Contents
Introduction
1. TheSentence
2.Classification of Sentences
3. The SimpleSentence and Its Types
4. One MemberSentences
5. TheComposite Sentence
6. CompoundSentence
7. ComplexSentence
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
The theme of my course paper sounds as following: «Types ofSentences». Before beginning of investigation in our theme, I would like to saysome words dealt with the theme of my course paper.
Theproblem of classification of sentences is a highly complicated one, and thisclassification we must begin by comparing a few sentences differing from eachother in some respect. Take, for example, the following two sentences:
(1)But why did you leave England? (GALSWORTHY)
(2)There is to-day more people writing extremely well, in all departments of life,than ever before; what we have to do is to sharpen our judgement and pick theseout from the still larger number who write extremely badly. (CRUMP)
Everyonewill see that the two sentences are basically different. This is true, but verygeneral and not grammatically exact. In order to arrive at a strictlygrammatical statement of the difference (or differences) between them we mustapply more exact methods of observation and analysis.
Standing on such ground, I would like to point out tasks andaims of my work
1. The first task of my work is to give definition to term «sentence».
2. The second task is to give the classification of sentencesin English.
3. The last task of my work is to characterize each type ofsentences from grammatical point of view.
In our opinion the practical significance of our work is hardto be overvalued. This work reflects modern trends in linguistics and we hopeit would serve as a good manual for those who want to master modern Englishlanguage. Also this work can be used by teachers of English language forteaching English grammar.
The present work might find a good way of implying in thefollowing spheres:
1. In High Schools and scientific circles oflinguistic kind it can be successfully used by teachers and philologists asmodern material for writing research works dealing with English verbs.
2. It can be used by teachers of schools, lyceums andcolleges by teachers of English as a practical manual for teaching Englishgrammar.
3. It can be useful for everyone who wants to enlarge his/herknowledge in English.
After having proved the actuality of our work, I would liketo describe the composition of it:
My work consists of four parts: introduction, the main part,conclusion and bibliography. Within the introduction part we gave the briefdescription of our course paper. The main part of the work includes severalitems. There we discussed such problems as the types of sentences in English,their classification, and etc. In the conclusion to our work we tried to drawsome results from the scientific investigations made within the present coursepaper. In bibliography part we mentioned some sources which were used whilecompiling the present work. It includes linguistic books and articles dealingwith the theme, a number of used dictionaries and encyclopedias and also someinternet sources.
1.The Sentence
Thenotion of sentence has not so far received a satisfactory definition, whichwould enable us by applying it in every particular case to find out whether acertain linguistic unit was a sentence or not.
Thus,for example, the question remains undecided whether such shop notices as Book Shopand such book titles as English are sentences or not. In favour of the viewthat they are sentences the following consideration can be brought forward. Thenotice Book Shop and the title English Grammar mean ‘This is a book shop’,’This is an English Grammar’; the phrase is interpreted as the predicative of asentence whose subject and link verb have been omitted, that is, it isapprehended as a unit of communication. According to the other possible view,such notices as Book Shop and such titles as English Grammar are not units ofcommunication at all, but units of nomination, merely appended to the objectthey denote. Since there is as yet no definition of a sentence which wouldenable us to decide this question, it depends on everyone’s subjective viewwhich alternative he prefers. We will prefer the view that such notices andbook titles are not sentences but rather nomination units.
Wealso mention here a special case. Some novels have titles formulated assentences, e. g. The Stars Look Down, by A. Cronin, or They Came to aCity, by J.B. Priestley. These are certainly sentences, but they areused as nomination units, for instance, Have you read The Stars Look Down?Do you like They Came to a City?
Withthe rise of modern ideas of paradigmatic syntax yet another problem concerningdefinition of sentence has to be considered.
Inparadigmatic syntax, such units as He has arrived, He has not arrived, Hashe arrived, He will arrive, He will not arrive, Will he arrive, etc., aretreated as different forms of the same sentence, just as arrives, has arrived,will arrive etc., are different forms of the same verb. We maycall this view of the sentence the paradigmatic view.
Nowfrom the point of view of communication, He has arrived and He has not arrivedare different sentences since they convey different information (indeed, themeaning of the one flatly contradicts that of the other).
2.Classification of Sentences
Theproblem of classification of sentences is a highly complicated one, and we willfirst consider the question of the principles of classification, and of thenotions on which it can be based.
Letus begin by comparing a few sentences differing from each other in somerespect. Take, for example, the following two sentences:
(1)But why did you leave England? (GALSWORTHY)
(2)There is to-day more people writing extremely well, in all departments of life,than ever before; what we have to do is to sharpen our judgement and pick theseout from the still larger number who write extremely badly. (CRUMP)
Everyonewill see that the two sentences are basically different. This is true, but verygeneral and not grammatically exact. In order to arrive at a strictlygrammatical statement of the difference (or differences) between them we mustapply more exact methods of observation and analysis.
