Contents
Introduction
1. TheSentence
2.Classification of Sentences
3. The CompositeSentence
4. CompoundSentence
5. ComplexSentence
6. Types ofSubordinate Clauses
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.
Sentences with only one predication are called simple sentences.Those with more than one predication have usually no general name. We shallcall them composite sentences.
In a composite sentence each predication together with thewords attached is called a clause.
Composite sentences with coordinated clauses are compound sentences.
She’s a very faithful creature and I trust her. (Cronin).
Composite sentences containing subordinated clauses are complexsentences.
If I let this chance slip, I’m a fool. (Cronin).
In a complex sentence we distinguish the principal clause (I’ma fool) and the subordinate clause (If I let this chance slip) orclauses.
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 types ofcomposite sentences.
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 wants 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, the problem of composite sentences and etc. In theconclusion to our work we tried to draw some results from the scientificinvestigations made within the present course paper. In bibliography part wementioned some sources which were used while compiling the present work. Itincludes linguistic books and articles dealing with the theme, a number of useddictionaries and encyclopedias and also some internet 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 BookShop and such book titles as English are sentences or not. In favour of theview that they are sentences the following consideration can be broughtforward. The notice Book Shop and the title English Grammar mean ‘This is abook shop’, ‘This is an English Grammar’; the phrase is interpreted as thepredicative of a sentence whose subject and link verb have been omitted, thatis, it is apprehended as a unit of communication. According to the otherpossible view, such notices as Book Shop and such titles as English Grammar arenot units of communication at all, but units of nomination, merely appended tothe object they denote. Since there is as yet no definition of a sentence whichwould enable us to decide this question, it depends on everyone’s subjectiveview which alternative he prefers. We will prefer the view that such noticesand book 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, the meaningof 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 are to-day more people writing extremely well, in all departments oflife, than ever before; what we have to do is to sharpen our judgement and pickthese out 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 answerwhich will 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), wherein a 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 in themselvesgrammatical features: they are rather a consequence of grammatical featureswhose 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, andimperative sentences. We can call this principle that of «types ofcommunication».
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 affirmativedeclarative sentence, You have seen him, and the interrogative sentence,Have you seen him? Let us proceed to find out the precisecharacteristics of the sentence in the text as against the two sentences justgiven for the sake of comparison. From the syntactical viewpoint, the sentenceis declarative, as the mutual position of subject and predicate is, you haveseen, not have you seen, which would be the interrogative order. In what way orways does it, then, differ from a usual declarative sentence? That is where thequestion of the intonation comes in. Whether the question mark at the end ofthe sentence does or does not mean that the intonation is not that typical of adeclarative sentence, is hard to tell, though it would rather seem that itdoes. To be certain about this a phonetic experiment should be undertaken, butin this particular case the author gives a context which itself goes some waytoward settling the question. The author’s words, She did not particularlymark tier question for an answer, seem to refer to the intonation withwhich it was pronounced: the intonation must not have been clearlyinterrogative, that is not clearly rising, though it must have differed fromthe regular falling intonation to some extent: if it had not been at alldifferent, the sentence could not have been termed a «question», and the authordoes call it a question. Reacting to this semi-interrogative intonation, Bone(the man to whom the question was addressed) answered in the affirmative. Itseems the best way, on the whole, to term such sentences semi-interrogative.Their purpose of course is to utter a somewhat hesitating statement and toexpect 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 beexclamatory at the same time, that is, it may convey the speaker’s feelings andbe characterized 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 Composite Sentence
Compositesentences, as we know divide into compound and complex sentences. Thedifference between them is not only in the relations of coordination orsubordination, as usually stated. It is also important to know what iscoordinated or subordinated. In compound sentences the whole clauses arecoordinated, together with their predications.
Incomplex sentences a clause is mostly subordinated not to the whole principalclause but to some word in it which may be regarded as its head-word. In Iknow where he lives the subordinate clause is an adjunct of the objectiveverb know. In I know the place where he lives the subordinate clause isthe adjunct of the noun place. In The important thing is where he lives thesubordinate clause is an adjunct of the link-verb is. The only exception is thesubordinate clause in a sentence like Where he lives is unknown in whichit functions as the subject.
