Classification of functional parts of speech

Lecture 2

Parts of speech

Notional parts of speech

(a) The noun is a notional part of speech possessing the meaning of substantivity.

(b) Substantivity is the grammatical meaning due to which word units, both the names of objects proper and non-objects, such as abstract notions, actions, properties, etc., function in language like the names of objects proper.

(c) From the point of view of semantic and grammatical properties all English nouns fall under two classes: proper nouns and common nouns.

Proper nouns are individual names given to separate persons or things. As regards their meaning proper nouns may be personal names (Mary, Peter, Shakespeare), geographical names (London, The Crimea), the names of the months and the days of the week, names of ships, hotels, clubs, etc. A large number of nouns now proper were originally common nouns (Brown, Smith, Mason). Proper nouns may change their meaning and become common nouns (sandwich, champagne).

Common nouns are names that can be applied to any individual of a class of persons or things (man, dog, book), collections of similar individuals or things regarded as a single unit (peasantry, family), materials (snow, iron,cotton) or abstract notions (kindness, development).

Thus there are different groups of common nouns: class nouns, collective nouns, nouns of material and abstract nouns.

Nouns may also be classified from another point of view: nouns denoting things (the word ‘thing’ is used in a broad sense) that can be counted are called countable nouns; nouns denoting things that cannot be counted are called uncountable nouns.

(d) We may speak of three grammatical categories of the noun.

1. The category of number. Nouns that can be counted have two numbers: singular and plural.

2. The category of case is highly disputable. Yet, many scholars assume that nouns denoting living beings (and some nouns denoting lifeless things) have two case forms: the common case and the genitive (or possessive) case.

3. It is doubtful whether the grammatical category of gender exists in Modern English for it is hardly ever expressed by means of grammatical forms. There is practically one gender-forming suffix in Modern English, the suffix –ess, expressing feminine gender. It is not widely used (heir – heiress, poet – poetess, actor – actress).

(e) The basic meaning of the category of number is the opposition of the singularity and the plurality of objects. The plurality implies an amount exceeding one. The singular number is conveyed by the basic form, i.e. by the form which has no endings and which coincides with the stem. The plural number is graphically conveyed by the –s formant that materializes itself as a number of allomorphs (/s/, /z/, /iz/) depending on the character of the final sound of the stem (books, cats, dogs, potatoes, classes, bushes). However, there are other, unproductive means of forming the plural form (children, nuclei, phenomena, feet, mice). And finally, there are some nouns that do not possess the formal features of either plural or singular number (sheep, deer, swine, news, scissors, trousers).

(f) Of the two number forms, the singular number is compulsory for all nouns, except for pluralia tantum. The reason for this fact is that the singular number is capable of conveying not only the availability of quantity (one) but also the absence of quantitative measurements for uncountables. The plural form always conveys some quantitative relationship; it is due to this fact that the plural number is capable of conveying the concretion of an abstract notion: a noun denoting a generalized feature (a quality or a feeling) may also convey manifestations which are occasional (attentions, joys).

    It is generally assumed that there are two cases in English: the common case and the genitive (possessive) case. Thus the paradigm may look as follows:

Singular Plural

Common case: the boy the boys

Genitive case: the boy’s the boys’

Most scholars usually point to the fact that the genitive case is mainly used with the nouns of person (Jim’s book, Mary’s brother) but it may be occasionally used with the nouns denoting lifeless things, namely: periods of time, distance, and price (a week’s notice, a mile’s distance, a dollar’s worth of sugar). It may also occur, though seldom, with the nouns which are situationally definite (The car’s front door was open).

(g) The semantic characteristics of the noun vary depending on the case used; the genitive case expresses the individual characteristics of the object modified whereas the common case denotes a generalized property which is not ascribed to any single bearer (cf.: Shakespeare’s sonnets – the Shakespeare National Theatre; the room’s walls – the room walls).

(h) The field structure of the noun is made up of the central group and the peripheral group. The central group includes object nouns and nouns of person, both having equal number of characteristic features; though object nouns are easily used as prepositive attributes, they do not tend to be used so easily in the genitive case which, in turn, is a characteristic feature of the nouns of person. The peripheral group consists of abstract nouns and nouns of material; both of them are devoid of the categories of number and case (with a few exceptions); they are not used with the indefinite article. However, nouns of material are easily used as prepositive attributes.

(a) The pronoun is a part of speech which points out objects and their qualities without naming them. Therefore, the pronoun possesses a highly generalized meaning that seldom materializes outside of the context.

(b) The semantic classification of pronouns includes such subclasses as personal, possessive, demonstrative, interrogative, reciprocal, relative, indefinite, negative, conjunctive, defining and reflexive pronouns.

(c) The deictic, or indicatory, function of the pronoun is inherent in many subclasses except, maybe, interrogative, indefinite and negative. The anaphoric function, or the function of connecting with the preceding sentence or clause, is characteristic of relative and conjunctive pronouns though it may be occasionally performed by the other subclasses.

(d) Syntactic peculiarities of pronouns are accounted for by the fact that the pronoun is very close in its syntactic functions to those of the noun and the adjective. Hence, the main functions it performs are the ones of the subject, the predicative, the object, and the attribute.

(e) The pronoun seems to have the grammatical categories of person, gender (personal and possessive pronouns), case (personal, and the relative and interrogative WHO – the nominative and objective cases; indefinite, reciprocal and negative – the common and genitive cases) and number (demonstrative, and the defining OTHER).

(a) The numeral is a part of speech which indicates number or the order of persons and things in a series.

(b) Numerals are united by their semantics only. They have neither morphologic nor syntactic features. All numerals are subdivided into cardinal and ordinal. Both subclasses can perform equally well the functions peculiar of nouns and adjectives. Numerals possess a specific word-building system: suffixes –teen, -ty, -th. Some of them are easily substantivized and treated as nouns.

(a) The adjective is a part of speech expressing a quality of a substance.

(b) The grammatical meaning of the adjective lies in the fact that this part of speech names a quality possessing certain stability unlike Participle I, for example: a fast train – an approaching train.

(c) According to their meanings and grammatical characteristics, adjectives fall under two classes: (1) qualitative adjectives, (2) relative adjectives. Qualitative adjectives denote qualities of a substance directly, not through its relation to another substance, as size, shape, colour, physical and mental qualities, qualities of general estimation: little, large, high, soft, warm, white, important, etc. Relative adjectives denote qualities of a substance through their relation to materials (silken, woolen, wooden, metallic), to place (Italian, Asian), to time (monthly, weekly), to some action (preparatory, educational).

(d) Most adjectives have degrees of comparison: the comparative degree and the superlative degree.

(e) In a sentence the adjective may be used as an attribute or as a predicative, the former in preposition being more characteristic.

(f) Substantivized adjectives have acquired some or all of the characteristics of the noun, but their adjectival origin is still generally felt. They may be wholly substantivized (a native, the natives, a native’s hut, valuables, sweets, a Ukrainian, Ukrainians) and partially substantivized (the rich, the poor, the unemployed, the English, the good, the evil).

(g) Qualitative adjectives possess all the grammatical features of the adjective and belong to the central group. The peripheral group includes relative adjectives and words of state (asleep, awake) though there is no hard and fast demarcation line between these two groups.

(a) The verb is a part of speech which denotes an action.

(b) The grammatical meaning of action is understood widely: it is not only activities proper (He wrote a letter) but both a state (He will soon recover) and just an indication of the fact that the given object exists or belongs to a certain class of objects or persons (A chair is a piece of furniture). It is important that the verb conveys the feature as an action within some period of time, however unlimited.

(c) Semantically and grammatically English verbs are grouped as transitive (to give), intransitive (to sleep), regular, irregular, mixed, notional, auxiliary, link (to grow, to turn, to look), terminative (to come), non-terminative (to live) and verbs of double lexical (aspect) character (to see).

(d) The valency of verbs is their combinability. For example, all verbs are characterized by their subordination to the subject of a sentence; transitive verbs are usually combined with an object; auxiliary and link verbs need a notional predicative, etc.

(e) The verb has the grammatical categories of person, number, tense, aspect, voice, and mood.

In Modern English there are but few forms indicating person and number in the synthetic forms of the verb. These are:

(1) The third person singular Present Indefinite Indicative – ‘he speaks’.

(2) The Future Indefinite Tense – ‘I shall speak’ (‘He will speak’).

The verb ‘to be’ has suppletive forms for different persons – ‘am, is, are’.

The category of tense is very clearly expressed in the forms of the English verb. This category denotes the relation of the action either to the moment of speaking or to some definite moment in the past or future. The category of tense and the category of aspect are intermingled. There are four groups of tenses: Indefinite, Continuous, Perfect and Perfect Continuous.

The category of aspect shows the way in which the action develops, whether it is in progress or completed, etc. The Indefinite form has no aspect characteristics whatever, the Continuous, Perfect and Perfect Continuous forms denote both time and aspect relations. Each of these forms includes four tenses: Present, Past, Future and Future-in-the-Past. Thus there are 16 tenses in English.

Voice is the category of the verb which indicates the relation of the predicate to the subject and the object.

There are two undoubted voices in English: the active voice and the passive voice.

The active voice shows that the person or thing denoted by the subject is the doer of the action expressed by the predicate.

The passive voice shows that the person or thing denoted by the subject is acted upon.

Some scholars assume there is one more voice in English, the so-called neuter-reflexive voice. (E.g. She was dressing herself.)

Mood is a grammatical category which indicates the attitude of the speaker towards the action expressed by the verb from the point of view of its reality.

We distinguish the indicative mood, the imperative mood, and the subjunctive mood.

The Indicative Mood shows that the action or state expressed by the verb is presented as a fact.

The Imperative Mood expresses a command or a request.

The Subjunctive Mood shows that the action or state expressed by the verb is presented as a non-fact, as something imaginary or desired.

(f) Transpositions of verb-forms may be connected with either substitutions of personal forms in special cases (cf.: ‘If he were present, we’d ask him’ in the Subjunctive Mood) or with functional transpositions of tense forms (cf.: ‘He will come tomorrow. – He is coming tomorrow’.).

(g) The concepts of temporality (time correlations), state and modality are in most cases expressed by verbs, but the fields may be different in nature. The field of temporality may imply different functional patterns for the same action (cf.: ‘He will come next week. – He is coming next week. – He comes next week’, where the first sentence is grammatically central, and the other two peripheral.). On the other hand, the field of temporality may be represented by semantically different classes of verbs, such as terminative, non-terminative, and verbs of double lexical character, the latter belonging to the centre of the field.

As for the functional and semantic fields of state and modality, they may include a central group of verbs expressing these concepts both lexically and functionally, and a peripheral group of other parts of speech used in similar positions.

(h) There are three verbals in English: the participle, the gerund and the infinitive.

The characteristic traits of the verbals are as follows:

1. They have a double nature, nominal and verbal. The participle combines the characteristics of a verb with those of an adjective; the gerund and the infinitive combine the characteristics of a verb with those of a noun.

2. The tense distinctions of the verbals are not absolute, but relative.

3. All the verbals can form predicative constructions.

The participle is a non-finite form of the verb which has a verbal and an adjectival or an adverbial character. Its categories are those of tense-aspect and voice. In the sentence it may be used as an attribute, an adverbial modifier, a predicative and part of a complex object.

The gerund developed from the verbal noun, which in course of time became verbalized preserving at the same time its nominal character. It has the categories of tense-aspect and voice. The gerund can perform the function of subject, object, predicative, attribute and adverbial modifier.

The infinitive is the most abstract verb-form which simply indicates action (in the Indefinite Aspect). That is why it is referred to first in verb articles of dictionaries. Its categories are those of tense-aspect and voice. It can be used as a subject, a predicative, an object, an attribute, and an adverbial modifier.

(a) The adverb is a part of speech which expresses some circumstances that attend an action or state.

(b) The grammatical meaning of the adverb is pointing out some characteristic features of an action or a quality.

(c) According to their meanings adverbs fall under several groups:

1. adverbs of time (today, soon, etc.);

2. adverbs of repetition or frequency (often, seldom, over, etc.);

3. adverbs of place and direction (inside, backward, etc.);

4. adverbs of cause and consequence (therefore, accordingly, etc.);

5. adverbs of manner (kindly, hard, etc.);

6. adverbs of degree, measure and quantity (very, almost, once, etc.).

Three groups of adverbs stand aside: interrogative (where, when, why, how), relative and conjunctive adverbs, the former being used in special questions, and the latter two to introduce subordinate clauses.

Some adverbs are homonymous with prepositions, conjunctions (before, after, since) and words of the category of state.

(d) Some adverbs have degrees of comparison. This grammatical category finds its morphological expression only in a limited group of adverbs, namely, the suppletive forms of ‘well’, ‘badly’, ‘much’, ‘little’, and the degrees of comparison of the adverbs ‘fast’, ‘near’, ‘hard’. In other cases the forms are analytical (wisely - more wisely - most wisely). The adverb ‘far’ has a peculiar form.

(e) The syntagmatics of the adverb is that of an adverbial modifier (said softly, nice in a way), and sometimes of an attribute (the then president).

          The problems of setting off modal words as parts of speech.

The modal words express the attitude of the speaker to the reality, possibility or probability of the action he speaks about.

Formerly, they used to be referred to as adverbs, and it was in Russian linguistics that they were identified as a part of speech. However, H.Sweet distinguished the adverbs relating to the whole sentence and expressing the speaker’s attitude.

Modal words stand aside in the sentence, they are not its members. Sometimes they are used as sentence-words.

The structural field of the modal words consists of the modal words proper used only parenthetically or as sentence-words (perhaps, maybe, indeed, etc.) and a peripheral group of adverbs functioning as modal words without losing their morphological and syntactic features (apparently, unfortunately, etc.).

     (a) The interjection is a part of speech which expresses various emotions without naming them.

(b) According to Prof. Smirnitsky interjections ‘are opposed to the words of intellectual semantics’ and their field boundaries are limited by this characteristic feature. Nevertheless, interjections may be primary and secondary.

Primary interjections are not derived from other parts of speech. Most of them are simple words: ah, oh, eh, pooh, hum, fie, bravo, hush. Only a few primary interjections are composite: heigh-ho! hey-ho! holla-ho! gee-ho!

(c) Secondary interjections are derived from other parts of speech or language units. They are homonymous with the words or syntagms they are derived from. They are: well, now, why, God gracious, damn it, etc.; they should not be confused with exclamation-words such as ‘nonsense’, ‘shame’, ‘good’, etc.

The whole lexicon of the English language, like the one of all Indo-European languages, is divided into certain lexico-grammatical classes traditionally called ‘parts of speech’. The existence of such classes is not doubted by any linguists though they might have different points of view as to their interpretation. Classification of the parts of speech is still a matter of dispute; linguists’ opinions differ concerning the number and the names of the parts of speech.

(a) The main principles of word division into certain groups, that had long existed, were formulated by L.V.Shcherba quite explicitly. They are lexical meaning, morphological form and syntactic functioning. Still, some classifications are based on some of the three features, for any of them may coincide neglecting the strict logical rules.

(b) In linguistics there have been a number of attempts to build up such a classification of the parts of speech (lexico-grammatical classes) that would meet the main requirement of a logical classification, i.e. would be based on a single principle. Those attempts have failed.

H.Sweet, the author of the first scientific grammar of the English language, divides the parts of speech into two main groups – the declinables and the indeclinables. That means that he considers morphological properties to be the main principle of classification. Inside the group of the declinables he kept to the traditional division into nouns, adjectives and verbs. Adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections are united into the group of the indeclinables. However, alongside of this classification, Sweet proposes grouping based on the syntactic functioning of certain classes of words. This leads to including nouns, pronouns, infinitives, gerunds and some other parts of speech into the same class, which is incorrect.

The Danish linguist O.Jespersen suggested the so-called theory of three ranks (primary, secondary and tertiary words), e.g. ‘furiously barking dog’ where ‘dog’ is a primary word, ‘barking’ – secondary, and ‘furiously’ – tertiary.

Another attempt to find a single principle of classification was made by Ch.Fries in his book ‘The Structure of English’. He rejects the traditional classification and tries to draw up a class system based on the word’s position in the sentence; his four classes correspond to what is traditionally called nouns (class 1), verbs (class 2), adjectives (class 3) and adverbs (class 4). Besides the four classes he set off 15 groups. And yet, his attempt turned out to be a failure, too, for the classes and groups overlap one another.

(c) Words on the semantic (meaningful) level of classification are divided into notional and functional.

To the notional parts of speech of the English language belong the noun, the adjective, the numeral, the pronoun, the verb and the adverb.

Contrasted against the notional parts of speech are words of incomplete nominative meaning and non-self-dependent, mediatory functions in the sentence. These are functional parts of speech. To the basic functional series of words in English belong the article, the preposition, the conjunction, the particle, the modal word, the interjection.

(d) From the point of view of their functional characteristics lexical units may belong to different lexico-grammatical classes. This kind of syntactic transition is called conversion and represents a widespread phenomenon as one of the most productive and economical means of syntactic transpositions. E.g. She used to comb her hair lovingly. – Here is your comb. They lived up north a few years ago. – You must be ready to take all these ups and downs easy.

Comparing the class division of the lexicon at the angle of functional designation of words, we first of all note a sharp contrast in language of two polar types of lexemes, the notional type and the functional one. Being evaluated from the informative-functional point of view, the polar distribution of words into completely meaningful and incompletely meaningful domains appears quite clear and fundamental; the overt character of the notional lexical system and the covert one of the functional lexical system (with the field of transition from the former to the latter being available) acquire the status of the most important general feature of the form.

The notional domain of lexicon is divided into four generalizing classes, not a single more or less. The four notional parts of speech defined as the words with a self-dependent denotational-naming function, are the noun (substantially represented denotations), the verb (processually represented denotations), the adjective (feature-represented denotations of the substantial appurtenance) and the adverb (feature-represented denotations of the non-substantial appurtenance).

However, the typical functional positions of these classes may be occupied by representatives of the functional classes by virtue of substitution, that is why some scholars speak of additional notional subclasses.

The intricate correlations of units within each part of speech are reflected in the theory of the morphological fields which states the following: every part of speech comprises units fully possessing all features of the given part of speech; these are its nucleus. Yet, there are units which do not possess all features of the given part of speech though they belong to it. Therefore, the field includes both central and peripheral elements; it is not homogeneous in composition (cf.: ‘gives’ – the lexical meaning of a process, the functional position of a predicate, the word-changing paradigm; and ‘must’ – a feeble lexical meaning, the functional position of a predicative, absence of word-changing paradigm).

According to most common grammars (Nesfield’s grammar) there are eight parts of speech: nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections. Observe that the part of speech to which a word belongs depends on the purpose that the word is used for in that particular context, and that the same word may be of a different part of speech in a different context: The man has came (noun) Man the lifeboat (verb)

H. Sweet, O. Jespersen’s Classification

The semantic criterion presupposes the evaluation of the generalized leaning, which is characteristic of all the subsets of words constituting a given parts of speech. This meaning is understood as the ‘categorical meaning of the part of speech’. So, all the words of language can be grouped into classes on the basis of some common features existing between definite sets of them. The attribution of words to different classes was first carried out in ancient Greece and Rome. And the term ‘parts of speech’ is used to refer to classes of similar words, was introduced in ancient teaching of language. Though today, it would seem more appropriate to speak about word classes. The authors of classical scientific grammar, H. Sweet and O.J.espersen, introduced some innovations and improved the conventional classification of the parts of speech. In modern linguistics, parts of speech are discriminated on the basis of the three criteria, introduced by the abovementioned scholars: "semantic", "formal" and "functional.

H. Sweet, the author of the first scientific grammar of English, puts forward three main features characterizing parts of speech: meaning form and function. He divides parts of speech into two main groups: declinable (capable of inflexion) and indeclinable. (Incapable of inflexion).

Declinable parts of speech are noun, adjective and verb.

a) Noun-words, noun, noun-pronoun, noun-numeral, infinitive, gerund.

b) Adjective-words, adjective, adjective-pronoun, adjective-numeral, participles.

c) Verb, finite verb, non-finite verb (infinitive, gerund, participles)

1) All nouns, whose meaning admits of it, can have the plural number, generally formed by adding (-s).

2) Pronouns are a special class of nouns and adjectives, and they are accordingly distinguished as noun-pronouns I, they; and adjective-pronouns, such as- my, that.

3) Numerals are another special class of nouns and adjectives: three in "three of us” are a noun-numeral, in "three men" and adjective-numeral.

4) Adjectives have no number but have degrees of comparison.

5) Verbs have inflexions of their own, different from those of the other parts of speech. Each part of speech has special form-words associated with it. ("a tree", 'the tree", but "to grow"). Each part of speech has a more or less definite position in the sentence with regard to other parts of speech. Verbals are a class of words intermediate between verbs on the one hand and nouns and adjectives on the other; they do not express. Predication but keeps all the other meanings and grammatical functions of the verbs from which they are formed.

Indeclinable words or particles comprise adverbs prepositions, conjunctions and interjections, differing in their functions (e.g. adverbs serve as modifiers; conjunctions are used to show the connection between sentences, etc.).

a.. Adverb

b. Preposition

c. Conjunction

d.. Interjection

H. Sweet seems to have seen well enough the lack of coordination between morphological and syntactic characteristics of parts of speech. But his classification is not devoid of drawbacks.

O.Jespersen tried to keep in view form, function and meaning of the words, while grouping them into parts of speech, but he realized that it's difficult to stick to these three principles, as we take into consideration only morphology as a basic principle (that's if the word is declinable or not). Then such words as-must, the, then, for enough- must belong to one class. This is the drawback of Sweet's classification. O. Jesperson suggested a double system besides the morphological description of the class of words, this class must be analyzes according their functioning in syntactical combinations (sentences and phrases). The name of his theory is "the theory of three ranks". Thus in the phrases: a furiously backing dog and terribly cold weather -The words "dog and weather'" are primary, the words. ‘Barking and cold’-secondary, the words "furiously and terribly "-tertiary. This theory helps us to see the hierarchy syntactical relations, hidden behind the linier speech chain. O.Jespersen said that his theory doesn’t: relate to the words division into parts of speech that is the primary words isn't nesecceraly a noun or a secondary word an adjective, and tertiary and adverb. He found out that a group of words may also function as a primary unit: Sunday afternoon was fine and I spent Sunday afternoon at home.

Though O.Jespersen underlines that the notions “a rank" and "a part of speech” are not the same, but there is some correlatation, O.Jespersen distinguished 5 parts of speech:

1. Substantives

2. Adjectives (in some respects substantives and adjectives may be classed as "Nouns"

3. Pronouns (including numerals and pronominal adverbs),

4. Verbs (with doubts as to the inclusion of "verbids") and

5. Particles (comprising what are generally called-adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections. A new approach; under the influence of Trager and Smith's "Outline" might be seen J. Sledd's grammar Parts of s speech may he expressed by a single word, a word-group and a clause. Sledd treats them under the heading of the parts of speech. He distinguished inflectional and positional classes. Inflectional classes include the words, which have inflection; the positional classes include the words excluded -from the previous class (beautiful) as it doesn't have the inflection- (beautifuller).

Main positional classes are designed by the terms to nominal, adjectives, verbals and adverbials and plus eight smaller classes: auxiliary verbs, determiners, preposition, conjunctions, and some pronouns.

 

 

Lecture 3

The conjunction is a part of speech which denotes connection between objects and phenomenally connects parts of the sentence, clauses, and sentences.

Conjunctions are structural words that serve to connect words or phrases as well as clauses or sentence: Conjunctions may be single words. But, or, or, as, while, because, though, etc) phrases consisting of more than one words. In order that, on condition (that), as soon as, as long as. As if as though, etc.) And also correlative conjunctions are always used in pairs. Both ... and, either ... or, not only ... but also, as ... as, etc).

According to their role in the sentence, conjunctions fall into two groups:

Coordinating conjunctions.

And, but, or, either, besides, moreover, likewise, both... and yet.

Subordinating conjunctions-that, if whether, as. Though, since, when, until, as long as, before, alter, because, unless, so.

Coordinating conjunctions connect words, phrases, clauses or sentences which are independent of each other. The meaning of conjunctions is closely connected with the relations they express. Thus, the class of coordinating conjunctions, according to their meaning correspond to different type of compound sentences.

Here are four different kinds of coordinating conjunctions.

1) Copula live conjunctions: and. nor. As well as, both, and, only ... but (also), neither ... nor. Copula live conjunctions chiefly denote that one statement or fact is simply added to another (nor and neither express their relation in the negative sense).

He went on as a statue would: that is. He neither spoke nor moved.

2) Disjunctive conjunctions: or. Either... Or else, else. Disjunctive conjunctions offer some choice one statement and another.

Fither his furlough was up. or dreaded to meet any witnesses of his Waterloo flight.

3) Adversative conjunctions: but. While, whereas. Adversative conjunctions show that the one statement or fact is contrasted with or set against another.

His nerves had become blunted, numb, while his mind was filled with weird vision and delicious dreams.

4) Causative-consecutive conjunctions: Causative-consecutive conjunctions denote consequence, result, or reason. By these conjunctions one statement or fact is inferred or proved from another.

He had gone sonic miles away, and was not expected home until late at night; so the landlady dispatched the same messenger in all haste for Mr. Pecksniff.

Subordinating conjunctions may introduce subject clauses, object clauses, predicative clauses, adverbial clauses, and attributive clauses.

Many of the subordinating conjunctions introduce different kinds of clauses. For instance that may introduce subject clauses, object clauses, predicative clauses, and adverbial clauses of purpose and of result.

He looked to the south and knew that somewhere beyond those blue hills lay the Great Bear

Subordinating conjunctions may also be used in simple sentences. They join adverbial modifiers hers to the predicate of the sentences. Conjunctions of comparison, such as "as if", as though are frequently used in simple sentence.

He scowled at first: then, as if recollecting something, he said...

The subordinating conjunctions through and if are also used in simple sentences. Though alone, he was not lost.

Each conjunctions has one unchangeable form, they have no morphological grammatical categories.

In comparing prepositions with coordinating and subordinating conjunctions we cannot fail to notice that while prepositions have nothing in common with coordinating conjunctions, some prepositions are very close in meaning to subordinating conjunctions, and in some cases a prepositions and a subordinating conjunction sound exactly the same. As examples of similarity in meaning we may give, for instance, such phrases and clauses: in example during his illness and while he was ill.

Conjunctions especially correlative conjunctions are sometimes misplaced. Care must be taken each member of the pair as closely as possible to the words or other elements that they connect, in Either I must write to him or telephone to him the correlative terms are write and telephone, and their correlative connectives must respectively precede them, as I must either write to him or telephone to him. Note similar misplacement in Both a man wealthy and respected is required in this work for A man both man wealthy and respected is required in this work, and Not only is he ill but also penniless for He is not only ill but also penniless.

The conjunction is a part of speech which denotes connections between objects and phenomena. It connects parts of the sentence, clauses, and sentences.

Sadie brought them in and went back to the door.

The blinds were down in the dining-room and the lights turned on - and all the lights were red-roses.

According to their morphological structure conjunctions are divided into the following groups:

(1) Simple conjunctions (and, or, but, till, after, that, so, where, when, etc.)
Some of the simple conjunctions are homonymous with prepositions, adverbs, and pronouns.

(2) Derivative conjunctions (until, unless, etc.)

(3) Compound conjunctions (however, whereas, wherever, etc.) These conjunctions are few.

(4) Composite conjunctions (as well as, as long as, in case, for fear (that), on the ground that, for the reason that, etc.)

Some conjunctions are used in pairs (correlatively): both... and, either ... or, not only ... but (also), neither ... not, whether ... or.

If anyone had asked him if he wanted to own her soul, the question would have seemed to him both ridiculous and sentimental.

... Nor would John Reed have found it out himself; he was not quick either of vision or conception.

As to their function conjunctions fall under tree classes:

(1) Coordinating conjunctions;

(2) Subordinating conjunctions.

(3) Correlative conjunctions

Co-ordinating Conjunctions

You use a co-ordinating conjunction ("and," "but," "or," "nor," "for," "so," or "yet") to join individual words, phrases, and independent clauses. Note that you can also use the conjunctions "but" and "for" as prepositions.

In the following sentences, each of the words is a co-ordinating conjunction:

Lilacs and violets are usually purple.

