<< Пред.           стр. 11 (из 14)           След. >>

Список литературы по разделу

 323
 
  All the adverbial qualification clauses are to be divided into "factual" and "speculative", depending on the real or unreal propositional event described by them.
  The discrimination between manner and comparison clauses is based on the actual comparison which may or may not be expressed by the considered clausal construction of adverbial qualification. The semantics of comparison is inherent in the subordinators as if, as though, than, which are specific introducers of comparison clauses. On the other hand, the subordinator as, both single and in the combinations as ... as, not so ... as, is unspecific in this sense, and so invites for a discrimination test to be applied in dubious cases. It should be noted that more often than not a clausally expressed manner in a complex sentence is rendered by an appositive construction introduced by phrases with the broad-meaning words way and manner. E.g.: Mr. Smith looked at me in a way that put me on the alert.
  Herein lies one of the needed procedures of discrimination, which is to be formulated as the transformation of the tested clause into an appositive that- or which-clause: the possibility of the transformation marks the clause of manner, while the impossibility of the transformation (i.e. the preservation of the original as-clause) marks the clause of comparison. Cf.:
  Mary received the guests as nicely as Aunt Emma had taught her > ... in a (very) nice way that Aunt Emma had taught her. (The test marks the clause as that of manner.) Mary received the guests as nicely as Aunt Emma would have done. > ... in as nice a way as Aunt Emma would have done. (The test marks the clause as comparative.)
  Clauses of comparison are subdivided into those of equality (subordinators as, as ... as, as if, as though) and those of inequality (subordinators not so ... as, than). The discontinuous introducers mark, respectively, a more intense rendering of the comparison in question. Cf.:
  That summer he took a longer holiday than he had done for many years. For many years he hadn't taken so long a holiday as he was offered that summer.
  With clauses of comparison it is very important to distinguish the contracted expression of predication, i.e. predicative zeroing, especially for cases where a clause of comparison as such is combined with a clause of time. Here 324
 
 predicative zeroing may lead to the rise of peculiarly fused constructions which may be wrongly understood. By way of example, let us take the sentence cited in B. Ilyish's book: Do you find Bath as agreeable as when I had the honour of making the enquiry before? (J. Austen)
  B. Ilyish analyses the construction as follows: "The when-clause as such is a temporal clause: it indicates the time when an action ("his earlier enquiry") took place. However, being introduced by the conjunction as, which has its correlative, another as, in the main clause, it is at the same time a clause of comparison" [Ilyish, 299].
  But time and comparison are absolutely different characteristics, so that neither of them can by definition be functionally used for the other. They may go together only in cases when time itself forms the basis of comparison (I came later than Mr. Jerome did). As far as the analysed example is concerned, its clause of time renders no other clausal meaning than temporal; the clausal comparison proper is expressed reductionally, its sole explicit representative being the discontinuous introducer as ... as. Thus, the true semantics of the cited comparison is to be exposed by paradigmatic de-zeroing: > Do you find Bath as agreeable as it was when I had the honour of making the enquiry before?
  The applied principle of analysis of contamination time-comparison clauses for its part supports the zero-conception of other outwardly non-predicative comparative constructions, in particular those introduced by than. Cf.: Nobody could find the answer quicker than John. > Nobody could find the answer quicker than John did (could do).
  The third and most numerous group of adverbial clauses includes "classical" clauses of different circumstantial semantics, i.e. semantics connected with the meaning of the principal clause by various circumstantial associations; here belong clauses of attendant event, condition, cause, reason, result (consequence), concession, purpose. Thus, the common semantic basis of all these clauses can be defined as "circumstance". The whole group should be divided into two subgroups, the first being composed by clauses of "attendant circumstance"; the second, by clauses of "immediate circumstance".
  Clauses of attendant circumstance are not much varied in structure or semantics and come near to clauses of time. The difference lies in the fact that, unlike clauses of time, the event described by a clause of attendant circumstance
 325
 