Letus, then, proceed to a careful observation of the features which constitute thedifference between the two sentences.
1. Thefirst sentence expresses a question that is the speaker expects an answer whichwill supply the information he wants. The second sentence expresses astatement, that is, the author (or speaker) states his opinion on a certainsubject. He does not ask about anything, or expect anybody to supply him anyinformation. This difference is expressed in writing by the first sentencehaving a question mark at the end, while the second sentence has a full stop.
2. Thefirst sentence is addressed to a certain hearer (or a few hearers present), andis meant to provoke the hearer’s reaction (answer). The second sentence is not addressedto any particular person or persons and the author does not know how anybodywill react to it.
3. Thetwo sentences differ greatly in length: the first consists of only 6 words,while the second has 39.
4. Thefirst sentence has no punctuation marks within it, while the second has twocommas and a semicolon.
5. Thefirst sentence has only one finite verb (did… leave), while the second hasthree (are, have, write).
Thesewould seem to be some essential points of difference. We have riot yet foundout which of them are really relevant from a grammatical viewpoint. We have notincluded in the above list those which are quite obviously irrelevant from thatviewpoint; for example, the first sentence contains a proper name (England),while the second does not contain any, or, the second sentence contains apossessive pronoun (our) while the first does not, etc.
Letus now consider each of the five points of difference and see which of them arerelevant from a purely grammatical point of view, for a classification ofsentences.
Point1 states a difference in the types of thought expressed in the two sentences.Without going into details of logical analysis, we can merely say that aquestion (as in the first sentence), and a proposition (as in the second) aredifferent types of thought, in the logical acceptation of that term. Theproblem now is, whether this difference is or is not of any importance from thegrammatical viewpoint. In Modern English sentences expressing questions (wewill call them, as is usually done, interrogative sentences) have somecharacteristic grammatical features. These features are, in the first place, aspecific word order in most cases (predicate – subject), as against the ordersubject – predicate in sentences expressing, propositions (declarativesentences). Thus word order may, with some reservations, be considered as afeature distinguishing this particular type of sentence from others. Anothergrammatical feature characterizing interrogative sentences (again, with somereservations) is the structure of the predicate verb, namely its analyticalform «do + infinitive» (in our first sentence, did, leave…, not left), where ina declarative sentence there would be the simple form (without do). However,this feature is not restricted to interrogative sentences: as is well known, italso characterizes negative sentences. Anyhow, we can (always with somereservations) assume that word order and the form «do + infinitive» aregrammatical features characterizing interrogative sentences, and in so far thefirst item of our list appears to be grammatically relevant. We will,accordingly, accept the types «interrogative sentence» and «declarativesentence» as grammatical types of sentences.
Point2, treating of a difference between a sentence addressed to a definite hearer(or reader) and a sentence free from such limitation, appears not to begrammatical, important as it may be from other points of view. Accordingly, wewill not include this distinction among grammatical features of sentences.
Point3, showing a difference in the length of the sentences, namely in the number ofwords making up each of them, does not in itself constitute a grammaticalfeature, though it may be more remotely connected with grammaticaldistinctions.
Point4 bears a close relation to grammatical peculiarities; more especially, asemicolon would be hardly possible in certain types of sentences (so-calledsimple sentences). But punctuation marks within a sentence are not inthemselves grammatical features: they are rather a consequence of grammaticalfeatures whose essence is to be looked for elsewhere.
Point5, on the contrary, is very important from a grammatical viewpoint. Indeed thenumber of finite verbs in a sentence is one of its main grammatical features.In this particular instance it should be noted that each of the three finiteverbs has its own noun or pronoun belonging to it and expressing the doer ofthe action denoted by the verb: are has the noun people, have the pronoun we,and write the pronoun who. These are sure signs of the sentence beingcomposite, not simple. Thus we will adopt the distinction between simple andcomposite sentences as a distinction between two grammatical types.
Theitems we have established as a result of comparing the two sentences givenearlier certainly do not exhaust all the possible grammatical features asentence can be shown to possess. They were only meant to illustrate the methodto be applied if a reasonable grammatical classification of sentences is to beachieved. If we were to take another pair or other pairs of sentences andproceed to compare them in a similar way we should arrive at some moregrammatical distinctions which have to be taken into account in making up aclassification. We will not give any more examples but we will take up thegrammatical classification of sentences in a systematic way.
Itis evident that there are two principles of classification. Applying one ofthem, we obtain a classification into declarative, interrogative, and imperativesentences. We can call this principle that of «types of communication».