In this example, the co-ordinating conjunction "and" links two nouns.

This movie is particularly interesting to feminist film theorists, for the screenplay was written by Mae West.

In this example, the co-ordinating conjunction "for" is used to link two independent clauses.

Daniel's uncle claimed that he spent most of his youth dancing on rooftops and swallowing goldfish.

Here the co-ordinating conjunction "and" links two participle phrases ("dancing on rooftops" and "swallowing goldfish") which act as adverbs describing the verb "spends."

AND

a. To suggest that one idea is chronologically sequential to another: "Alice sent in her applications and waited by the phone for a response."

b. To suggest that one idea is the result of another: "Willie heard the weather report and promptly boarded up his house."

c. To suggest that one idea is in contrast to another (frequently replaced by but this usage) "Juanita is brilliant and Shalimar has a pleasant personality.

d. To suggest an element of surprise (sometimes replaced by yet in this usage):

"Hartford is a rich city and suffers from many symptoms of urban blight."

e. To suggest that one clause is dependent upon another, conditionally, usually the first clause is an imperative): "Use your credit cards require my and you'll soon find yourself deep in debt."

BUT

a. To suggest a contrast that is unexpected in light of the first clause: "Joey lost a fortune in the stock market, but he still seems able to live quite comfortably."

b. To suggest in an affirmative sense what the first part of the sentence implied in a negative way (sometimes replaced by on the contrary): "The club never invested foolishly, but used the services of a sage investment counselor."

c. To connect two ideas with the meaning of "with the exception of (and then the second word takes over as subject): "Everybody but Golden breath is trying out for the team."

OR

a.  To suggest that only one possibility can be realized, excluding one or the other: "You can study hard for this exam or you can fail."

b. To suggest the inclusive combination of alternatives "We can broil chicken on the Ј. Rill tonight, or we can just eat leftovers.

c. To suggest a refinement of the first clause: "Smith College is the premier all women's college in the country, or so it seems to most Smith College alumnae."

d. To suggest a restatement or "correction" of the first part of the sentence: "There are no rattlesnakes in this canyon, or so our guide tells us."

e. To suggest a negative condition: "The New Hampshire state motto is the rather grim "Live free or die."

f . To suggest a negative alternative without the use of an imperative (see use of and above): "They must approve his political style or they wouldn't keep electing him mayor."

     The Others...

     The conjunction NOR is not extinct, but it is not used nearly as often as the other conjunctions, so it might feel a bit odd when nor does come up in conversation or writing. Its most common use is as the little brother in the correlative pair, neither.

He is neither sane nor brilliant.

That is neither what I said nor what I meant.

It can be used with other negative expressions:

That is not what I meant to say, nor should you interpret my statement as an
admission of guilt.

It is possible neither to use nor without a preceding negative element, but it is unusual and, to an extent, rather stuffy:

George's handshake is not as good as any written contract, nor has he
ever proven untrustworthy.                                              I

    The word YET functions sometimes as an adverb and has several meanings:

In addition ("yet another cause of trouble" or "a simple yet noble woman"), even ("yet more expensive"), still ("he is yet a novice"), eventually ("they may yet win"), and so soon as now ("he's not here yet"). It also functions as a coordinating conjunction meaning something like "nevertheless" or "but." The word yet seems to carry an element of distinctiveness that but can seldom register.

John plays basketball well, yet his favorite sport is badminton.

The visitors complained loudly about the heat, yet they continued to play golf every day.

     Yet is sometimes combined with other conjunctions, but or and.

The word FOR is most often used as a preposition, of course, but it does serve, on rare occasions, as a coordinating conjunction. Some people regard the conjunction for as rather highfalutin and literary, and it does tend to add a bit of weightiness to the text. Beginning a sentence with the conjunction "for" is probably not a good idea, except when you're singing for he's a jolly good fellow. "For" has serious sequential implications and in its use the order of thoughts is more important than it is, say, with because or since. Its function is to introduce the reason for the preceding clause:

John thought he had a good chance to get the job, for his father was on the
company's board of trustees.

    Most of the visitors were happy just sitting around in the shade, for it had been a long, dusty journey on the train.

Be careful other conjunction so. Sometimes it can connect two independent clauses along with a comma, but sometimes it can't. For instance, in this sentence, "Soto is not the only Olympic athlete in his family, so are his brother, sister, and his Uncle Chet." where the word so means "as well" or "in addition," most careful writers would use a semicolon between the two independent clauses.

Sometimes, at the beginning of a sentence, so will act as a kind of summing up device or transition, and when it does, it is often set off from the rest of the sentence with a comma:

So, the sheriff peremptorily removed the child from the custody of his parents.

    The short, simple conjunctions are called "coordinating conjunctions":

And, but, or, nor, for, yet, so.

    The 7 coordinating conjunctions are short, simple words. They have only two or three letters. There's an easy way to remember them - their initials spell:

F            A           N      B           O           Y           S

for         and        nor        but         or          yet         so

 

Subordinating Conjunctions

A subordinating conjunction introduces a dependent clause and indicates the nature of the relationship among the independent clause(s) and the dependent clause(s).

The most common subordinating conjunctions are "after," "although," "as," "because," "before," "how," "if," "once," "since," "than," "that," "though," "till," "until," "when," "where," "whether," and "while."

Each of the words in the following sentences is a subordinating conjunction:

After she had learned to drive, Alice felt more independent.

The subordinating conjunction "after" introduces the dependent clause "After she had learned to drive."

If the paperwork arrives on time, your cheque will be mailed on Tuesday.

A Subordinating Conjunction (sometimes called a dependent word or subordinates) comes at the beginning of a Subordinate (Dependent) clause and establishes the relationship between the rests of the sentence. It also turns the clause into something that depends on the rest of the sentence for its meaning.

He took to the stage as though he had been preparing for this moment all his life.

Because he joined acting, he refused to give up his diary of being in the movies.

Unless we act now, all is lost

Midwifery advocates argue that home births are safer because the mother and baby are exposed to fewer people and fewer germs.

In this sentence, the dependent clause "because the mother and baby are exposed to fewer people and fewer germs" is introduced by the subordinating conjunction "because."

Notice that some of the subordinating conjunctions — after, before, since -are also prepositions, but as subordinators they are being used to introduce a clause and to subordinate the following clause to the independent element in the sentence.

The majority of conjunctions are "subordinating conjunctions". Common subordinating conjunctions are:

After, although, as, because, before, how, if, once, since, than, that, though, till, until, when, where, whether, while

    A subordinating conjunction joins a subordinate (dependent) clause to a main (independent) clause:

main or independent clause

Subordinate or
dependent clause

Ram went swimming

 although

it was raining.

 

subordinating
conjunction

 

    A subordinating conjunction always comes at the beginning of a subordinate clause. It "introduces" a subordinate clause. However, a subordinate clause can sometimes come after and sometimes before a main clause. Thus, two structures are possible:

Ram went swimming although it was raining.

Although it was raining, Ram went swimming.

Correlative conjunctions

Correlative conjunctions always appear in pairs -- you use them to link equivalent sentence elements. The most common correlative conjunctions are "both...and," "either...or," "neither...nor,", "not only...but also," "so...as," and "whether...or." (Technically correlative conjunctions consist simply of a co-ordinating conjunction linked to an adjective or adverb.)

Some conjunctions combine with other words to form what are called correlative conjunctions. They always travel in pairs, joining various sentence elements that should be treated as grammatically equal.

She led the team not only in statistics but also by virtue of her enthusiasm.

Polonius said, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be." Whether you win this race or lose it doesn't matter as long as you do your best.

The words in the following sentences are correlative conjunctions:

Both my grandfather and my father worked in the steel plant.

In this sentence, the correlative conjunction "both...and" is used to link the two noun phrases that act as the compound subject of the sentence: "my grandfather" and "my father".

Bring either a Jello salad or a potato scallop.

Here the correlative conjunction "either...or" links two noun phrases: "a Jello salad" and "a potato scallop."

Corinne is trying to decide whether to go to medical school or to go to law school.

Similarly, the correlative conjunction "whether ... or" links the two infinitive phrases "to go to medical school" and "to go to law school."

The explosion destroyed not only the school but also the neighbouring pub.

In this example the correlative conjunction "not only ... but also" links the two noun phrases ("the school" and "neighbouring pub") which act as direct objects.

Conjunctions are form-words; they have no independent meaning of their own, but serve to connect words, groups of words, and sentences or clauses. This connection is brought about either by way of co-ordination or by way of subordination. Accordingly, conjunctions are classed as coordinative and subordinative.

1. A coordinative (or coordinating) conjunction connects words, groups of words and clauses that are independent of each other:

2.      A subordinative (or        subordinating) conjunction connects a subordinate clause with the clause on which it depends. It may also introduce adverbial phrases.

3. Co-coordinative conjunctions may be subdivided into copulative, disjunctive, adversative, causal and regulative.

a) A copulative conjunction is one that denotes addition; sometimes it is used to express an opposition or an explanation: and, nor, neither ... nor, as well as, both... and, not only... but also

I both wished and feared to see Mr. Rochester on the day which followed this sleepless night.

The hall was not dark, nor yet was it lit...

Neither George nor I dared to turn round.

b)   A disjunctive conjunction is one that denotes separation: or, either... or:

I had no difficulty in recognizing either Minnie or Minnie's children.

c) An adversative conjunction denotes that two ideas contradict each other: but, still, yet:

d) A causal conjunction denotes reason: for:

The windows were open, for it was hot. It grew dark, but a moon was somewhere rising, for little shadows stole out along the ground.

e)  R e s u 11 a t i v e: so, hence:

The grass was drenching wet, so he descended to the road. "You have settled it all for yourself, it seems; so I wash my hands of it."

4. The divisions of subordinative conjunctions are:

a)  Those introducing subject, predicative and object clauses: that, if,
whether, lest:

She thought that the open air might do her good... She feared lest they should take her at her word.

b)  Those introducing adverbial clauses or phrases:

1)  Of place: where, wherever:

When they had gone, she moved across to where the wood fire burned.

2)  Of time: since, until, till, as long as, before, after, while whilst, directly,
soon as:

I wrote her a letter almost as soon as I was housed at Dover. So we went on till we came to another hotel.

3)  Of concession: though, although:

A thin delight lingered though the sun had set sometime... Though not amusing, he was so good-humored and so easily pleased...

4)  Of reason or cause: as, because, since, seeing:

We were up early the next morning, as we wanted to be in Oxford by the afternoon. It was a relief to get into the fresh air, and since the night was fine we walked.

5)  Of condition: if unless, provided, supposing:

"If I were you," she said, "I should not worry".

6)  Of purpose: lest, that, in order that, so that:

I went to Canterbury, that I might take leave of Agnes and Mr. Wickfield... She dared not approach the window, lest he should see her from the street.

7)  Of result: so that, that:

She stirred the fire, so that a ripple of light broke from the disturbed coal... And I sat there so many hours, that the shade became sunlight, and the sunlight became shade again...

8) Of comparison: as, as... as, not so... as, than, as if, as though:

    Traditional grammarians applied the label “conjunctions” to a wide variety of connecting words, but today it is usual to restrict this label to the small group of items formerly called “coordinating conjunctions”. In this definition, a conjunction is a grammatical word which can link two words or phrases of the same category. The familiar conjunctions are and or. Examples:

Susie and her friends under the bed or behind the sofa finished her drink and stood up a new jacket or a new pair of shoes.

 A conjunction can join two complete sentences, as in this frame:

Susie is coming ___ Mike is staying home.

In this case, the two further words but and yet can also occur, and these two are sometimes included in the class of conjunctions.

    The correlative pairs both...and, either...or and neither...nor are often also classed as pairs of conjunctions.

    Morphological classification of conjunctions

With respect to their form, conjunctions are divided into:

a) Simple conjunctions: and, but, or, since, before, if.

b)  Correlative conjunctions: both... and, either... or, neither... nor, not only... but also, as... as, not so... as, whether... or, though... yet, although... but.

c) Participial conjunctions (converted from participles): seeing, supposing, provided:

d) Phrase-conjunctions which present combination of two or more words forming one sense unit: in case "(that), as if, as though, in order that, no sooner than, as soon as, on condition ('that), etc.

                    The classification of Interjections

The interjections are a part of speech expresses various emotions without naming them. Interjections are word expressing emotions, such as surprise, anger, pleasure, regret, indignation, encouragement, they are used as exclamations.

Other interjections, according to the tone of the voice, may express emotions of different character, ah may show sorrow, surprise, pity, pleasure, etc; oh is an exclamation of surprise, fear, pain etc: eh is surprise or doubt: tush-contempt or impatience.

There are number of word which belongs to different other parts of speech but which are also used as interjections,

Bother, come, damn, hear, now, there, why, well, etc. We even find phrases used as interjections. Dear me; dear, dear; goodness gracious; hang it: well; I never, etc.

Some of them, like interjections proper, serve t express quite definite feelings. For example bother oh: bother are exclamations of impatience; goodness gracious. Goodness me are exclamations of surprise: there, there is used to soothe a person. There, there, you haven't really hurt yourself.

Other interjections of this kind may express quite different feelings, according to the tone of the voice or the context.

Note. Imitation sounds such as mew. Cock-a-coo; doodle-doodle-doo; bang, and like this cannot be treated as interjections since they do not serve to express any feeling.

Interjections are independent elements which do not perform any of the syntactic functions in the sentence. They are usually in sentence words themselves and may be used parenthetically.

"Oh" he exclaimed, unable to surprise his emotion.

"Oh. Pooh", look at these stocking!

Well.... Let's walk up there then.

Some interjections may be connected with a word in the sentence by meaning of a preposition

Hurrah for Jojo and Ed!

Alas for loamy!

Note: Interjections should he distinguished from such one word sentence as Help! Silence!

Nonsense! The hitters are national words, not mere exclamations expressing emotions.

According to their meaning interjections fall under two main groups; namely emotional interjections and imperative interjections.

1) Emotional interjections express the feeling, of the speaker. They are ah, oh, eh, bravo, alas. etc.

Oh. Bother! 1 can't see anyone now. Who is it now?

2) Imperative interjections show the will of the speaker or his order or appeal to the hearer.

They are here hush.sh-sh. well. come. now. etc.       

Here! we had enough of this. I'm going.

Hush. tush, my dear!" said the Jew abruptly resuming his old manner.

Interjections may be primary and secondary.

I) Primary interjections are not derived from other parts of speech. Most of them are simple words: ah. oh. eh. pooh. hum. bravo, hush. Only a few primary interjections are composite: heigh-ho! hey-ho! holla-ho! gee-ho!

2) Secondary interjections arc not derived from other parts of speech. They are homonymous with the words they are derived from. They are: well, now, here, there. Come. why. etc.

Derivative interjections may be simple: well, here, there, come, etc… And composite: dear me. Confound it. Hang it. etc.

Well. I don't like those mysterious little pleasure trips that he is s fond of talking.

Many at tempts have been made by grammarians to classify interjections elaborately, but such classification has proved unsatisfactory in the main. One person may differ from another in the words he uses to express emotion; almost everything depends upon temperament, the following classification is set down here for what it may be worth to one reader or another:

Attention - hey. Ho. Look. Say. See.

Aversion foils, nonsense, ugh.

Calling ahoy, hallo, halloo, hello, hey, hallo.

Detection aha. ()-(). Oho. And so, well I never.

Departure bye. farewell, goodbye, so long.

Dread ha. hah. no-no, oh. ugh.

Expulsion away. off. out.

Exultation ah. aha. hey. hurrah, hurray, whee.

Interrogation eh. ha. hev. huh. really. what.

Joy eigh. great, io. right, thank God.

Daughter ha-ha, he-he, te-hee. yi-yi.

Pam   ah. eh. Oh. uuh.

Salutation greetings hail, hello, hi. howdy, welcome.

Silencing easy hist. Hush, quiet, shh.

Sorrow ah. Oh. Oh no. woe.

Stoppage avast, halts. Stop. Wail. Whoa.

Surprise gee."Gosh'! Hello man. Whew. What.

Wonder indeed. (). strange, well-well, whew.

You may find it interesting to insert among these various items slang and other exclamatory words that yourself may have heard or used. The word lists are capable of extension; perhaps the classification heading are also.

Interjections are sometimes clipped forms or corruptions of words and phrases; thus, lo is short for laok, once hut no longer written lo'; adieu is French through the Latin ad deum, meaning to God. that is. to God I recommended you; goodbye is a clipped from of God be with you.

The interjection is a part of speech which expresses various emotions without naming them.

According to their meaning interjections fall under two main groups, namely emotional interjections and imperative interjections.

Emotional interjections express the feelings of the speaker. They are: Oh! Eh! Ah! Bravo! Alas! etc.

Oh, bother! I can not see anyone now. Who is it?

Imperative interjections show the will of speaker or his order or his appeal to hearer. They are: Here! Hush! Sh-sh! Well! Come! Now! etc.

Here! I have had enough oh this. I am going.    

Interjections may be primary and secondary.

Primary interjections are not derived from other parts of speech. Most of them are simple words: ah, eh, oh, pooh, bravo, hush.

Secondary interjections are derived from other parts of speech. They are homonymous with the words. Well, now, there, come why.

An interjection is a part of speech that usually has no grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence and simply expresses emotion on the part of the speaker, although most interjections have clear definitions. Filled pauses such as uh, err, um, are also considered interjections. Interjections are generally uninflected function words and have sometimes been seen as sentence-words; since they can replace or be replaced by a whole sentence (they are holophrastic). Sometimes, however, interjections combine with other words to form sentences, but not with finite verbs. Interjections are used when the speaker encounters events that cause these emotions — unexpectedly, painfully, surprisingly or in many other sudden ways. But several languages have interjections that cannot be related to emotions. The word "interjection" literally means "thrown in between" from the Latin inter ("between") and / acres ("throw").

An interjection is a word added to a sentence to convey emotion. It is not grammatically related to any other part of the sentence.

You usually follow an interjection with an exclamation mark. Interjections are uncommon in formal academic prose, except in direct questions.

The words in the following sentences are interjections:

Ouch, that hurt!

Oh no, I forgot that the exam was today.

Hey! Put that down!

I heard one guy say to another guy, "He has a new car, eh?"

I don't know about you but, good lord, I think taxes are too high!

She does not know about his real mother but, she will find her. Oh! It will be super.

Oh no, I forgot that the exam was today. God! Help me please!

Here! I did my homework regularly. I am going to school now.

    Interjections are words expressing emotions, such as surprise, anger, pleasure, regret, indignation, encouragement, triumph, etc. They are used as exclamations.

    Some interjections are special words which are not associated with any other parts of speech, e.g. oh [ou], ah [a:], eh [ei], aha [a(:)'ha:, alas [a'lal, humph, hum [hAm], pshaw [fa:],pooh [pu:l, bravo [bra:voul, hurrah [hura: ], etc

Some of these interjections serve to express quite definite feelings. Thus alas is a cry of sorrow or anxiety; bravo is a cry of approval, meaning well done, excellent; hurrah is a cry of expressing joy, welcome. Other interjections, according to the tone of the voice, may express emotions of different character, e.g. ah may show sorrow, surprise, pity, pleasure, etc.; oh is an exclamation of surprise, fear, pain, etc.; phew may express relief, astonishment or contempt; eh—surprise or doubt; tush—contempt or impatience; humph—doubt, disbelief or dissatisfaction.

There are a number of words which belong to different other parts of speech but which are also used as interjections, e.g. bother, come; damn; hear, hear; now; there, there; well; why, etc. we even find phrases used as interjections, e.g. dear me; dear, dear; goodness gracious; confound it; hang it; for shame; well, I never, etc.

Some of them, like interjections proper, serve to express quite definite feelings. For example, bother; oh, bother are exclamations of impatience; goodness gracious, goodness me are exclamations of surprise; damn, damn it all, damn you, confound you and hang it are used to express anger, annoyance; for shame serves as a reproof for not being ashamed of one's actions, behavior; well, I never expresses surprise and indignation at the same time;

Hear, hear is used as a form of cheering, usually to express approval, but it may also be used ironically; there, there is used to soothe a person. There, there, you haven't really hurt yourself)

Other interjections of this kind may express quite different feelings, according to the tone of the voice or the context.

Thus dear, dear or dear me or oh, dear express sorrow, impatience or wonder; why may be an expression of surprise or protest, as in: Why, it's quite easy!

Come or come, come indicate either encouragement or blame, as in: Come, come. Don't be so foolish! or Come, come! You don't expect me to believe it!

Now and now, now can in different cases serve a different purpose: Now listen to me! Means I beg you to listen to me; oh, come now! Expresses surprise, reproof, disbelief. Now, now or now then are meant as a friendly protest or warning.

Well, depending on the sentence in which it is used, may express a variety of emotions. In well, who would have thought it? it serves as an expression of surprise. In Well, here we are at last! it expresses relief. Well serves to express expectation in well then? Well, what about it? resignation in Well, it can't be helped; concession in Well, it may be true, etc.

Note. Imitation sounds such as mew, cock-a-doodle-doo, bang and the like cannot be treated .as interjections since they do not serve to express any feeling.

4. Interjections are independent elements which do not perform any of the syntactic functions in the sentence. They are usually sentence-words themselves and may be used parenthetically. "Oh," he exclaimed, unable to suppress his emotion.

"H'm," said Mr. Fox thoughtfully.

The great poet said: "The tragedy of our age is that aesthetic values do not keep pace with social—and, alas, technical—developments."

"Did you notice the stink in the hall?" "Well, not particularly."

"Phew! Three times I was nearly sick." "Marian is going to see her old nurse, Nannie Robeson, in the afternoon." "Confound Nannie

Robeson! Marian's always going there."

Oh, pooh, look at these stockings!

Now, Marilyn, you don't know what you are doing.

Well... let's walk up there then. You're about to make a confession to me. Well, don't do it. I don't want to hear.

Some interjections may be connected with a word in the sentence by means of a preposition, e.g. Hurrah for Jojo and Ed! Alas for poor Tommy!

Note: interjections should be distinguished from such one-word sentences as Help! Silence! Nonsense! The latter are notional words, not mere exclamations expressing emotions.

We can make a wide range of emotional noises which stand in for sentences, such Eh? Oy?, Huh?, Tut-tut!, Coo!, and Yuk!. The important point to note is that they are standing in for sentences, not words, as the punctuation marks indicate. They are therefore better treated as a type of sentence rather than as a word class.

Emotion

Although a widespread word, it is not so easy to come up with a generally acceptable definition of emotion. Growing consensus does agree that the distinction between emotion and feeling is important. Feeling can be seen as emotion that is filtered through the cognitive brain centers, specifically the frontal lobe, producing a physiological change in addition to the psycho-physiological change. Daniel Goleman, in his landmark book Emotional Intelligence, discusses this differentiation at length.

Robert Masters makes the following distinctions between affect, feeling and emotion: "As I define them, affect is an innately structured,

non-cognitive evaluative sensation that may or may not register in consciousness; feeling is affect made conscious, possessing an evaluative capacity that is not only physiologically based, but that is often also psychologically (and sometimes relationally) oriented; and emotion is psychosocial constructed, dramatized feeling. In the Triune brain model, emotions are defined as the responses of the Mammalian cortex. Emotion competes with even more instinctive responses from the Reptilian cortex and the more logically developed neocortex.

Emotion is complex, and the term has no single universally accepted definition. Emotions create a response in the mind that arises spontaneously, rather than through conscious effort. It is unclear whether animals or all human beings experience emotion. Emotions are physical expressions, often involuntary, related to feelings, perceptions or beliefs about elements, objects or relations between them, in reality or in the imagination. The study of emotions is part of psychology, neuroscience, and, more recently, artificial intelligence. According to Sloman, emotions are cognitive processes. Some authors emphasize the difference between human emotions and the affective behavior of animals.

                 The definition and classification of Prepositions.

The preposition is part of speech which denotes the relations between object and phenomena. It shows the relations between a verb, another noun, an adjective and sometimes an adverb. Usually the prepositions are not stressed and stands before the word it refers to. E g. Desert moved quickly to the windows.

Sometimes, however a preposition may be separated from the word it refers to and placed at the end of sentence or clause. In that case it is stressed.

But he sounds as though he knows what he's talking about.

The prepositions may be weekly stressed before a pronoun.

She wrote the words to them herself, and other poems.

The preposition is stressed when its meaning is emphasized.

The book was in the table, not on it.

As to their morphological structure prepositions fall under following groups:

To simple preposition consists of a single monosyllabic word, as a: in, on, at, with, for, from like, since, till, of, off, up.

1) Derivative or compound preposition consists of two or more syllables and is usually made up of two or more words or is formed by prefixing and suffixing as: behind, below, across, along, around, inside, outside, within, without, into, despite, after, under, outside, except, over, until, upon, about.

2) A participial preposition is a participial form used with the force of a preposition rather than with the force of an adjective, gerund, or verbal noun as: barring, concerning, during, saving, accepting, past, providing, respecting, notwithstanding, regarding, providing, touching. It will be observed that a few of these - during, notwithstanding, regarding - are now used almost exclusively as prepositions; that others - providing, touching arc more. ...ninonl) participles than prepositions.

3) A phrasal preposition is a group of two or more words that may be used as a unit preposition and is at the same lime capable of being resolved into its constituent parts as: according to. as to, because of, by means of, for the sake of, in consequence of, in reference to, in regard to, in respect to with a view to, due to, laugh at and stand by.

    According to their meaning prepositions may be divided into prepositions of place and direction (in. on. below, under, between, etc), time (after, before, at, etc), prepositions expressing abstract relations (by. with, because of. with a view to, etc.).

The lexical meaning of some prepositions is quite concrete in, below, between, after, till, etc.).While that of some other prepositions may be weakened to a great extent to. By, of.

Some prepositions are homonymous with adverbs and conjunctions. For instance, the prepositions alter and before, are homonymous with the adverbs after and before and with the conjunctions after and before.

The color rushed into Bosinney's face, but soon receded, leaving it sallow-brown as before.

He didn't write to her. And it was almost a year before he began to see her again (adverb). I his letter seemed to afford her peculiar satisfaction; she read it through twice before replying to the landlady (conjunction).

Some prepositions (on. in. by. over, off, up) are homonymous with postpositions. A preposition as well as a postposition doesn’t perform any independent function in the sentence. But while a preposition denotes the relation between objects and phenomena, a postposition is part of composite verb. A preposition usually bears the stress.

We've got 1 live on what we earn.

Although prepositions serve to express various relations between the noun following it and other words in the sentence, they sometimes get separated from the noun this occurs in:

a) Special questions.

What are you speaking for?

What conclusion did you come to?

b) Some kinds of subordinate clauses.

What he is waiting for is not likely to happen. That is what he wanted to begin with.

c) Certain passive constructions.

He loved the dogs and they were taken good care of.

They found him so ill that a doctor was immediately sent for.

Sometimes one and the same noun is associated with two or more different prepositions, the noun itself need to he repeated after each preposition and is usually placed after the last one. E .g. He is a hook for and about children.

He cared for and looked after his ageing mother.

According to Susan M. Gass's classification all prepositions may be subdivided into: grammatical (helping to form a grammatical), lexical (denoting several specific lexical meaning of place, cause and so on: Marry fell down the well), and idiomatic (having special meaning in idiomatic expressions. We may agree with.)

The Meaning of Prepositions

Most prepositions are polysemantic comprising a variety of meanings. The meaning of the preposition is determined a) by the meaning of the noun before which the preposition stands and b) by the meaning of the word on which the prepositional phrase depends.

1.    Most prepositions have local or temporal meaning. Local relations are expressed by prepositional phrases denoting:

a) Position in a place; these prepositional phrases answer to the question where? The following prepositions are used here: in, at, on, upon, by, beside, near, before, in front of behind, beyond, over, under, beneath (underneath), below, amidst, among, between, within, without, out, outside, around, round, about, etc.:

b)  Direction: these prepositional phrases answer to the questions where and from where? The following prepositions serve to express those meanings: to, towards, into, along, through, across, on, by, before, over, round, under, out of, from, etc.:

Temporal relations are expressed by prepositional phrases denoting:

a) A point or period of time; these prepositional phrases answer to the question when? The following prepositions express those meanings: in, at, on, of by, near, before, after, past, over, beyond, between, within, during, for, through, etc.:

b) The point of time at which the action starts or terminates; these
prepositional phrases answer to the question since when? Or till what time? The
following prepositions serve to express those meanings: from, since, to (down to, up to), into, till, until, etc.:

3. Besides local and temporal meanings prepositional phrases-may have a variety of more abstract meanings such as:

a) Manner or comparison:

A light fringe of snow lay like a cap on the shoulders of his overcoat...