 is presented as some sort of background in relation to the event described by the principal clause. Clauses of attendant circumstance are introduced by the conjunctions while and as. E.g.: As (while) the reception was going on, Mr. Smiles was engaged in a lively conversation with the pretty niece of the hostess.
  The construction of attendant circumstance may be taken to render contrast; so all the clauses of attendant circumstance can be classed into "contrastive" (clauses of contrast) and "non-contrastive". The non-contrastive clause of circumstance has been exemplified above. Here is an example of contrastive attendant circumstance expressed clausally:
  Indeed, there is but this difference between us - that he wears fine clothes while I go in rags, and that while I am weak from hunger he suffers not a little from overfeeding (O. Wilde).
  As is clear from the example, a complex sentence with a contrastive clause of attendant circumstance is semantically close to a compound sentence, i.e. a composite sentence based on coordination.
  Clauses of immediate circumstance present a vast and complicated system of constructions expressing different explanations of events, reasonings and speculations in connection with them. The system should relevantly be divided into "factual" clauses of circumstance and "speculative" clauses of circumstance depending on the real or unreal predicative denotations expressed. This division is of especial significance for complex sentences with conditional clauses (real condition, problematic condition, unreal condition). Other types of circumstantial clauses express opposition between factual and speculative semantics with a potential relation to some kind of condition inherent in the deep associations of the syntactic constructions. E.g.:
  Though she disapproved of their endless discussions, she had to put up with them. (Real concession) > Though she may disapprove of their discussions, she will have to put up with them. (Speculative concession) -" If she disapproved (had disapproved) of their discussions, why would she put up (have put up) with them? (Speculative condition)
  The argument was so unexpected that for a moment Jack lost his ability to speak. (Real consequence) > The argument was so unexpected that it would have frustrated Jack's
 326
 
 ability to speak if he had understood the deep meaning of it. (Speculative consequence, based on the speculative condition)
  Each type of clauses of circumstance presents its own problems of analysis. On the other hand, it must be pointed out that all the types of these clauses are inter-related both semantically and paradigmatically, which may easily be shown by the corresponding transformations and correlations. Some of such correlations have been shown on the examples above. Compare also:
  He opened the window wide that he might hear the conversation below. (Purpose) > Unless he wanted to hear the conversation below he wouldn't open the window. (Condition) > As he wanted to hear the conversation below, he opened the window wide and listened. (Cause) > Though he couldn't hear properly the conversation below, he opened the window and listened. (Concession) > The voices were so low that he couldn't hear the conversation through the open window. (Consequence) > If he hadn't opened the window wide he couldn't have heard the conversation. (Condition)
  Certain clausal types of circumstance are closely related to non-circumstantial clausal types. In particular, this kind of connection is observed between conditional clauses and time clauses and finds its specifically English expression in the rise of the contaminated if- and when-clauses: If and when the discussion of the issue is renewed, both parties will greatly benefit by it.
  Another important variety of clauses of mixed syntactic semantics is formed by concessive clauses introduced by the connectors ending in -ever. E.g.:
  Whoever calls, I'm not at home. However tempting the offer might be, Jim is not in a position to accept it.
  Clauses of mixed adverbial semantics present an interesting field of paradigmatic study.
  The fourth group of adverbial clauses is formed by parenthetical or insertive constructions. Parenthetical clauses, as has been stated elsewhere, are joined to the principal clause on a looser basis than the other adverbial clauses; still, they do form with the principal clause a syntactic sentential unity, which is easily proved by the procedure of diagnostic elimination. Cf.:
 327
 
  Jack has called here twice this morning, if I am not mistaken. > (*) Jack has called here twice this morning.
  As is seen from the example, the elimination of the parenthesis changes the meaning of the whole sentence from problematic to assertive: the original sense of the utterance is lost, and this shows that the parenthesis, though inserted in the construction by a loose connection, still forms an integral part of it.
  As to the subordinative quality of the connection, it is expressed by the type of the connector used. In other words, parenthetical predicative insertions can be either subordinative or coordinative, which is determined by the contextual content of the utterance and exposed by the connective introducer of the clause. Cf. a coordinate parenthetical clause: Jim said, and I quite agree with him, that it would be in vain to appeal to the common sense of the organisers.
  Cf. the subordinate correlative of the cited clause: Jim said, though I don't quite agree with him, that it would be in vain to appeal to the common sense of the organisers.
  Parenthetical clauses distinguish two semantic subtypes. Clauses of the first subtype, illustrated by the first example in this paragraph, are "introductory", they express different modal meanings. Clauses of the second subtype, illustrated by the latter example, are "deviational", they express commenting insertions of various semantic character. Deviational parenthesis marks the loosest possible syntactic connection of clauses combined into a composite sentence.
  § 9. Clauses in a complex sentence may be connected with one another more closely and less closely, similar to the parts of a simple sentence. The intensity of connection between the clauses directly reflects the degree of their proposemic self-dependence and is therefore an essential characteristic of the complex sentence as a whole. For instance, a predicative clause or a direct object clause are connected with the principal clause so closely that the latter cannot exist without them as a complete syntactic unit. Thus, this kind of clausal connection is obligatory. Cf.:
  The matter is, we haven't received all the necessary instructions yet. > (*) The matter is - I don't know what Mike is going to do about his damaged bike. > (*)I don't know -
 328
 
