Билет 14 II. Classifications of complex sentences according to the types of clauses in Modern English.

The complex sentence is a polypredicative unit built up on the principle of subordination. It is derived from 2 or more base sentences one of which becomes the principal clause and the other its subordinate clause. The principle and the subordinate clauses form a semantico-syntactic unity. It cannot be destroyed without affecting the structure of the sentence. The existence of either of clauses is supported by the existence of the other, e.g.: He looked as though he were looking at an absolute stranger. One can’t eliminate either of the clauses and preserve the grammatical structure of the sentence at that (?He looked. As though he were looking at an absolute stranger.) The subordinate clause is joined to the principal clause either by a subordinating connector (subordinator) or asyndetically. Sometimes asyndetic connection is called zero subordinator. In this way the meaningful function of the asyndetic connection is stressed.

The principal clause dominates the subordinate one positionally, but it doesn’t mean that their syntactic status determines the actual division of the sentence. An important role in theme-rheme division is played by the order of clauses. Compare the following sentences:1. He is called Mitch (the theme), because his name is Mitchell (the rheme). – principal clause expresses the starting point, while the subordinate clause renders the main idea (the speaker’s explanation of the reason of “calling him Mitch”). 2. As his name is Mitchell (the theme), he is called Mitch (the rheme). – the informative roles will be re-shaped accordingly.

One of the central problems concerning the complex sentences deals with the principles of classification of subordinate clauses. Within the traditional linguistics the 2 different principles have been put forward. The first is functional and the second is categorial. In accord with the functional principle subordinate clauses are classed on the basis of their similarity in function with parts of a simple sentence. Namely, they are classed into subject, predicative, object, attributive, adverbial clauses. Actually, there are certain clauses that have no correspondences among the parts of a sentence, for example, some adverbial clauses. Still a general functional similarity between the clauses and parts of a simple sentence does exist and it can be clearly seen from their comparison, e.g.: I was completely frustrated yesterday. – “yesterday” can be substituted by a clause: - I was completely frustrated when they told me about it yesterday. – the clause answers the same question “when?”. Thus, the functional classification of subordinate clauses, based on the analogy with the parts of the simple sentence, reflects the essential properties of the complex sentences. The categorial classification draws a parallel between subordinate clauses and parts of speech. According to the categorial principle subordinate clauses are classed by their nominative properties that is on their analogy with the part-of- speech classification of notional words. From this point of view all subordinate clauses are divided into 3 categorial groups. The first group is formed by the substantive-nominal clauses. It includes clauses that name an event as a certain fact. They are also called noun-clauses and are similar to the nominative function of a noun. Their noun-like nature is easily revealed by substitution, e.g.: I thought up what we could do under the circumstances. – the clause can be substituted by “the plan”- I thought up the plan. The second group of clauses is called qualification -nominal or adjective clauses. They name an event as a certain characteristic of another event. The adjective-like nature of these clauses can also be proved by substitution, e.g. The man whom you saw in the hall was our client. – That man was our client; e.g.: Did you find a room where we could hold a meeting? – Did you find such kind of room? The third group of clauses can be called adverbial. They name an event as a dynamic characteristic of another event. Adverbial clauses are best tested by transformations, e.g.: They will meet us half way if we follow the agreement.- They will meet us half way on condition that we follow the agreement; e.g.: I could hardly make up any plan, as I did not know the details.- I could hardly make up any plan for the reason that I did not know the details.

In conclusion it should be noted that the discussed principles of classification (functional and categorial) are mutually complementary.

 

Билет 15 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, adversative, disjunctive, causal, consequential, resultative. 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. 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. 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.