I looked in astonishment towards the old man. The scented air of the garden came to us in a warm wave...

b) Attending circumstances:

Winter set in early and unexpectedly with a heavy fall of snow.

...I have slept lately with the blind drawn up...

c) Cause:

Maggie's cheeks began to flush with triumphant excitement...

My dog pants with the heat... could hardly contain herself for excitement,

I shall remember our trip to Vesuvius for many days —partly because of its sight-seeing experiences, but chiefly on account of the fatigue of the journey.

d) Purpose:

He went in search of it. Do it for your own sake. He fought for his life.

e) Agent or instrument of an action:

The shining sea was blotted out by blackness.

He chopped some wood with an axe. Participation:

They played ail sorts of games with other children...

...she trudged up the hill under the tall hedge with her child.

4. The preposition has a still "more abstract meaning in those cases when the verb requires a definite preposition to govern its object:

The dogs barked at him as he passed. "I rely on that promise

    A preposition expresses a relationship of meaning between n two parts of sentence, most often showing how the two parts are related in space or time.

We sat on the bench. They left at three.

Most of the common prepositions consist of only one word; they have no distinctive ending, and do not vary. Several prepositions consist of more than one word. (Look at the appendix page- 65,66 )

    Several prepositions are restricted in their frequency of use, especially such foreign borrowings as anti, circa, versus, and vis-à-vis. Unto is archaic, and used only in religious contexts. There are also some dialect uses, such as towards (British) vs. toward (American).

Morphological classification of prepositions

With regard to their forms prepositions are divided into:

a) Simple prepositions such as: at, by, in, on, etc.

b) Compound prepositions formed by two simple prepositions. In the compound prepositions one preposition supplements the meaning of the other: within, out of, upon, into, throughout.

c) Participial (converted from participles): concerning, during, past, regarding, respecting, considering:

I spoke with him concerning our lessons. He did it well considering the difficulties he had to meet.

d) Phrase prepositions (usually consisting of a noun preceded and followed by a preposition): by means of, in consequence of, on account of, with regard to, in front of, in spite of etc.

A preposition is a word used to show the relationship of a noun to something else, usually a location in space or time. A preposition is one type of a larger grammatical category referred to as adpositions. Virtually all adpositions in English are prepositions -- with a few exceptions that can be sometimes as postpositions, such as hence and thereafter. In most languages, the set of prepositions is extremely subject to change, and English is no exception. Over time a word may take on meaning as a preposition, or may lose that meaning and no longer be classified as a preposition. For this reason, "complete" lists of prepositions in any language are a questionable affair, though many grammar textbooks still attempt to     provide such a reference. When trying to determine whether a word is a preposition, one need only look to the role it serves in the sentence -- is it being used to demonstrate a spatial or temporal relationship between the subject and object of the sentence, or between two objects? If so, the word is likely a preposition.

    Common prepositions include the words: about, above, after, among, around, at, before, behind, beneath, beside, between, by, down, from, in, into, like, near, of, off, on, out, over, through, to, up, upon, and with. This is only a sampling of the many, many prepositions found in English. Many prepositions are also formed by combining multiple words, such as the phrases ahead of, in front of, on top of, on to, and prior to. Additionally, many archaic prepositions are no longer in common usage, but still sometimes crop up in writing or speech, such as betwixt, versus, unto, and sans. A word such as but or except may be classified by some as a preposition, while others hold these words to be similar to prepositions, but not strictly belonging in that class.

In sentences such as fourscore and seven years ago or all evidence aside, we see examples of a different type of apposition, known as a postposition. English has few postpositions, and in most cases they may also be used prepositionally - we can change our example of aside in the above to be prepositional by simply changing the order, as in, aside from all evidence. A prepositional phrase is formed by combining a preposition with a noun and adding any additional modifiers that may be desired. In the phrase at work, for example, the word at is a preposition, and the noun work combines with it to make a prepositional phrase.

    A prepositional phrase may serve a number of functions. It may be the object or subject of a sentence or it may function as an adjective or adverb. In the sentence ‘The women ran with vigor’, for example, the prepositional phrase with vigor is acting as an adverb to modify ran. In the sentence The men are in denial, on the other hand, the prepositional phrase in denial serves as an adjective to modify the men.

    There is some debate in English as to whether it is acceptable to distance the preposition in a sentence from its object, or to end a sentence with a preposition. Different grammarians have different feelings about these issues - though in most cases tensions run high.

    Usage recommendations seem to be tending towards the liberal as time passes, with few mainstream grammarians arguing against terminating a sentence with a preposition in a case such as: This is something I can't put up with.

Preposition is common knowledge that prepositions are a most important element of the structure of many languages, particularly those, like Modern English, have no developed case system in their nominal parts of speech. It is sometimes said that prepositions express the relations between words in a sentence, and this is taken as a definition of the meaning of prepositions. If true, this would imply that they don't denote any relations existing outside the language. However, this is certainly not true, and tw3 or three simple examples will show it.

If we compare the two sentences: The book is lying, on the table, and The book is lying under the table, and ask ourselves, what do the prepositions express here, it will at once be obvious that they express relations (in space) between the book (the thing itself) and the table (the thing itself)- The difference in the situations described in the two sentences is thus an extra-linguistic difference expressed by means of language, namely, by prepositions. It would certainly be quite wrong to say that the prepositions merely express the relations between the word "book" and the word "table", as the definition quoted above would imply. The same may be said about a number of other sentences.

We must add that there are cases in which a preposition does not express relations between extra-linguistic phenomena but merely serves as a link between words. Take, for instance, the sentence: This depends on you. Here we cannot say that the preposition has any meaning of its own. This is also clear from the fact that no other preposition could be used after the verb "depend" (except the preposition upon, which is to all intents and purposes a stylistic variant of on). Classes of prepositions

According to their meaning prepositions are often divided into those of:

Place and direction - in, on, below, under, at, to, from;

Time - after, before, in, at;

Cause - because of, owing to;

Purpose -for, in order to.

According to Susan M.Gass's classification all prepositions may be subdivided into:

Grammatical (helping to form a grammatical category), lexical (denoting several specific lexical meaning of place, cause and so on, e.g.: Marry fell down the well.) and idiomatic (having special meaning in idiomatic expressions, e.g.: We may agree with.) Barchudarov L.S. called such prepositions absolute ones .The most problematic thing is a prepositional phrase, the structure of which is usually : preposition + noun + preposition, e.g.: in danger of, on account of.

Morphological Characteristics

Form — in accordance with their structure prepositions may be subdivided into: Simple- of, with, under, on, etc. Compound- out of, owing to, because of, etc.

Grammatical categories — there are no grammatical categories.

Syntactic characteristics

Combinability - On the phrase level there are patterns like:

"noun + preposition + noun" - a letter from my friend;

"adjective + preposition 4- noun" - true to life:

"verb + preposition + noun" - wait for an answer.

Functions

On the sentence level: a preposition is never a part of a sentence by itself; it enters the part of sentence whose main center is the following noun, or pronoun, or gerund. We ought not to say that prepositions connect parts of a sentence. They do not do that, as they stand within a part of the sentence, not between two parts. The connection between the preposition, the word, which precedes it, and the word, which follows it requires special study. Different cases have to be distinguished here. The question is, what predicts the use of this or that preposition. We have already noted the cases when it is the preceding word, which determines it (or predicts it) In the cases where the use of a preposition is not predicted by the preceding word the connection between them is looser, and the connection between the preposition and the following word may prove to be the stronger of the two. This difference more or less corresponds to that between objects and adverbial modifiers expressed by prepositional phrases. Thus, in a sentence like this depends on him the preposition is predicted by the verb and the phrase on him is of course an object, whereas in a sentence like the book is lying under the table. The preposition is not predicted by the verb and the phrase is an adverbial modifier. However, this criterion does not bold good in all cases.

                The definition and classification of Articles.

The article is a structural word specifying the noun. The absence of the article, which may he called the zero articles, also specifies the noun and has significance.

Article is a determining unit of specific nature accompanying the noun in communicative collocation. The function of the determiners such as "this, any, some" is too explicit!) interpret the referent of the noun in relation to other objects or phenomena of ,like king, the semantic purpose of the article is to specify the nounal referent, as it were all together unostentatiously, to define it in the most general way without any explicit!) Expressed centrals.

Will you give me this pen? Willy?

     Here are two articles in English which are called the definite and the indefinite. The indefinite article is used when one wish to name an object (a thing, a person, an animal or an abstract notion) to state what kind of object is meant.

There came a tap at the door, and a small elderly man entered.

These functions may be called the nominating function. But at the same time, owing its origin from the numeral one the indefinite article always implies the idea of oneness and is used only before nouns in the singular. The idea of oneness may sometimes become quite prominent, it occurs in the following cases:

a) A hundred, a thousand, a minute, a mile, etc.

b) After the negative not-not a word, not a trace, not a thought.

c) Some set phrases-one at a time, at a draught (as in: He emptied his glass at a draught) stitch in lime save nine.

When the speaker uses the indefinite article, he just names an object which is usually new to hearer. So the indefinite article is often used to introduce a new element in the sentence. Since the new element is as a rule, important and attracts attention, the noun with the indefinite article frequently becomes the center of communication and is marked by strong stress.

Presently the Browns arrived. They brought with them a small child, a governess and a dog. He table was covered with a white cloth.

In contrast to this the definite article usually indicates that a definite object is meant and that it is not new to the hearer. That is why is often serves to show that the noun is not the center of communication. Compare the following sentences:

I bought a book yesterday.

I bought the book yesterday.

From the first sentence the hearer learns what object was bought yesterday. So "a book" is the new element in the sentence, from the second sentence the hearer learns when the book was bought. In this case "the book" is not the center of communication.

In the Russian language which has no article, the center of communication is usually marked word-order and also stress.

They sent to a conference in May.

They were sent to the conference in May.

This distinction between the two articles is very helpful in most cases but the rule does not always hold good .We may find sentence which a noun with an indefinite article dose not serve as the center of communication and is not marked by strong stress (a) and, vice versa, a noun with the definite article marked by strong stress may become the most important element of communication (b).

а) A camel can carry heavy loads.

b) "Shut the door", he ordered.

It follows from the above examples that the use of the indefinite article with noun serving as the centre of communication is to be regarded as an additional rule.

With uncountable nouns the indefinite article serves to bring out a special aspect of the notion expressed by the noun. In this case its function may be called aspective.

A dull burning anger rose in his chest.

He had almost a supernatural courage.

In this case the noun is usually qualified by an attribute which also brings out a special aspect. In its aspective function the indefinite article is devoid of the idea of oneness.

The definite article expresses the identification or individualization of the referent of the noun.

The use of this article shows that the abject denoted is taken in its concrete, individual quality. Look at the apple-tree!

When used with countable nouns the definite article has two distinct functions: 1) It may be used with singular and plural nouns to show that the noun denotes a particular object (a thing, a person, an animal or an abstract notion) or a group of object as distinct from the others of the same kind. In other words, the definite article serves to single out an object or several objects from all the other objects of the same class. This function is called the individualizing function of the definite article.

The ear stopped. Paul got out and stretched himself. 

As we stood on the steps, we felt the smell of fallen leaves coming from the garden.

2) The definite article may also have the generic function with countable nouns. With nouns in the singular it serves to indicate that the noun becomes a composite image of the class.

The tiger has always had the reputation of being a man-eater.

The Linguist is interested in the form and meaning of all possible statement in a language. With uncountable nouns the function of the definite article called restricting. The definite article restricts the material denoted by a concrete uncountable noun t a definite quantity, portion or to a definite locality (a), it also restricts the abstract notion expressed by an; uncountable noun to a particular instance (b).

a) He slowly pulled on his gloves, concentrating on each fold in the leather.   

b) The work seemed to consist chiefly of interviewing young women for jobs in

Department stores.

A singular countable noun with a definite article may represent a whole class of object. Thus, becoming a composite image of that class. A noun in this function is called a genetic singular.

The violet is a lovely flower. To the philosopher. Language may be an instrument; bf thought, to the sociologist, a form of behavior, to the psychologist, a cloudy window through which he glimpses the working of the mind, to the Linguists, a system of arbitrary. It is also possible to use the indefinite article in similar case.   

A violet is a lovely flower.    

This use of indefinite article is not to be indefinite with the genetic function of the definite article. The indefinite article is used here in nominating function, implying any representative of the class.         

The genetic article is always found with collective nouns denoting social groups or classes. The article serves to emphasize the idea of collectivity, as in the proletariat, the peasantry, the bourgeoisie, the nobility, the gentry, the clergy, the intelligentsia, the public. With other nouns the use of generic singular is restricted in two ways:  

1) Only a semantically limited group of nouns appear to be used generically. Here names of animals, plains, professions and occupations, the nouns man, woman, child, collective nouns denoting social groups and scientific terms.

2) Generic singular are mainly characteristic of scientific and literary prose where the e is a need for generalization. That means that there is a stylistic restriction to the use of generic. The definite article is used with generic plurals but it is found only when the idea of collectivity is definitely emphasized. Suggesting the whole body of, as in: a) The Russian, The Germans. The Italians. The Americans, b) The Communists, the peasants, the workers, the capitalists, the Forties.

The workers have nothing to lose but their chains.     

The use of the generic definite article is found with names of nationalities, representatives of political parties, classes, social groups, and religious beliefs. However that there is no article when not the whole body of but separate individual representatives are meant.      

Italians are often are good singers.

Brazilians are generally keen on football. 

The noun, people are used with the definite article when the idea of collectivity is emphasized.

(All) I he people in our country are going their best to ensure a lasting peace. 

But if the idea of collectivity is not uppermost in the mind of the speaker, there is no article at all.

She was speaking with absolutely certainty: "(All) People are selfish."    

I he Name generic use of the definite article is found with substantives adjectives

The blind. The poor, the rich, the young, the old etc). This is also the case with some adjectives denoting names of nationalities

The British, the French, the Chinese etc). On the whole it should he noted that the number of adjectives thus substantives is very limited.    

The class policy put forward by the Tories is a policy intended to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.    

When noun denoting titles, military ranks or posts are followed by a proper name they are used without am article, as in: Colonel Holmes. Doctor Smith, Professor Jones, Academician Fedoras. Queen Elizabeth. King fears. Lady Windermere, President Wilson, General Rawson etc. In such combinations only the proper name is stressed. 

The article is not used with the same noun denoting close relationship when they are-followed by names of persons as in: Aunt Polly. Uncle Timothy. Cousin John etc.

Other common nouns, when followed by proper names are used with the definite article, as in: the holy Dick, the student Smith, the painter Turner, The Composer Brittan, Ghee Geologist Foster etc.    

Combination as above is found not only with names of persons but also with lifeless things and abstract notions, as in: the planet Mars, the preposition "on", the verb "to be", the figure "&" etc.     

The article is not used with nouns in appositive of-phrases when the head-noun denotes a title or post.     

He was awarded the title Old Hero of the USA.

They nominated candidates for the post of President and Vice-president. There is no article with nouns in direct address. "How is my friend, doctor?'"

«Well, young man. " said Hidden with smile. » What can I do for you?" After the exclamatory what the indefinite article with singular nouns are used.

"What a car!" she exclaimed.

What a narrow-minded, suspicious woman Maria was! With plural nouns there is no article, in accordance with the general rules.

What marvelous hooks you've got!

Uses of the definite article

The definite article is used to mark the phrase it introduces as definite, i.e. as referring to something, which can be identified uniquely in the contextual or general knowledge shared by speaker and hearer. There are several ways in which the identity of the referent may be determined or 'recovered' by the hearer.

Immediate situation

Extra -linguistic situation:

The roses are very beautiful, /said in a garden/

Have you visited the castle? /Said in a given town/

Have you fed the cat? /said in a domestic context/

General knowledge

a) Unique denotation

The North Pole, the Equator, the earth, the moon, the sea, the sky, the cosmos, the Renaissance, the prime Minister, the airlines, the last war.

b) The larger situation which speaker and hearer share:

Felicity bought a TY and a video recorder, but she returned the video recorder because it was defective.

Anaphoric reference:

Direct: the noun head has already occurred in the text:

John bought a new bicycle, but found that one of the wheels was defective.

I lent Bill a valuable book, but when he returned it, the cover was filthy, and the

Pages were torn. '

Indirect: inference from what has: ad\ been mentioned:

The President of Mexico is to visit China. The girls sitting over there are my cousins.

Categorical reference

a) The modification of the noun phrase restricts the reference of the noun:

The Parents of Elvis Priestly, the height of Mont Blanc.

b) The whole phrase may have unique denotation:
My sister goes to the theater every month.

Did you hear the ten o'clock news? What's on the radio this evening?

The logical use of ‘the’

a) Uniqueness of the referent is explained by appeal to the logical interpretation of certain word: first, same, only, sole, next, last, best, largest.

b) The use of ‘the’ with reference to body parts.

They pulled her by the hair.

My mother complains of a pain in the/her hip.

It will improve your tennis if you keep the back straight when you serve.

The indefinite article in contrast to the definite article makes no assumptions about an earlier mention. There are two possible uses of the indefinite article:

a) Non-referring uses of the indefinite article. The indefinite article is strongly
associated with the complement function in a clause, or more generally with noun
phrases in a copular relationship:

Paganini was a great violinist, found Lisbon (to be) a Delightful city.

b) The indefinite article and the numeral one. The indefinite article derives
historically the unstressed form of one, and in present-day English there are still many contexts in which this numeral is uppermost:

A mile or two of: one or two miles; a foot and a half of water of: one and half feet.

c) The use of the indefinite article with nouns in set expressions:

In a hurry, to have a mind to do something, to flu into a passion, to get into a fancy to, in a low voice, a great many, a great deal, it is a pity (shame), as a result, to have a good time, to be at a loss, at a glance.

Uses of the zero articles

The zero article compared with unstressed some. It is used:

l. With plural countable nouns

2. With uncountable nouns

3. Phrases without article

a) Some institutions of human life and society:

Be in town, be in bed, be in prison, go to hospital, be at school, be at church and etc.

b) Means of transport and communication:

Travel by bicycle, leave by bus, come by boat, go by train.

c) Times of day and night:

at sunrise, by night, after nightfall, day-by-day, all-day and etc.

d)  Seasons: in spring, in summer; winter is coming.

e) Meals: stay for breakfast, have brunch, before tea, after dinner, for supper.

f)  Illnesses: appendicitis, influenza, diabetes, anemia.

g.) Parallel structures, arm in arm, face to face, day by day, hand in hand, eye to eye, from right to left, husband and wife.

Article expresses the specific limitation of the substantive functions.

He has been a long debated question how many article are in English.

Obviously, there were two material articles: the definite article ‘the’ and indefinite article ‘a/an’

Of course, there were different viewpoints, and there is a view, which has been gaining around lately is that the very absence of the article is a special kind of article, which is then termed ‘zero article’

According to this view, then there would be 3 articles in English language: definite, indefinite and zero.

The peculiar feature of the article is that the use of the article with the noun is obligatory.

The English article differs greatly from the article in such languages as German and French, where it has gender distinctions. Not being connected with the gender and case (as in German) the English article appears to be more independent of the noun.

Consequently, semantically and functionally it acquires an exceptionally wide use in speech. The status of the article in the system of the language is one of the most difficult and controversial problems.

Article has semantic, morphological and syntactic properties.

Semantically indefinite article has developed from the numeral ‘one’ and can therefore be used only with countable nouns in the singular. The lexical meaning of the definite article is a pale shadow of its original demonstrative meaning. The names of the article denote the nearest approach to their lexico-grammatical meaning, which, for lack of a better term, might be defined as that of “definiteness- indefiniteness”.

We must take into consideration their syntactic properties, i.e. their combinability with nouns, substantive adjectives.

Definite article expresses the identification or individualization of the referent of the noun. It has its origin from the demonstrative pronoun “that” and has only one form “the”:

1) Before nouns, which begin with consonant. The boy    

2) Before nouns, which begin with vowels. The evening.

The definite article can be used before nouns of different types:

a) It is used when we give a name to a thing and make it one of a whole category of things as contrasted to a member of another category:

I shall speak to the teacher. (That teacher who teaches us)

Put the milk on the window-sill. (That milk which you brought from the shop and that window-sill at which you are standing)

b) We use it before the unique denotations: the moon, the sky, the earth, the cosmos, the prime minister:

c) With the noun which has already occurred in the fact.

John bought a new car, but hasn’t paid all money for the car yet.

d) With nouns in set expressions:

It’s out of the question, in the original, to play the piano, the other day:

e) We use the definite article when the noun has limited attribute, expressed by words: only, main, central, same, right, wrong, left, right, next, last, final:

It’s the only way out.

Who can give me the right answer?

f) With ordinal numerals:

He was the first man who helped us.

Read the second text.

g) With adjectives in superlative degree of comparison:

It is the best book I’ve ever read.

h) With nouns which are used as the adverbs of place:

In (on) the street, at the theatre, at the office, at the library, on the balcony, the, etc.

I) before substantial parts of speech (adjectives, participles, verbs, which are used as a noun).

The English are very polite people.

The unemployed should be helped:

j) With the names of mountain chains, groups of islands, seas, river, channels, countries, regions.

The Atlantic Ocean, The Panama Canal, The United States of America.

k) Before the names of hotels, English and American magazines and newspapers:

The “Titanic”, The “metropolis”, The “morning star”.

l) With the surnames, which are used in the plural form in order to point all members of one and the same gamely:

The Browns, the Ivanovs.

The indefinite article is commonly interpreted as referring the object denoted by the noun to a certain class of similar objects: in other words, the indefinite article expresses a classifying generalization of the noun referent. It makes no assumptions about an earlier mention. As it was mentioned above there exist 2 kinds of indefinite articles: a/an.

Article “a” is used with words which begin with consonants and “an” is used with words beginning with vowels. One more thing and feature which distinguishes it from the definite article is that it is used only with singular countable nouns.

The indefinite article keeps its old meaning of the numeral “one” in such constructions as:

Wait a minute, two lessons a week. We covered half a mile.

Owing to this meaning the indefinite article has limited possibilities of usage and can be used only with countable nouns in the singular form.

A flower, an orange.

This article is used when we give a name to a thing and make it one of a whole category of things as contrasted to a member of another category.

If we say “bring me one pencil” then we mean only one pencil but not two or more.

If we say “bring me any pencil”, then we mean any pencil and it doesn’t matter if it is red or yellow.

If we say “bring me a pencil”, then we want to underline that we need a pencil, but not a pen or a rubber.

Indefinite article is used in the following cases:

a) If the noun has a descriptive attribute.

This is a red flower (the category of the red flowers).

 He has become a teacher of English (a teacher of the English language as the category of teachers).

b) it is used in a set of expressions such as:

a lot of, a number of, a few, a little, as a result of, at a time, for a short, in a hurry.

c) In some cases indefinite article keeps the meaning of numeral “one”

I shall come in an hour.(after one hour)

He didn’t say a word (one word).

d) Before the countable nouns in he singular which are preceded by “so” or “too”

It is not so simple a problem as it seems. It is too urgent a matter to postpone.

e) In exclamatory sentences:

What a nice child!

f) After the construction “there is/was/will be”

There is a letter for you.

There was a boot on the lake.

g) It is used as an object:

I have a dog. She got a fax.

Some grammarians speak of the “zero article” or the zero form of the indefinite article.

As a grammatical zero morphemes are created in an opposeme owing to the relative nature of grammatical meanings. As shown above, the articles are not grammatical morpheme and their meanings are not relative.

They are words and the absence of a word cannot be regarded as a zero word. Majority of our scholars as well distinguish the zero morphemes.

 The zero article is compared with unstressed some. And used in the following cases:

a) With plural countable nouns:

Teachers should be competent.

b) Some institutions of human life and society:

Be in town, be in bed, be in prison.

c) Times of by and night: at sunrise, by night, after nightfall, day -by-day.

d) Seasons: In spring, in summer, winter is coming.

e) Meals: stay for breakfast, have brunch, before tea, after dinner, for supper.

f) Illnesses: appendicitis, influenza.

g) Parallel structures: arm in arm, face to face, eye to eye, from right to left.

h) Fixed phrases involving prepositions: on foot, in turn, out of step, on top of, by way, set fire to, take advantage of.

The three articles — a, an, the — are a kind of adjective.

‘The’ is called the definite article because it usually precedes a specific or previously mentioned noun; a and an are called indefinite articles because they are used to refer to something in a less specific manner (an unspecified count noun). These words are also listed among the noun markers or determiners because they are almost invariably followed by a noun (or something else acting as a noun).

‘The’ is used with specific nouns. The is required when the noun it accompanies or refers to something that is one of a kind:

The moon circles the earth.

Zero articles: Several kinds of nouns never use articles. We do not use articles with the names of languages ("He was learning Chinese." [But when the word Chinese refers to the people, the definite article might come into play: "The Chinese are hoping to get the next Olympics."]), the names of sports ("She plays badminton and basketball."), and academic subjects ("She's taking economics and math. Her major is Religious Studies.")

When they are generic, non-count nouns and sometimes plural count-nouns are used without articles. "We like wine with our dinner. We adore Baroque music. We use roses for many purposes." But if an "of phrase" comes after the noun, we use an article: "We adore the music of the Baroque." Also, when a generic noun is used without an article and then referred to in a subsequent reference, it will have become specific and will require a definite article: "The Data Center installed computers in the Learning Center this summer. The computers, unfortunately, don't work."

Principles of Choosing an Article

Choosing articles and determiners: Briefly defined, a determiner is a noun-marker: when you see one, you know that what follows is a noun or noun phrase. There is a list of such words in the table below. When you place your mouse-cursor over a word or pair of related words (such as either/neither), you will see in the right-hand frame an image describing the kinds of words that word can modify.

              The definition and classification of Particles.

The particles have no independent lexical meaning of their own. Nor do they perform an independent syntactic function in the sentence. They only serve to emphasize a word, a phrase or a clause in the sentence. According to the purpose they serve, particles may be divided into the following groups:

1) Limiting particles - only, solely, but. Alone, barely, merely.     

She was barely nine when the war broke out.   

I told him that I was a military officer merely doing my duty.

2) Intensifying particles - simply, just, even, still.

I lie night drew still colder.

What he wanted done was just the job for me.

3) Connecting particles also. too.

They had also been told that they would have to wait for further orders.

4) Negative particles - not.

I have not given up hope.

I wanted to see the telegram, not the letter.

It was difficult for Roger not to agree.

Note: It should be pointed out that a number of particles have homonyms among other parts of speech.

This is just the thing I want (particle).

I've just see him. (Adverb)

He is lazy too (particle).

He is too lazy (adverb).

To include a word in the class of particles we must find out whether it has the characteristic features of particles which we have described in our general survey of parts of speech, and we should not apply any other criteria. We shall not inquire whether the word has one syllable, or two, or many; this phonetic quality of a word is irrelevant to its grammatical status: just as, for example, a preposition may have one syllable (of, to) or four (notwithstanding) a particle may have one syllable (just) or four (exclusively). Thus the diminutive suffix should not be taken to refer to the length of the word.

Semantic properties meaning:

When speaking of particles in our review of parts of speech we have noted already that they usually refer to the word (or, sometimes, phrase) immediately following and give special prominence to the notion expressed by this word (or phrase), or single it out in some other way, depending on the meaning of the particle. As we know, the definitions of the lexico-grammatical meanings of parts of speech are not general enough. With particles it is, probably, more so than elsewhere because they are less uniform. In most of them the meaning of emphatic specification' is quite obvious.

Never thought of that then.

Notice that there is but one chair in it.

But there are particles in whose meanings there is as much 'emphatic specification' as there is 'action' in the verb belong or 'substance' in the noun faith. There are, for instance, the connective particles also, too, else, either. They seem to resemble the conjunction and lexically, but their properties are different. Compare, for instance, the particle too and the conjunctions and, if in the following sentence.

Life is dull, you can be dull too, and no harm is done.