  As different from this, an ordinary adverbial clause is connected with the principal clause on a looser basis, it can be deleted without destroying the principal clause as an autonomous unit of information. This kind of clausal connection is optional. Cf.:
  The girl gazed at him as though she was struck by something extraordinary in his appearance. > The girl gazed at him.
  The division of subordinative clausal connections into obligatory and optional was employed by the Russian linguist N. S. Pospelov (1950) for the introduction of a new classification of complex sentences. In accord with his views, all the complex sentences of minimal structure (i.e. consisting of one principal clause and one subordinate clause) should be classed as "one-member" complex sentences and "two-member" complex sentences. One-member complex sentences are distinguished by an obligatory subordinative connection, while two-member complex sentences are distinguished by an optional subordinative connection. The obligatory connection is determined both by the type of the subordinate clause (subject, predicative, object clauses) and the type of the introduction of the clause (demonstrative correlation). The optional connection characterises adverbial clauses of diverse functions and attributive clauses of descriptive type. Semantically, one-member complex sentences are understood as reflecting one complex logical proposition, and two-member complex sentences as reflecting two logical propositions connected with each other on the subordinative principle.
  The rational character of the advanced conception is quite obvious. Its strong point is the fact that it consistently demonstrates the correlation between form and meaning in the complex sentence structure. Far from rejecting the traditional teaching of complex sentences, the "member conception" is based on its categories and develops them further, disclosing such properties of subordinative connections which were not known to the linguistic science before.
  Speaking not only of the complex sentence of minimal composition, but in terms of complex sentences in general, it would be appropriate to introduce the notions of "monolythic" and "segregative" sentence structures. Obligatory subordinative connections underlie monolythic complexes, while optional subordinative connections underlie segregative complexes.
 329
 
 Monolithic complex sentences fall into four basic types.
  The first of them is formed by merger complex sentences, i.e. sentences with subject and predicative subordinate clauses. The subordinate clausal part of the merger monolythic complex, as has been shown above (see § 2), is fused with its principal clause. The corresponding construction of syntactic anticipation should also be considered under this heading. Cf.: It was at this point that Bill had come bustling into the room. > (*) It was at this point -
  The second subtype of complex sentences in question is formed by constructions whose subordinate clauses are dependent on the obligatory right-hand valency of the verb in the principal clause. We can tentatively call these constructions "valency" monolith complexes. Here belong complexes with object clauses and valency-determined adverbial clauses: from the point of view of subordinative cohesion they are alike. Cf.:
  I don't know when I'm beaten. -" (*) I don't know - Put the book where you've taken it from. > (*) Put the book - Her first shock was when she came down. > (*) Her first shock was -
  The third subtype of monolythic complex sentences is formed by constructions based on subordinative correlations - "correlation" monolith complexes. E.g.:
  His nose was as unkindly short as his upper lip was long. You will enjoy such a sight as you are not likely to see again. The more I think of it, the more I'm convinced of his innocence.
  Restrictive attributive clauses should be included into this subtype of correlation monoliths irrespective of whether or not their correlation scheme is explicitly expressed. Cf.:
  This is the same report as was submitted last week. This is the report that was submitted last week.
  Finally, the fourth subtype of monolithic complex sentences is formed by constructions whose obligatory connection between the principal and subordinate clauses is determined only by the linear order of clausal positions. Cf.: If he comes, tell him to wait. >(*) If he comes -
  As is easily seen, such "arrangement" monolith complexes are not "organically" monolithic, as different from the first three monolith subtypes; positional re-arrangement deprives
 330
 
 them of this quality, changing the clausal connection from obligatory into optional: Tell him to wait if he comes. > Tell him to wait.
  The rest of the complex sentences are characterised by segregative structure, the maximum degree of syntactic option being characteristic of subordinative parenthetical connection.
  § 10. Complex sentences which have two or more subordinate clauses discriminate two basic types of subordination arrangement: parallel and consecutive.
  Subordinate clauses immediately referring to one and the same principal clause are said to be subordinated "in parallel" or "co-subordinated". Parallel subordination may be both homogeneous and heterogeneous. For instance, the two clauses of time in the following complex sentence, being embedded on the principle of parallel subordination, are homogeneous - they depend on the same element (the principal clause as a whole), are connected with each other coordinatively and perform the same function: When he agrees to hear me, and when we have spoken the matter over, I'll tell you the result.
  Homogeneous arrangement is very typical of object clauses expressing reported speech. E.g.: Mrs. Lewin had warned her that Cadover was an extraordinary place, and that one must never be astonished by anything (A. Huxley).
  By heterogeneous parallel subordination, co-subordinate clauses mostly refer to different elements in the principal clause. E.g.: The speakers who represented different nations and social strata were unanimous in their call for peace which is so ardently desired by the common people of the world.
  As different from parallel subordination, consecutive subordination presents a hierarchy of clausal levels. In this hierarchy one subordinate clause is commonly subordinated to another, making up an uninterrupted gradation. This kind of clausal arrangement may be called "direct" consecutive subordination. E.g.: I've no idea why she said she couldn't call on us at the time I had suggested.
  Alongside of direct consecutive subordination there is another form of clausal hierarchy which is formed without an immediate domination of one subordinate clause over another. For instance, this is the case when the principal clause of a complex multi-level sentence is built up on a merger basis, i.e. includes a subject or predicative clause.
 331
 