Theother classification is according to structure. Here we state two main types:simple sentences and composite sentences. We will not now go into the questionof a further subdivision of composite sentences, or into the question ofpossible intermediate types between simple and composite ones. These questionswill be treated later on (see pages 200 and 254 respectively). Meanwhile, then,we get the following results:
Typesof Sentences According to Types of Communication
(1) Declarative
(2) Interrogative
(3) Imperative
Sentencesbelonging to the several types differ from each other in some grammaticalpoints, too. Thus, interrogative sentences are characterized by a special wordorder. In interrogative sentences very few modal words are used, as themeanings of some modal words are incompatible with the meaning of aninterrogative sentence. It is clear that modal words expressing full certainty,such as certainly, surely, naturally, etc., cannot appear in a sentenceexpressing a question. On the other hand, the modal word indeed, with itspeculiar shades of meaning, is quite possible in interrogative sentences, forinstance, Isn’t so indeed? (SHAKESPEARE)
Thereare also sentences which might be termed semi-interrogative. The third sentencein the following passage belongs to this type:
«Well,I daresay that’s more revealing about poor George than you. At any rate, heseems to have survived it». «Oh, you’ve seen him»? She did notparticularly mark her question for an answer, but it was, after all, thepivot-point, and Bone found himself replying – that indeed he had. (BUECHNER) The sentence Oh,you’ve seen him? is half-way between the affirmative declarative sentence, Youhave seen him, and the interrogative sentence, Have you seen him?Let us proceed to find out the precise characteristics of the sentence in thetext as against the two sentences just given for the sake of comparison. Fromthe syntactical viewpoint, the sentence is declarative, as the mutual positionof subject and predicate is, you have seen, not have you seen, which would bethe interrogative order. In what way or ways does it, then, differ from a usualdeclarative sentence? That is where the question of the intonation comes in.Whether the question mark at the end of the sentence does or does not mean thatthe intonation is not that typical of a declarative sentence, is hard to tell,though it would rather seem that it does. To be certain about this a phoneticexperiment should be undertaken, but in this particular case the author gives acontext which itself goes some way toward settling the question. The author’swords, She did not particularly mark tier question for an answer, seemto refer to the intonation with which it was pronounced: the intonation mustnot have been clearly interrogative, that is not clearly rising, though it musthave differed from the regular falling intonation to some extent: if it had notbeen at all different, the sentence could not have been termed a «question»,and the author does call it a question. Reacting to this semi-interrogativeintonation, Bone (the man to whom the question was addressed) answered in theaffirmative. It seems the best way, on the whole, to term such sentencessemi-interrogative. Their purpose of course is to utter a somewhat hesitatingstatement and to expect the other person to confirm it.
Imperativesentences also show marked peculiarities in the use of modal words. It is quiteevident, for example, that modal words expressing possibility, such as perhaps,maybe, possibly, are incompatible with the notion of order or request. Indeed,modal words are hardly used at all in imperative sentences.
Thenotion of exclamatory sentences and their relation to the three establishedtypes of declarative, interrogative, and imperative sentences presents somedifficulty. It would seem that the best way to deal with it is this. On the onehand, every sentence, whether narrative, interrogative, or imperative, may be exclamatoryat the same time, that is, it may convey the speaker’s feelings and becharacterized by emphatic intonation and by an exclamation mark in writing.This may be seen in the following examples: But he can’t do anything to you!(R. WEST) What can he possibly do to you! (Idem) Scarlett, spare me! (M.MITCHELL)
Onthe other hand, a sentence may be purely exclamatory, that is, it may notbelong to any of the three types classed above. This would be the case in thefollowing examples: «Well, fiddle-dee-dee!» said Scarlett. (M. MITCHELL) Oh,for God’s sake, Henry! (Idem)
However,it would perhaps be better to use different terms for sentences which arepurely exclamatory, and thus constitute a special type, and those which add anemotional element to their basic quality, which is either declarative, orinterrogative, or imperative. If this view is endorsed, we should have ourclassification of sentences according to type of communication thus modified:
(1) Declarative(including emotional ones)
(2) Interrogative(including emotional ones)
(3) Imperative(including emotional ones)
(4)Exclamatory
Thisview would avoid the awkward contradiction of exclamatory sentencesconstituting a special type and belonging to the first three types at the sametime.
Typesof Sentences According to Structure
(1) Simple
(2) Composite
Therelations between the two classifications should now be considered.
Itis plain that a simple sentence can be either declarative, or interrogative, orimperative. But things are somewhat more complicated with reference tocomposite sentences. If both (or all) clauses making up a composite sentenceare declarative, the composite sentence as a whole is of course declarativetoo. And so it is bound to be in every case when both (or all) clauses making acomposite sentence belong to the same type of communication (that is the casein an overwhelming majority of examples). Sometimes, however, compositesentences are found which consist of clauses belonging to different types ofcommunication. Here it will sometimes he impossible to say to what type ofcommunication the composite sentence as a whole belongs. We will take up thisquestion when we come to the composite sentence.