Thesepeculiarities of compound and complex sentences may account for the differencein their treatment. The clauses of compound sentences are often regarded asindependent. Some linguists are even of the opinion that compound sentences aremerely sequences of simple sentences, combinations of sentences. x The clausesof a complex sentence, on the contrary, are often treated as forming a unity, asimple sentence in which some part is replaced by a clause a. Such extremeviews are, to our mind, not quite justified, especially if we take intoconsideration that the border lines between coordination (parataxis) andsubordination (hypotaxis are fluid. A clause may be introduced by a typicalsubordinating conjunction and yet its connection with the principal clause isso loose that it can hardly be regarded as a subordinate clause at all.
Cf.I met John, who told me (= and he told me) the big news.
Or,conversely, a coordinating conjunction may express relations typical of subordination.
E.g.You must interfere now; for (cf. because) they are getting quite beyond me. (Shaw).
Asalready noted, the demarcation line between a compound sentence and acombination of sentences, as well as that between compound words andcombinations of words, is somewhat vague. Yet, the’ majority of compound wordsand compound sentences are established in the language system as definite unitswith definite structures. Besides, a similar vagueness can be-observed withregard to the demarcation line between complex sentences and combinations ofsentences.
E.g. They are not people, but types. Which makes it difficult for the actors topresent them convincingly. (D.W.).
Thoughcoordinating conjunctions may be found to connect independent sentences, theyare in an overwhelming majority of cases used to connect clauses.
Asto the asyndetically connection of clauses, it is found both in compound and incomplex sentences. In either case the relations between the clauses resemblethose expressed by the corresponding conjunctions.
E.g.They had a little quarrel, he soon forgot. (London). Here the asyndeton mightbe replaced by which or but.
Semanticallythe clauses of a compound sentence are usually connected more closely thanindependent sentences. These relations may be reduced to a few typical casesthat can be listed.
Theorder of clauses within a compound sentence is often more rigid than in complexsentences. He came at six and we had dinner together, (the place of thecoordinate clauses cannot be changed without impairing the sense of thesentence).
Cf.If she wanted to do anything better she must have a great deal more. (Dreiser).She must have a great deal more if she wanted to do anything better.
Especiallyclose is the connection of the coordinate clauses in a case like this.
Heexpected no answer, and a dull one would have been reproved. (Dreiser).
Theprop-word one is an additional link between the clauses.
Thoughthere is some similarity in the function and combinability of subordinateclauses and parts of the sentence, which is justly used as a criterion for theclassification of clauses, we must not identify clauses and parts of simplesentences.
Apartfrom their having predications, clauses differ from parts of the simplesentence in some other respects, too.
a)Very often it is not the clause itself but the conjunction that defines itsfunction and combinability. He speaks the truth may be a simple sentence, acoordinate or a subordinate clause, depending on the conjunction; and he speaksthe truth is normally a coordinate clause, when he speaks the truth is often asubordinate clause of time, if he speaks the truth is mostly a subordinateclause of condition, etc.
Thusa conjunction is often a definite marker of a clause, which distinguishes suchclauses from most English words having no markers. That probably accounts forthe fact that clauses with such markers have a greater freedom of distributionthan most parts of a simple sentence.
b)There is often no correlation between clauses and parts of simple sentences. Iknow that he is ill is correlated with I know that. I am afraid tint he is illis not correlated with.
Iam afraid that. I hope that he is well is not correlated with I hope that, etc.
Themost important part of the sentence, the predicate, has no correlative type ofclause.
Certainclauses have, as a matter of fact, no counterparts among the parts of thesentence.
E.g.I am a diplomat, aren’t I? (Hemingway).
4.The Compound Sentence
Theclauses of compound sentences are of equal rank, but usually the clausepreceding the conjunction is regarded as the initial clause to which the otherclause is related. These relations are mostly determined by the conjunction andare accordingly copulative, adversative, disjunctive, causal, resultative x(see ‘Conjunctions’).