 E.g.: What he saw made him wince as though he had been struck.
  In the cited sentence the comparative subordinate clause is dominated by the whole of the principal clause which includes a subordinate propositional unit in its syntactic position of the subject. Thus, the subordinative structure of the sentence is in fact consecutive, though not directly consecutive. This type of hierarchical clausal arrangement may be called "oblique" consecutive subordination; it is of minor importance for the system of subordination perspective as a whole.
  The number of consecutive levels of subordination gives the evaluation of the "depth" of subordination perspective - one of the essential syntactic characteristics of the complex sentence. In the first three examples cited in the current paragraph this depth is estimated as 1; in the fourth example (direct consecutive subordination) it equals 3; in the fifth example (oblique consecutive subordination) it equals 2. The subordination perspective of complex sentences used in ordinary colloquial speech seldom exceeds three consecutive clausal levels.
 CHAPTER XXVIII COMPOUND SENTENCE
  § 1. The compound sentence is a composite sentence built on the principle of coordination. Coordination, the same as subordination, can be expressed either syndetically (by means of coordinative connectors) or asyndetically.
  The main semantic relations between the clauses connected coordinatively are copulative, adversative, disjunctive, causal, consequential, resultative. Similar semantic types of relations are to be found between independent, separate sentences forming a continual text. As is known, this fact has given cause to some scholars to deny the existence of the compound sentence as a special, regular form of the composite sentence.*
  The advanced thesis to this effect states that the so-called "compound sentence" is a fictitious notion developed under
  * See: Иофик Л. Л. Сложное предложение в новоанглийском языке. Л., 1968.
 332
 
 the school influence of written presentation of speech; what is fallaciously termed the "compound sentence" constitutes in reality a sequence of semantically related independent sentences not separated by full stops in writing because of an arbitrary school convention.
  To support this analysis, the following reasons are put forward: first, the possibility of a falling, 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.
  We must admit that, linguistically, the cited reasons are not devoid of a rational aspect, and, which is very important, they appeal to the actual properties of the sentence in the text. However, the conception taken as a whole gives a false presentation of the essential facts under analysis and is fallacious in principle.
  As a matter of fact, there is a substantial semantico-syntactic difference between the compound sentence and the corresponding textual sequence of independent sentences. This difference can escape the attention of the observer when tackling isolated sentences, but it is explicitly exposed in the contexts of continual speech. Namely, by means of differences in syntactic distributions of predicative units, different distributions of the expressed ideas is achieved, which is just the coordinative syntactic functions in action; by means of combining or non-combining predicative units into a coordinative polypredicative sequence the corresponding closeness or looseness of connections between the reflected events is shown, which is another aspect of coordinative syntactic functions. It is due to these functions that the compound sentence does not only exist in the syntactic system of language, but occupies in it one of the constitutive places.
  By way of example, let us take a textual sequence of independent monopredicative units:
  Jane adored that actor. Hockins could not stand the sight of him. Each was convinced of the infallibility of one's artistic judgment. That aroused prolonged arguments.
  Given the "negative" theory of the compound sentence is correct, any coordinative-sentential re-arrangements of the cited sentences must be indifferent as regards the sense
 333
 