Someother questions connected with the mutual relation of the two classificationswill be considered as we proceed.
3.The simple sentence and its types
Wewill now study the structure of the simple sentence and the types of simplesentences.
Firstof all we shall have to deal with the problem of negative sentences. Theproblem, briefly stated, is this: do negative sentences constitute a specialgrammatical type, and if so, what are its grammatical features? In other words,if we say, «This is a negative sentence», do we thereby give it a grammaticaldescription?
Thedifficulty of the problem lies in the peculiarity of negative expressions inModern English. Let us take two sentences, both negative in meaning: (1) Shedid not know when she would be seeing any of them again. (R. MACAULAY) (2)Helen’s tremendous spell – perhaps no one ever quite escaped from it. (Idem)They are obviously different in their ways of expressing negation. In (1) wesee a special form of the predicate verb (did… know, not knew) which is due tothe negative character of the sentence and is in so far a grammatical sign ofits being negative. In (2), on the other hand, there is no grammatical featureto show that the sentence is negative. Indeed, there is no grammaticaldifference whatever between the sentences Nobody saw him and Everybody saw him.The difference lies entirely in the meaning of the pronouns functioning assubject, that is to say, it is lexical, not grammatical. The same is of coursetrue of such sentences as / found nobody and / found everybody. On the otherhand, in the sentence / did not find anybody there is again a grammaticalfeature, viz. the form of the predicate verb (did… find, not found).
Theconclusion to be drawn from these observations is obviously this. Since in anumber of cases negative sentences are not characterized as such by anygrammatical peculiarities, they are not a grammatical type. They are a logicaltype, which may or may not be reflected in grammatical structure. Accordingly,the division’ of sentences into affirmative and negative ought not to beincluded into their grammatical classification.
Beforewe proceed with our study of sentence structure it will be well to consider therelation between the two notions of sentence and clause. Among different typesof sentences treated In a syntactic investigation it is naturally the simplesentence that comes first. It is with specimens of simple sentences that westudy such categories as parts of the sentence, main and secondary; homogeneousmembers, word order, etc. It is also with specimens of simple sentences that weillustrate such notions as declarative, interrogative, imperative, andexclamatory sentences, as two-member and one-member sentences, and so forth. Aslong as we limit ourselves to the study of simple sentences, the notion of «clause»need not occur at all.
When,however, we come to composite sentences (that is, sentences consisting of twoor more clauses), we have to deal with the notions of main clause, head clause,and subordinate clause. Everything we said about the simple sentence will alsohold good for clauses: a clause also has its parts (main and secondary), it canalso be a two-member or a one-member clause; a main clause at least must alsobe either declarative, interrogative, imperative, or exclamatory, etc. We willconsider these questions in due course.
Sothen we will take it for granted that whatever is said about a simple sentencewill also apply to an independent clause within a composite sentence. Forinstance, whatever we say about word order in a simple sentence will also applyto word order in an independent clause within a composite sentence, etc.
Ithas been usual for some time now to classify sentences into two-member and one-membersentences.
Thisdistinction is based on a difference in the so-called main parts of a sentence.We shall therefore have to consider the two problems, that of two-member andone-member sentences and that of main parts of the sentence, simultaneously.
Ina sentence like Helen sighed (R. MACAULAY) there obviously are two mainparts: Helen, which denotes the doer of the action and is called (grammatical)subject, and sighed, which denotes the action performed by the subject and iscalled (grammatical) predicate. Sentences having this basic structure, viz. a word(or phrase) to denote the doer of the action and another word (or phrase) todenote the action, are termed two-member sentences. However, there aresentences which do not contain two such separate parts; in these sentencesthere is only one main part: the other main part is not there and it could noteven be supplied, at least not without a violent change in the structure of thesentence. Examples of such sentences, which are accordingly termed one-membersentences, are the following: Fire! Come on! or the opening sentence of «AnAmerican Tragedy»: Dusk – of a summer night. (DREISER)
Thereis no separate main part of the sentence, the grammatical subject, and no otherseparate main part, the grammatical predicate. Instead there is only one mainpart (fire, come on, and dusk, respectively). These, then, are one-membersentences.