Asto clauses linked asyndetically, their relations are likewise of differentnature, though, for the most part, copulative or causal-resultative, as in.
Hiseyes were bloodshot and heavy, his face a deadly white… (Dickens).
Nextday his knee was badly swollen, his walking tour was obviously over.(Galsworthy).
Thecompound sentence usually describes events in their natural order, reflectingthe march of events spoken of in the sequence of clauses.
E.g.He got the hitcher instead, and reached over, and drew in the end of thetow-line; and they made a loop in it, and put it over their mast, and then theytided up the sculls, and went and sat down in the stern, and lit their pipes. (J.Jerome).
Hereinlies the great expressive force of the compound sentence. It is extensivelyused in colloquial speech and is often resorted to when events are described ina stately or impressive way.
5.The Complex Sentence
Theprincipal clauses of complex sentences are usually not classified, though theirmeanings are not neutral with regard to the meanings of the subordinate clauses.
Cf.He will come because he needs your help.
Hewill come if he needs your help.
Twocriteria are most often used in classifying the subordinate clauses of complexsentences: meaning and combinability. When he came is a clause of timeaccording to the meaning imparted by when.
E.g.Wheti he came, it was already late.
Butin the sentence I know when he came the same clause is consideredobjective owing to its subordination to the objective verb know.
Thereare two ways of using the criterion of combinability. Either subordinateclauses are classified in accordance with their relation to the word of theprincipal clause «they are attached to, or they are likened to some part ofspeech •with similar combinability… In the sentences When he came is ‘ of noimportance, I remember when he came the combinability of the subordinate clauseresembles that of a noun.
Cf.The fact is of no importance, I remember the fact.
Thereforethe clause When he came is considered a noun-clause. If classified inaccordance with its relation to the predicate verb, the first clause would becalled a subject clause and the second an object clause.
Similarlyin This is the man who wishes to see you the subordinate clause may be regardedas an adjective clause in accordance with its own combinability, or as anattributive clause, since its head-word is a noun.
Eachof the criteria described has its advantages and disadvantages. But in syntax,it seems, the correlation with the parts of the sentence is preferable to thecorrelation v with the parts of speech. We shall therefore classify thesubordinate clauses into groups parallel to the parts of the simple sentence.Accordingly we snail distinguish subject clauses, complement clauses (predicative,objective, and adverbial), attributive clauses, extension clauses andparenthetical clauses.
Subordinateclauses are connected with the principal clause by conjunctions, conjunctiveand relative pro-nouns or asyndetically.
E.g.I have been thinking of Cambridge all through dinner, after (a conjunction)Martin had mentioned a friend of mine who (a relative pronoun) had been killedthat spring. (Snow).
Heseemed to be asking what (a conjunctive pronoun) was the matter with me. (lb.).
Mauntenayasked me if (a conjunction) / was satisfied with the way (asyndeticsubordination) I have spent my life, (lb.).
Inconnection with the structure of the complex sentence and the means ofsubordination in it, it is necessary to dwell on the so-called ‘sequence oftenses’ which is often treated as a formal feature of the complex sentence, adevice of subordination. The rule of the sequence of tenses is usually definedas follows: If the predicate verb of the principal clause is in the present orthe future tense, the predicate verb of the subordinate clause may be used inany tense required by the sense. If the predicate verb of the principal clauseis in the past tense, the verb of the subordinate clause must be used in thepast tense too.
Theregularity is supposed to be mostly or exclusively characteristic of objectsubordinate clauses.
Fromthe point of view of Morphology, the so-called sequence of tenses is amorphological problem, not a syntactical one, inasmuch as the past tense formsin the subordinate clauses are used in accordance with the grammatical meaningsthey express. The following Russian example will help to see it.,
Я тебе все расскажу, когда приеду.
Herethe predicate verbs in the principal and in the subordinate clause are bothrepresentatives of future tense grammemes. In the corresponding Englishsentence there would be a future tense verb only in the principal clause. Ishall tell you everything when I come.
Nowfrom the point of view of an Englishman the future tense in the Russiansubordinate clause might be regarded as depending on the future tense of theprincipal clause, as a means of subordination, and a certain rule of thesequence of the future tenses in Russian might be formulated.