The particle too in fact 'specifies' the pronoun you (you too can be dull), but as a condition of that specification it requires, in accordance with its lexical meaning, that the content of the clause, of which the specified word is part, should be similar to the content of the previous clause. Thus it connects the two clauses lexically. So according to their meaning particles fall under the following main groups:

Limiting particles: only, just, but, alone, solely, merely, barely, etc.

Intensifying particles: simply, still, just, yet, all, but, only, quite, even, etc.

Connecting particles: too, also.

Negative particles: not, never.

Morphological properties

Particles have no grammatical categories, no typical stem-building elements. As far as their structure is concerned, they may be simple (just, still, yet, even, else), derivative (merely, simply, alone), compound (also). Very few particles (else, merely, solely) are not homonymous with other words.

Most of them are identical in form with adverbs (exactly, precisely, simply, never, still), adjectives (even, right, just, only), pronouns (all, either), conjunctions (but), articles (the).

The particle ‘not’ deserves special attention. It can, as is well known, be used in two different ways. On the one hand, it may stand outside the predicate, as in the following sentence:

Not till Magnus had actually landed in Orkney did he consider the many difficulties that confronted him.

It also stands outside the predicate in a type of so-called short answers, in which (he negative is expressed by the particle not, if it is accompanied by a modal word like certainly, perhaps, or a phrase equivalent to a modal word, e. g. of course: Certainly not. Perhaps not. Of course not. I am afraid not, I think not, etc. In these cases the particle not appears to be the main part of the sentence. Another use of the particle not is that within the predicate. In these cases it is customary to treat it as part of the verb itself. The usual way of putting it is this. The negative form of the present indicative, e. g., of the verb is: (I) am not, (he) is not, etc.

                        The definition and classification of Modal words. 

Modal words serve to express the relation between the statement made in the sentence and reality as established by the speaker. With the help of these words the speaker expresses various degree of certainly, supposition, desirability or undesirability of the action indicated in the sentence.       

The modal words express the attitude of the speaker to the reality, possibility or probability of the action he speaks about.   

According to their meaning modal words fall under the following main groups:

1) Word expressing certainty (certainly, surely, assuredly, of course, no doubt, apparently, undoubtedly, etc)

2) Word expressing supposition (perhaps, maybe, possibly, probably, etc.)

3) Word showing whether the speaker considers the action he speaks about desirable or undesirable (happily - unhappily, fortunately - unfortunately). Most modal words have developed from adverbs, so very often there exists a formal identify between modal words and adverbs, for instance such modal words as certainly, surely, happily are homonymous with the adverbs certainly, surely, happily. Such modal words as possibly, probably indeed, also derived from adverbs have no corresponding homonymous adverbs because the latter ceased to be used in Modern English.

Though formally identical with adverbs, modal words differ from them in meaning and syntactical function.     

If he weren’t married as happily as he was might not something come of it?    

Modal words have no syntactic function in the sentence. They are used as parenthesis besides. Some modal words can make up sentence by themselves when they are used in answer to or comment on a previous question or statement.

    Modal words serve to express the relation between statement made in the sentence and reality as established by the speaker. With the help of these words the speaker expresses various degrees of certainty, supposition, desirability of undesirability of the action indicated in the sentence. Modal words are an invariable part of speech.

Semantically modal words may be divided into the following groups:

1) Those expressing certainty (e.g. certainly, of course, undoubtedly, no doubt, surely, decidedly, definitely, really, in fact, naturally and some others).

What was the interview about?" "Surely you know it."

2. Those expressing supposition (e.g. maybe, perhaps, possible, presumably, probably, evidently, obviously, etc.)

The old man was traveling with a young girl. She perhaps is his niece. Possible he was mistaken in his suspicions.

The modal words express the attitude of the speaker to the reality, possibility or probability of the action he speaks about. With the help of these words the speaker expresses various degrees of certainly, supposition, desirability, or undesirability of the action indicated in the sentence.

According to their meaning modal words fall under the following main groups:

(1) Words expressing certainly (certainly, surely, assuredly, of course, no doubt, apparently, undoubtedly, etc.);

(2) Words expressing supposition (perhaps, maybe, possibly, probably, etc.);

(3) Words showing whether the speaker considers the action he speaks about desirable or undesirable (happily - unhappily; luckily -unluckily; fortunately - unfortunately).

In the sentence modal words are used as parentheses. Sometimes they are used as sentence-words.

Certainly you'll admit we could finish all this in a month. (Wilson) "Will you allow me to detain you one moment," said he. "Certainly," replied the unwelcome visitor.

Most modal words have developed from adverbs, so very often there exists a formal identity between modal words and adverbs. For instance such modal words as certainly, surely, happily are homonymous with the adverbs certainly, surely, happily.

Such modal words as possibly, probably, indeed, also derived from adverbs, have no corresponding homonymous adverbs because the latter ceased to be used in Modern English.

Though formally identical with adverbs, modal words differ from them in meaning and syntactical function.

If he were not married as happily as he was, might not something come of it?

... She hauled me to the washstand, inflicted a merciless, but happily brief scrub on my face and hands with soap water, and a coarse towel... lamlein rose. "We have fulfilled our obligations," he said pompously and yet not quite certainly. (Adverb)

Somas smiled. Certainly, uncle Jolyon had a way with him. (Modal words)

Slowly, surely, with the secret inner process that works the destruction of an old tree, the poison of the wounds to his happiness, his will, his pride, had corroded the comely edifice of his philosophy. (Adverb)

Over the ridge she would find him. Surely she would find him over the ridge. (Modal words)

(a) The conjunction is a part of speech which denotes connections between objects and phenomena. It connects parts of the sentence, clauses, and sentences.

(b) The conjunction seems to have some peculiar features: unlike the preposition it conveys grammatical relations in a more abstract way, it has no nomination and it cannot be a member of the sentence; on the other hand, it is more universal than prepositions and conjunctive words, for it can connect various syntactic structures and units.

(c) As to their functions conjunctions fall under two classes: coordinating conjunctions and subordinating conjunctions.

Coordinating conjunctions join coordinate clauses in a compound sentence, or homogeneous parts in a simple sentence, or homogeneous subordinate clauses in a complex sentence, or independent sentences. There are four different kinds of coordinating conjunctions:

1. Copulative conjunctions: and, nor, as well as, both…and, not only…but (also), neither…nor. They chiefly denote that one statement or fact is simply added to another (‘nor’ and ‘neither’ express that relation in the negative sense).

2. Disjunctive conjunctions: or, either…or, or else, else. They offer some choice between one statement and another.

3. Adversative conjunctions: but, while, whereas. They show that one statement or fact is contrasted with or set against another.

4. Causative-consecutive conjunctions: so, for. They denote consequence, result, or reason.

Subordinating conjunctions generally join a subordinate or dependent clause to a principal clause, or adverbial modifiers to the predicate in a simple sentence, or sometimes they join homogeneous parts.

(d) Polysemy of conjunctions may be demonstrated by the example of the subordinating conjunction ‘that’ which may introduce different kinds of clauses(subject, predicative, object, etc.).

Synonymy of conjunctions is easily seen in such pairs as: in order – so as (that), as if – as though, etc.

      (a) The preposition is a part of speech which denotes the relations between objects and phenomena. It shows the relations between a noun or a pronoun and other words.

(b) The lexical meaning of some prepositions is quite concrete (e.g. in, below, between, before, after, till, etc.), while that of some other prepositions may be weakened to a great extent (e.g. to, by, of).

(c) According to their meanings prepositions may be divided into:

- prepositions of place and direction (in, on, below, under, between, etc.);

- time (after, before, at, etc.);

- prepositions expressing abstract relations (by, with, because of, etc.).

(d) A preposition does not perform any independent function in the sentence; it either reflects a relation between sentence-members, or is included in a word-combination.

(e) Prepositions may function as other parts of speech (e.g. ups and downs), while other parts of speech may serve as prepositions (e.g. owing to, in spite of).

 (a) The particle is a part of speech giving modal or emotional emphasis to other words or groups of words or clauses.

(b) The theory of particles has not yet been elaborated well enough. Almost all the particles are homonymous with other parts of speech, chiefly with adverbs (simply), but also with conjunctions (but), pronouns (all), and adjectives (only). The particles ‘else, solely, merely’ have no homonyms. Taking this latter fact into account, as well as the emphasizing and sense-changing functions of the particle, we may set it off as a functional part of speech.

(c) Particles have no independent function in the sentence. Thus they may be treated dubiously: either as independent sentence units, or as parts of the sentence-members they refer to. As the former, they would require a specific name, apart from the traditional five sentence-members, otherwise they should not be considered while analyzing a sentence. As the latter, according to B.A.Illysh, they may lead to a confusion in case of a distant position with regard to the mother-member.

(a) The article is a structural part of speech used with nouns.

(b) The categorial status of the article implies that it reflects the category of definiteness or indefiniteness.

(c) Opinions differ as to the number of articles in English. Recently, widespread has been the theory of three articles: the definite article, the indefinite article and the so-called ‘zero’ article. The theory of the zero article is, of course, directly connected with the theory of the zero morpheme. But if we assume that the article is a word, the concept of a ‘zero’ word seems hardly reasonable. Consequently, it appears more feasible to stick to the theory of two articles.

(d) The morphological function of the article is that of indicating the noun. Its syntactical function is that of defining the left border of an attributive word-combination. The main semantic function of the article is that of actualizing the notion; in other words, the article correlates a notion with the reality represented in the given text, i.e. any utterance irrespective of its volume and contents.

Lecture 4

Syntax

 (a) The subject of syntax is the study of various grammatical structures which are realized as the product of speech-thinking activity of man.

(b) The main units of syntax are the word-combination, the sentence, and the text.

(c) Traditionally, the basic types of connections distinguished in syntax are coordination and subordination. Besides this two-member succession, there is another succession consisting of four members that denote relations called predicative, objective, adverbial and attributive.

Some linguists suppose that the two-member succession may be expanded to a three-member one to include the “interdependence” type, as L.Hjelmslev named it.

(d) Synonymy in syntax implies that one and the same communicative information may be conveyed by means of different syntactic structures (cf.: Having read the book, she took up another one. = As soon as she finished reading the book, she took up another one.).

Homonymy is the coincidence of sound forms of different syntactic functions (cf.: a smoking man – a smoking-room; Watching me closely, the dog slowly retreated. – I noticed a man watching me closely.).

(e) The semantic syntax covers a wide range of problems, among which are the semantics of the word-combination constituents, of the parts of the sentence and of the sentence as a whole, as well as of the role meanings of the sentence components, of the phenomena of the reference, of the presupposition and sequence, etc.

(f) The basic problem of the functional syntax is studying and systematizing various language units (syntactic structures) as they function in the speech-thinking activity of man. This general problem may be subdivided into a number of minor ones, such as the problem of combinability and valency, the problem of syntactical analysis, etc.

 (a) The word-combination is defined in different ways. Some scholars assume that it is a group of words which does not possess any communicative purpose. This definition is, no doubt, correct, but it is not complete. Most linguists are of the opinion that the word-combination is any syntactically organized group of words irrespective of the type of relations on which it is based. But in any case it is a grammatical structure.

(b) The issue of the word-combination was first mentioned by Russian linguists in their early studies of grammar in the 18^th century. But it was not until late in the 19^th century and especially early in the 20^th century that a really scientific theory of the word-combination appeared. It was developed by outstanding Russian linguists F.F.Fortunatov, A.A.Shakhmatov and others. The definition of the word-combination as any syntactically organized group was predominant up to the 1950s. That viewpoint is still shared by Ukrainian linguists (G.G.Pocheptsov and others), and it was supported by Western scholars (L.Bloomfield and others).

In the 1950s a new approach found its way. The term ‘word-combination’ was interpreted as a combination of at least two notional words in subordination. This viewpoint was worded by Acad. Vinogradov and supported by many linguists.

(c) The classification of word-combinations may be based on space-position relations, on the one hand. The resulting types of word-combinations are those based on the linear space-position relations and those based on the sublinear space-position relations (independent and dependent).

On the other hand, the classification may be based on the internal structure of word-combinations. They are then classified as kernel and non-kernel.

Kernel word-combinations are grammatically organized structures in which one element dominates the others. This element is the kernel (the head, according to L.Bloomfield).

Non-kernel word-combinations are not united by any single common structural feature. They are, in turn, subdivided into independent (easy and simple; she nodded) and dependent (\send\ him a letter).

Parts of a sentence

The parts of the sentences are the basic syntactical units. First and important in the investigation of the structure of the sentence is segmentation that is articulation of the composition of the sentence into constituents.

A sentence as a unit of the language, with the help of which speech communication is carried out, must reflect, on the one hand, all diversity of possible, constantly changing beyond the language situations and, on the other hand, regulate the imagination of them through generalizing character structural schemes and semantic configurations. Only satisfying these requirements the language can effectively function as a means of communication and a means of thinking activity of man. It is natural that a member of the sentence as a constituent part of the sentence cannot be indifferent to these requirements, but on the contrary, must provide their implementation.

The part of the sentence when it functional syntactical nature doesn't change in all unlimited number of the real sentences (the subject as a source or the object of the action, the predicate as an action that the subject carries out) being differently expressed lexically under conditions of identity of lexemes is sorted as a component of each new sentence with all the new subjects, with their properties, their terms of existence, thus providing the reflection of final setting of language means of unlimited diversity of the objective world and worlds that are created by intellectual activity of human being.

Part of the sentence is a two-sided language mark, which possesses the meaning and the form.

Its meaning is syntactic function, that is, that substantial relation, in which given syntactic element is in another structure of some syntactic consecution of elements. The form of the part - is not only syntactically meaningful morphological form of the word, but also characteristics, connected with the belonging of the word to the definite part of speech or to the category of words inside of the part of speech, presence or absence of secondary auxiliary words, the location in the relation to another element, intonation indications of syntactic relation- shortly everything that allows to identify the word or group of words as a bearer of definite syntactic-functional significance. Thus, syntactic form, unlike morphological one, is multi-componential.

The diversity of syntactical and semantic configurations is unlimited. The system of the parts of sentence in some extent is appropriate to the system of parts of speech. What elements form the system of parts of the sentence? Their nomenclature is standard and therefore it unlikely needs the substantiation. These are the subject, the predicate, the object, the modifier and the attribute. Full parallelism between that and the other systems is not only undesirable from the point of view of substantial problems and the possibilities of the language, but also on principle it is impossible, even for the fact that in the structural-semantic nature of some parts of speech are input their syntactical half-functionality. Thus, the noun as a expresser of the meaning of the object can be the subject, the object, the modifier, nominative attribute, nominative part of the predicate.

Traditionally the parts of the sentence are divided into main and secondary parts. Taking the given designations as conditionals (such-called secondary parts, like the main parts can belong to the structural minimum of the sentence; the object is correlative with the subject) one should acknowledge that established division traditionally reflects the necessary differential property of the parts of the sentence, and especially their participation absence in the formation of predicative core of the sentence, in expressing the category of predicativity. Practical convenience to the advantage of such division is in its unambiguity: the subject and the predicate are the main parts of the sentences; the others are always secondary parts of the sentences. If to proceed from the role that the parts of the sentence play in formation of structural-semantic minimum of the sentence, then it turns out that most of the objects and some modifiers (depending on syntagmatic class of the verb-predicate ) are the as important as the subject and the predicate. The removal of the objects and the modifiers in the examples below makes them grammatically and semantically unmarked:

She closed her eyes. (D. Lessing) She was there. (I. Murdoch)

    The distribution of the parts of the sentence will be different if they are considered coming from the role in the actual articulation of the sentence.¹ Here it appears that it is secondary parts that are communicatively essential (rhematic), as the subject and to the less extent predicate form initial part of the utterance (thematic). In the following example But she cries always in the succession of the sentence She doesn't move for hours at a time. But she cries always.' (S. Maugham) the modifier always forms more important part of the information, given by this sentence, than the subject.[2,399p]

Thus the elements of one and the same system are organized differently, if they are

considered in the aspects of different properties peculiar to them.

    It will be right in establishing the systems of the parts of sentence to come from the

roles of parts of sentences in the formation of the sentence and from the character of

their mutual relations. Here we can distinguish three main groups of the parts of the

speech:

   The first group includes the subject and the predicate. The status of the subject and the predicate is special in comparison with the other parts of the sentence. Only the subject and the predicate are mutually connected with each other and independent in the relation to any other member of the sentence as all the other parts can be raised on the base of the ties of dependence on the subject and the predicate as topping elements. This hierarchy of dependence is clearly seen when establishing the schemes of dependence. The top layer is occupied by the subject and the predicate. Look at the scheme of dependence for the sentence Small white crests were appearing on the blue sea (in it interdependent elements are connected with reciprocally directed pointer, topping and dependent elements- one- side- directed pointer from the dependent to the topping element:

 

 

    crests

 

Were appearing

smazz

 

 white

 

On the sea 

 

blue

 

The second group includes the object and the modifier. The object and the modifier are the invariably dependent parts of sentence. They can verbally-oriented, i.e. syntactically they usually depend on the verb (The object can depend on the adjective in the predicative position): I am very bad at refusing people who ask me for money. (I. Murdoch)-. the objects and the modifiers can be completive, i.e., the elements which are important for structural-semantic completeness of elementary sentence. Compare the impossibility to omit both of these parts of the sentence in the sentence: She treated Daddy like a child, (A. Wilson).

The third group includes the attributes. Always dependent, like the objects and the modifiers, the attributes, in contrast to those parts, syntactically connected only with the nouns. Their non- verbal orientedness determines their belonging to the different cut in the articulation of the sentence. In contrast to al these elements attributes are not included in the structural scheme of the sentence. The problem of substantiating differentiation of the parts of speech remains complex one. It is relatively easy solved in differentiation of main and secondary parts of the sentences. Only by first one the category of predicativity is expressed, but the second one does not participate in its expression. When there is a verbal predicate, the differentiation of the subject and the predicate is carried out on the base of indication of morphological nature of words: name — the subject, verb — predicate. In case the predicate is nominative with the noun as a nominative part, it will be difficult to solve the question what is. It also can be inversed location of the subject and the predicate. [3,350p]

(According to Balashova)The sentence is a relatively complete unit, semantically and grammatically (i.e. formally). A sentence which has one subject and one predicate is a simple one.

From the point of view of their functions simple sentences in English are varied. There are four main types of sentences in English: declarative, interrogative, exclamatory, imperative. Each of the types has its distinctive form and function.

 

 

Lecture 5

Sentence

(a) According to their structure all sentences are divided into simple and composite sentences.

(b) Simple sentences are divided into two-member and one-member sentences.

A two-member sentence has two members – a subject and a predicate. If one of them is missing it can be easily understood from the context.

A one-member sentence is a sentence having only one member which is neither the subject nor the predicate. This does not mean, however, that the other member is missing, for the one member makes the sense complete.

One-member sentences are generally used in descriptions and in emotional speech.

If the main part of a one-member sentence is expressed by a noun, the sentence is called nominal. The noun may be modified by attributes.

E.g. Dusk – of a summer night. (Dreiser)

Freedom! Bells ringing out, flowers, kisses, wine. (Heym)

The main part of a one-member sentence is often expressed by an infinitive.

E.g. To die out there – lonely, wanting them, wanting home! (Galsworthy)

Simple sentences, both two-member and one-member, can be unextended and extended. A sentence consisting only of the primary or principal parts is called an unextended sentence.

An extended sentence is a sentence consisting of the subject, the predicate and one or more secondary parts (objects, attributes, or adverbial modifiers).

(c) The composite sentence, as different from the simple sentence, is formed by two or more predicative lines. Being a polypredicative construction, it expresses a complicated act of thought, i.e. an act of mental activity which falls into two or more intellectual efforts closely combined with one another. In terms of situations and events this means that the composite sentence reflects two or more elementary situational events viewed as making up a unity; the constitutive connections of the events are expressed by the constitutive connections of the predicative lines of the sentence, i.e. by the sentential polypredication.

Each predicative unit in a composite sentence makes up a clause in it, so that a clause as part of a composite sentence corresponds to a separate sentence as part of a contextual sequence.

According to the traditional view, all composite sentences are to be classified into compound sentences (coordinating their clauses) and complex sentences (subordinating their clauses), syndetic or asyndetic types of clause connection being specifically displayed with both classes.

(d) A two-member sentence may be complete or incomplete. It is complete when it has a subject and a predicate.

It is incomplete when one of the principal parts or both of them are missing, but can be easily understood from the context. Such sentences are called elliptical and are mostly used in colloquial speech and especially in dialogue.

(e) The general definition of nominalizing transformations in English reads as follows: the nominalizing transformations are such transformations as ‘nominalize a sentence, i.e. change to a form that can appear in one of the N-phrases positions of another sentence’.

E.g. The seagull shrieked                 the shriek(ing) of the seagull

He loves pictures              his love for pictures

The man has a son              the man’s son

The N-transforms show that the relations of the sentences from which they are derived are preserved in the N-phrases: in the first sentence these were the relations of ‘actor – action’, in the second ‘actor – action – thing acted upon’, and in the third – the relations of possession. These relations constitute the meaning of the N-transforms.

Thus we must conclude that the definition of nominalization given above is not exhaustive, and we must add to it the following: ‘…and keep the same relations between their form classes that characterize the sentences from which they are derived’.

We may distinguish three degrees of nominalization.

(1) The slightest degree when the only trait of nominalization is the capability of standing in the NP position (N-clauses).

E.g. What he brought is here.

(2) The lower degree when transforms capable of standing in the NP position still have a V, but it is non-finite (semiclauses).

E.g. His managing the bank was a success.

(3) The higher degree of nominalization, N structures without V.

E.g. Their love for children was genuine.

(a) The sentence is the immediate integral unit of speech built up of words according to a definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative purpose. Any coherent connection of words having an informative destination is effected within the framework of the sentence. Therefore the sentence is the main object of syntax as part of the grammatical theory.

The sentence, being composed of words, may in certain cases include only one word of various lexico-grammatical standing. (Congratulations! Why? Certainly.)

The actual existence of one-word sentences, however, does not contradict the general idea of the sentence as a special syntactic combination of words. A word-sentence as a unit of the text is radically different from a word-lexeme as a unit of lexicon, the differentiation being inherent in the respective places occupied by the sentence and the word in the hierarchy of language levels.

(b) The sentence not only names some referents with the help of its word-constituents, but also, first, presents these referents as making up a certain situation, or, more specifically, a situational event, and second, reflects the connection between the nominal denotation of the event on the one hand, and objective reality on the other, showing the time of the event, its being real or unreal, desirable or undesirable, necessary or unnecessary, etc. Thus a sentence possesses predication, modality, form and intonation.

(c) The sentence is characterized by its specific category of predication which establishes the relation of the named phenomena to actual life. The general semantic category of modality is also defined by linguists as exposing the connection between the named objects and surrounding reality. However, modality, as different from predication, is not specifically confined to the sentence: it is revealed both in the grammatical elements of language and its lexical, purely nominative elements. Predication and modality of the affirmation and negation are both reflected in language by means of syntactical or lexical devices since they are similar intonationally.

(d) The notions of the sentence and the utterance are very similar and often overlap each other. The above-mentioned definition of the sentence, if compared to that of the utterance as “any stretch of talk, by one person, before and after which there is silence on the part of the person”(Z.S.Harris.”Method in Structural Linguistics”.Chicago.1960,p.14), will show that both units are means of communication. A distinct difference may be seen in the way they are organized. Besides, the notion of the utterance is much wider as the latter may consist of a word, a word-combination (or a phrase), a sentence and even a text.

(e) The level of the sentence, the so-called “proposematic” level, will include smaller levels going upward from the “phrasematic” level through the nomination and predication levels. According to Ch.Fries, the level analysis should also go down to the lexemic level (or rather the level of the parts of speech). The details of this type of analysis were considered in the section dealing with modern methods of grammatical analysis.

(f) The structural scheme of an English sentence is rather simple and fixed. It consists of the principal parts (subject and predicate) and the secondary parts (object, attribute, adverbial modifier). This scheme may be elementary (a simple sentence) or sophisticated (a composite sentence) but its syntactic characteristics are generally the same. Two-member sentences and one-member sentences are vivid examples of purely syntactical opposition, though some scholars treat them as examples of ellipsis.

(g) In a sentence we distinguish the principal parts, secondary parts and independent elements. The principal parts of a sentence are the subject and the predicate. The independent elements are interjections, direct address and parenthesis.

The subject is the principal part of the sentence which is grammatically independent of the other parts of the sentence. The subject can denote a living being, a lifeless thing or an idea. It can be expressed by:

1. A noun in the common (nominative) case.

2. A pronoun – personal, demonstrative, defining, indefinite, negative, possessive, interrogative.

3. A substantivized adjective or participle.

4. A numeral.

5. An infinitive, an infinitive phrase or construction.

6. A gerund, a gerundial phrase or construction.

7. Any part of speech used as a quotation, or a quotation group.

8. A group of words which is one part of the sentence, i.e. a syntactically indivisible group.

The predicate is the principal part of the sentence which expresses an action, state, or quality of the person, thing, or idea denoted by the subject. It is grammatically dependent upon the subject.

As a rule the predicate contains a finite verb which may express tense, mood, voice, aspect, and sometimes person and number. According to the structure and the meaning of the predicate we distinguish two main types: the simple predicate and the compound predicate.

The simple predicate is expressed by a finite verb in a simple or a compound tense form. It generally denotes an action; sometimes, however, it denotes a state which is represented as an action. There is a special kind of predicate expressed by a phraseological unit, the so-called phraseological predicate.

The compound predicate consists of two parts: (a) a finite verb and (b) some other part of speech: a noun, a pronoun, an adjective, a verbal, etc. The second component is the significant part of the predicate. The first part expresses the verbal categories of person, number, tense, aspect, mood and voice; besides it has a certain lexical meaning of its own. The compound predicate may be nominal or verbal.

The compound nominal predicate consists of a link verb and a predicative (the latter is also called the nominal part of the predicate).

The compound verbal predicate consists of a modal verb (modal expression) or a verb expressing the beginning, repetition, duration or cessation of the action, and an infinitive or a gerund.

There are also mixed types of predicates.

The object is a secondary part of the sentence which completes or restricts the meaning of a verb or sometimes an adjective, a word denoting state, or a noun. There are three kinds of object in English: the direct object, the indirect object, and the cognate object (e.g. to live a happy life).

The attribute is a secondary part of the sentence which qualifies a noun, a pronoun, or any other part of speech that has a nominal character. There is a special kind of attribute called apposition which may be close or loose (detached).

The adverbial modifier is a secondary part of the sentence which modifies a verb, an adjective or an adverb. There exist adverbial modifiers of time, frequency, place and direction, attendant circumstances, degree and measure, cause, result (consequence), comparison, concession and purpose.

(h) The complicating elements of the sentence are homogeneous members (two or more subjects, predicates, etc.), specifying parts of the sentence (objects, attributes, adverbial modifiers) and detached, or loose, parts of the sentence, i.e. those which assume a certain grammatical and semantic independence. In spoken language they are marked by intonation, pauses, and special stress; in written language they are generally separated by commas or dashes.

(a) The sentence as a unit of information in the speech succession sets off its own generalized model, a typical construction which stands behind the concrete lexico-semantic composition of the utterance bound to its context. This model is a combination of two essential signemic functions of the sentence: the nominative and the predicative. However, different types of sentences have their own characteristic models that are observed in most cases. Thus we may speak of a specific model of a declarative sentence (a fixed word order, a falling intonation), an interrogative sentence (structural or structural and morphological changes, a rising or/and falling intonation), a complex sentence, etc.

(b) There are some general principles of constructing syntactic paradigms of predicative functions, with a differentiation between syntactic paradigms of the ‘normal’ type and the ‘actual’ type.

The normal paradigm of a sentence should include all forms of its changing, e.g. This is true. – This isn’t true. – Is this true? – This is true, isn’t it?, etc.

The actual paradigm should be based upon a real sentence of the text, e.g. She couldn’t hear it. – Couldn’t she hear it? – She couldn’t have heard it. – It couldn’t be heard by her., etc.

(c) Arrangement, or order of words is of especially great importance in such languages as English whose inflexion is comparatively scarce and syntactic relations are chiefly expressed by analytical means. Words have to be arranged in a definite order, in a definite succession to express such syntactic relations as, say, attributive, predicative, subject-object relations. It is preferable to distinguish between two sets of phenomena within a sentence:

(1)normal order, which may be either the order “subject-predicate”, as in most declarative sentences, or “predicate-subject”, as in most interrogative and in some declarative sentences (There are many people in the room. There came a thunderstorm.)

