The complex sentence. Types and classification. The problem of the compound sentence.

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

Types of complex sentences: The notions of declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory sentence appear to be applicable to some types of complex sentences as well.

Classification:

1. According to the functional principle we distinguish object, attributive, adverbial clauses, etc.

2. According to the categorial principle subordinate clauses are divided into 3 categorial semantic groups: substantive-nominal, qualification-nominal and adverbial.
The two classifications are mutually complementary:
- clauses of primary nominal positions (subject, predicative, object clauses);

- clauses of secondary nominal positions (attributive clauses);

- clauses of adverbial positions.

3. According to the degree of self-dependence of clauses complex sentences are divided into monolythic and segregative sentence structures. Monolythic complex sentences are based on obligatory subordinative connections of clauses, whereas segregative complex sentences are based on optional subordinative connections.

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 form-ing a continual text. As is known, this fact has given cause to some scholars to deny the existence of the compound sentence as a special, regular form of the composite sentence.

Compound sentences consist of clauses joined together by coordinating conjunctions: and, but, or, for, yet.

The problem of communication types:

There are compound sentences consisting of clauses belonging to different communication types. In this case it is impossible to state to what type the compound sentence as a whole belongs.
e.g. These came nearer than most to meaning something to her, but what? (declarative + interrogative).
-> Can we call a compound sentence a sentence at all? According to communication type – NO
There is theory on the unity of communication type, which recognizes compound sentences as a special sentence type.

The structural grammar.

Structural grammar (Franz Boas, Edward Sapir, and Leonard Bloomfield) is a means of analyzing written and spoken language. It is concerned with how elements of a sentence such as morphemes, phonemes, phrases, clauses and parts of speech are put together. Under this form of linguistic analysis, it is how these elements work together that is most important, as the relationships between the elements typically have a greater meaning than any of the single elements. The study of this method therefore is an important tool for improving clarity in communication. The purpose of this approach is to describe how language is actually used rather than prescribing a 'correct' version for students to learn.

The best way to study language is to look at its systematic structure, which is really the link between thought and sound.

Structural grammar is a way of approaching the study of grammar, especially syntax, by analyzing the relationships among words in a sentence. Any time students are taught to recognize phrases, clauses, or even parts of speech, or to diagram sentences, they are learning structural grammar.

Limitations of structural grammar:

1. Structuralism ignores explanatory adequacy, meaning, linguistic universals, native speaker's intuition and his competence of generating infinite number of sentences from a finite set of items.

2. It is not a whole but a part of a whole – an inventory of units such as phonemes, morphemes, words, lexical categories, phrases.

The transformational generative grammar.

This method of grammar analysis was created by Noam Chomsky in 1957. According to this theory, sentences have 2 aspects: 1) surface and 2) deep structures.

Usually in speech surface structures are more complicated and more variable (flexible). The reason for it is that simple ideas can be expressed in a different way.

Deep structures are connected with ideas. One long sentence can include several simple ideas. These simple ideas were called by Chomsky kernel (ядро) sentences. They should be:simple, active, derivative, indicative and used in Present tense.

Birds will fly (no) Birds fly (yes) Do birds fly? (no).

In English the number of kernel sentences is seven. They are:

NV - John came

NV prep N - John looked at Mary

NVN - John saw Mary

N is N- John is a teacher

N is prep N - John is in bed

N is D – John is out

N is A – John is angry

According to Chomsky every language is a set of all utterances which grammar can potentially produce. In every language the deep structure of kernel sentence is concise but the form of their expression can be different. Besides kernel sentences there exist some transformational (re-write) rules that help to change kernel sentences into transforms.

In real speech one and the same kernel sentence is transformed a lot of times as a result structures that are longer than kernel sentences appear. Such analysis explains how sentences are generated in speech. The method which is used is transformation. This explains the name of this grammar.

It’s notable that the number of kernel sentences is limited, and the number of transformational rules is limited too, but the number of the transforms are absolute indefinite. One and the same rule can be applied several times.

The idea of two sentences structures is connected with syntactical ambiguity and it gives a key to its understanding. “Mary is curious to know”

1) She is curious and she wants to know – she herself to know everything (N is A)

2) She is curious - kernel sentence.

Division of any sentence into kernel sentences shows its real meaning in this context. When context changes, the meaning can be changed too. This method is more efficient that the previous ones. Because it doesn’t depend on the sentence length and structure. And then it’s also representative because it can show the difference in meaning where the rest methods fail.

My best friend meets me at the university every day.

TG analysis:

1) The friend meets smb (NV)

2) The friend is mine (N is A)

3) He is the best (N is A)

4) He meets me (NVN)

5) He does it at the university (NV prep N)

6) He does (it) every day (NVD)

The case grammar.

Case Grammar is a system of linguistic analysis, focusing on the link between the valence, or number of subjects, objects, etc., of a verb and the grammatical context it requires. The system was created by the American linguist Charles J. Fillmore in (1968), in the context of Transformational Grammar. This theory analyzes the surface syntactic structure of sentences by studying the combination of deep cases (i.e. semantic roles) -- Agent, Object, Benefactor, Location or Instrument – which are required by a specific verb. For instance, the verb "give" in English requires an Agent (A) and Object (O), and a Beneficiary (B); e.g. "Jones (A) gave money (O) to the school (B).

According to Fillmore, each verb selects a certain number of deep cases which form its case frame. Thus, a case frame describes important aspects of semantic valency, of verbs, adjectives and nouns. Case frames are subject to certain constraints, such as that a deep case can occur only once per sentence. Some of the cases are obligatory and others are optional. Obligatory cases may not be deleted, at the risk of producing ungrammatical sentences. For example, Mary gave the apples is ungrammatical in this sense.

A fundamental hypothesis of case grammar is that grammatical functions, such as subject or object, are determined by the deep, semantic valence of the verb, which finds its syntactic correlate in such grammatical categories as Subject and Object, and in grammatical cases such as Nominative, Accusative, etc. Fillmore (1968) puts forwards the following hierarchy for a universal subject selection rule:

Agent < Instrumental < Objective

That means that if the case frame of a verb contains an agent, this one is realized as the subject of an active sentence; otherwise, the deep case following the agent in the hierarchy (i.e. Instrumental) is promoted to subject.

During the 1970s and the 1980s, Charles Fillmore developed his original theory onto what was called Frame Semantics.