Thereis no need, however, to look for any syntactical explanation of the use of thefuture tense verb in the Russian subordinate clause. It is used there inaccordance with its meaning since it denotes an action taking, place after themoment of speech.
Whatdoes need accounting for is the ‘future tense’ meaning of the present tensegrammeme come in the English subordinate clause. Here we cannot do without’syntax. We must state that in certain syntactical surroundings a present tensegrammeme may acquire a ‘future tense’ meaning.
Wemay see something similar in the following two sentences.
Hebegan to wonder what she was doing, how his children were getting along. (Dreiser).
Он сталзадумываться над тем, что она поделывает, как живут его дети.
Inthe English sentence each ‘past tense’ verb refers to the past and is used inaccordance with its tense meaning. So there is no need for any theory of the’sequence of tenses’ to account for their usage.
Itis not so in the Russian sentence. The ‘present tense’ verbs поделывает and живут have acquireda ‘past tense’ meaning under the influence of the past tense of стал in theprincipal clause. So it is in the Russian sentence that subordination is alsoshown by the relation of the tense meanings in the subordinate clause to thosein the principal one.
Thatthe ‘sequence of tenses’ in English is not merely a formal device, theagreement of the tense in the subordinate clause with that of the principalclause, is proved by numerous deviations from the rules of sequence.
E.-g.Did she know that lam her father»? (Shaw). Yesterday he learned that he is nota member of the Council. (Daily Worker).
Itpublished a cartoon designed to suggest that Mrs. Knight’s teaching w ill landa young man in the dock. (lb.).
Thereis no agreement in tense in the examples given above simply because all theverbs are used in accordance with their tense meanings.
However,it cannot be denied that the clauses of a complex sentence are for the mostpart united by the same time background. Very often it is the tense of theprincipal clause that shows that background. The events mentioned in thesubordinate clause may be presented as unfolding against that background, asvalid or important for that period of time. Only in this sense can we speak ofthe accord of tenses in the complex sentence. This accord can be observed notonly in complex sentences with object subordinate clauses, as stated by somelinguists, but in complex sentences with various types of subordinate clauses:
Thatshe knew of his weakness was not believed for a moment. (Braddon) (a subjectclause).
Whathe meant was that he was sorry. (Dickens) (a subject and a predicative clause).
Wewere sure he would understand it when the time came round. (Daily Worker) (anextension clause, and an adverbial clause of time).
Shewas convinced he was failing in his duty as he did not possess a greatreputation. (Black) (an object clause and an adverbial clause of cause).
Theysaid I could apply for a second week if the doctor sent in a certificate.(Gilbert) (an object clause and an adverbial clause of condition).
Girlor no girl he did not want one that was not pretty. (Dreiser) (an attributiveclause).
Themood of the predicate verb of a subordinate clause depends on the principalclause to a greater extent than its tense.
Asnoted, certain types of principal clauses are commonly correlated with thesubjunctive mood in the subordinate clauses.
a)Clauses denoting subjective appraisal.
E.g. It is advisable that she be left in ignorance of the facts for a littlewhile. (Stevenson).
Itwas essential that I should have a seat in the lower chamber. (Trollope).Incredible that she should never give him a chance to show that she had reallyloved him. (Galsworthy).
b)Clauses containing verbs and nouns denoting suggestion, demand, recommendation,insistence, perplexity, doubt, fear, anxiety, wish, etc.
Heinsisted that the boy remain in bed. (Cronin).
Thedemand that they should be forwarded to the company’s office came at midnight.(The Worker).
Atthat moment she wished that she had not sent for him. (Eliot).
Thereis usually mood concord in conditional sentences.
E.g. If Savina were with him at this moment, his doubts and loneliness wouldevaporate. (Wilson). (Subjunctive, in both clauses.)
Ifshe wanted to do anything better or move higher she must have more – a greatdeal more. (Dreiser). (Indicative, in both clauses.)
6.Types of Subordinate Clauses
SubjectClauses
Thesubject clause is the only one used in the function of a primary part of thesentence.