(2)inverted order, or inversion, which may be the order “predicate-subject” in a special type of a declarative sentence (Only at sunset did I leave the house.) or “subject-predicate” in a special type of a sentence characterized in general by the order “predicate-subject” (the latter is a very rare phenomenon indeed).

(d) Taking into consideration the two-aspective character of the sentence as a signemic unit of language, predication should be interpreted not simply as referring the content of the sentence to reality, but as referring the nominative content of the sentence to reality. It is this interpretation of the semantico-functional nature of predication that discloses, in one and the same generalized presentation, both the unity of the two identified aspects of the sentence, and also their different, though mutually complementary meaningful roles.

(e) The predicate expresses two variants of structural meanings:

- the meaning inherent in the predicate as a definite part of the sentence, i.e. the meaning of the predicative signal;

- the meanings connected with the grammatical categories of a finite verb ( the meanings of mood and tense, voice, person and number), i.e. the meanings of non-predicative signals.

(f) There are two basic types of predicates: the verbal predicate and the nominal predicate. Some linguists set off a third type of predicates – the phraseological predicate. All the three types have been mentioned and described in detail earlier, in the lecture dealing with the predicate.

(g) Besides simple predicates consisting of only finite verbs, there may be inclusive and included predicates.

Inclusive predicates are such structures which contain a finite verb and some other parts of speech, e.g. We are sitting. – She had breakfast. – He is supposed to have arrived.

Included predicates are parts of larger structures, e.g. There appeared a young girl in the doorway.

(h) Semantic units that represent language identification of the participants of a situation are called semantic roles. The main bearers of role meanings are nominal groups. Semantic roles, or rather a definite set of them, together with the action expressed by a verb, reflect the language semantic model of a non-language situation. A set of semantic roles which is implied by the lexico-semantic contents of a verb, and which allows for an adequate reflection of the situation, comprises the role structure of the verb. For instance, in the sentence ‘They showed him the jewels’ the role structure of the verb ‘to show’ includes the agent, the object of the action, and the object to which the action is directed. Thus role structures reflect the nature of objective relations between things (or persons) in reality.

(i) Presupposition is a judgement drawn from the sentence where it is present in a covert form (cf. He came late. – Even he came late./here the word ‘even’ reflects the presupposition which may be worded as ‘it is unexpected’/).

Some scholars are of the opinion that presupposition is a condition (or conditions) that should be fulfilled before the sentence can be used in any communicative function (cf. Please, open the door./there must be some door, and it must be closed/).

Anyway, presupposition is characterized by three essential factors:

- its drawability (ambiguity);

- its insensitiveness to negation (cf. Even he came late. – Even he did not come late./the sentences are quite different in meaning but the presupposition is the same: contrary to my expectations/);

- its pragmatic contents (it shows the author’s attitude).

(a) Alongside of the traditional nominative division of the sentence, the idea of the so-called ‘actual division’ of the sentence has been put forward in theoretical linguistics. The purpose of the actual division of the sentence, called also the ‘functional sentence perspective’ (FSP), is to reveal the correlative significance of the sentence parts from the point of view of their actual informative role in an utterance, i.e. from the point of view of the immediate semantic contribution they make to the total information conveyed by the sentence in the context of connected speech. In other words, the actual division of the sentence in fact exposes its informative perspective.

(b) The main components of the actual division of the sentence are the theme (T) and the rheme (R). The theme (from the Greek ‘the’ – ‘to set’, ‘to establish’) expresses the starting point of the communication, i.e. it denotes an object or a phenomenon about which something is reported. The rheme (from the Greek ‘rhe’ – ‘to say’, ‘to tell’) expresses the basic informative part of the communication, its contextually relevant center. Between the theme and the rheme are positioned intermediary, transitional parts of the actual division of various degrees of informative value (these parts are sometimes called ‘transition’). The theme and the rheme of the actual division of the sentence may or may not coincide with the subject and the predicate, respectively.

E.g. They obeyed. Here is your book.

T R T R

(a) The semantic classification of simple sentences should be effected at least on the three bases: first, on the basis of the subject categorical meanings; second, on the basis of the predicate categorical meanings; third, on the basis of the subject-object relation.

Reflecting the categories of the subject, simple sentences are divided into personal and impersonal. The further division of the personal sentences is into human and non-human; human – into definite and indefinite; non-human – into animate and inanimate. The further essential division of impersonal sentences is into factual (It rains; It’s 5 o’clock) and perceptional (It smells of hay here).

Reflecting the categories of the predicate, simple sentences are divided into process-featuring (‘verbal’) and, in the broad sense, substance-featuring (‘nominal’). Among the process-featuring sentences actional and statal ones are to be discriminated (The window is opening. – The window is glistening in the sun.); among the substance-featuring sentences factual and perceptional ones are to be discriminated (The sea is rough. – The place seems quiet.).

Finally, reflecting the subject-object relation, simple sentences should be divided into subjective (John lives in London.), objective (John reads a book.) and neutral or ‘potentially’ objective (John reads.), capable of implying both the transitive action of the syntactic person and the syntactic person’s intransitive characteristic.

On the other hand, taking into account general semantics of sentences, we may classify them into existential, qualifying, identifying, etc.

(b) Existential sentences express the general idea of something or somebody existing by means of various lexico-semantic facilities, of which the predicate is the signemic center.

(c) Qualifying sentences lay the main stress on qualifying some fact of reality conveyed in speech, whether it is substance, action or state, etc.

(d) Identifying sentences mostly serve to identify various phenomena with each other to express the idea more clearly and adequately.

 Communicative types of sentences.

In accord with the purpose of communication three cardinal sentence-types have long been recognized in linguistic tradition: first, the declarative sentence; second, the imperative (inductive) sentence; third, the interrogative sentence.

The declarative sentence expresses a statement, either affirmative or negative, and as such stands in systemic syntagmatic correlation with listener’s responding signals of attention, of appraisal (including agreement or disagreement), or of fellow-feeling.

The imperative sentence expresses inducement, either affirmative or negative. That is, it urges the listener, in the form of request or command, to perform or not to perform a certain action. As such, the imperative sentence is situationally connected with the corresponding ‘action response’, and lingually is systemically correlated with a verbal response showing that the inducement is either complied with, or else rejected.

The interrogative sentence expresses a question, i.e. a request for information wanted by the speaker from the listener. It is naturally connected with the answer, forming together with it a question-answer dialogue unity.

(a) The nominative aspect of the sentence is a major functional and lingual aspect of speech. Nomination effects naming of sentential events or situations whereas modal-communicative aspects correlate the named events or situations with reality, considering the purpose of communication.

The modal aspect is versatile. Structurally, the basic modal aspect is the one implied by the mood of the verb-predicate. It is inherent in every sentence. Even verbless sentences are thought of as belonging to some kind of aspect. The basic modal aspect presents the described as real or unreal. Another modal layer of meanings, conveyed by modal words and constructions, serves to enhance or diminish the general modal meaning of the sentence, and brings in a subjective flavour, showing the author’s attitude clearly and distinctly.

(b) Modus (Latin – ‘measure’, ‘method’) denotes any means of reporting some communication in speech, comprising a great variety of lexico-grammatical signals.

Dictum (from the Latin ‘dicto’ – ‘I dictate’, ‘I order’) denotes any piece of communication within the framework of connected speech.

(a) Pragmatic syntax studies the social designation of language, i.e. the usage of sentences in speech activity. The sentence is a concentration of functional peculiarities of language and speech. Studying sentence pragmatics comprises an important sphere of language knowledge, since language literacy presupposes not only an ability to construct sentences (language competence) but also an ability to use them correctly in acts of speech to achieve the desired communicative-functional result (communicative competence).

Pragmatic aspects of the sentence include the following notions:

- communicative intention, which is, inherent in the sentence, directiveness to solving a definite lingual problem of communication;

- locution, which is the use of cognitive contents of the sentence, without any communicative purpose;

- illocution, which is an intonational framing of a communicative intention;

- perlocution, which is the effect of an act of speech.

(b) Since the contents of sentences, actualized in acts of speech, is not limited to lexico-grammatical in formation only, but always includes communicative-intentional, or pragmatic, contents, this semantic peculiarity is of great importance. Semantically identical sentences may have various illocutionary points, e.g. the sentence ‘I’ll watch you’ may be used as a statement, a promise, a menace, an inquiry, etc. However, there are cases when the semantics of the sentence predetermines its pragmatics, e.g. the sentence ‘The train will arrive in time’ cannot mean a promise, for the reality of the action does not depend on the speaker.

(a) The definition of the sentence implies its structural framing, as well as lexico-grammatical, semantic and pragmatic features. We may also say that the sentence is a unit of speech. On the other hand, the speech act is any piece of communication, which means that it may be both smaller and larger than the sentence, or it may coincide with the sentence, in volume.

(b) The loose character of the relations between the form and contents, inherent in language as a whole, also shows through in pragmatics. A sentence belonging to a certain pragmatic type by its formal features, in speech realization may acquire the illocutionary power of the sentences belonging to another type. For example, an interrogative in form and contents sentence may have the illocutionary power of inducement: Are you still here? (=Go away at once!). Uttering this sentence, the speaker does not expect any reply from the listener. In such cases it is commonplace to speak of ‘indirect’ acts of speech.

Lecture 6

Complex sentence

(a) A complex sentence consists of a principal clause and one or more subordinate clauses. This definition is true, however, only in a general sense. In an exact sense there is often no principal clause; this is the case with complex sentences containing a subject clause or a predicative clause.

Clauses in a complex sentence may be linked in two ways:

1. Syndetically, i.e. by means of subordinating conjunctions or connectives. There is a difference between a conjunction and a connective. A conjunction only serves as a formal element connecting separate clauses, whereas a connective serves as a connecting link and has at the same time a syntactic function in the subordinate clause it introduces.

2. Asyndetically, i.e. without a conjunction or connective.

A subordinate clause may follow, precede, or interrupt the principal clause.

A complex sentence may contain two or more homogeneous clauses coordinated with each other.

A subordinate clause may be subordinated to the principal clause or to another subordinate clause. Accordingly we distinguish subordinate clauses of the first, second, third, etc. degree of subordination.

According to their grammatical function subordinate clauses are divided into subject, predicative, attributive, object, and adverbial clauses.

Subject clauses perform the function of subject to the predicate of the sentence.

Predicative clauses perform the function of a predicative.

Object clauses perform the function of an object to the predicate-verb of the principal clause. An object clause may also refer to a non-finite form of the verb, to an adjective, or to a word belonging to the part of speech expressing state.

Attributive clauses serve as an attribute to a noun (pronoun) in the principal clause. This noun or pronoun is called the antecedent of the clause. According to their meaning and the way they are connected with the principal clause attributive clauses are divided into relative and appositive ones.

Attributive relative clauses qualify the antecedent, whereas attributive appositive clauses disclose its meaning.

Attributive relative clauses can be restrictive and non-restrictive or descriptive.

1. An attributive relative restrictive clause restricts the meaning of the antecedent. It cannot be removed without destroying the meaning of the sentence.

2. An attributive relative non-restrictive clause does not restrict the meaning of the antecedent; it gives some additional information about it.

A variant of the attributive non-restrictive clause is the continuative clause, whose antecedent is not one word but a whole clause.

E.g. He hasn’t helped her, which is a shame.

Attributive appositive clauses disclose the meaning of the antecedent, which is expressed by an abstract noun.

An adverbial clause performs the function of an adverbial modifier. It can modify a verb, an adjective or an adverb in the principal clause.

According to their meaning we distinguish the following kinds of adverbial clauses: adverbial clauses of time, place, cause (reason), purpose, condition, concession, result, manner, and comparison.

(b) Subordinate clauses may be substituted by various syntactic structures, both complex and simple, while retaining the semantic and modal features of the kernel structures. The transforms, therefore, may be represented by word combinations, participial, gerundial, and infinitival constructions.

There are cases when the difference between coordinate and subordinate clauses is so small that it is rather hard to discriminate between them with respect to both semantics and structure.

For example, cause, consequence and result may be expressed by either coordinate or subordinate clauses:

There was something wrong with him, for he looked grave and ill. (coordinate)

He is suspicious and jealous for fear anyone might oust him. (subordinate)

The phenomenon of neutralization of this kind of opposition is especially evident in attributive continuative clauses, e.g.

Drive-in cinemas are very popular in the USA, which is not the case with Ukraine.

Implicit nominalization refers to the structures where nominalization is implied but is not evident. It is disclosed only after respective transformations, e.g.

What he intends to do is very reasonable. – His intention is very reasonable.

Their fault was that they failed to report it. – Their fault was their failure to report it.

The complex sentence is a poly-predicative 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 realized.

     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 semantic-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.         

      Mayra left the room. - (I do remember quite well) that Mayra left the room. (He went on with his story) after Mayra left the room. – (Fred remained in his place) though Mayra left the room

- (The party was spoilt) because Mayra left the room. - (It a surprise to us all) (hat Mayra 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. - (How do you know) Mayra left the room?

     The idea of the zero-subordinator simply stresses the fact of the meaningful 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 analyzable into a combination of two-clause complex sentence units.

   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.

    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. . 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 subject⁹ 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 characterizing complex sentences with clausal deployment of their main parts, the latter characterizing com­plex sentences with clausal deployment of their secondary parts.

   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 genuinely division of any construction, be it simple or otherwise, is ef­fected in the context, so it is as part of a genuinely text that the complex sentence makes its clauses into rhyme-rendering and theme-rendering at the complex-sentence information level.

       When we discussed he problem of the actual division of the sentence, we pointed out that in a neutral context the rheumatic part of the sentence tends to be placed somewhere near the end of it. 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. .

      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 rhyme-forming elements, such as emphatic particles, constructions of meaningful antithesis, pattern of logical accents of different kinds.

      Speaking of the information status of the principal clause, it should be noted that even in un emphatic 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. .

     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 "emphatic". 'Verbs of speech and especially thought are commonly used/in emphatic principals to specify "in pass­ing" the speaker's attitude to the information rendered by their rheumatic subordinates:

I think there's much truth in what we hear about the matter. Pm. 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:

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

       Of the problems discussed in linguistic literature in connection with the complex sentence, the central one concerns the princi­ples of classification of subordinate clauses. Namely, the two different bases of classification are considered as competitive in this domain: the first is functional, the second is categorical.

      According to the functional principle, subordinate clauses are to be classed on the analogy of the positional parts of the simple sen­tence, since it is the structure of the simple sentence that underlies the essential structure of the complex sentence (located at a higher level). In particular, most types of subordinate clauses meet the same functional question- tests as the parts of the simple sentence. The said analogy, certainly, is far from being absolute, because no subor­dinate clause can exactly repeat the specific character of the corre­sponding non-clausal part of the sentence; moreover, there is a deep difference in the functional status even between different categorical types of the same parts of the sentence, one being expressed by a word-unit, another by a word-group, still another by a substitute.

      You can see my state. - You can "see my wretched state. - . You can see my state being wretched. - You can see that my state is wretched. -You can see that. - What can you see?

        Evidently, the very variety of syntactic forms united by a central function and separated by specific sub-functions is brought about in language by the communicative need of expressing not only rough and plain ideas, but also innumerable variations of thought reflecting the ever developing reality.

      Furthermore, there are certain (and not at all casual) clauses that do not find ready correspondences among tile non-clausal parts of" the sentence at all. This concerns, in particular, quite a number of adverbial clauses.

      Still, a general functional analogy (though not identity) between clausal and lexemic parts of the sentence does exist, and, which is very important, it reflects the underlying general similarity of then-semantic purpose. So, the functional classification of subordinate clauses on the simple sentence-part analogy does reflect the essential properties of the studied syntactic units and has been proved useful and practicable throughout many years of application to language teaching.

       Now, according to the categorical principle, subordinate clauses are to be classed by their inherent nominative properties irrespective of their immediate positional relations in the sentence. The nomina­tive properties of notional words are reflected in their part-of-speech classification. A question arises; can there be any analogy between types of subordinate clauses and parts of speech?

         One need not go into either a detailed research or heated argu­ment to see that no direct analogy is possible here. This is made clear by the mere reason that a clause is a predicative unit express­ing an event, while a lexeme is a pure naming unit used only as material for the formation of predicative units, both independent and dependent. On the other hand, if we approach the categorical principle of the characterization of clauses on a broader basis than drawing plain part-of-speech analogies, we shall find it both plausible and helpful. As a matter of fact, from the point of view of their general nominative features all the subordinate clauses can be divided into three categorical-semantic groups. The first group includes clauses that name an event as a certain fact. These pure fact-clauses may be terminologically defined as "substantive-nominal".

Their substantive-nominal nature is easily checked by a substitute test:

          That his letters remained unanswered annoyed him very much. - That fact annoyed him very much. The woman knew only too well what was right and what was wrong. - The woman knew those matters well.

          The second groups of clauses also name an event-fact, but, as different from the first group, tins event-fact is referred to as giving a characteristic to some substantive entity (which, in its turn, may be represented by a clause or a phrase or a substantive lexeme). Such clauses, in compliance with-our principle of choosing explana­tory terminology, can be tentatively called "qualification-nominal. The qualification-nominal nature of the clauses in question, as is the case with the first group of clauses, is proved through the corre­sponding replacement patterns:

         The man who came in the morning left a message. - That man left a message. Did you find a place where we could make a fire?-»Did you find such kind of place?

          Finally, the third groups of clauses make their event-nomination into a dynamic relation characteristic of another event or a process or a quality of various descriptions. In keeping with the existing practices, it will be quite natural to call these clauses "adverbial".

Adverbial clauses are best tested not by a replacement, but by a definitive transformation. .

            Describe the picture as you see it. - Describe the picture in the manner you see it All will be well if we arrive in time. -All will be well on condition that we arrive in time.

         When comparing the two classifications in the light of the systemic principles, it is easy to see that only by a very superficial observation they could be interpreted as alternative (i.e. contradicting each other). In reality they are mutually complementary, their re­spective bases being valid at different levels of analysis. The categorical features of clauses go together with their functional sentence-part features similar to the categorical features of lexemes going together with their functional characteristics as parts of the simple sentence.

         Subordinate clauses are introduced by functional connective words which effect their derivation from base sentences. Categorically these sentence subordinators (or subordinating clausalizers) fall into the two basic types: those that occupy a notional position in the derived clause, and those that do not occupy such a position. The non-posi­tional subordinators are referred to as pure conjunctions. Here be­long such words as since, be/ore, until, if, in case, because, so that, in order that, though, however, than, as if, etc. The positional subordinators are in fact conjunctive substitutes. The main positional subordinators are the words who, what, whose, which, that, where, when, why, as. Some of these words are double-func­tional (bifunctional), entering also the first set of subordinators; such are the words where, when, foot, as, used both as conjunctive sub­stitutes and conjunctions. Together with these the zero subordinator should be named, whose potyfunctional status is similar to the status of the subordinator that. The substitute status of positional subordi­nators is disclosed in their function as "relative" pronominal, i.e. pronominal referring to syntagmatic antecedents. .

         That was the day when she was wearing her pink dress. Sally put on her pink dress when she decided to join the party downstairs.

          The relative pronominal when in the first of the cited sentences syntagmatically replaces the antecedent the day, while the conjunction when in the second sentence has no relative pronominal status. From the point of view of paradigmatic, though, even the second when cannot be understood as wholly devoid of substitute force, since it remains associated systemically with the adverb then, another abstract indicator of time. So, on the whole the non-substitute use of the double-functional subordinators should be described not' as utterly "non-positional", but rather as "semi-positional".

     On the other hand, there is another aspect of categorical differ­ence between the subordinators, and this directly corresponds to the nature of clauses they introduce. Namely, nominal clauses, being clauses of fact, are introduced by subordinators of fact (conjunctions and conjunctive subordinators), while adverbial clauses, being clauses of adverbial relations, are introduced by subordinators of relational semantic characteristics (conjunctions). This difference holds true both for mono functional subordinators and bifunctional subordinators. In­deed, the subordinate clauses expressing time and place and, corre­spondingly, introduced by the subordinators when and where may be used both as nominal nominators and adverbial nominators. The said difference is quite essential, though outwardly it remains but slightly featured.

    I can't find the record -where you put yesterday. I forget where I put the record yesterday.

    It is easy to see that the first place-clause indicates the place of action, giving it a situational periphrastic definition, while the second place-clause expresses the object of a mental effort. Accordingly, the subordinator where in the first sentence introduces a place description as a background of an action, while the subordinator where in the second sentence introduces a place description as a fact to be con­sidered. The first where and the second where differ by the force of accent (the first is unstressed, the second is stressed), but the main marking difference between them lies in the difference between the patterns of their use, which difference is noted by the chosen terms "nominal" and "adverbial". This can easily be illustrated by a question-replacement test: ... -Where can’t I find the record? ... -What do I forget?

    Likewise, the corresponding subdivision of the nominal subordi­nators and the clauses they introduce can be checked and proved on the,, same lines. .

     The day when we met is unforgettable. — Which day is unfor­gettable? When we met is of no consequence now. - What is of no consequence now?

    The first when-pattern is clearly disclosed by the test as a qualification-nominal, while the second, as a substantive-nominal.

    Thus, the categorical classification of clauses is sustained by the semantic division of the subordinators which are distinguished as substantive-nominal clausalizers, qualification-nominal clausalizers and adverbial clausalizers. Since, on the other hand, substantive nomination is primary in categorical rank, while qualification nomina­tion is secondary, in terms of syntactic positions all the subordinate clauses are to be divided into three groups: first, clauses of primary nominal positions to which belong subject, predicative and object clauses; second, clauses of secondary nominal positions to which belong attributive clauses; third, clauses of adverbial positions.

Think of a complex sentence as a family. Although the children contribute to the family, they cannot survive on their own without the base of the family- the parents.

Independent sentence

    The independent clause is a group of words that includes a subject and a verb. The independent clause is the main idea of the sentence. It is not dependent on another clause for meaning and context and expresses a complete thought. Example: Jim studied in the Sweet Shop for his chemistry quiz. (1C)

Avoid using the description that the independent clause can "stand by itself or

"Makes sense by itself." Many dependent clauses, when removed from the context

Of the sentence, make sense on their own. Nonetheless, they are dependent on the

Rest of the sentence for meaning and should not be evaluated outside of the

sentence.

[In the following examples, the subject(s) and verb(s) are bold and the entire

Independent clause is underlined.]

When a sentence has only a single clause, that clause is always an independent

clause.

Carl Derek Cooper has reached an agreement to plead guilty to charges
stemming from a triple killing at a Starbucks coffee shop.

There is only one clause, and it is independent.

Strong earnings reports lured investors back to the technology sector after a
wave of selling on Monday.

In this sentence, AFTER is a preposition rather than a subordinating
conjunction.

After punishing selloffs earlier this month, the NASDAQ is now 28 percent
below its all-time high of 5,048.62, reached March 10.

REACHED is a participle. There is only one clause.

Mike Forbes' ideological mix has already caused him problems this year
More than one subject or verb does not necessarily indicate more than one
clause. Paper, printing and binding may become things of the past. paper, printing and BINDING are all the subjects of the clause, but there is still only one clause.

Users check their e-mail, adjust their stock portfolios, retrieve directions to
a sales meeting, and keep track of family birthdays.

There is one subject connected to four verbs—CHECK, ADJUST,
RETRIEVE and KEEP—but still More than one subject with its own verb and separated by a coordinating conjunction indicates more than one independent clause. Words on a screen have visual qualities, to be sure, but they have no
materiality.

Here there are two clauses connected by a coordinating conjunction.
A coordinating conjunction between two clauses indicates that both
clauses are independent.

Smith moved to Seattle in the mid-'80s, and he started another company.

There must be both a subject and a verb on either side of the
conjunction for there to be two independent clauses.

He moved to Seattle in the mid- SOS and started another company.

In this sentence, there is no subject to go with the verb on the other
side of the conjunction; therefore, it is only one independent clause.

He and others are working to develop reading devices, yet publishers will sell to whoever wins the race. Do not be fooled into thinking that a coordinating conjunction automatically indicates the existence of another independent clause

We have had forecasts this bad in the past and launched successfully. There must be both a subject and a verb on either side of the
conjunction for there to be two independent clauses. In this sentence,
we is the subject and have had and launched go with that
single subject. There is only one clause and the station will be a 21st century marvel but is losing its orbit, short on power and months away from being habitable. In this sentence, station is the subject and will be and is losing are attached to that single subject. There is only one clause
and it is independent.

Independent clause Adverbial clause an adverbial clause cannot stand alone as a sentence. it must be connected to an Independent clause. They do not contain a complete thought. Adverbial clauses always modify the verbs, adjectives or other adverbs in the main clause (the sentence) to which the adverbial clause is attached. An adverbial clause tells how, when, why, how much, to what extent and under what conditions the action in the main clause takes place. Adverbial clauses always begin with a subordinating conjunction. The most common subordinating conjunctions are listed below.

Examples:

When she was in Miami, she visited many friends. She visited many friends when she was in Miami. When she was in Miami: is an adverb clause. She visited many friends: Independent clause. When an adverb clause precedes an independent clause, a comma is used to separate the clauses. When the adverb clause follows, usually no comma is used.

Examples: Because she wanted to visit her friends, she went to Miami. She went to Miami because she wanted to visit her friends.

Like when, because introduces an adverb clause. The words used to introduce adverb clauses are called subordinating conjunction. Time: After, before, when, while, as by the time (that), whenever, since, until, as soon as, once, as so long as. Place an independent clause can also be connected to a dependent clause. In that case, a subordinating conjunction provides the link between them.

When Atlantis does lift off, it will eventually dock with the $60-billion
International Space Station on a repair and supply mission.

The independent clause or main point of this sentence is that the
shuttle will dock. The dependent clause, which begins with the
subordinate conjunction WHEN, indicates when the docking will take
place. Attorney General Janet Reno decided not to prevent photographers from
taking pictures of Elian Gonzalez as agents seized him at gunpoint.

The independent clause or main point of this sentence Janet Reno's decision. The dependent clause, which begins with the subordinate conjunction AS, indicates when. The coach was so taken aback by the pitcher's lack of command that he watched an inning on television to get a better idea of where her pitches
were going. The independent clause or main point of this sentence that the coach was taken aback the dependent clause, which begins with the subordinate conjunction that, tells what he did as a result

An independent clause may work with a restrictive or nonrestrictive dependent clause.

In the following examples, the subject and verb of the independent clause are bold and the independent clause is underlined. The boy who crashed his bike into Mark's garage broke his nose. In this type of sentence, the main clause surrounds the dependent clause. The boy broke his nose is the main clause.

Near the end of the picnic, the dog that took the steaks off of the table
returned for dessert.

The subject of the dependent clause in this type of sentence is a
relative pronoun that relates to the noun preceding it. THAT TOOK
THE STEAKS is the dependent clause. THAT is the subject of the
clause. How did you meet the man who offered you the job?.

In question form, the subject and verb do not follow the standard
subject, verb, complement order. You are the subject of the independent clause. who is the subject of the dependent clause?

Have you considered hiring! Josh, who received several awards for
excellence in design last year?

The subject of the dependent clause in this type of sentence may or
may not be separated from the main clause by Where, wherever

Example: He took over where his father had leaft off. Wherever he went, he saw nothing but ruins.

Clause and effect: Because, since, now that, as so long as, inasmuch as, so (that), in order that. Opposition; Even though, although, though, whereas, while. Condition: If, unless, only if, whether or not, even if, providing (that), Provided (that), in case (that), in the event (that

2. Time relationships with adverb clauses.

Examples:

After she (had) came, she turned on the radio.

After she comes, she will turn on the radio.

Before she came, she (had) turned on the radio.

Before she comes, she will turn on the radio

The adverb clause contains a present tense while the

independent clause contains a future time.

When he came, she was turning on the radio

When he came, she had already turned on the radio/When he came, she turned on the radio.

When he was out, she turned on the radio.

When he comes tomorrow, she will turn on the radio.

While she was listening to the radio, he knocked at the door. As she was listening to the radio, he knocked at the door. As, while = during this time.

By the time he came, she had already listened the news.

