22. Compound sentence. Semantic relations between the clauses

A simple sentence contains one predication. It is monopredicative. A composite sentence is polypredicative. It contains two or more predications, or clauses. Structurally a clause may not differ from a sentence, and in many cases clauses can be turned into sentences. Functionally they differ essentially: a sentence is an independent utterance, a clause is part of the smallest utterance.

Clauses in a composite sentence arc joined by coordination or subordination. Coordinate clauses are equal in rank. (compound sentences) A subordinate clause usually serves as an adjunct to some head-word in the principle clause. ( complex sentences) There are also structures with coordination and subordination.

Besides simple and composite sentences there are structures which are called semi-composite (осложненные). Here belong sentences with homogeneous subjects or predicates (semi-compound) - ( compound predicate) and sentences with secondary predications (semi-complex). - ( predicative constructions and detached attributes).

Thus, syntactic positions in a sentence may be filled in:

1) by words or phrases (simple sentence)

is necessary in do it.

2) be secondary predications (semi-composite sentence)

It is necessary for him to do it.

3) by clauses (complex sentence)

It is necessary that he should do it.

Clauses may be connected by special connective words (syndetically) or without them (asyndetically). Connectives may be subdivided into two main groups:

• Conjunction proper;

• Semi-functional clausal connectors of adverbial character.

The main coordinative conj. are: and, but, or not, neither, for, either…or, neither…nor;

The main adverbial coordinators are: then, yet, thus, nevertheless etc.

The Adverbial coordinators, unlike pure conj, as a rule can shift their position in a sentence. From the semantic- syntactic point of view the connection between the clauses in a compound sentences should be analyzed into 2 basic types:

• Marked (the marked coordinative coordinations are expressed by the pure and adverbial coordinators. It should be mentioned that each sementic type of connection is inherent in the marking semantics of the connectors:

• But, yet, still…-express different varieties of adversative relations of claues;

• Both…and, neither..nor..-positive and negative copulative relations of events)

• Unmarked (AND+ asyndetically. Are not specified in any way and requires an exposition through the marked connection)

Bloch views 2 subdivisions:

1. The syndatic and-construction (simple copulative and non-copulative relations);

2. The asyndectic constructions (simple enumerative and non- enumerative relations);

The conj can also be doubled marked, when they are accompanied by particle- like or adverb-like word. Or we can observe some specifying combinations but merely, but also etc.

Conjunctions perform the connective function only. Conjunctive words, belonging to other parts of speech, are notional constituents of clauses: I wonder who told you about it. (Who connects clauses and it is the subject of the subordinate clause).

The distinction between coordmatioii and subordination may be very vague, especially in asyndetic sentences:

You are an architect, you ought to know all about it.

There is a view that coordination and subordination are clearly distinguished only in syndetic sentences and asyndetic sentences cannot be divided into compound and complex.

hardly

The second point of view can hardly be accepted. Compare: (1)7 know that he is here. (2) 1 know he is here.

But there are structures, both syndetic and asyndetic, admitting of different interpretations.

A coordinating conjunction may express relations typical of subordination:

You mast interfere, for they are getting angry.

A subordinating conjunction may express relations of coordination:

His sense of responsibility is extreme, while, you have practically none.

Subordinative connections so that a compound sentence can often be transformed into a complex one with the preservation of the essential relational semantics between the clauses.

Bloch termed that the "compound sentence" constitutes in reality a sequence of semantically related independent sentences not separated by full stops in writing because of an arbitrary school convention.

To support this analysis, the following reasons are put forward: first, the possibility of a falling, finalising tone between the coordinated predicative units; second, the existence, in written speech, of independently presented sentences introduced by the same conjunctions as the would-be "coordinate clauses"; third, the possibility of a full stop-separation of the said "coordinate clauses" with the preservation of the same semantic relations between them.

As for the factor of intonation, it should indeed be invariably sentence identification. The propositional intonation contour with its final delimitation pause is one of the constitutive means of the creation and existence of the sentence as a lingual phenomenon. The tone of a coordinate clause, far from being rigorously falling, can be rising as well. The core of the matter is that the speaker has intonation at his disposal as a means of forming sentences, combining sentences, and separating sentences.

So, Coordinate clauses arc units of equivalent syntactic status. Each of them has the force of an independent statement (proposition).

Main types of semantic relations between coordinate clauses (copulative, adversative, disjunctive, causative, consecutive) can be also found between simple sentences. This has given cause to some scholars to deny the existence of a compound sentence as a special structural type and treat it as a sequence of simple sentences. This idea is usually rejected, as a compound sentence is a semantic, grammatical and intonational unity. Each coordinate clause functions as part of this unity.

As coordination reflects the logical sequence of thought, the order of coordinate clauses is usually fixed:

He came at 5 and we had dinner together.

The opening clause is most independent structurally, the following clauses may be to a certain extent dependent on the first clause — they may be elliptical, may contain anaphoric pronouns, etc.