Thepeculiarity of the subject clause is its inalienability from the principalclause. Thus in the sentence What you mean is clear the subordinate clause Whatyou mean is used as the subject. If it is cut off from the rest of thesentence, what remains (is clear) cannot be treated as a clause either inmeaning or in structure. It is synsemantic 1 in the sense that it can be understood only in combination with its subordinate part.
Subjectclauses are introduced by conjunctions (if, whether, that), conjunctivepro-nouns (who, which, what, whose, whichever, whoever, whatever, etc.) andpro-adverbs (how, when, where, why).
Whyshe left him is a mystery. (Jerome).
ComplementClauses
a)Predicative Clauses
Thesentence The question is where he can be found consists of the principalclause the question is and the predicative clause where he can be found. Thepredicative complement, as usual, is at the same time the notional predicate.
Predicativeclauses are introduced by the same conjunctions and pronouns as subjectclauses. They are mostly attached to the link-verb to be in the principalclause, though they may occur with to look, to feel and some other links.
Hefelt as if something in him were collapsing. (Heym).
Eachlittle household looked as though it were picnicking in its own back room.(Oxenham).
Predicativeclauses sometimes function as objective predicatives, as in You’ll make herwhat you like, she is pliable enough. (Braddon).
b)Object Clauses
Theyare introduced by the same conjunctions and connective pronouns as subject andpredicative clauses. They are often joined to their principal clausesasyndetically.
Objectsubordinate clauses may be either prepositionless or prepositional.
Nowtell me what happened at the meeting. (Shaw).
Cusins.Barbara: I am going to accept this offer.
Barbara:I thought you would. (lb.).
Iwas thinking of what the Third Reich had done and said so. (Snow).
Anobject clause (like an object in a simple sentence) may be preceded by theanticipatory object it as in I think it very significant that he refused tocommunicate with the Sheltons. (Braddon).
Theusual place of an object clause ij after the principal clause, though it may beplaced before the principal clause for the purpose of connecting two thoughts,the object clause denoting something familiar, mentioned previously, what weproceed from.
Whyhe declined that offer I can’t tell. (Black).
Whethershe had been wise in this she was utterly unable to decide. (Galsworthy).
c)Adverbial Clauses
Adverbialclauses serve to express a variety of adverbial relations and, consequently,they are introduced by» a great number of subordinating conjunctions. Asyndeticsubordination is not typical of adverbial clauses (barring those of condition)since it is mainly the conjunction that differentiates one kind of adverbialclause from another.
Cf.When he was young… Though he was young… Because he was young…
Ofthe three types of adverbial complements – qualitative, quantitative andcircumstantial – adverbial clauses mostly function as the last mentioned, asadverbials of situation or external conditions.
However,we take issue with L.S. Barkhudarov and D.A. Shteling over theirstatement that adverbial clauses are used exclusively as adverbial complementsof external conditions.
Thevery examples they produce contradict this statement.
Inthe sentence Mike acted as though nothing had happened (Hemingway) theadverbial clause shows how he acted, in what manner he acted. Consequently, itshows the inner nature of the action, its quality.
Themeaning of manner is mostly interwoven with that of comparison.
Allhovels should serve it and love it as he did. (Randall).
Adverbialclauses may occupy different places in the complex sentence. They occur beforetheir principal clause, after it, and even within it, which shows that theposition of adverbial clauses (like that of adverbial complements in simplesentences) is less fixed and rigid than that of other subordinate clauses functioningas secondary parts.
E.g. I advise you, if you cherish your private life, not to let him frighten you.(Randall).
Ifhe had glanced upwards, he would never have suspected that she was the grimbluestocking he awaited, (lb.).
You’llget along too if you take us as you find us. (lb.).
Inaccordance with their relations to the principal clause, mostly expressed bythe conjunction or connective pronoun they are introduced by, adverbial clausesare classified into those of place (introduced by where, wherever), time(introduced by when, while, till, until, as, since, before, after, once, assoon as, etc.), cause (conjunctions – because, as, since) purpose (conjunctions– that, so that, in order that, lest), condition (conjunctions – if, in case,provided, unless, suppose, supposing), concession (conjunctions – though,although, as, conjunctive pronouns whatever, whoever, whichever), manner, orcomparison (conjunctives–as if, as though).