Itis a disputed point whether the main part of such a sentence should, or shouldnot, be termed subject in some cases, and predicate, in others. This questionhas been raised with reference to the Russian language. Academician A.Shakhmatov held that the chief part of a one-member sentence was either thesubject, or the predicate, as the case might be (for example, if that part wasa finite verb, he termed it predicate). Academician V. Vinogradov, on the otherhand, started on the assumption that grammatical subject and grammaticalpredicate were correlative notions and that the terms were meaningless outsidetheir relation to each other. Accordingly, he suggested that for one-membersentences, the term «main part» should be used, without giving it any morespecific name. Maybe this is rather a point of terminology than of actualgrammatical theory. We will not investigate it any further, but contentourselves with naming the part in question the main part of one-membersentence, as proposed by V. Vinogradov.
One-membersentences should be kept apart from two-member sentences with either thesubject or the predicate omitted, i.e. from elliptical sentences, which we willdiscuss in a following chapter. There are many difficulties in this field. Aswe have done more than once, we will carefully distinguish what has been provedand what remains a matter of opinion, depending to a great extent on thesubjective views or inclinations of one scholar or another. Matters belongingto this latter category are numerous enough in the sphere of sentence study.
4.One member sentences
Wehave agreed, to term one-member sentences those sentences which have noseparate subject and predicate but one main part only instead (see p. 190).
Amongthese there is the type of sentence whose main part is a noun (or a substantivespart of speech), the meaning of the sentence being that the thing denoted bythe noun exists in a certain place or at a certain time. Such sentences arefrequent, for example, in stage directions of plays. A few examples from modernauthors will suffice: Night. A lady’s bed-chamber In Bulgaria, in a small townnear the Dragoman Pass, late in November in the year 1885. (SHAW) The sixth ofMarch, 1886. (Idem) The landing dock of the Cunard Line. (FITCH) Living room inthe house of Philip Phillimore. (L. MITCHELL)
Comparealso the following passage from a modern novel: No birds singing in the dawn. Alight wind making the palm trees sway their necks, with a faint dry formal clicking.^The wonderful hushing of rain on Mareotis. (DURRELL) Such sentences bear astrong resemblance to two-member sentences having a present participle fortheir predicate, which we have considered on p. 202 ff. It is the context thatwill show to which of the two types the sentence belongs. In some cases thedifference between them may be vague or even completely neutralized.
Thereare some more types of one-member clauses and sentences. Let us consider a fewexamples of the less common varieties. And what if he had seen them embracingin the moonlight? (HUXLEY) The main clause, if it is to be taken separately,contains only the words and what…? It is clear, however, that the sentence Andwhat?, if at all possible, would have a meaning entirely different from that ofthe sentence as it stands in Huxley’s text. Be that as it may, the clause andwhat is clearly a one-member clause.
Adifferent kind of one-member clause is seen in the following compound sentence:A good leap, and perhaps one might clear the narrow terrace and so crash downyet another thirty feet to the sunbaked ground below. (HUXLEY) The first clausein its conciseness is very effective. These are the thoughts of a young manstanding on a hill and looking down a steep ravine. The meaning is of courseequivalent to that of a sentence like It would be enough to make a good leap,etc. But the first clause as it stands in the text is certainly a one-memberclause, as every addition to it would entirely change its structure.
Aspecial semantic type of one-member clauses is characterized by the followingstructure: «predicative + adjective expressing emotional assessment + noun orclause expressing what is assessed by the adjective», for instance, Strange howdifferent she had become – a strange new quiescence. (LAWRENCE) The main clausemight of course have been a two-member one: It was strange how different shehad become… but this variant would be stylistically very different from theoriginal. It is also evident that this type of sentence is limited to a verysmall number of adjective predicative’s.
Imperativesentences with no subject of the action mentioned are also to be classed amongone-member sentences, e.g. Get away from me! (M. MITCHELL) Fear not, fair lady!(Idem) «Don’t tell him anything» she cried rapidly. (Idem)
Itwould not, however, be correct to say that imperative sentences mustnecessarily have this structure. Occasionally, in emotional speech, they mayhave a subject, that is, they belong to the two-member type, as in thefollowing instance: Don’t you dare touch me! (Idem)
ELLIPTICALSENTENCES
By«elliptical sentences» we mean sentences with one or more of their parts leftout, which can be unambiguously inferred from the context. We will apply thisterm to any sentence of this kind, no matter what part or parts of it have beenleft out.