 rendered by the text. In practice, though, it is not so. In particular, the following arrangement of the predicative units into two successive compound sentences is quite justified from the semantico-syntactic point of view:
  > Jane adored that actor, but Hockins could not stand the sight of him. Each was convinced of the infallibility of one's judgment, and that aroused prolonged arguments.
  As different from this, the version of arranging the same material given below cannot be justified in any syntactic or semantic sense:
  > *Jane adored that actor. But Hockins could not stand the sight of him, each was convinced of the infallibility of one's judgment. And that aroused prolonged arguments.
  On the other hand, some subordinate clauses of a complex sentence can also be separated in the text, thus being changed into specific independent sentences. Still, no one would seek to deny the existence of complex sentence patterns based on optional subordinative connections. Cf.:
  Suddenly Laura paused as if she was arrested by something invisible from here. > Suddenly Laura paused. As if she was arrested by something invisible from here.
  As for the factor of intonation, it should indeed be invariably taken into account when considering general problems of sentence identification. The propositional intonation contour with its final delimitation pause is one of the constitutive means of the creation and existence of the sentence as a lingual phenomenon. In particular, the developing intonation pattern in the process of speech sustains the semantic sentence strain from the beginning of the sentence up to the end of it. And there is a profound difference between the intonation patterns of the sentence and those of the clause, no matter how many traits of similarity they may possess, including finalising features. Moreover, as is known, the tone of a coordinate clause, far from being rigorously falling, can be rising as well. The core of the matter is that the speaker has intonation at his disposal as a means of forming sentences, combining sentences, and separating sentences. He actively uses this means, grouping the same syntactic strings of words now as one composite sentence, now as so many simple sentences, with the corresponding more
 334
 
 essential or less essential changes in meanings, of his own choice, which is determined by concrete semantic and contextual conditions.
  Thus, the idea of the non-existence of the compound sentence in English should be rejected unconditionally. On the other hand, it should be made clear that the formulation of this negative idea as such has served us a positive cause, after all: its objective scientific merit, similar to some other inadequate ideas advanced in linguistics at different times, consists in the very fact that it can be used as a means of counter-argumentation in the course of research work, as a starting point for new insights into the deep nature of lingual phenomena in the process of theoretical analysis sustained by observation.
  § 2. The compound sentence is derived from two or more base sentences which, as we have already stated above, are connected on the principle of coordination either syndetically or asyndetically. The base sentences joined into one compound sentence lose their independent status and become coordinate clauses - parts of a composite unity. The first clause is "leading" (the "leader" clause), the successive clauses are "sequential". This division is essential not only from the point of view of outer structure (clause-order), but also in the light of the semantico-syntactic content: it is the sequential clause that includes the connector in its composition, thus being turned into some kind of dependent clause, although the type of its dependence is not subordinative. Indeed, what does such a predicative unit signify without its syntactic leader?
  The coordinating connectors, or coordinators, are divided into conjunctions proper and semi-functional clausal connectors of adverbial character. The main coordinating conjunctions, both simple and discontinuous, are: and, but, or, nor, neither, for, either ... or, neither ... nor, etc. The main adverbial coordinators are: then, yet, so, thus, consequently, nevertheless, however, etc. The adverbial coordinators, unlike pure conjunctions, as a rule can shift their position in the sentence (the exceptions are the connectors yet and so). Cf.:
  Mrs. Dyre stepped into the room, however the host took no notice of it. > Mrs. Dyre stepped into the room, the host, however, took no notice of it.
 335
 
  The intensity of cohesion between the coordinate clauses can become loose, and in this case the construction is changed into a cumulative one (see Ch. XXVI). E.g.: Nobody ever disturbed him while he was at work; it was one of the unwritten laws.
  As has been stated elsewhere, such cases of cumulation mark the intermediary status of the construction, i.e. its place in syntax between a composite sentence and a sequence of independent sentences.
  § 3. When approached from the semantico-syntactic point of view, the connection between the clauses in a compound sentence should be analysed into two basic types: first, the unmarked coordinative connection; second, the marked coordinative connection.
  The unmarked coordinative connection is realised by the coordinative conjunction and and also asyndetically. The unmarked semantic nature of this type of connection is seen from the fact that it is not specified in any way and requires a diagnostic exposition through the marked connection. The exposition properly effected shows that each of the two series of compound predicative constructions falls into two principal subdivisions. Namely, the syndetic and-constructions discriminate, first, simple copulative relations and, second, broader, non-copulative relations. The asyndetic constructions discriminate, first, simple enumerative relations and, second, broader, non-enumerative relations. Cf. examples of the primary connective meanings of the constructions in question:
  You will have a great deal to say to her, and she will have a great deal to thank you for. She was tall and slender, her hair was light chestnut, her eyes had a dreamy expression.
  The broader connective meanings of the considered constructions can be exposed by equivalent substitutions:
  The money kept coming in every week, and the offensive gossip about his wife began to be replaced by predictions of sensational success. > The money kept coming in every week, so the offensive gossip about his wife began to be replaced by predictions of sensational success. The boy obeyed, the request was imperative. > The boy obeyed, for the request was imperative.
 336
 