Hetrudged doggedly on until he reached the flat. (Dreiser).
BecauseCarrie was pretty, the gentleman selected her photo, (lb.).
MadameLamotte would see, if Annette didn’t. (Galsworthy).
Thoughhe was «the limit», he was yet her property. (lb.).
AttributeClauses
Attributiveclauses are postpositive adjuncts of nouns. They are commonly divided intorelative and appositive clauses. Relative clauses are introduced by pronouns(or asyndetically). They are usually subdivided into restrictive anddescriptive. The former serve to restrict the meaning of the antecedent, sothat when the restrictive clause is left out, the sense of the sentence isseriously impaired.
Idon’t like girls who can’t hold their tongues. (Black). Then we had that raidwhen Uncle Ned was killed. (Gilbert).
Iknow the stories you have been feeding him. (lb.).
Descriptiveclauses serve to supply some additional information which does not restrict orspecify the meaning of the antecedent.
E.g. The following day, which was Wednesday, we went to a solicitor. (Jerome).
Whatabout dining at the Embassy at Chawley, where they still brewed beer. (Gilbert).
Avariety of attributive clauses is the appositive clause, which formally differsfrom an attributive clause in being introduced by a conjunction (that, if,whether).
Theawful fact that I might never have met her is rather appalling. (Openheim).
Hemarried you for the romantic reason that he had fallen in love with yon. (Gilbert),
Appositivesubordinate clauses mostly occur after abstract nouns such as idea, thought,feeling, fact, impression, reason, doubt, question, etc.
ExtensionClauses
Extensionclauses are postpositive adjuncts of adjectives, adverbs and adlinks.
E.g. It is indeed doubtful how he had become aware that Roger was being buriedthat day. (Galsworthy).
Thesubordinate clause is an extension of the adlink aware.
Iam happy that everything went off so nicely.
Thesubordinate clause is an extension of the adjective happy.
Sheis so pretty that all our boys are mad about her. (Heyer).
Thesubordinate clause is an extension of the pro-adverb so.
Hishead was still in such a whirl that he felt confused. (Dreiser).
Thesubordinate clause is an extension of the pro-adjective such.
Thesubordinate clauses in the last two sentences have a distinct consecutivemeaning, and may be called ‘extensions of result’ (instead of the traditional ‘adverbialclauses of result’).
ParentheticalClauses
Mostauthors who do not regard parenthetical elements as parts of the sentence treatIt is past ten, I think as a simple sentence. We do not find this viewconvincing.
1. IfI think is not some part of the sentence, it must be regarded as anindependent sentence. But it is not independent. Its intonation, position andmeaning show that it is connected with It is past ten, to which it isappended and on which it depends.
2. Thesentence discussed is not simple because it contains two predications. Thisbecomes especially evident when we compare It is past ten, I think with Ithink it is past ten.
3. Sincewe regard parenthetical elements as parts of the sentence we must treat Itis past ten, I think as a complex sentence, i.e. a sentence havingone of its parts (parenthetical element) expressed by a clause (a parentheticalclause).
Inmost cases parenthetical clauses are introduced asyndetically, though now andagain the conjunctions as, if, etc. are used.
Heis, as I told you, their only son. (Dickens).
Thehappiness was a private, if you like, a happy one. (Snow).
Likeparenthetical words and word-combinations they express the speaker’s attitudetowards the contents of the sentence or they show the relation of the giventhought to some thought previously mentioned or to the source of information.
Nursinga wounded heart, he thought cynically, would not lead to happiness. (Randall).
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 Composite Sentence», «CompoundSentence», and «Complex Sentence» I described types ofsentences in English due the classification according sentence structure. Inparagraph «Types of Subordinate Clauses» I gave thedefinition to the different types of clauses.
Standing on such ground I will add that investigation in thequestions dealt complex and compound sentences in English is not finished yet,so we will 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