Themain sphere of elliptical sentences is of course dialogue: it is here that oneor more parts of a sentence are left out because they are either to be suppliedfrom the preceding sentence (belong-, in to another speaker) or may be easilydispensed with. We take a few examples of elliptical sentences fromcontemporary dramatic works: Charlie. Have you asked her yet? Captain Jinks.Not often enough. (FITCH) It is clear here that the answer means: ‘I have, butnot often enough’. Aurelia. And by the way, before I forget it, I hope you’llcome to supper to-night – here. Will you? After the opera. Captain Jinks.Delighted! (Idem) It is also clear here that Aurelia’s second sentence means:’Will you come to supper to-night?’ and that the captain’s answer means: ‘Ishall be delighted to come’. Whatever is understood from the preceding contextis omitted, and only the words containing the theme are actually pronounced.The same is found, for example, in the following bit of dialogue: Matthew. Why,my dear – you have a very sad expression! Cynthia. Why not? Matthew. J feel asif I we’re of no use in the world when 1 see sadness on a young face. Onlysinners should feel sad. You have committed no sin! Cynthia. Yes, I have! (L.MITCHELL) Cynthia’s first sentence obviously means: ‘Why should I not have asad expression?’ and her second, ‘Yes, I have committed a sin!’ Similarly, inother cases everything but the words representing the theme may be omitted.
Ellipticalsentences or clauses can of course also occur outside dialogue.’
5.The Composite Sentence.
Atthe beginning of our work we commented briefly on the problem of classifyingcomposite sentences. We will adopt as a first principle of classification theway in which the parts of a composite sentence (its clauses) are joinedtogether. This may be achieved either by means of special words designed forthis function, or without the help of such words. In the first case, the methodof joining the clauses is synthetic, and the composite sentence itself may becalled synthetic. In the second case the method of joining the clauses is asyndetic,and so is the composite sentence itself.
Weshould distinguish between two variants of synthetic joining of sentences, thedifference depending on the character and syntactic function of the word usedto join them.
Thisjoining word (let us call it this for the time being) may either be aconjunction, a pronoun or an adverb. If it is a conjunction, it has no otherfunction in the sentence but that of joining the clauses together.
Ifit is a pronoun or an adverb (i. e. a relative pronoun or a relative adverb),its function in the sentence is twofold: on the one hand, it is a part of oneof the two clauses which are joined (a subject, object, adverbial modifier,etc.), and on the other hand, it serves to join the two sentences together,that is, it has a connecting function as well.
Itis to synthetic composite sentences that the usual classification into compoundand complex sentences should be applied in the first place.
Theseare the lines indicated for the Russian language by Prof. N. Pospelov in 1950.’ The question of classifying asyndetic composite sentences will have to beconsidered separately (see below, Chapter XL).
Westart, then, from a distinction of compound sentences and complex sentences.The basic difference between the two types would appear to be clear enough: incompound sentences, the clauses of which they consist have as it were equalrights, that is, none of them is below the other in rank, they are coordinated.
Incomplex sentences, on the other hand, the clauses are not on an equal footing.In the simplest case, that of a complex sentence consisting of two clausesonly, one of these is the main clause, and the other a subordinate clause, thatis, it stands beneath the main clause in rank. Of course, there may be morethan one main clause and more than one subordinate clause in a complexsentence.
Sofar the classification of syndetic composite sentences looks simple enough. Butas we come to the problem of the external signs showing whether a clause isco-ordinated with another or subordinated to it, we often run intodifficulties. As often as not a clear and unmistakable sign pointing this wayor that is wanting. In such cases we have to choose between two possible waysof dealing with the problem. Either we shall have to answer the question in anarbitrary way, relying, that is, on signs that are not binding and may bedenied; or else we shall have to establish a third, or inter-* mediate, group,which cannot be termed either clear co-ordination or clear subordination, butis something between the two, or something indefinite from this point of view.It is also evident that the problem is connected with that of coordinating andsubordinating conjunctions.
6.Compound Sentence
Whendiscussing simple sentences we had to deal with communication types:declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory sentences.
Withcompound sentences this problem requires special treatment. If both (or all)clauses making up a compound sentence belong to the same communication type itis clear that the compound sentence belongs to this type, too. But there arealso compound sentences consisting of clauses belonging to differentcommunication types. In that case it is impossible to state to what type thecompound sentence as a whole belongs. Let us consider a few instances of thiskind.
Thereare sentences in which one clause is declarative and the other exclamatory, asin the following example: After all, she concluded, a monkey is a ridiculousanimal, and how clever of Tristram to recognize the need for just such aridiculousness among all his dinner parties… (BUECHNER) Such examples, however,appear to be rare. The following sentence had best be considered a compoundsentence, with the first clause declarative, and the second elliptical and interrogative:These came nearer than most to meaning something to her, but what? (BUECHNER)The second clause, if completed, would apparently run something like this: butwhat did they mean? or, what could they mean?
Thisabsence of a unified communication type in some compound sentences has givenrise to doubts whether what we call a compound sentence can be called asentence at all. The solution of the problem-will of course depend on what weconsider to be the necessary features of a sentence. If we accept unity ofcommunication type as one of them, formations lacking this feature will have tobe excluded. This view would then make it necessary to develop a theory ofunits other than a sentence stretching between a full stop and another fullstop, or a question mark, or an exclamation mark. We will not pursue thisanalysis any further but we will take the view that unity of communication typeis not an indispensable feature, and go on recognizing compound sentences as aspecial sentence type.