By the time he comes, she will listen the news.

By the time = one event is completed before another event.

She listens to the radio whenever he comes. Whenever = every time when

She stayed at home until he came.

Until = till = to that time and then no longer.

     She hasn't listened to the radio since he came. Since = from that time to the present.

As soon as he knocks at the door, she will turn off the radio. Once he knocks at the door, she will turn off the radio. As soon as = once = when one event happens, another Event happens soon afterwards.

He won't come as long as she smokes.

He will never come so long as she doesn't call him.

As long as = so long as = during all that time, from beginning to end

3. Cause and effect relationships with adverb clauses.

Because:

Examples:

Because he wanted to visit his friends, he went to Miami.

He went to Miami because he wanted to visit his friends.

Since:

Examples:

Since she never heard about cloning, she decided to not speak about it.

Since = because

Now that:

Now that he has a lot of money, he can afford a new computers

Now that = because now. It is used for present and future situations

As:

As they graduated, they were looking for jobs.

As = because

As/so long as:

As long as he works for this company, he can't learn anything.

As/so long as = because

Inasmuch as (very formal):

Inasmuch as anybody is responsible, the situation becomes worse and worse.

Inasmuch as = because

Adverbial clauses, like all subordinate clauses, are structured in the same way all sentences are structured.

Examples

The whole country was saddened when Oswald assassinated Kennedy. When is the subordinating conjunction introducing this adverbial clause which modifies was saddened. Oswald is the subject of the clause. Assassinated is the action verb which transfers its action to the direct object, which is Kennedy, all of which makes this clause transitive active or pattern #1. Little Joe was punished because the window was broken.

Since the boy was disruptive, he was expelled from school.

Since is the subordinating conjunction introducing this adverbial clause which modifies was in the main clause. Window is the subject of the clause. Was is the helping verb, and disruptive is the predicate adjective making the clause intransitive linking or pattern #4. Note that the natural order of an adverbial clause is after the main clause. However, an adverbial clause is okay at the beginning of a sentence. If it comes at the beginning, however, a comma is used to separate it from the main clause.

Adjective Clause (Independent clause+Adjectiv clause)

Clauses are groups of words that have a subject and a verb but do not form complete thoughts and will not stand alone. Clauses are less than (subordinate to) sentences.

Clauses are structured in exactly the same patterns as sentences. Any clause can be identified as transitive active, transitive passive, intransitive linking or intransitive complete. In other words, when one knows the patterns of sentences, one also knows the pattern of clauses. Adjective clauses modify nouns or pronouns. They begin with a relative adverb (when or where) or a relative pronoun (who, whom, whose, which or that.) Relative pronouns are special pronouns that connect adjective clauses to sentences. Usually, the relative pronoun is the first word in the adjective clause. Here are the relative pronouns:

A. Adjective clauses perform the same function in sentences that adjectives do: they modify nouns.

The teacher has a car. (Car is a noun.)

It's a new car. (New is an adjective which modifies car.)

The car that she is driving is not hers.

(That she is driving is an adjective clause which modifies car. It's a clause because it has a subject (she) and a predicate (is driving); it's an adjective clause because it modifies a noun.)

Note that adjectives usually precede the nouns they modify; adjective clauses always follow the nouns they modify

B. A sentence which contains one adjective clause and one independent clause
is the result of combining two clauses which contain a repeated noun. You can
combine two independent clauses to make one sentence containing an adjective
clause by following these steps:

1. You must have two clauses which contain a repeated noun (or pronoun, or noun
and pronoun which refer to the same thing). Here are two examples:

The book is on the table. + I like the book.

The man is here. + The man wants the book.

2. Delete the repeated noun and replace it with a relative pronoun in the clause
you want to make dependent. See C. below for information on relative pronouns.

The book is on the table. + I like which

The man is here. + who wants the book

3. Move the relative pronoun to the beginning of its clause (if it is not already
there). The clause is now an adjective clause.

The book is on the table. + which I like

The man is here. + who wants the book

4. Put the adjective clause immediately after the noun phrase it modifies (the repeated noun):

The book which I like is on the table. The man who wants the book is here.

C. The subordinators in adjective clauses are called relative pronouns.

1. These are the most important relative pronouns: who, whom, that, which.

These relative pronouns can be omitted when they are objects of verbs. When they are objects of prepositions, they can be omitted when they do not follow the preposition. WHO replaces nouns and pronouns that refer to people. It cannot replace nouns and pronouns that refer to animals or things. It can be the subject of a verb. In informal writing (but not in academic writing), it can be used as the object of a verb. WHO replaces nouns and pronouns that refer to people. It cannot replace nouns and pronouns that refer to animals or things. It can be the object of a verb or preposition. It cannot be the subject of a verb. WHICH replaces nouns and pronouns that refer to animals or things? It cannot replace nouns and pronouns that refer to people. It can be the subject of a verb. It can also be the object of a verb or preposition. THAT replaces nouns and pronouns that refer to people, animals or things. It can be the subject of a verb. It can also be the object of a verb or preposition (but that cannot follow a preposition; whom, which, and whose are the only relative pronouns that can follow a preposition).

2. The following words can also be used as relative pronouns: whose, when, where. WHOSE replaces possessive forms of nouns and pronouns (see WF11 and pro in Correction Symbols Two). It can refer to people, animals or things. It can be part of a subject or part of an object of a verb or preposition, but it cannot be a complete subject or object. Whose cannot be omitted? Here are examples with whose:

The man is happy. + I found the man's wallet. =

The man whose wallet I found is happy.

The girl is excited. + Her mother won the lottery.

The girl whose mother won the lottery is excited.

WHEN replaces a time (in + year, in + month, on + day...). It cannot be a subject. It can be omitted. Here is an example with when:

I will never forget the day. + I graduated on that day.

I will never forget the day when I graduated. The same meaning can be expressed in other ways: I will never forget the day on which I graduated.

I will never forget the day that I graduated.

I will never forget the day I graduated.

WHERE replaces a place (in + country, in + city, at + school,...). It cannot be a subject. It can be omitted but a preposition (at, in, to) usually must be added. Here is an example with where:

The building is new. + He works in the building. =The building where he works is new.

The same meaning can be expressed in other ways: The building in which he works is new.

The building which he works in is new. The building that he works in is new. The building he works in is new. D. Adjective clauses can be restrictive or nonrestrictive

1. A restrictive adjective clause contains information that is necessary to identify the noun it modifies. If a restrictive adjective clause is removed from a
sentence, the meaning of the main clause changes. A restrictive adjective clause
is not separated from the main clause by a comma or commas. Most adjective
clauses are restrictive; all of the examples of adjective clauses above are restrictive.
Here is another example: People who can't swim should not jump into the ocean.

2. A nonrestrictive adjective clause gives additional information about the noun it modifies but is not necessary to identify that noun. If a nonrestrictive adjective clause is removed from a sentence, the meaning of the main clause does not change. A nonrestrictive adjective clause is separated from the main clause by a comma or commas. The relative pronoun that cannot be used in nonrestrictive
adjective clauses. The relative pronoun cannot be omitted from a nonrestrictive clause. Here is an example: Billy, who couldn't swim, should not have jumped into the ocean.

E. Adjective clauses can often be reduced to phrases. The relative pronoun (RP) must be the subject of the verb in the adjective clause. Adjective clauses can be reduced to phrases in two different ways depending on the verb in the adjective clause.

1. RP + BE = 0

People who are living in glass houses should not throw stones, (clause) People living in glass houses should not throw stones, (phrase) Mary applied for a job that was advertised in the paper, (clause)

Mary applied for a job advertised in the paper, (phrase)

2. RP + OTHER VERB (not BE) = OTHER VERB + ing

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.(clause)

People living in glass houses should not throw stones, (phrase) Students who sit in the front row usually participate more, (clause)

Students sitting in the front row usually participate more, (phrase)

Examples of adjective clauses Jeffrey are the bad boy who stole the apples.

The subject of the adjective clause is who. The verb of the adjective clause is stole. The direct object of this clause is apples. Relative pronoun who refers to boy in the main part of the sentence. Boy is the noun that the entire clause describes. Boy is a noun. Anything that describes it would be an adjective. Therefore this clause is an adjective clause Jane was the girl whom I trusted.

If you are asking why whom, you are asking the right question. An excellent

mark of whether someone really understands the grammar of our language or not is whether that someone uses the word whom correctly. Those who use it correctly know the way basic thought patterns (sentences) are constructed.

Those who use whom incorrectly are pretending to know grammar. Those who never use it, at the very least, are not being hypocritical.

Here's the secret. Who, whom and whose are of different pronoun cases.

The Three Pronoun Cases Nominative Case Objective Case Possessive Case I me my, mine she her hers he him his they them their we us ours it you your who whom whose

When a pronoun is used as a subject or the predicate noun in a sentence or a clause, the nominative case is used. Few native speaking individuals past the age of five make glaring mistakes in case when using personal pronouns. I went to the bathroom. (Correct, since the pronoun is the subject) I went to the bathroom. (Incorrect, since we use the nominative case for subjects)

It was she who answered the phone. (Correct, since the pronoun is the predicate noun).

It was her who answered the phone. (Incorrect, since nominative case is used for predicate nouns).

Me and Joe went to the concert. (Looks good but incorrect since me and Joe are the subjects of the sentence. The nominative case is used when the pronoun is used for a subject.)

When is the objective case used? Use the objective case when the pronoun is used as the object of a preposition or as the direct object. My father gave his car to me. (Correct, since me is the object of the preposition to)

My father gave his car to I. (Incorrect, since the pronoun is the object of the preposition)

Joe's insult hurt me. (Correct, since me is the direct object of hurt) Joe's insult hurt I. (Incorrect, since / is the nominative case.)

       See what we mean? Not many people use personal pronouns in the wrong case. Those kinds of mistakes usually sound like baby talk. The person who really understands the grammar, the one with the mental agility to analyze his sentence patterns as he uses them is the one who can use who and whom correctly in every kind of sentence. Ed is the fellow in whom we place our trust. (Correct, since whom is the object of the preposition in) Ed is the fellow who we place our trust in. (Incorrect, though this is the way most people would word this clause.) The adjective clause is in whom we place our trust. The clause modifies fellow.

The pattern of the clause is transitive active. We is the subject. Place is the verb. Trust is the direct object. In whom is a prepositional phrase. Ed is the fellow whom we trust. (Correct, since whom is the direct object)

Ed is the fellow who we trust. (Incorrect, since who is nominative case) Since this is a difficult concept, we will help you generate a list of adjective clauses by giving you several examples upon which you must build if you really want to learn the current convention of when to use who and whom. The young man for whom I wrote the letter of introduction was hired by the firm. The young man who was hired by the firm used my letter of introduction. A detention was given to the boy who was late for class. We have to find the person who is leading this expedition. There is the man whom I dislike intensely. Elvis Presley, whom we all love, was being shown on the television. Examples of adjective clauses and the patterns into which they fit the general who commanded the army at Trenton was George Washington. General is modified by this clause. Who is the subject? Commanded is the action verb, and army is the direct object making this clause transitive active or pattern.

The food that got eaten was purchased on credit.

Food is modified by this adjective clause. That is the subject. Got is the helping verb, and eaten is the action verb transferring its action to the subject, who. The clause is transitive passive or pattern.

Abraham Lincoln, who was President at the time, declared martial law. Abraham Lincoln is modified by this clause. Who is the subject. Was is the linking verb, and President is the predicate noun making the clause intransitive linking or pattern. I was beaten in poker by the man at the table who is clever with cards.

Independent clause

Select the option that best describes the arrangement of clauses within each sentence. Sometimes the description will refer to only the underlined part of a sentence. Read all the options carefully before making your choice.

1. Before Raoul bought his new car, he remembered that his grandmother might give him her old sedan.

The independent clause is "Before Raoul bought his new car." The independent clause in this sentence contains only two words.

There are two independent clauses here.

2. Alicia's wrist began to hurt, and her mother made a doctor's appointment for her.

The underlined part is the sole independent clause here. The real independent clause begins with "and." This sentence contains two independent clauses.

3. Zipping around the park in her little sportster, Juditha began to feel, at last, like a millionaire.

The underlined part is the independent clause.

Trick question: there is no independent clause.

The independent clause begins with "Juditha."

4. Although Jerzy had taken several courses in computer science, he couldn't solve the problems with his hard drive.

The underlined part is the independent clause.

The independent clause begins with the word "he."

The sentence contains two independent clauses.

5. The Celtics have begun their long journey back to championship basketball,
working seriously on fundamentals and beginning to attract new fans to the

A. The sentence is one long independent clause.

The sentence contains two independent clauses. 

Only the underlined part is the independent clause.

6. Ernesto wanted to spend the night studying, but his wife had other ideas.

   The sentence contains two independent clauses.

Only the underlined part of the sentence is an independent clause.

The sentence is one long independent clause (with a compound verb).

7. The crowd began to clap and cheer as the team entered through a cloud of

smoke.

 The sentence contains two independent clauses.

     The independent clause begins with the word "as."

The underlined part is the independent clause.

8. Gordy worked his way up to middle management but kept on wishing for a better job.

The underlined part of the sentence is the independent clause.

 

The sentence is one independent clause. The sentence contains two independent clauses.

9. Geraldo began to leap around the room when his wife fed him the jalapeno peppers.

The independent clause is the part of the sentence not underlined.

The independent clause is the part of the sentence that is underlined.

The sentence contains two independent clauses

10. Heater signed the contract but never agreed to purchase the CDs.

This sentence contains two independent clauses.

1.3. Dependent sentence

A dependent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb but does not express a complete thought.

A dependent clause always begins with a subordinate connective.

It presents secondary less important information.

It modifies the key idea in the main clause.

It controls reader focus.

A dependent clause cannot be a sentence. Often a dependent clause is marked by a dependent marker word.

Example: When Jim studied in the Sweet Shop for his chemistry quiz . . .

(DC)

(What happened when he studied? The thought is incomplete.)

Dependent Marker Word (DM)

A dependent marker word is a word added to the beginning of an independent clause that makes it into a dependent clause.

Example: When Jim studied in the Sweet Shop for his chemistry quiz, it was very noisy. (DM)

Some common dependent markers are: after, although, as, as if, because, before, even if, even though, if, in order to, since, though, unless, until, whatever, when, whenever, whether, and while.

Connecting dependent and independent clauses

There are two types of words that can be used as connectors at the beginning of an independent clause: coordinating conjunctions and independent marker words.

1. Coordinating Conjunction (CC)

The seven coordinating conjunctions used as connecting words at the beginning of an independent clause are and, but, for, or, nor, so, and yet. When the second independent clause in a sentence begins with a coordinating conjunction, a comma is needed before the coordinating conjunction:

Example: Jim studied in the Sweet Shop for his chemistry quiz, but it was hard to concentrate because of the noise. (CC)

2. Independent Marker Word (IM)

An independent marker word is a connecting word used at the beginning of an independent clause. These words can always begin a sentence that can stand alone. When the second independent clause in a sentence has an independent marker word, a semicolon is needed before the independent marker word.

Example: Jim studied in the Sweet Shop for his chemistry quiz; however, it was hard to concentrate because of the noise. (IM)Some common independent markers are: also, consequently, furthermore, however, moreover, nevertheless, and therefore Proper Punctuation Methods

This table gives some examples of ways to combine independent and dependent clauses and shows how to punctuate them properly.

Some Common Errors to Avoid

A comma splice is the use of a comma between two independent clauses. You can usually fix the error by changing the comma to a period and therefore making the two clauses into two separate sentences, by changing the comma to a semicolon, or by making one clause dependent by inserting a dependent marker word in front of it.

Incorrect: I like- this class, it is very interesting. Correct: I like this class. It is very interesting.

(or) I like this class; it is very interesting.

(or) I like this class, and it is very interesting.

(or) I like this class because it is very interesting.

(or) Because it is very interesting, I like this class.

Fused Sentences

Fused sentences happen when there are two independent clauses not separated by any form of punctuation. This error is also known as a run-on sentence. The error can sometimes be corrected by adding a period, semicolon, or colon to separate the two sentences.

Incorrect: My professor is intelligent I've learned a lot from her. Correct: My professor is intelligent. I've learned a lot from her.

(or) My professor is intelligent; I've learned a lot from her.

(or) My professor is intelligent, and I've learned a lot from her.

(or) My professor is intelligent; moreover, I've learned a lot from her.

Sentence Fragments

Sentence fragments happen by treating a dependent clause or other incomplete thought as a complete sentence. You can usually fix this error by combining it with another sentence to make a complete thought or by removing the dependent marker.

Incorrect: Because I forgot the exam was today. i Correct: Because I forgot the exam was today, I didn't study

1.4 Adverbial clause

An adverbial clause is dependent clause that serves as adverbial modifier to the predicate or another member of the main clause:

Andrea couldn’t type any more letters as her eyes were tired. As Doris ran up the steps, she twisted her ankle. Pretty as she was, nobody liked her.

Adverbial clause can be joined synthetically, i.e. by means of subordinating conjunctions, or asyndetically (in which case a sentence could always be paraphrased so as to include a conjunction). An adverbial clause can precede, interrupt or follow the main clause. The general rule is to punctuate adverbial clauses placed in initial or medical position:

An Englishman, even if he is alone, forms an orderly queue of one. According to their meaning we distinguish the following types of adverbial clauses: adverbial clause of time, place, condition, reason, purpose, result, manner, comparison and concession.

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 characterizing 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.

Speaking of the semantics of these clauses, it should be stressed that as far as the level of generalized clausal meanings is concerned, semantics in question is of absolute syntactic relevance; accordingly, the traditional identification of major adverbial clause models based on "semantic considerations" is linguistically rational, practically helpful, and the many attempts to refute it in the light of the "newly advanced, objective, consistently scientific" criteria have not resulted in creating a comprehensive system capable of competing with the traditional one in its application to textual materials.

On the other hand, it would be a mistake to call in question the usefulness of the data obtained by the latest investigations. Indeed, if their original negative purpose has failed, the very positive contribu­tion of the said research efforts to theoretical linguistics is not to be overlooked: it consists in having studied the actual properties of the complicated clausal system of the sentence, above all the many-sided correlation between structural forms and functional meanings in the making of the systemic status of each clausal entity that admits of a description as a separate unit subtype.

Proceeding from the said insights, the whole system of adverbial clauses is to be divided into four groups.

Adverbial clauses of time and place

Adverbial clauses of time (or temporal clause) are used to say when something happened by referring to another event: I can’t pay my bills until my paycheque comes.

Adverbial clauses of time are introduced by the following one-member an multi-member subordinators: when, before, by the time (that), the first/last/next time (that) wherever, since, directly, during the time (that), after, until, immediately, no sooner…than, as, till, once, hardly/scarcely/barely…when, as/so long as, while every/ each time, the moment/ minute, etc (that).

As a rule future tenses are not found in clauses of time; present tenses with a future reference are used instead.

Main clauses opening with endorsing items barely, hardly, scarcely and no sooner have inverted word order. If theses endorsing items occur in medial position, the word order is normal. These sentence models generally use the past perfect tense in the main clause and the simple past in the time clause. 

If a clause of time preceding the main clause opens with only after, only when or not until, the main clause has inverted word order.

After wherever (and other-ever compounds in various types of subordinate clauses) we sometimes find the modal auxiliary may, which can imply a remote possibility. Minor breakdowns, whenever they may occur, will be fixed promptly.

Adverbial clauses of places are used to say where something happened by referring to the scene or direction of another event or process. Adverbial clauses of place are introduced by the subordinators where, wherever, anywhere, everywhere: Sometimes an adverbial clause of place is preceded by a preposition: I can see it clearly from where I’m sitting.

Present simple is normally used to denote a future action after the subordinators anywhere, everywhere and wherever.    

The first group includes clauses of time and clauses of place. Their common semantic basis is to be defined as "localiza­tion"-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. Local identification is essentially determined by subordinators. Ac­cording to the choice of connector, clauses of time and place are di­vided into general and particularizing. The general local identification is expressed by the non-marking conjunctions when and where. Taken by themselves, they do not introduce any further specifications in the time or place correlations between the two local clausal events (i.e. principal and subordinate). As for the particularizing local identifica­tion, it specifies the time and place correlations of the two events localizing the subordinate one before the principal, parallel with the principal, after the principal, and possibly expressing further subgradations of these correspondences.

Adverbial Clause of Condition

1. Complex sentences with adverbial clauses of condition (called “conditional sentences” or “conditionals”) are used to refer to an event, described by the main clause, that depends for its occurrence on another event (condition), described in the subordinate clause. Conditions may be thought of as real or unreal (hypothetical or counterfactual).

2. Adverbial clauses of condition are introduced by the following one-member and multi-member subordinators: If, so/as long as, on (the), say, once, suppose/supposing (that), what if, in case (that), provided/providing (that), say once, on the understanding that.

3. An adverbial clause of condition can be joined asyndetically provided that it has inverted word order. In asyndetic conditional sentences, the contracted forms Weren’t, Shouldn’t and Hadn’t cannot be used to open a conditional clause; the corresponding full forms should be used.

4. The time reference and presumed reality or unreality of the situation described. These factors combine to determine the choice verb forms in conditional sentences. Accordingly, we distinguish three basic models of conditional sentences:

Type 1: situation thought of as real; present past or future time reference.

Type 2: situation thought of as unreal or hypothetical; present or future time reference.

Type 3: situation thought of as unreal; past time reference.

Within these types is considerable variation of from and meaning.

Adverbial clauses of manner and comparison

    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. The identification of these clauses can be achieved by applying the traditional question-transformation test of the how-type, with the corresponding variations of specifying character (for different kinds of qualification clauses).

 He spent the Saturday night as was his wont. — How did he spend the Saturday night? You talk to people as if they were a group. .-» How do you talk to people? I planned to give my mother a length of silk for a dress, as thick and heavy as it was possible to buy. - How thick and heavy the length of silk was intended to be?

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

    The discrimination between manner and comparison clauses is based on the actual comparison which may or may not be expressed by the considered clausal construction of adverbial qualification. The semantics of comparison is inherent in the subordinators as if, as though, than, which are specific introducers of comparison clauses. On the other hand, the subordinator as, both single and in the combinations as ... as, not so ... as, is unspecific in this sense, and so invites for discrimination test to be applied in dubious cases. It should be noted that more often than not a causally expressed manner in a complex sentence is rendered by an appositive con­struction introduced by phrases with the broad-meaning words way and manner. E.g.:

   Mr. Smith looked at me in a way that put me on the alert.

   Here in lies one of the needed procedures of discrimination, which is to be formulated as the transformation of the tested clause into an appositive that- or which-clause: the possibility of the trans­formation marks the clause of manner, while the impossibility of the transformation (i.e. the preservation of the original as-clause) marks the clause of comparison.

    Mary received the guests as nicely as Aunt Emma had taught her - ... in a (very) nice way that Aunt Emma had taught her. (The test marks the clause as that of manner.) Mary received the guests as nicely as Aunt Emma would have done. —... in as nice a way as Aunt Emma would have done. (The test marks the clause as comparative.)

    Clauses of comparison are subdivided into those o; 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. .

    That summer he took a longer holiday than he had done for many years. For many years he hadn't taken so long a holiday as he was offered that summer.

    With clauses of comparison it is very important to distinguish the contracted expression of predication, i.e. predicative zeroing, especially for cases where a clause of comparison as such is combined with a clause of time. Here predicative zeroing may lead to the rise of pe­culiarly fused constructions which may be wrongly understood. By way of example, let us take the sentence cited in BA. Ilyish's book: Do you find Bath as agreeable as when I had the honour of making the enquiry before!

     B.A. Ilyish analyses the construction as follows: "The when-clause as such is a temporal clause: it indicates the time when an action ("his earlier enquiry") took place. However, being introduced by the' conjunction as, which has its correlative, another as, in the main clause, it is at the same time a clause of comparison".

     But time and comparison are absolutely different characteristics, so that neither of them can by definition be functionally used for the other. They may go together only in cases when time itself forms the basis of comparison (/ came later than Mr. Jerome did). As far as the analyzed example is concerned, its clause of time renders no other clausal meaning than temporal; the clausal comparison proper is expressed reductionally, its sole explicit representative being the discontinuous introducer as ... as. Thus, the true semantics of the cited comparison is to be exposed by paradigmatic de-zeroing: - Do you find Bath as agreeable as, it was when I had the honour of making the enquiry before?                                                                

   The applied principle of analysis of contamination time-compari­son clauses for its part supports the zero-conception of other out­wardly non-predicative comparative constructions, in particular those introduced by than.

   Nobody could find the answer quicker than John. -» Nobody could find the answer quicker than John did (could do).

  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".

   Clauses of attendant circumstance are not much varied in struc­ture or semantics and come near to clauses of time. The difference lies in the fact that, unlike clauses of time, the event described by a clause of attendant circumstance is presented as some sort of back­ground in relation to the event described by the principal clause. Clauses of attendant circumstance are introduced by the conjunctions while and as. E.g.:

   As (while) one reception was going on, Mr. Smiles was engaged in a lively conversation with the pretty niece of the hostess.

   The construction of attendant circumstance may be taken to ren­der contrast; so all the clauses of attendant circumstance can be classed into "contrastive" (clauses of contrast) and "non-contrastive". The non-contrastive clause of circumstance has been exemplified above. Here is an example of contrastive attendant circumstance ex­pressed causally.

   Indeed, there is but this difference between us-that he wears fine clothes while I go in rags, and that while I am weak from hunger he suffers not a little from overfeeding.

   As is clear from die example, a complex sentence with a con­trastive clause of attendant circumstance is semantically close to a compound sentence, i.e. a composite sentence based on coordination.

    Clauses of immediate circumstance present, a vast and compli­cated system of constructions expressing different explanations of events, reasoning’s 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. This division is of especial significance for complex sentences with conditional clauses (real condition, problematic condition, unreal condition). Other types of circumstantial clauses express opposition between factual and speculative semantics with a potential relation to some kind of con­dition inherent in the deep associations of the syntactic constructions. E.g.:                                                                                        

    Though she disapproved of their endless discussions, she had to put up with them. (Real concession) - Though she may disapprove of their discussions, she will have to put up with them. (Speculative concession) – If she disapproved (Had disapproved) of their dis­cussions, why would she put up (have put up) with them? (Speculative condition)

    The argument was so unexpected that for a moment Jack lost his ability to speak. (Real consequence) -The argument was so unexpected that it would have frustrated Jack's ability to speak if he had understood the deep meaning of it. (Speculative conse­quence, based on the speculative condition)

      Each type of clauses of circumstance presents its own problems of analysis. On the other hand, it must be pointed out that all the types of these clauses are inter-related both semantically and paradigmatically, which may easily be shown by the corresponding transformations and correlations. Some of such correlations have been shown on the examples above. Compare also:

      He opened the window wide that he might hear the conversation below. (Purpose) -Unless he wanted to hear the conversation be­low he wouldn't open the window. (Condition) - As he wanted to hear the conversation below, he opened the window wide and lis­tened. (Cause) - Though he couldn't hear properly the conversation below, he opened the window and listened. (Concession) - The voices were so low that he couldn't hear the conversation through the open window. (Consequence) – If he hadn't opened the win­dow wide he couldn't have heard the conversation.

    Certain clausal types of circumstance are closely related to non-circumstantial clausal types. In particular, this kind of connection is observed between conditional clauses and time clauses and finds its specifically English expression in the rise of the contaminated if-and-when the discussion of the issue is renewed, both par­ties will greatly benefit by it another important variety of. Clauses of mixed, syntactic semantics are formed by concessive clauses introduced by the connectors ending in -ever. E.g.:

      Whoever calls, I'm not at home. However tempting the offer might be,

Jim is not in a position to accept it.

    Clauses of mixed adverbial semantics present an interesting field of paradigmatic study.

    The fourth group of adverbial clauses is formed by parenthetical or inceptive 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. .

     Jack has called here twice this morning, if I am not mistaken. - (*) Jack has called here twice this morning.

.  As is seen from the example, the elimination of the parenthesis changes the meaning of the whole sentence from problematic to as­sertive: the original sense of the utterance is lost, and this shows that the parenthesis, though inserted in the construction by a loose connection, still forms an integral part of it.