  The marked coordinative connection is effected by the pure and adverbial coordinators mentioned above. Each semantic type of connection is inherent in the marking semantics of the connector. In particular, the connectors but, yet, stilt, however, etc. express different varieties of adversative relations of clauses; the discontinuous connectors both ... and, neither ... nor express, correspondingly, positive and negative (exclusive) copulative relations of events; the connectors so, therefore, consequently express various subtypes of clausal consequence, etc.
  In order to give a specification to the semantics of clausal relations, the coordinative conjunction can be used together with an accompanying functional particle-like or adverb-like word. As a result, the marked connection, as it were, becomes doubly marked. In particular, the conjunction but forms the conjunctive specifying combinations but merely, but instead, but also and the like; the conjunction or forms the characteristic coordinative combinations or else, or rather, or even, etc. Cf.:
  The workers were not prepared to accept the conditions of the administration, but instead they were considering a mass demonstration. She was frank with him, or rather she told him everything concerning the mere facts of the incident.
  The coordinative specifiers combine also with the conjunction and, thus turning the unmarked coordinative connection into a marked one. Among the specifiers here used are included the adverbial coordinators so, yet, consequently and some others. E.g.: The two friends didn't dispute over the issue afterwards, and yet there seemed a hidden discord growing between them.
  It should be specially noted that in the described semantic classification of the types of coordinative relations, the asyndetic connection is not included in the upper division of the system, which is due to its non-specific functional meaning. This fact serves to sustain the thesis that asyndetic connection of clauses is not to be given such a special status in syntax as would raise it above the discrimination between coordination and subordination.
  § 4. It is easily seen that coordinative connections are correlated semantically with subordinative connections so that a compound sentence can often be transformed into
 22-149!) 337
 
 a complex one with the preservation of the essential relational semantics between the clauses. The coordinative connections, as different from subordinative, besides the basic opposition to the latter by their ranking quality, are more general, they are semantically less discriminatory, less "refined". That is why the subordinative connection is regularly used as a diagnostic model for the coordinative connection, while the reverse is an exception rather than a rule. Cf.:
  Our host had rung the bell on our entrance and now a Chinese cook came in with more glasses and several bottles of soda. > On our entrance, as our host had rung the bell, a Chinese cook came in with more glasses and several bottles of soda. There was nothing else to do, so Alice soon began talking again. > Alice soon began talking again because there was nothing else to do.
  Speaking of the diagnostic role of subordinative constructions in relation to coordinative ones, it should be understood that this is of especial importance for the unmarked constructions, in particular for those realised by the conjunction and.
  On the other hand, the coordinative connection of clauses is in principle not reducible to the subordinative connection, which fact, as in other similar cases of correlations, explains the separate and parallel existence of both types of clausal connection in language. This can be illustrated by the following example: I invited Mike to join us, but he refused.
  It would appear at first sight that the subordinative diagnostic-specifying exposition of the semantic relations between the clauses of the cited sentence can be achieved by the concessive construction: "Though I invited Mike to join us, he refused". But the proper observation of the corresponding materials shows that this diagnosis is only valid for part of the possible contexts. Suffice it to give the following two contextual expansions to the sentence in question, of which only one corresponds to the cited diagnosis.
  The first expansion: You are mistaken if you think that Mike was eager to receive an invitation to join us. I invited him, but he refused.
  The given concessive reading of the sentence is justified by the context: the tested compound sentence is to be replaced here by the above complex one on a clear basis of equivalence.
  The second expansion: It was decided to invite either Mike or Jesse to help us with our work. First I invited Mike, but he refused. Then we asked Jesse to join us.
 338 '
 
  It is quite clear that the devised concessive diagnosis is not at all justified by this context: what the analysed construction does render here, is a stage in a succession of events, for which the use of a concessive model would be absurd.
  § 5. The length of the compound sentence in terms of the number of its clausal parts (its predicative volume), the same as with the complex sentence, is in principle unlimited; it is determined by the informative purpose of the speaker. The commonest type of the compound sentence in this respect is a two-clause construction.
  On the other hand, predicatively longer sentences than two-clause ones, from the point of view of semantic correlation between the clauses, are divided into "open" and "closed" constructions. Copulative and enumerative types of connection, if they are not varied in the final sequential clause, form "open" coordinations. These are used as descriptive and narrative means in a literary text. Cf.:
  They visited house after house. They went over them thoroughly, examining them from the cellars in the basement to the attics under the roof. Sometimes they were too large and sometimes they were too small; sometimes they were too far from the center of things and sometimes they were too close; sometimes they were too expensive and sometimes they wanted too many repairs; sometimes they were too stuffy and sometimes they were too airy; sometimes they were too dark and sometimes they were too bleak. Roger always found a fault that made the house unsuitable (S. Maugham).
  In the multi-clause compound sentence of a closed type the final part is joined on an unequal basis with the previous ones (or one), whereby a finalisation of the expressed chain of ideas is achieved. The same as open compound sentences, closed compound constructions are very important from the point of view of a general text arrangement. The most typical closures in such compound sentences are those effected by the conjunctions and (for an asyndetic preceding construction) and but (both for an asyndetic and copulative syndetic preceding construction). Cf., respectively:
  His fingernails had been cleaned, his teeth brushed, his hair combed, his nostrils cleared and dried, and he had been dressed in formal black by somebody or other (W. Saroyan).
 