Compoundsentences consist of clauses joined together by coordinating conjunctions.These are very few: and, bat, or, for, yet, so (compare the chapter onconjunctions, p. 158). Concerning some of them there may be doubts whether theyare conjunctions (thus, yet may also be supposed to be an adverb), andconcerning the word for it may be doubtful whether it is coordinating orsubordinating. The meanings of the conjunctions themselves are of course aquestion of lexicology. What concerns us here is the type of connection betweenthe clauses in a compound sentence.
Therehas been some discussion about the degree of independence of the clauses makingup a compound sentence. The older view was that they were completelyindependent of each other. It was supposed that these clauses were nothing but independentsentences with a coordinating conjunction between them indicating theirsemantic relations. Lately, however, the opinion has been expressed that theindependence of the clauses, and especially of the second clause (and thosewhich follow it, if any) is not complete, and that the structure of the secondand following clauses is to some extent predetermined by the first. This viewwas put forward in the Academy’s Grammar of the Russian language. It is pointedout here that the word order of the second clause may be influenced by theconnection it has with the first, and that the verb forms of the predicates incoordinated clauses are frequently mutually dependent. ‘Part of this is moresignificant for the Russian language with its freer word order than for theEnglish, but a certain degree of interdependence between the clauses is foundin English, too.
Wewill now consider some questions of the grammatical structure of compoundsentences in English.
Thesemantic relations between the clauses making up the compound sentence dependpartly on the lexical meaning of the conjunction uniting them, and partly onthe meanings of the words making up the clauses themselves. It should be notedthat the coordinating conjunctions differ from each other in definiteness ofmeaning: the conjunction ~but has an adversative meaning which is so clear anddefinite that there can hardly be anything in the sentence to materially alterthe 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 ofshades being added to it by the meanings of other words in the sentence. Thiswill be quite clear if we compare the following two compound sentences withclauses joined by this conjunction: The old lady had recognized Ellen’shandwriting and her fat little mouth was pursed in a frightened way, like ababy who fears a scolding and hopes to ward it off by tears. (M, MITCHELL) Thebazaar had taken place Monday night and today was only Thursday. (Idem) Thefirst sentence has a shade of meaning of cause – result, and this is obviouslydue to the meanings of the words recognized and frightened. In the secondsentence there is something like an adversative shade of meaning, and this isdue to the relation in meaning between the word Monday in the first clause andthat of the words only Thursday in the second. In a similar way other shades ofmeaning may arise from other semantic relations between words in twoco-ordinate clauses.
Compoundsentences with clauses joined by the conjunction or (or by the doubleconjunction either – or) seem to be very rare. Here are a few examples: Thelight fell either upon the smooth grey black of a pebble, or the shell pf asnail with its brown, circular veins, or, falling into a raindrop, it expandedwith such intensity of red, blue, and yellow the thin’ walls of water that oneexpected them to burst, and disappear. (V. WOOLF) / think I see them now withsparkling looks; or have they vanished while I have been writing thisdescription of them? (HAZLITT) Are you afraid of their biting, or is it ametaphysical antipathy? (LAWRENCE)
Asto the use of tenses in clauses making up a compound sentence, we should notethat there is no general rule of their interdependence. However, in a number ofcases we do find interdependence of co-ordinate clauses from this point ofview. For instance, in the following compound sentence the tense of the firstpredicate verb is past perfect and that of the second past indefinite: She hadcome to meet the Marquise de Trayas, but she was half an hour too early. (R.WEST)
Thenumber of clauses in a compound sentence may of course be greater than two, andin that case the conjunctions uniting the clauses may be different; thus, thesecond clause may be joined to the first by one conjunction, while the third isjoined 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 pleasedenough over his small black-haired daughter… (M. MITCHELL)
Atypical example of a compound sentence with the conjunction so is thefollowing: The band has struck, so we did our best without it (FITCH)
Besidesthe conjunctions so far considered, there are a few more, which are generallyclassed as subordinating, but which in certain conditions tend to become coordinating,so that the sentences in which they occur may be considered to be compoundrather than complex, or perhaps we might put it differently: the distinctionbetween co-ordination and subordination, and consequently that between compoundand complex sentences, is in such cases neutralized. This concerns mainly theconjunction while and the adverbial clauses of time introduced by it, and theconjunction though and the adverbial clauses of concession introduced by it. Wewill discuss these cases when we come to the respective types of adverbialsubordinate clauses.
7.Complex Sentence
Thereis much more to be said about the complex sentence than about the compound.This is due to several causes, which are, however, connected with one another.