    As to the subordinative quality of the connection, it is expressed by the type of the connector used. In other words, parenthetical predicative insertions can be either subordinative or coordinative, which is determined by the contextual content of the utterance and exposed by the connective introducer of the clause. . a coordinate parenthetical clause:

   Jim said, and I quite agree with him, that it would be in vain to appeal to the common sense of the organizers. The subordinate correlative of the cited clause:

   Jim said, though I don't quite agree with him, that it would be in vain to appeal to the common sense of the organizers.

   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.

   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 propose self-dependence and is there­fore an essential characteristic of the complex sentence as a whole. For instance, a predicative clause or z direct object clause is 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. .

     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 4 looser basis , it can be deleted without destroying the principal clause as an autonomous unit of information. This kind of clausal connection is optional. .

    The girl gazed at him as though she was struck by something 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, for the introduction of a new classification of complex sen­tences. According to 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. The optional connection characterizes 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 demonstrates the correlation between form and meaning in the complex sentence structure. Far from rejecting the traditional teaching of complex sen­tences, the "member " is based on its categories and de­velops them further, disclosing such properties of subordinative con­nections which were not known to the linguistic science before.  

 

5 Adjective Clause

Attributive clauses of various syntactic functions they fall into two major classes: "descriptive" attributive clauses and "restrictive" (limiting") attributive clauses.

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. The basis of this classification, naturally, has nothing to do with the artistic properties of the classified units: a descriptive clause may or may not possess a special expressive force depending on the purpose and mastery of the respective text production. Moreover, of the two at­tributive clause classes contrasted, the restrictive class is distinguished as the more concretely definable one, admitting of the oppositional interpretation as the "marked element": the descriptive class then will be appositionally interpreted as the "non-restrictive" one, which precisely explains the correlative status of the two types of subordinate clauses.

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'.

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.

The subordinate clause in the first of the cited examples informs -the listener of the quality of the place (- We found such a place) thereby being descriptive, while the same clause in the second exam­ple refers to the quality in question as a mere mark of identification (-The place was not a lucky one) and so is restrictive.

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 nominal antecedents. The qualifications may present a constant situational feature or a temporary situational fea­ture of different contextual relations and implications.

It gave me a strange sensation to see a lit up window in a big house that was not lived in. He wore a blue shirt the collar of which .was open at the throat.

They were playing such a game as could only puzzle us. 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.

In turn, the girls came singly before Brett, who frowned, blinked, bit his pencil, and scratched his head with it, getting no help from me 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.

It has been noted in linguistic literature that such clauses are es­sentially not subordinate, but coordinate, and hence they make op with their principal clause not a complex, but a compound sentence. As a matter of fact, for the most part such clauses are equal to co­ordinate clauses of the copulative type, and their effective test is the replacement of the relative subordinator by the combination and + substitute. .

I phoned to Mr. Smith, who recognized me at once and invited me to his office. - I phoned to Mr. Smith, and he recognized me at once...

Still, the form of the subordinate clause is preserved by the continuative clause, the contrast between a dependent form and an in­dependent content constituting the distinguishing feature of this syn­tactic unit as such. Thus, what we do see in continuative clauses is a case of syntactic transposition, i.e. the transference of a subordinate clause into the functional sphere of a coordinate clause, with the aim of achieving an expressive effect. This transpositional property is es­pecially prominent in the which-continuative clause that refers not to a single noun antecedent, but to the whole principal clause. E.g.:

The tower clock struck the hour, which changed the train of his thoughts. His pictures were an immediate success on the varnishing day, -which was nothing to wonder.

The construction is conveniently used in descriptions and reason­ing.

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. Due to this specialization, appositive clauses refer to substantive an­tecedents of abstract semantics. Since the role of appositive clauses consists in bringing about contextual limitations of the meaning of the antecedent, the status of appositive clauses in the general system of attributive clauses is intermediary between restrictive and descrip­tive.

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

Appositive clauses of noun relation are functionally nearer to restrictive attributive clauses than the rest. They can introduce infor­mation of a widely variable categorical nature, both nominal and ad­verbial. The categorical features of the rendered information are de­fined by the type of the antecedent.

The characteristic antecedents of nominal apposition are abstract nouns like fact, Idea, question, plan, suggestion, news, information, etc.

The news that Dr. Blare had refused to join the Antarctic ex­pedition was sensational. We are not prepared to discuss the ques­tion who will chair the next session of the Surgical Society.

The nominal appositive clauses can be tested by transforming them into the corresponding clauses of primary nominal positions through the omission of the noun-antecedent or translating it into a predicative complement.

That Dr. Blare had refused to join the Antarctic expedi­tion was sensational. - That Dr. Blare had refused to join the Antarctic expedition was sensational news.

The characteristic antecedents of adverbial apposition are abstract names of adverbial relations, such as time, moment, place, condi­tion, purpose, etc.

We saw him at the moment he was opening the door of his Cadillac. They did it with the purpose that no one else might share the responsibility for the outcome of the venture.

As is seen from the examples, these appositive clauses serve a mixed or double function, i.e. a function constituting a mixture of nominal and adverbial properties. They may be tested by transforming them into the corresponding adverbial clauses through the omis­sion of the noun-antecedent and, if necessary, the introduction of conjunctive adverbialize.

We saw him as he was opening the door of his Cadillac. ... - They did it so that no one else might share the responsibility for the outcome of the venture.

Appositive clauses of pronominal relation refer to an antecedent expressed by an indefinite or demonstrative pronoun. The construc­tions serve' as informatively limiting and attention focusing means in contrast to the parallel non-appositive constructions. .

I couldn't agree with all that she was saying in her Irritation. - I couldn't agree with what she was saying in her irritation. (Limitation is expressed.) Appositive clauses of anticipatory relation are used in construc­tions with the anticipatory pronoun (namely, the anticipatory it, occa­sionally the demonstratives this, that). There are two varieties of these constructions - subjective and objective. The subjective clausal apposition is by far the basic one, both in terms of occurrence, it affects all the notional verbs of the vocabulary, not only transitive and functional range, it possesses a. universal sentence-transforming force. Thus, the objective anticipatory apposition is always inter­changeable with the subjective anticipatory apposition, but not vice versa.

I would consider it (this) a personal offence if they didn't accept the forwarded invitation. - It would be a personal offence (to me) if they didn't accept the forwarded invitation. You may depend on it that the letters won't be left unanswered. -» It may be depended on that the letters won't be left unanswered.

The anticipatory appositive constructions, as is widely known, constitute one of the most peculiar typological features of English syntax. Viewed as part of the general appositive clausal system here presented, it is quite clear that the exposure of their appositive na­ture does not at all contradict their anticipatory interpretation, nor does it mar or diminish their "idiomatically English" property so emphatically pointed out in grammar books.

The unique role of the subjective anticipatory appositive construc­tion, as has been stated elsewhere, consists in the fact that it is used as a universal means of rhyme identification in the actual division of the sentence.

 

 

Lecture 7

Compound sentence

A compound sentence is a sentence which consists of two or more clauses coordinated with each other. A clause is part of a sentence which has a subject and a predicate of its own.

In a compound sentence the clauses may be connected:

(a) syndetically, i.e. by means of coordinating conjunctions (and, or, else, but, etc.) or conjunctive adverbs (otherwise, however, nevertheless, yet, etc.);

(b) asyndetically, i.e. without a conjunction or conjunctive adverb.

We can distinguish the following types of coordination:

1. Copulative coordination, expressed by the conjunctions ‘and, nor, neither…nor, not only…but (also)’. With the help of these conjunctions the statement expressed in the clause is simply added to that expressed in another.

2. Disjunctive coordination, expressed by the conjunctions ‘or, else, or else, either…or’, and the conjunctive adverb ‘otherwise’. By these a choice is offered between the statements expressed in two clauses.

3. Adversative coordination, expressed by the conjunctions ‘but, while, whereas’ and the conjunctive adverbs ‘nevertheless, still, yet’. These are conjunctions and adverbs connecting two clauses contrasted in meaning.

4. Causative-consecutive coordination, expressed by the conjunctions ‘for, so’ and the conjunctive adverbs ‘therefore, accordingly, consequently, hence’. ‘For’ introduces coordinate clauses explaining the preceding statement. ‘Therefore, so, consequently, hence, accordingly’ introduce coordinate clauses denoting cause, consequence and result.

In every compound sentence there is one member that is, syntactically speaking, the leading element; this is called the main clauses; the other clauses are called the sub-clauses.

The main clause is the leading clause of the whole sentence. The sub-clauses may form a group of which each member is directly connected with the main clause (a); but it may also be that two or more sub-clauses form a closer group, one serving as the leading clause of this group (b).

(a) It was seized by Saxons, who speedily reached the limits of their expansion and settled down as the small and backward kingdom of Sussex.

(b) The authority for it all is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which certainly does tell a story that can be read in this way…

From what has been said it follows that the distinction of main and sub-clauses is a purely grammatical one, without any bearing on the meaning of the whole 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 coordinating conjunction between them indicating their semantic relations. Lately, however, the opinion has been expressed that 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 Academy’s 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 co-ordinate 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 independence between the clauses is found in English, too.      

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

The main semantic relations between the clauses connected coordinatively are copulative, adversative, disjunctive, causal, consequential, resultative. Similar semantic types of relations are to be found between independent, separate sentences forming a continual text. As is known, this fact has given cause as a special, regular form of the composite sentence.

The advanced thesis to this effect states that the so-called “compound sentence” is a fictitious notion developed under the school influence of written presentation of speech; what is fallaciously termed the “compound sentence” constitutes in reality a sequence of semantically related independent sentences not separated by full stops in writing because of an arbitrary school convention.

To support this analysis, the following reasons are put forward: first, the possibility of a falling, finalizing tone between the coordinated predicative units: second, the existence, in written speech, of independently presented sentences introduced by the same conjunctions as the would be “coordinate clauses”; third, the possibility of a full stop-separation of the said “coordinate clauses” with the preservation of the same semantic relations between them.

We must admit that, linguistically, the cited reasons are not devoid of rational aspect, and, which is very important, they appeal to the actual properties of the sentence in the text. However, the conception taken as a whole gives a false presentation of the essential facts under analysis and is fallacious in principle.

As a matter of fact, there is a substational semantico-syntactic difference between the compound sentence and the corresponding textual sequence of independent sentences. This difference can escape the attention of the observer when tackling isolated sentences, but it is explicitly exposed in the context of continual speech. Namely, by means of different distributions of the expressed ideas are achieved, which is just the coordinative syntactic functions in action; by means of combining or non-combining predicative units into a coordinative polypredicative sequence the corresponding closeness or looseness of connections between the reflected events is shown, which is another aspect of coordinative syntactic functions. It is due to these functions that the compound sentence does not only exist in the syntactic system of language, but occupies in it one of the constitutive places.

By way of example, let us take a textual sequence of independent monopredicative units;  

  Jane adored that actor. Hockins could not stand the sight of him. Each was convinced of the infallibility of one’s artistic judgment. That aroused prolonged arguments.

Given the “negative” theory of the compound sentence is correct, nay coordinative-sentential re-arrangements of the cited sentences must be indifferent as regards the sense rendered by the text. In practice, though, it is not so. In particular, the following arrangement of the predicative units into two successive compound sentences is quite justified from the semantico-syntactic point of view:

Jane adored that actor, but Hockins could not stand the sight of him. Each was convinced of the infallibility of one’s artistic judgment, and that aroused prolonged arguments.

As different from this, the version of arranging the same material giving below cannot be justified in any syntactic or semantic sense:

For example Jane adored that actor. But Hockins could not stand the sight of him, each was convinced of the infallibility of one’s artistic judgment. And that aroused prolonged arguments.

On the other hand, some subordinate clauses of the complex sentence can also be separated in the text, thus being changed into specific independent sentences. Still, no one would seek to deny the existence of complex sentence patterns based on optional subordinative connections. Suddenly Laura paused as if was arrested by something invisible from here. Suddenly Laura paused. As if she was arrested by something invisible from here.

As for the factor of intonation, it should indeed be invariably taken into account when considering general problems of sentence identification. The propositional intonation contour with its final delimitation pause is one of the constitutive means of the creation and existence of the sentence as a lingual phenomenon. In particular, the developing intonation pattern in the process of speech sustains the semantic sentence strain from the beginning of the sentence up to the end of it. And there is a profound difference between the intonation patterns of the sentence and those of the clause, no matter how many traits of similarity they may possess, including finalizing features. Moreover, as is known, the tone of a coordinate clause, far from being rigorously falling, can be rising as well. The core of the matter is that the speaker has intonation at his disposal as a means of forming sentences, combining sentences, and separating sentences. He actively uses this means, grouping the same syntactic strings of words now as one composite sentence, now as so many simple sentences, with the corresponding more essential or less essential changes in meanings, of his own choice, which is determined by concrete semantic and contextual context.

Thus, the idea of the non-existence of the compound sentence in English should be rejected unconditionally. On the other hand, it should be made clear that the formulation of this negative idea as such has served us a positive cause, after all: its objective scientific merit, similar to some other inadequate ideas advanced in linguistics at different times, consists in the very fact that it can be used as a means of counter-argumentation in the course of research work, as a starting point for new insights into the deep nature of lingual phenomena in the process of theoretical analysis sustained by observation.

It has been suggested that the compound sentence should be regarded as a mere juxtaposition of two or more simple sentences rather than a specific sentence type. However, there are a few arguments against this approach. In the first place, the joining of two clauses within one sentence is based on closer logical and semantic relationship. Secondly, some of structural patterns are restricted to compound sentence and are hardly ever found in independent sentences. Thirdly, in terms of communicative function, a compound sentence mostly serves to express an utterance marked by a particular pragmatic meaning: that of assertion, advice, threat, etc.                                                 

Besides compound sentences consisting of asyndetically or syndetically coordinated clauses, there are a number of constructions whose elements are not normally analyzed as coordinate clause, even though they are grammatically independent of each other. Rather, they are seen as examples of a more general category known as paratactic construction, i.e. syntactic constructions made up of several constituents of equal grammatical status. Parataxis is distinguished from hypotaxis, the relation between two items of which one is subordinated to the other.

Paratactic constructions include sentences with direct speech, e.g.:

Shakespeare said, “Neither a borrower nor a lender be.”

Here also belong tag questions and commas:

She’s away at the moment, isn’t she?

Answer the door, would you?

Cut it out, can’t you?

Asyndetic sentences composed of two one-member clauses of which the first implies a condition or contingency represent a borderline case between paratactic constructions and compound sentences. This model seems to be non-productive, i.e. confined to idiomatic expressions built up according to a definite pattern, although many of them are quite frequently used:

Once bitten, twice shy.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

First come, first served.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Two or more clauses can be made into one sentence without a coordinator being used. The resulting structure is referred to as asyndetic compound sentence:

Don’t worry, I’ll care of it.

Philosophy class meets on Tuesday; Spanish class meets three times a week.

Please help me – I’m stuck in the lift!

Asyndetically joined coordinate clauses convey related ideas. They are linked together so as to add or elaborate a point, to express contrast, reason or consequence. Grammatically, these relations remain implicit: the speaker / writer has them in mind when reducing an utterance, and the listener / reader deduces them from the semantic content, intonation contour and, sometimes, structural features of the coordinate clauses.

 (A)Structure and meaning

If both asyndetic clauses are negative in meaning and second clause opens with still less, much less or even less, this second clause has inverted word order, similar to interrogative sentence inversion, e.g.:

She doesn’t even like him; much less does she want to marry him.

I didn’t accuse anyone in your family; still less did I blame your cousin.

Note that the negative meaning in the second clause is conveyed by the comparative adverbs less, with the negative particle missing.

Compound sentences with inversion in one of the clauses prove yet again that a compound sentence is not a mere juxtaposition of two simple sentences, because the syntactic features of the conjoins are to a large extent interrelated.

(B)Set expressions

Asyndetic compound sentences are found in a number of proverbs and idiomatic expressions, for example:

Absence sharpens love; presence strengthens it.

Bear wealth; poverty will bear itself.

Two is company; three is none / a crowd.

 Heads, I win; tails, you lose.

The King is dead, long live the King.

You name it, we / they have it (e.g., of a supply of goods).

In syndetic compound sentences the type of coordinating is expressed explicitly by means of coordinators, i.e. coordinating conjunctions (and, or, but, for, etc.) and conjunctive adverbs (however, yet, therefore, etc.):

The garage lock was broken, but nobody seemed to care.

The process of coordination, simply stated, involves the linking of structures of equal grammatical rank — single words and phrases in elementary compound groups or independent clauses in compound sentences. The coordinative conjunctions and the correlatives serve to produce this coordination by joining the grammatically equivalent elements in question. Two or more clauses equal in rank can together be given the status of a single sentence. Such co-ordinated units make up a compound sentence.

It is overtly simple to describe the conjunctions as coordinators without certain qualifications. Even and is not purely a coordinator. Whatever the units it combines, and usually indicates an additive relationship, and sometimes it intensifies, or indicates continuous and repeated action, as in: She waited and waited. She talked and talked and talked. They went around and around. The words but and yet indicate contrast, opposition, or negation; so and for show several relationships, among them purpose, cause, result, or inference or and nor indicate what might be described as alternation, choice or opposition. Obviously conjunctions cannot be considered as empty connecting words, and there is always selection in their use in terms of style and purpose.

There is usually a sense of grammatical balance that characterises coordination, even if there is a logical inequality between the coordinated elements.

As a matter of fact, the only situations in which the process of coordination seems to combine elements of both grammatically and logically equal rank with significant frequency is at the level of single words and short phrases.

The traditional trichotomy — the classification of sentences into simple, compound and complex — arose in English prescriptive grammar in the middle of the nineteenth century on the basis of a simple-compound dichotomy, which can be traced to at least two non-grammatical sources. The first was the concept of the period (as a rhetorical unit expressing complete sense) and its parts, colons and commas, evolved by classical and medieval rhetoric. This concept was the guiding principle of English punctuation not only in the sixteenth century, before the appearance of the earliest English grammars, but also later, when the notion of the sentence came to be included into syntax proper (since the beginning of the eighteenth century).

The second non-grammatical source of this classification was the logical concept of simple and compound axioms or propositions, which furnished the basis for classifying punctuation units (periods) into simple and compound sentences, according to the number of "nouns" and "verbs", that is, subjects and predicates, contained within these punctuation units (in the grammars of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century).

Coordination within a multi-clause sentence is a means of joining a series of parallel subordinate clauses in joint dependence upon a subordination centre in the leading clause, or a means of connecting two or more independent main clauses, which jointly subordinate, a common member, mostly expressed by a dependent clause. In other words, coordination in this monograph is recognised as a syntactic means of connecting the constituent parts of multi-clause sentences only when it is made use of in the same way as in single-clause sentences, which contain a member in common subordinating or subordinated by coordinated syntactic elements. In all other cases independent coordinated subject predicate units are viewed as syntactically independent though contextually related sentences, regardless of the marks of punctuation which divide them.

Relative annexation is described by L. Iofik as a mode of connection which has no parallel in the single-clause sentence. Such connectives introduce sentences which are not subordinated to any part of the preceding sentence and are therefore viewed as semi-dependent contextually related sentences.

The patterns of multi-clause sentences containing more than two clauses (from three to twelve or thirteen) are based upon two fundamental principles of connection. The first is the principle of consecutive (step-wise) subordination, according to which in each clause (except the last one) there is a single subordination centre, nominal or verbal. It subordinates only one dependent clause. According to L. Iofik the resulting sentence-pattern may be described as a chain of clauses, in which there is one absolute principal clause, one absolute dependent clause (the last in the chain) and one or more clauses both subordinating and subordinated. The number of clauses corresponds to the number of syntactic levels in the multi-clause sentence.

Coordinative conjunctions are rather few in number: and, but, or, yet, for.

Sentence-linking words, called conjunctive advebs are: consequently, furthermore, hence, however, moreover, nevertheless, therefore.

Some typical fixed prepositional phrases functioning as sentence linkers are: at least, as a result, after a while, in addition, in contrast, in the next place, on the other hand, for example, for instance.

It comes quite natural that the semantic relations between the coordinate clauses depend to a considerable degree on the lexical meaning of the linking words.

The functional meaning of some of them is quite definite and unambiguous. Such is, for instance, the conjunction butimplying contrast or dissociation between the related items; its meaning is so distinct that there can hardly be any item in the sentence to change the adversative signification as made explicit by this linking word.

Things are different however with copulative conjunctions, which are known to be synsemantic in character and may lead to structural ambiguity if the necessary meaning is not signalled by the meaning of other words in the sentence. This may be well illustrated by the functional use of the conjunction and which may imply various shades of meaning, such as result or consequence, cause or contrast.

Coordinating conjunctions are restricted to initial position in the clause, whereas most conjunctive adverbs can be shifted to another position, e.g.:

The book contains a wealth of valuable information; moreover, the material is conveniently organized.

The book contains a wealth of valuable information; the material, moreover, is conveniently organized.

However, it is only with certain reservations that the latter type of sentence can be regarded as syndetic compound sentence. In the present section, therefore, we are going to deal only with those structures that actually open with a coordinator.

Sometimes conjunctive adverbs are preceded by conjunctions: but nevertheless, but still, and yet, and therefore, and neither, etc. In this case, the type of coordination is determined by the conjunctive adverb:

Your information is quite accurate, and therefore, your conclusions are reliable.

Some of the coordinators can provide multiple coordinations, occurring as they do in the compound sentence more than once and thus linking more than two clauses:

The horses did not come back, nor did the members of the expedition, nor did the local bearers.

Perhaps the pump was broken, or there was a blockage in one of the pipes, or the drainage hole was clogged.

A friend of mine was shopping, and she came back to this multistory car-park, and it was kind of deserted.

Clauses linked by means of coordinating conjunctions can be separated by a comma for the sake of clarity, as the examples above show.

Clauses linked by means of conjunctive adverbs are normally separated by a semicolon, with a comma after the adverbs. Adverbs of four letters or fewer are not normally set off. Cf.:

The editor didn’t approve of the arrangement of paragraphs; furthermore, she insisted on eliminating a number of illustrations.

It’s pitch dark; besides, the road is nearly impassable.

He was quite well off; also (,) his whole family was rich.

There was a traffic jam on the road, yet they arrived on time.

Conjunctive adverbs are closely approached by set expressions known as transitional phrases: as a result, in like manner, in fact, for example, for instance, for this reason, on the contrary, etc. Some of them admit of structural modification (in actual fact; for this reason alone; it is for this reason that …); others invariably occur in the same form (for instance). For example:

People are made mentally old by having to retire; in the like manner, they may be made physically old.

Semantically, they express the meaning relationship between the clauses, just as coordinators do. Syntactically, however, they function as parenthetical phrases within the second clause in asyndetic sentences, and therefore, they will not be dealt with in this section.

The compound sentence is derived from two or more base sentences which are connected on the principle of coordination independent status and become coordinate clauses – parts of a composite unity. The first clause is “leading” (the “leader” clause), the successive clauses are “sequential”. This division is essential not only from the point of view of outer structure (clause order), but also in the light of the semantico-syntactic 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. Indeed, what does such predicative units signify without its syntactic leader?

The coordinating connectors, or coordinators, are divided into conjunctions proper and semi-functional clausal connectors of adverbial character [4, p.363].

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 co-ordiinating conjunctions differ from each other in definiteness of meaning: the conjunction but has an adversative meaning which is 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 the words in the sentence. This will be quite clear if we compare following two compound sentences with clauses joined by this conjunction:

The old lady had recognized Ellen’s 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 recognize and frightened. In the second sentence there is something like an adversative shade of meaning, and this is due to the relation meaning between the word Monday in the first clause and that of the words 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 few examples:

The light fell either upon the smooth grey black of a pebble, or the shell of a snail with its brown, circular reins, 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)

I 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 a co-ordinate clause 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) .

From the point of view of the relationship between coordinate clauses, we distinguish four kinds of coordinate connection: copulative, adversative, disjunctive and causative-consecutive. The type of connection is expressed not only by means of coordinating connectives, but also by the general meaning of clauses conveyed by their lexical and grammatical content. This accounts for asyndetic coordination and for various uses of the conjunction and, when it expresses other relations – that of contrast of consequence.

Copulative coordination implies that the information conveyed by coordinate clauses is in some way similar.

The copulative connectors are: the conjunctions and, nor, neither…nor, not only…but (also), as well as, and conjunction adverbs then, moreover, besides.

And is the conjunction most frequently used to realize copulative coordination. It may suggest mere addition.

 Then she went home and wrote Brody a thank-you note for being so nice, and she also wrote a note to the chief of police commending young Martin Brody.

The events described in copulative coordinate clauses may be simultaneous or successive.

The black Cadillac made its hunting sound through the night, and the types sang on the slab, and the black fields stretched with mist swept by. (simultaneity)

The front door to the house opened, and a man a woman stepped out on the wooden porch. (succession)

Occasionally the second clauses may contain some commentary on the previous clause.

She was familiar with the petty social problems, and they bored her.

Owing to its vague copulative meaning the conjunction and may also link clauses with adversative or causative-consecutive connections. The meaning of the second clause is either contrasted to the first or contains its consequence.

Why were her own relations so rich, and Phil never knew where the money was coming from for to-morrow’s tobacco?

In sentences beginning with a verb in the imperative mood, the first clause implies a condition for the fulfillment of the action in the second clause.

Take these pills, and you will feel better. (If you take … )

The conjunction nor joins two negative clauses.

I didn’t recognize the girl, nor did I remember her name.

The correlative pairs neither … nor, not only … but (also) expresses mere addition, sometimes with accentuation on the second clause.

I not only remembered the girl’s name, but I also knew everything about her family.

The conjunctive adverb then joins clauses describing successive events.

We went along the street, then we turned to the left.

Copulative connection may also be expressed asyndetically, the clauses so joined may describe simultaneous or successive events.

Our Elsie was looking at her with big imploring eyes; she was frowning; she wanted to go. (simultaneity)

Adversative coordination joins clauses containing opposition, contradiction or contrast. Adversative connectors are: the conjunctions but, while, whereas, the conjunctive adverbs however, yet, still, nevertheless, and the conjunctive particle only. Adversative coordination may also be realized asyndetically. The main adversative conjunction is but, which expresses adversative connection in a very general way. The clause introduced by but conveys some event that is opposite to what is expected from the contents of the first clause.

The story was amusing, but nobody laughed.

But may join clauses contrasted in meaning.

The English system of noun forms is very simple, but the system of verb forms is most intricate.

The conjunctions while and whereas specialized in expressing contrastive relations.

Peter is an engineer, while his brother is a musician.

Some people prefer going to the theatre, whereas others will stay at home watching TV programmes.  

 Contrastive relation may be conveyed by asyndetic coordination.

Two or three scenes stood out vividly in his mind – all the rest become a blur.

Among coordinative connectives the particle only is frequently used to join clauses with adversative connection, mainly in colloquial English. 

There was an electric light, only Arthur had not switched it on. 

Disjunctive coordination implies a choice between two mutually exclusive alternatives. The disjunctive conjunctions are or, either … or, the conjunctive adverbs are else (or else), otherwise.

You can join us at the station, or we can wait for you at home.

The correlative either emphasizes the exclusion of one of the alternatives.

Either listen to me, or I shall stop reading to you.

The clause introduced by or may express a restatement or correction of what is said in the first clause.

We were talking about a lot of things, or rather he was talking and I was listening.

Coordinate clauses joined by disjunctive connectors may contain an implied condition, real or unreal.

Hurry up, or you will be late. (real condition implied) (If you                 don’t hurry, you will late.)

 If the first part is negative, the implied condition is positive.

Don’t be late, otherwise you may not be let in. (If you are late, you may not be let in.)

John is busy, or he would have come. (If John were not busy, he would have come.)

John was busy last night, otherwise he would have come. (If he hadn’t been busy, he would have come.) 

 Causative-consecutive coordination joins clauses connected in such a way that one of them contains a reason and the other – a consequence. The second clause may contain either the reason or the result of the event conveyed by the previous clause. The only causative coordinating conjunction is for.

The days become longer, for it was now springtime.

 A causative clause may be also joined asyndetically.

At first I thought that they were brother and sister, they were so much alike.

The conjunction for is intermediate between subordination and coordination. It is most often treated as a coordinating conjunction, because its semantic application is to introduce clauses containing an explanation or justification of the idea expressed by the previous clause.

