monolythic complexes, while optional subordinative connections underlie segregative complexes.

Monolithic complex sentences fall into four basic types.

The first of them is formed by merger complex sentences, i.e. sentences with subject and predicative subordinate clauses. The subordinate clausal part of the merger monolythic complex, as has been shown above (see § 2), is fused with its principal clause. The corresponding construction of syntactic anticipation should also be considered under this heading. Cf.: It was at this point that Bill had come bustling into the room. → (*) It was at this point —

The second subtype of complex sentences in question is formed by constructions whose subordinate clauses are dependent on the obligatory right-hand valency of the verb in the principal clause. We can tentatively call these constructions "valency" monolith complexes. Here belong complexes with object clauses and valency-determined adverbial clauses: from the point of view of subordinative cohesion they are alike. Cf.:

I don't know when I'm beaten. —» (*) I don't know — Put the book where you've taken it from. → (*) Put the book — Her first shock was when she came down. → (*) Her first shock was —

The third subtype of monolythic complex sentences is formed by constructions based on subordinative correlations — "correlation" monolith complexes. E.g.:

His nose was as unkindly short as his upper lip was long. You will enjoy such a sight as you are not likely to see again. The more I think of it, the more I'm convinced of his innocence.

Restrictive attributive clauses should be included into this subtype of correlation monoliths irrespective of whether or not their correlation scheme is explicitly expressed. Cf.:

This is the same report as was submitted last week. This is the report that was submitted last week.

Finally, the fourth subtype of monolithic complex sentences is formed by constructions whose obligatory connection between the principal and subordinate clauses is determined only by the linear order of clausal positions. Cf.: If he comes, tell him to wait. →(*) If he comes —

As is easily seen, such "arrangement" monolith complexes are not "organically" monolithic, as different from the first three monolith subtypes; positional re-arrangement deprives

them of this quality, changing the clausal connection from obligatory into optional: Tell him to wait if he comes. → Tell him to wait.

The rest of the complex sentences are characterised by segregative structure, the maximum degree of syntactic option being characteristic of subordinative parenthetical connection.

§ 10. Complex sentences which have two or more subordinate clauses discriminate two basic types of subordination arrangement: parallel and consecutive.

Subordinate clauses immediately referring to one and the same principal clause are said to be subordinated "in parallel" or "co-subordinated". Parallel subordination may be both homogeneous and heterogeneous. For instance, the two clauses of time in the following complex sentence, being embedded on the principle of parallel subordination, are homogeneous — they depend on the same element (the principal clause as a whole), are connected with each other coordinatively and perform the same function: When he agrees to hear me, and when we have spoken the matter over, I'll tell you the result.

Homogeneous arrangement is very typical of object clauses expressing reported speech. E.g.: Mrs. Lewin had warned her that Cadover was an extraordinary place, and that one must never be astonished by anything (A. Huxley).

By heterogeneous parallel subordination, co-subordinate clauses mostly refer to different elements in the principal clause. E.g.: The speakers who represented different nations and social strata were unanimous in their call for peace which is so ardently desired by the common people of the world.

As different from parallel subordination, consecutive subordination presents a hierarchy of clausal levels. In this hierarchy one subordinate clause is commonly subordinated to another, making up an uninterrupted gradation. This kind of clausal arrangement may be called "direct" consecutive subordination. E.g.: I've no idea why she said she couldn't call on us at the time I had suggested.

Alongside of direct consecutive subordination there is another form of clausal hierarchy which is formed without an immediate domination of one subordinate clause over another. For instance, this is the case when the principal clause of a complex multi-level sentence is built up on a merger basis, i.e. includes a subject or predicative clause.

E.g.: What he saw made him wince as though he had been struck.

In the cited sentence the comparative subordinate clause is dominated by the whole of the principal clause which includes a subordinate propositional unit in its syntactic position of the subject. Thus, the subordinative structure of the sentence is in fact consecutive, though not directly consecutive. This type of hierarchical clausal arrangement may be called "oblique" consecutive subordination; it is of minor importance for the system of subordination perspective as a whole.

The number of consecutive levels of subordination gives the evaluation of the "depth" of subordination perspective — one of the essential syntactic characteristics of the complex sentence. In the first three examples cited in the current paragraph this depth is estimated as 1; in the fourth example (direct consecutive subordination) it equals 3; in the fifth example (oblique consecutive subordination) it equals 2. The subordination perspective of complex sentences used in ordinary colloquial speech seldom exceeds three consecutive clausal levels.

 

Simple Sentence

A simple sentence contains a single subject and predicate. It describes only one thing, idea or question, and has only one verb - it contains only an independent (main) clause.

Any independent clause can stand alone as a sentence. It has a subject and a verb and expresses a complete thought.

For example: Jill reads.

Even the addition of adjectives, adverbs, and prepositional phrases to a simple sentence does not change it into a complex sentence.

For example: The brown dog with the red collar always barks loudly.

Even if you join several nouns with a conjunction, or several verbs with a conjunction, it remains a simple sentence.

For example: The dog barked and growled loudly.