Forone thing, the semantic relations who can be expressed by subordination aremuch more numerous and more varied than with co-ordination: all such relationsas time, place, concession, purpose, etc. are expressly stated in complexsentences only.
Thenagain, the means of expressing subordination are much more numerous. There ishere a great variety of conjunctions: when, after, before, while, till, until,though, although, albeit, that, as, because, since; a number of phrasesperforming the same function: as soon as, as long as, so long as, notwithstandingthat, in order that, according as, etc. Besides, a certain number ofconjunctive words are used: the relative pronouns who, which, that, whoever,whatever, whichever, and the relative adverbs where, how, whenever, wherever,however, why, etc.
Wemay note that the boundary line between conjunctions and relative adverbs isnot quite clearly drawn. We shall also see this when we come to the adverbialclauses introduced by the word when and those introduced by the word where (seebelow, p. 286 ff.). Historically speaking, conjunctions develop from adverbs,and one word or another may prove to be in an intermediate stage, when thereare no sufficient objective criteria to define its status.
TYPESOF COMPLEX SENTENCES
Thenotions of declarative, interrogative, and imperative sentence, and also thatof exclamatory sentence appear to be applicable to some types of complexsentences as well. For instance, if the main clause of a complex sentence isinterrogative or imperative, this implies that the complex sentence as a wholeis also interrogative or imperative respectively. A few examples will sufficeto illustrate our point. Why couldn’t she sense now that he was outside andcome out? (DREISER) The main clause why couldn’t she sense now… and come out?is clearly interrogative», and this is enough to make the whole complexsentence interrogative, though the subordinate clause that he was outside (anobject clause) is certainly not interrogative, and should, if anything, betermed declarative. This, it may be noted in passing, is an additional proofthat the clause that he was outside is a subordinate clause: its type ofcommunication is irrelevant for the type of communication to which the sentenceas a whole belongs, while the type of the clause why couldn’t she sense…andcome out? Is decisive for it.
Thesame will be found to be the case in the following example: But who is toguarantee that I get the other sixty-five, and when? (DREISER) This is aslightly more complicated case. The main clause of course is who is toguarantee, and it is interrogative. The subordinate clause is that I get theother sixty-five, and it is followed by the words and when, which will probablybe best described as an elliptical second subordinate clause, whose full textwould run, and when I shall get it (which is an indirect question). It mightalso be described as. a detached adverbial modifier added on to the subordinateclause that I shall get the other sixty-five. Be that as it may, the factremains that the interrogative main clause But who is to guarantee…? Is enoughto make the entire sentence interrogative, no matter to what type thesubordinate clause or clauses belong.
Nowlet us take a complex sentence with an imperative main clause: Never you mindhow old she is. (SHAW) The main clause never you mind is imperative and that isenough to make the whole sentence imperative as well.
Thesame may be said about a number of other sentences
Conclusion
In the conclusion of my work, I would like to say some wordsaccording the done investigation. The main research was written in the mainpart of my course paper. So here I’ll give content of it with the descriptionof question discussed in each paragraph.
The main part of my work consists of following items:
· «The Sentence». Here I gave thedefinition to the term sentence.
· «Classification of Sentences», in thisparagraph different types of classification of English sentences are done.
· In the next five paragraphs «The Simple Sentence andIts Types», «The Composite Sentence», «Compound Sentence», and «ComplexSentence» I described types of sentences in English due the classificationaccording sentence structure. In paragraph «One Member Sentences» I gave thedefinition to the rarely discussed elliptical sentences.
Standing on such ground I will add that investigation in thequestions dealt sentences in English and their types is not finished yet, so wewill continue it while writing our qualification work.
I hope that my course paper will arise the sincere interestof students and teachers to the problem of adjectives in contemporary English.
Bibliography
1. B. Ilyish, The Structure of Modern English.
2. V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. Iofik.» ModernEnglish language» (Theoretical course grammar) Moscow, 1956 y.
3. Gordon E.M. The Use of adjectives in modern English.
4. М.М. Галииская.«Иностранные языки в высшей школе», вып. 3, М., 1964.
5. Г.Н. Воронцова.Очерки по грамматике английского языка. М., 1960
6. O.Jespersen. Essentials of English Grammar. N.Y., 1938
7. Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В.,Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английскогоязыка. – М., 1981. – 285 c.
8. Ch. Barber.Linguistic change in Present-Day English. Edinburgh, 1964
9. TheStructure of American English. New York, 1958.
10. World BookEncyclopedia Vol. 1 NY. 1993 pp. 298-299
11. Internet madrasati2010.bravehost.com/adj.htm
12. Internet www.vestnik.vsu.ru
13. Internet:http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs/theory.htm
14. Inbternet:http://www.englishlanguage.ru/main/verbs_mood.htm