The land seemed almost as dark as the water, for there was no moon.

Sometimes the consequence may serve as a justification of the previous statement. 

John must have gone, for nobody answers the call.

A for-clause differs from a subordinate clause of reason in that it never precedes the clause it is joined to. If a sentence begins with for, it means that the sentence is linked with the previous one.

When I saw her in the river I was frightened. For at the point the current was strong.

Consecutive connectives are conjunctions so, so that, and conjunctive adverbs therefore, hence, then, thus.

The weather was fine, so there were many people on the beach.

So that is a conjunction intermediate between subordinate and coordination. When used after a comma in writing or a pause in speaking its connection with the previous clause is looser and it performs the function of a coordinating conjunction

Semantically, conjunctive adverbs express the meaning relationship between the clauses, just as coordinators do. Syntactically, however, they function as parenthetical phrases within the second clause in asyndetic sentences, and therefore, they will not be dealt with in this section.

Coordinators in a compound sentence express four logical types of coordination: copulative, disjunctive, adversative, and causative-consecutive.

Compound sentences with copulative coordination

In compound sentences with copulative coordination, the clauses are simply linked together to express two or more related facts. This is done with the help of the conjunctions and, not only … but (also), and neither … nor [rare]:

Joan had apple-pie for dessert and Mary had ice-cream.

You can neither elegantly, nor can you write clearly.

Not only did the students demand new training facilities, but they also insisted on a revision of tuition fees.

A similar meaning relationship is expressed by the conjunctive adverbs also, besides, furthermore [formal], moreover [formal], likewise, nor, neither, plus [informal], etc.:

The project was completed on schedule; moreover, a considerable amount of money has been saved.

An address book with everybody’s address in it would be awfully big, plus people move all the time, plus some people wouldn’t want their address in the book.

The conjunction and, which is probably the most frequently used coordinator, can imply a number of relations that could be expressed unambiguously by other means:

There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile. [simple addition]

The clock struck five and the first visitor arrived. [chronological sequence]

We heard a strange noise on the roof, and mother suggested calling the police. [cause and consequence]

Liz is blonde and Helen is dark. [contrast]

Give me some money and I’ll get us something to eat. [condition]

There is only one thing to do now – and that’s to sell our shares. [comment or explanation]

 In spontaneous informal discourse, the speaker can make very long copulative sentences with multiple coordination, adding more and more and-conjunctions so as to hang on to particular topic. However, in formal context, especially in writing, it is advisable to avoid overusing and by employing other links that bring out the logical relationship between the clauses.

If two negative statements are linked with the help of and, we often find either at the end of the second clause:

Tony didn’t turn up the Student Union meeting, and Keith didn’t either.

 Copulative sentences can be used in an informal style to express advise, threat or warning. This done by conjoining an imperative clause and a clause opening with and and containing a verb in the future tense:

Go by train and you’ll get to Bath at 7 a.m.

(You) do this again and I’ll tell your parents.

 (A) Structure and meaning

(1) Clause containing the endorsing item not only (they come first in a compound sentence) have direct word order when this element is found in mid-position, and inverted word order, similar to the interrogative sentence word order, when not only is found in the initial position. The structure of the second clause, containing the correlative but (… also), remains unchanged in either case:

Harry not only lost his pocket-book, but he was also robbed of his Swiss watch.

Not only did Harry lose his pocket-book, but he was also robbed of his Swiss watch.

The structure with inverted word order sounds more dramatic and is chiefly found in a formal literary style. The correlative but … also can be represented by both these elements or by either one used alone. Therefore, the above example could read:

Not only did Harry lose his pocket-book; he was also robbed of his Swiss watch.

Not only did Harry lose his pocket-book, but he was robbed of his Swiss watch.

 (2) Clause opening with neither, nor, and neither, and nor (they come second in a compound sentence) always have inverted word order similar to the interrogative sentence word order, e.g.:

I don’t blame you, and neither do I doubt younger honesty.

The Smiths could neither describe the stranger to the police, nor could they recollect the exact time of the encounter.  

The same structure occurs when and is followed by the substitute word so.

Harry was late and so were his friends.

I take a cold shower every morning, and so does my brother.

(3) In a formal literary style, the second coordinate clause can have inverted word order if the statement expressed in the first clause by using equally or just as:

Marion’s reaction was a disgrace, and equally/ just as scandalous was her departure in the middle of the interview.

Inversion is optional in this kind of structure (… and her departure in the middle of the inverted was equally scandalous).

(B) Set expressions

Copulative sentences are found in a number of proverbs and idiomatic expressions:

Gave him an inch, and he’ll take a mile.

Keep a thing seven years and you’ll find a use for it.

The day is short and the work is long.

Ask no questions and you will be told no lies.

Compound sentences with disjunctive coordination

Compound sentences with disjunctive coordination express an alternative. This is achieved with the help of the following conjunctions: or, or else, and either … or:

We can meet this afternoon, or (else) we can discuss the matter at dinner.

Either the pump is broken or the drainage is clogged.

A similar meaning relationship is expressed by the conjunctive adverb otherwise:

It’s perfectly legitimate; otherwise I wouldn’t have done it.

If the conjunction or introduces a reservation or rewording, it can combine with the adverbs rather and at least:

Polly has a talent for acting, or rather/or at least her parents think so.

Disjunctive sentences can be used to give advice, a warning, or an order. This is done by conjoining an imperative clause and a clause opening with or or otherwise and containing a verb in the future tense:

Hurry up, or you’ll be late again.

Go away, otherwise I’ll call the police.

Usage notes.

(A) Structure and meaning.

(1) Interrogative disjunctive sentences with the conjunction or can have a parallel structure. This rhetorical question pattern is used of effect, often with an implication of approval:

Do we have a house or do we (have a house)? (=We have a very nice house).

(2) When both addition and alternative are possible, and/or can be used in scientific and legal writing:

The checks in this joint account must be signed by Norman Briggs and/or they must be signed by Angela Briggs.

Compound sentences with adversative coordination

In compound sentences with adversative coordination the statements expressed by the clauses are contrasted in meaning. Thus is achieved with the help of the conjunctions but, while, whereas, whilst [formal, old fashioned], and only [informal]:

It was a high climb but it was worth it.

Some people don’t mind passive smoking, while/whereas others hate it.

I would’ve asked you to my party, only my dad told me not to.

A similar semantic relationship can be expressed by the following conjunctive adverbs: however, nevertheless, nonetheless [formal], still, and yet:

At first she refused to join us; however, she soon changed her mind.

A conjunction can combine with a conjunctive adverb, e.g.:

His first novel was not a pronounced success, but yet it was not a failure.

The car crashed into a tree, and yet the driver escaped without a scratch.

Although the conjunction except (that) is not traditionally classed with adversative coordinators, the relationship between the classes it connects is similar to adversative coordination:

I would pay you now, except that (= ‘but’, ‘only’) I don’t have any money on me at the moment.

 Usage notes.

(A) Structure and meaning.

(1) There is a marginal type of interrogative adversative sentence containing a one-member clause. As in the case of one-member clauses in the sentences with asyndetic coordination, this use seems to be confined to a definite model:

Her tastes are somewhat extravagant, but what of that/it?

This indicates that the statement expressed in the first clause seems unimportant or irrelevant to the speaker. The same attitude can be expressed using so what? in sentences with causative-consecutive coordination.

(2) The relations of contrast appear to be symmetrical; however, the order of clauses in adversative sentences could not be reversed, because the implications of the whole sentence would be different. Compare:

He has treated you badly; still, he is your brother.

He is your brother; still, he has treated you badly.

(3) Adversative sentences with the conjunction but and the auxiliary may in the first clause express an added meaning of concession, e.g.:

Time may be a good healer but it’s a poor beautician (= ‘Although time is a good healer, it’s a poor beautician’)

(B) Set expressions.

Adversative sentences are found in a number of proverbs and idiomatic expressions:

It never rains but it pours.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

The tongue is not steel, yet it cuts.

Compound sentences with causative-consecutive coordination

Compound sentences with causative-consecutive coordination express the idea of cause and consequence. This is done with the help of the conjunction for:

They parted sadly, for there was so much left to say.

A similar semantic relationship is expressed by the conjunctive adverbs hence [formal], consequently, then therefore, thus [formal], accordingly, and so [informal]:

I’m off on holiday, so I won’t be seeing you for a while.

It would be impossible for us to pay such prices: therefore, we must content ourselves with other kinds of products.

Nick has been getting more exercise; hence, he has lost weight. 

The coordinator for is sometimes interchangeable with the subordinator because, although the use of for in place of because is regarded as dated. Generally speaking, for, which sounds less direct than because, gives a reason for something that is taken for granted. The clause joined with for is normally punctuated, e.g.:

Marie did not answer his letters, for how else could she have shown her contempt?

Besides, for presents the reason as subjective or inferential, with the implication ‘my reason for saying so is that…’. Compare:

Mother must have disapproved of our plan, for she was unusually reticent.

Mother disapproved of our plan because it sounded impractical.

 Usage notes.

(A) Structure and meaning.

(1) Hence occurs in one-member as well as two-member clauses:

The sculptor grew up in the Sudan; hence her interest in Nubian art.

The sculptor grew up in the Sudan; hence she developed an interest in Nubian art.

(2) There is a marginal type of interrogative causative-consecutive sentence containing a one-member clause confined to a definite pattern:

My wife didn’t go to university; so what?

This indicates that the statement expressed in the first clause seems unimportant or irrelevant to the speaker.

(B) Set expressions.

Causative-consecutive sentences are found in a number of proverbs and idiomatic expressions:

God help the poor, for the rich can help themselves.

God send you joy, for sorrow will come fast enough.

I’m going to tell the truth, so help me God [used when the speaker is making a very serious promise, for example in a law court].

In this chapter I tried to give general notion of compound sentence with Coordinators in Modern English.

    A sentence may consist of elements that have more or less completely the appearance of sentences. An example is: I believe you are right. In this sentence we have the group you are right, which may have the function of a sentence in a given context. The first element I believe can hardly have such a function, although it is evidently not impossible. But we should not be justified in considering the sentence I believe you are right as a group of two sentences, for neither of the two elements fully express its meaning except as part of the whole sentence; this is expressed by calling the two elements clauses, and giving the name sentence to the whole group only. A compound sentence consists of two or more clauses of equal rank which form one syntactical whole in meaning and intonation. Clauses that are parts of a compound sentence are called coordinate, as they are joined by coordination..

The main semantic feature of the compound sentence is that it follows the flow of thought; thus the content of each successive clause is related to the previous one. Hence come two syntactical features of the compound sentence which distinguish it from the complex sentence.

The first is follows. The opening clause mostly plays the leading role, and each successive clause is joined to the previous clause.

A sentence may begin with coordinating connector, but in this case the whole sentence is joined to the previous sentence in the text.

The first time Mrs Moffat invited him to watch television with her, Simon declined. He would rather read, he said. So she gave him books, she gave him classic. But the books he craved were garden books.

The second feature is that the clauses are sequentially fixed. Thus a coordinate clause cannot change place with the previous one without changing or distorting the meaning of the whole sentence, as in:

It was pitch dark, for the fog had come down from London in the night, and all Surbiton was wrapped in its embraces.

However the change is possible if the clauses contain description.

The third feature is that coordinate clauses, either opening or subsequent, may belong to different communicative types.

You may go, but don’t be late for dinner! (declarative and imperative clauses)

I had to leave at once, for whatever else could I have done? (declarative and interrogative clauses).

Compound sentences are very natural for English speakers - small children learn to use them early on to connect their ideas and to avoid pausing (and allowing an adult to interrupt):

Today at school Mr. Moore brought in his pet rabbit, and he showed it to the class, and I got to pet it, and Kate held it, and we coloured pictures of it, and it ate part of my carrot at lunch, and ...

Of course, this is an extreme example, but if you over-use compound sentences in written work, your writing might seem immature.

A compound sentence is most effective when you use it to create a sense of balance or contrast between two (or more) equally-important pieces of information:a

It was dawn outside, a glowing gray, and birds had plenty to say out in the bare trees; and at the big window was a face and a windmill of arms.

One can contrast the compound sentence with both the simple sentence and the complex sentence. A simple sentence is a sentence in which there is a subject and a predicate, and in which a complete thought is expressed, allowing it to stand alone. For example, We run outside every day. Is a simple sentence, as is The moon is white. A complex sentence, on the other hand, includes both an independent clause and a dependent clause. For example, the sentence, When stars fall, I like to make wishes. Is a complex sentence, with stars fall the dependent clause, and I like to make wishes the independent clause.

To form a compound sentence, you take two independent clauses, which could serve as simple sentences by themselves, and link them with a conjunction. The most common type of conjunction used is the coordinating conjunction. There are seven coordinating conjunctions in English: for, and, nor, but, or, yet, and so. These seven can be easily remembered by the mnemonic FANBOYS, with each letter representing the first letter of each coordinator.

For example, we can take two simple sentences: Jane likes to watch football. and Bob learned to knit. We can then connect them with a coordinating conjunction to create a compound sentence like: Jane likes to watch football, and Bob learned to knit. Or Jane likes to watch football, so Bob learned to knit. The coordinating conjunction we use determines the meaning of our compound sentence, and of course not all coordinators work for all independent clauses, but all independent clauses need to have at least one conjunction to be joined together.

A compound sentence can also use a pairing of words that help each other out, known as correlative conjunctions. There are four common pairings of correlative conjunctions: both and and, not only and but also, either and or, and neither and nor. For example, we can take the independent clauses: The moon is ful and The stars are out. We can then join them together using one of our pairings to get: Both the moon is full, and the stars are out. Or Neither the moon is full, nor the stars are out.

A semicolon can also act as a conjunction to form a compound sentence. For example, we can take the two independent clauses we just used, and join them together with a semicolon to form: The moon is full; the stars are out. In this way we link the two clauses more closely than if we were to have them as fully independent simple sentences, but we don’t link them more explicitly than that.

The compound sentence is derived from two or more base sentences which are connected on the principle of coordination either syndetically. The base sentences joined into one compound sentence lose their independent status and become coordinate clauses – parts of a composite unity. The first clause is “leading”(the “leader” clause), the successive clauses are “sequential”. This division is essential not only from the point of view of outer structure (clause order), but also in the light of the semantico-syntactic 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. Indeed, what does such predicative units signify without its syntactic leader?

The coordinating connectors, or coordinators, are divided into conjunctions proper and semi-functional clausal connectors of adverbial character. The main coordinating conjunctions, both simple and discontinuous, are : and, but, or, nor, neither, for, either … or, neither …nor, etc. The main adverbial coordinators are: then, yet, so, thus, consequently, nevertheless, however, etc. the adverbial coordinators, unlike pure conjunctions, as a rule can shift their position in the sentence (the expositions are the connectors yet and so):

Mrs. Dyre stepped into the room, however the host took no notice of it.

Mrs. Dyre stepped into the room, the host, however, took no notice of it.

The intensity of cohesion between the coordinate clauses can become loose, and in this case the construction is changed into a cumulative one:

Nobody ever disturbed him while he was at work; it was one of the unwritten laws.

As has been stated elsewhere, such cases of cumulation mark the intermediary status of the construction, i.e. its place in syntax between a composite sentence and a sequence of independent sentences.

When approached from the semantico-syntactic point of view, the connection between the clauses in a compound sentence should be analyzed into two basic types: first, the unmarked coordinative connection; second, the marked coordinative connection.

The unmarked coordinative connection is realized by the coordinative conjunction and and also asyndetically. The unmarked semantic nature of this type of connection is seen from the fact that it is not specified in any way and requires a diagnostic exposition through the marked connection. The exposition properly effected shows that each of the two series of compound predicative constructions falls into two principal subdivisions. Namely, the syndetic and-constructions discriminate, first, simple copulative relations and, second, broader, non-copulative relations. The asyndetic constructions discriminate, first, simple enumerative relations.

You will have a great deal to say to her, and she will have a great deal to thank you for. She was tall and slender, her hair was light chestnut, her eyes had a dreamy expression.

The broader connective meanings of the considered constructions can be expressed by equivalent substitutions:

The money kept coming in every week, and the offensive gossip about his wife began to be replaced by predictions of sensational success.

→ The money kept coming in every week, so the offensive gossip about his wife began to be replaced by predictions of sensational success.

The boy obeyed, the request was imperative.

→ The boy obeyed, for the request was imperative.

 The marked coordinative connection is effected by the pure and adverbial coordinators mentioned above. Each semantic type of connection is inherent in the marking semantic of the connector. In particular, the connectors but, yet, still, however, etc. express different varieties of adversative relations of clauses; the discontinuous connectors both … and, neither … nor express, correspondingly, positive and negative (exclusive) copulative relations of events; the connectors so, therefore, consequently express various subtypes of clausal consequence, etc.

In order to give a specification to the semantics of clausal relations, the coordinative conjunction can be used together with an accompanying functional particle-like or adverb-like word. As a result, the marked connection, as it were, becomes doubly marked. In particular, the conjunction but forms the conjunctive specifying combinations but merely, but instead, but also and the like; the conjunction or forms the characteristic coordinative combinations or else, or rather, or even, etc.

The workers were not prepared to accept the conditions of the administration, but instead they were considering a mass demonstration.

She was frank with him, or rather she told him everything concerning the mere facts of the incident.

 The coordinative specifiers combine also with the conjunction and, thus turning the marked coordinative connection into a marked one. Among the specifiers here used are included the adverbial coordinators so, yet, consequently and others:

The two friends didn’t dispute over the issue afterwards, and yet there seemed a hidden discord growing between them.

It should be specially noted that in the described semantic classification of the types of coordinative relations, the asyndetic connection is not included in the upper division of the system, which is due to its nonspecific functional meaning. This fact serves to sustain the thesis that asyndetic connection of clauses is not to be given such a special status in syntax as would raise it above the discrimination between coordination and subordination.

It is easily seen that coordinative connectors are correlated semantically with subordinative, besides the basic oppositions to the latter by their ranking quality, are more general, they are semantically less discriminatory, less “refined”. That is why the subordinative connection is regularly used as a diagnostic model for the coordinative connection, while the reverse is an exception rather than a rule.  

Our host had rung the bell on our entrance and now a Chinese cook came in with more glasses and several bottles of soda.

→ On our entrance, as our host had rung the bell, a Chinese cook came in with more glasses and several bottles of soda.

There was nothing else to do, so Alice soon began talking again.

→ Alice soon began talking again because there was nothing else to do.

 Speaking of diagnostic role of subordinative constructions in relation to coordinative, it should be understood that this is of especial importance for the unmarked constructions, in particular for those realized by the conjunction and.

On the other hand, the coordinative connection of clauses is in principle not reducible to the subordinative connection, which fact, as in other similar cases of correlations, explains the separate and parallel existence of both types of clausal connection in language. This can be illustrated by the following example:

I invited Mike to join us, but he refused.

 It would appear at first sight that the subordinative diagnostic-specifying exposition of the semantic relations between the clauses of the cited sentence can be achieved by the concessive construction:

Though I invited Mike to join us, he refused.

But the proper observation of the corresponding materials shows that this diagnosis is only valid for part of the possible contexts. Suffice it to give the following two contextual expansions to the sentence in question, of which only one corresponds to the cited diagnosis. 

The first expansion: You are mistaken if you think that Mike was eager to receive an invitation to join us.

I invited him, but he refused.

The given concessive reading of the sentence is justified by the context: the tested compound sentence is to be replaced here by the above complex one on a clear basis of equivalence.

The second expansion: It was decided to invite either Mike or Jesse to help us with our work. First I invited Mike, but he refused. Then we asked Jesse to join us.

It is quite clear that the devised concessive diagnosis is not at all justified by this context: what the analysed construction does render here is a stage in a succession of events, for which the use of a concessive model would be absurd.

The length of the compound sentence in terms of the number of its clausal parts (its predicative volume), the same as with the complex sentence, is in principle unlimited; it is determined by the informative purpose of the speaker. The commonest type of the compound sentence in this respect is a two-clause construction.

On the other hand, predicatively longer sentences than two-clause ones, from the point of view of semantic correlation between the clauses, are divided into “open” and “closed” constructions. Copulative and enumerative types of connection, if they are not varied in the final sequential clause, form “open” coordinations. These are used as descriptive and narrative means in a literary text:

They visited house after house. They went over them thoroughly, examining them from the cellars in the attics under the roof. Sometimes they were too large and sometimes they were too small; sometimes they were too far from the center of things and sometimes they were too close; sometimes they were too expensive and sometimes they wanted too many repairs; sometimes they were too stuffy and sometimes they were too airy, sometimes they were too dark and sometimes they were too bleak. Roger always found a fault that made the house unsuitable (S. Maugham).   

In the multi-clause compound sentence of a closed type the final part is joined on an unequal basis with the previous ones (or one), whereby a finalization of the expressed chain of ideas is achieved. The same as open compound sentences, closed compound constructions are very important from the point of view of a general text arrangement. The most typical closures in such compound sentences are those effected by the conjunctions and (for an asyndetic preceding construction) and but (both for an asyndetic and copulative syndetic preceding construction).

His fingernails had been cleaned, his teeth brushed, his hair combed, his nostrils cleared and dried, and he had been dressed in formal black by somebody or other (W. Saroyan).

Pleasure may turn a heart to stone, riches may make it callous, but sorrow – oh, sorrow cannot break it (O. Widle).

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 co-ordinating conjunctions differ from each other in definiteness of meaning: the conjunction but has an adversative meaning which is 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 the words in the sentence. This will be quite clear if we compare following two compound sentences with clauses joined by this conjunction:

The old lady had recognized Ellen’s 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 recognize and frightened. In the second sentence there is something like an adversative shade of meaning, and this is due to the relation meaning between the word Monday in the first clause and that of the words 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 few examples:

The light fell either upon the smooth grey black of a pebble, or the shell of a snail with its brown, circular rains, 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)

I 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.

Sometimes there is information that or repeated in a compound sentence.

a) My classmates went to the parade, and I went to the parade.

Because we feel that there is unnecessary repetition of the information in example a, we restate the sentence.

b) My classmates and I went to the parade.

This process is called ellipsis. Ellipsis is the shortening of a sentence by the elimination of repeated information. When ellipsis is done correctly, the sentence is shorter, but the full meaning is still clear. Thus the reader or listener could expand the sentence and reconstruct the longer one.

c) The result must be equal to or greater than 90%.

Example c is a shortened sentence. Because the ellipsis was done correctly, we can expand the sentence.

d) The result must be equal to 90%, or it must be greater than 90%.

In addition to the type of ellipsis shown in the example c, there is another type of ellipsis, shown in example e.

e) My classmates went to the parade, and I did, too.

One important use of shortening is to make a simple sentence from a compound sentence.

f) compound sentence

It was cold, and it was very windy.

g) simple sentence after removing repeated information

It was cold and very windy.

When ellipsis results in a simple sentence, the sentence will have a compound structure; that is there will be a list of two or more items. The compound structure can be subject, the verb, the predicate, objects, prepositional phrases, or any other structure.

h) compound subject

My classmates and I went to the parade.    

i) compound predicate

After parade, we went to a restaurant and ate lunch.

j) compound verb

We waited and talked until the end of the parade.

k) compound direct object

We met Annette and her sister at the restaurant.

l) compound prepositional phrase

We discussed going to the movies or to a restaurant.

Compound structure consist of (1) lists of two or more items, (2) coordinate conjunctions, and (3) sometimes commas.

1. Each list has items of equal importance (which is why the structure is considered compound)

2. A coordinate conjunction joins the items in a list or joins two items, as in example m.

m) I need a raincoat or an umbrella.

Some coordinate conjunctions appear in pairs, as in example n.

n) I need either a raincoat or an umbrella.

The coordinate conjunctions that are used in compound structures are: and/or, (both…) and, not only…but also, (either…) or, (neither…) nor, but, and yet. When the list has more than two items, we have only one conjunction, which is between the last two items.

o) I took gloves, a hat, and a muffler.

3. When the compound structure is a list of three or more items, it is called a series. A series is made up of a coordinate conjunction between the last two items and compass between the other items.

p) I took gloves, a hat, and a muffler.

You can also write the series without a comma before the coordinate conjunction.

q) I took gloves, a hat and a muffler.

Both examples are correct. Choose one style or the other, but be consistent.

Example r is not correct.

r) We went to a restaurant, and ate lunch.

The list is not a series, since is has only two items. Therefore, the use of comma is incorrect.

There isno comma after the items in a series.

s) I wore gloves, a hat, and a muffler, when I went out this morning.

Example s is incorrect; the comma is not used after the series of three items.

When compound sentence is shorted by ellipsis, there is a new, simple sentence with a list. As we saw the information given above that list has two or more items joined with a coordinate conjunction. A coordinate conjunction is used because the items in the list are equal in importance.

Grammar structure helps the reader or to hearer to understand that the items in a list are equal. The items should have the same grammar structure: all nouns, all adverbs, all predicates, all prepositional phrases, etc. the use of the same grammar is called parallelism.

t) I like parties and to read good books for relaxation.

Example t is not correct, because it does not have grammatical parallelism where it should. The compound direct object has two parts, parties and to read good books, joined by the coordinate conjunction and. But the first item is a noun; the second one is a an infinitive phrase. Example u has correct grammatical parallelism.

u) I like to go parties and to read good books for relaxation.

One way to check parallelism is to take the items out of the sentence and write them in a regular list.

I like              1. parties                       for relaxation.

                      2. to read good books

This way is easier to see that the items in the list are not parallel.

When a sentence has a compound subject, it is especially important to check the subject-verb agreement. For example, when two or more items are joined with and, or not only … but, the subject is plural, and so is the verb.

Not only my books but also my calculator were found in the auditorium.

Clarice and Diane are not going to the parade.

Note: sometimes and connects several parts of one idea. In this case, the verb is singular because the meaning of the subject is singular.

The analysis and evaluation of reports of UFOs is very difficult.

In example above there is one process which includes both analysis nd evaluations.

When the coordinate conjunction express a choice (or or nor), the last item is the one to use to determine subject-verb agreement.

My roommates are going to drive to the parade.

My roommates or Frank is going to drive to the parade.

My roommates, Frank, or I am going to drive to the parade.

Some people feel that such sentences sound strange. They use another type of ellipsis to avoid such sentences, keeping the information separated in different clauses.

Ellipses can be used to shorten a compound sentence by removing repeated information from the second clause.

1. compound sentence with repeated information

My classmates went to the parade, and I went to the parade.

2. compound sentence without repeated information

My classmates went to the parade, and I did too.

3. compound sentence without repeated information

My classmates went to the parade, and so I did.

Although the sentence has been shortened, it is still a compound sentence. Therefore, it has a comma after the first independent clause.

This type of ellipsis is used when we present a comparison, a contrast, or a choice between two actions or situations. For instance, in example 2 and 3, we are presenting the similarity between my classmates’ action and mine. In tjis type of sentence, the first clause is not affected. It is the second clause that is shortened by ellipsis.

There are three important pieces of information in the second part of these sentences:

1. A coordinate conjunction that presents the meaning between the clauses;

2. An indication of which person(s), place(s), thing(s), or idea(s) are involved;

3. An indication of whether the second action or situation is like or unlike the first one.

When the sentence expresses a comparison, the comparison may be shown two ways: (1) the coordinate conjunction and; and (2) an emphasizing word in the second clause.

I had a good time, and Marie did too.

The emphasizing words reinforce the fact that the two situations are similar. Another use of these words is to emphasize information in the second clause. This is done with inverted word order (and so did Marie). Emphasizing words and their uses are shown in the following chart and illustrated in the examples below: 

 

Table 2

 

Usual word order

Inverted word order

 Affirmative

 clauses

        too

        also

     so

 Negative

 clauses

        either

     neither

   

1) affirmative clauses; usual word order: too or also comes at the end of the clause

I had a good time, and Marie did too.

2) affirmative clauses; inverted word order: so comes at the beginning of the clause

I had a good time, and so did Marie.

Note: with inverted word order, subject (S) comes at the end of the sentence.

3) negative clause; usual word order: either comes at the end of the clause

 Phil did not have a good time, and Alice didn’t either.

Note: the negative meaning either is different in meaning and placement from the choice either.

4) negative clause; inverted word order: neither comes at the beginning of the clause

Phil did not have a good time, and neither did Alice.

The inverted order emphasizes the meaning of negation.