 
 
 339
 
 Pleasure may turn a heart to stone, riches may make it callous, but sorrow - oh, sorrow cannot break it (O. Wilde).
  The structure of the closed coordinative construction is most convenient for the formation of expressive climax.
 CHAPTER XXIX
 SEMI-COMPLEX SENTENCE
  § 1. In accord with the principles laid down in the introductory description of composite sentences (Ch. XXVI), the semi-composite sentence is to be defined as a sentence with more than one predicative lines which are expressed in fusion. For the most part, one of these lines can be identified as the leading or dominant, the others making the semi-predicative expansion of the sentence. The expanding semi-predicative line in the minimal semi-composite sentence is either wholly fused with the dominant (complete) predicative line of the construction, or partially fused with it, being weakened as a result of the fusing derivational transformation.
  The semi-composite sentence displays an intermediary syntactic character between the composite sentence and the simple sentence. Its immediate syntagmatic structure ("surface" structure) is analogous to that of an expanded simple sentence, since it possesses only one completely expressed predicative unit. Its derivational structure ("deep" structure), on the other hand, is analogous to that of a composite sentence, because it is derived from two or more completely predicative units - its base sentences.
  There are two different causes of the existence of the semi-composite sentence in language, each of them being essentially important in itself.
  The first cause is the tendency of speech to be economical. As a result of this tendency, reductional processes are developed which bring about semi-blending of sentences. The second cause is that, apart from being economical, the semi-composite sentence fulfils its own purely semantic function, different from the function of the composite sentence proper (and so supplementing it). Namely, it is used to show that the events described in the corresponding sentence parts are more closely connected than the events described in the
 340
 
 parts of the composite sentence of complete composition. This function is inherent in the structure - it reflects the speaker's view of reality, his presentation of it. Thus, for different reasons and purposes the same two or several events can be reflected now by one type of structure, now by another type of structure, the corresponding "pleni"- and semi-constructions existing in the syntactic system of language as pairs of related and, for that matter, synonymically related functions. E.g.:
  The sergeant gave a quick salute to me, and then he put his squad in motion. > Giving a quick salute to me, the sergeant put his squad in motion. > With a quick salute to me, the sergeant put his squad in motion.
  The two connected events described by the cited sentences are, first, the sergeant's giving a salute to the speaker, and, second, the sergeant's putting his squad in motion. The first sentence, of the pleni-composite type, presents these situationally connected events in separate processual descriptions as they happened one after the other, the successive order being accentuated by the structural features of the construction, in particular, its sequential coordinate clause. The second sentence, of the semi-composite participial-expanded type, expresses a semantic ranking of the events in the situational blend, one of them standing out as a dominant event, the other as a by-event. In the presentation of the third construction, belonging to the primitivised type of semi-composition (maximum degree of blending), the fusion of the events is shown as constituting a unity in which the attendant action (the sergeant's salute) forms simply a background detail in relation to the immediately reflected occurrence (the sergeant's putting the squad in motion).
  According to the ranking structure of the semi-composite sentences, they should be divided into semi-complex and semi-compound ones. These constructions correspond to the complex and compound sentences of complete composition (i.e., respectively, pleni-complex and pleni-compound sentences).
  § 2. The semi-complex sentence is a semi-composite sentence built up on the principle of subordination. It is derived from minimum two base sentences, one matrix and one insert. In the process of semi-complexing, the insert sentence is transformed into a partially depredicated construction which is embedded in one of the syntactic positions of the
 341
 
 matrix sentence. In the resulting construction, the matrix sentence becomes its dominant part and the insert sentence, its subordinate semi-clause.
  The semi-complex sentences fall into a number of subtypes. Their basic division is dependent on the character of predicative fusion: this may be effected either by the process of position-sharing (word-sharing), or by the process of direct linear expansion. The sentences based on position-sharing fall into those of subject-sharing and those of object-sharing. The sentences based on semi-predicative linear expansion fall into those of attributive complication, adverbial complication, and nominal-phrase complication. Each subtype is related to a definite complex sentence (pleni-complex sentence) as its explicit structural prototype.
  § 3. Semi-complex sentences of subject-sharing are built up by means of the two base sentences overlapping round the common subject. E.g.:
  The man stood. + The man was silent. > The man stood silent. The moon rose. + The moon was red. > The moon rose red.
  From the syntagmatic point of view, the predicate of these sentences forms the structure of the "double predicate" because it expresses two essential functions at once: first, the function of a verbal type (the verb component of the predicate); second, the function of a nominal type (the whole combination of the verb with the nominal component). The paradigmatic analysis shows that the verb of the double predicate, being on the surface a notional link-verb, is in fact a quasi-link.
  In the position of the predicative of the construction different categorial classes of words are used with their respective specific meanings and implications: nouns, adjectives, participles both present and past. Cf.:
  Sam returned from the polar expedition a grown-up man. They waited breathless. She stood bending over the child's bed. We stared at the picture bewildered.
  Observing the semantic, content of the given constructions, we sec that, within the bounds of their functional differences, they express two simultaneous events - or, rather, the simultaneity of the event described by the complicalor expansion with that described by the dominant part. At the
 342
 
 same time the construction gives informative prominence not to its dominant, but to the complicator, and corresponds to the pleni-complex sentence featuring the complicator event in the principal clause placed in post-position. Cf.:
  The moon rose red. > As the moon rose it was red. She stood bending over the child's bed. > As she stood she was bending over the child's bed.
  In the subject-sharing semi-composites with reflexivised dominant verbs of intense action the idea of change is rendered. E.g.:
  He spoke himself hoarse. > As he spoke he became hoarse. (Further diagnosis: He spoke and spoke until he became hoarse.)
  Apart from the described types of subject-sharing sentences there is a variety of them featuring the dominant verb in the passive. E.g.:
  The idea has never been considered a wise one. The company was ordered to halt.
  These sentences have active counterparts as their paradigmatic derivation bases which we analyse below as semi-complex sentences of object sharing.
  § 4. Semi-complex sentences of object-sharing, as different from those of subject-sharing, are built up of two base sentences overlapping round the word performing different functions in them: in the matrix sentence it is the object, in the insert sentence it is the subject. The complicator expansion of such sentences is commonly called the "complex object". E.g.:
  We saw him.-\-He approached us. > We saw him approach us (approaching us). They painted the fence.-\-The fence was (became) green. > They painted the fence green.
  Some dominant verbs of such constructions are not used in the same essential meaning outside the constructions, in particular, some causative verbs, verbs of liking and disliking, etc. Cf.: *I made him.+He obeyed. ~" I made him obey.
  This fact, naturally, reflects a very close unity of the constituents of such constructions, but, in our opinion, it can't be looked upon as excluding the constructions from
 343
 
 the syntactic subsystem in question; rather, the subsystem should be divided into the subsets of "free" object-sharing and "bound" object-sharing.
  The adjunct to the shared object is expressed by an infinitive, a present or past participle, an adjective, a noun, depending on the structural type of the insert sentence (namely, on its being verbal or nominal).
  As is seen from the above, the paradigmatic (derivational) explanation of the sentence with a "complex object" saves much descriptive space and, which is far more important, is at once generalising and practicable.* As for the relations between the two connected events expressed by the object-sharing sentence, they are of the three basic types: first, relations of simultaneity in the same place; second, relations of cause and result; third, relations of mental attitude towards the event (events thought of, spoken of, wished for, liked or disliked, etc.). All these types of relations can be explicated by the corresponding transformations of the semi-complex sentences into pleni-complex sentences.
  Simultaneity in the same place is expressed by constructions with dominant verbs of perceptions (see, hear, feel, smell, etc.). E.g.:
  He felt the morning breeze gently touching his face. > He felt the morning breeze as it was gently touching his lace. I never heard the word pronounced like that. > I never heard the word as it was pronounced like that.
  Cause and result relations are rendered by constructions with dominant causative verbs taking three types of complex objects: an unmarked infinitival complex object (the verbs make, let, get, have, help); a nounal or adjectival complex object (the verbs call, appoint, keep, paint, etc.); a participial complex object (the verbs set, send, keep, etc.). Cf.:
  I helped Jo find the photo. > I helped Jo so that he found the photo. The cook beat the meat soft. -" The cook beat the meat so that it was (became) soft.
  Different mental presentations of the complicator event are effected, respectively, by verbs of mental perceptions and thinking (think, believe, expect, find, etc.); verbs of speech
  * Cf. the classical "syntagmatic" explanation of constructions with complex objects in the cited 13. A. llyish's book, p. 257 ff.
 344
 
 (tell, ask, report, announce, etc.); verbs of wish; verbs of liking and disliking. Cf.:
  You will find many things strange here. > You will find that many things are strange here. I didn't mean my words to hurt you. > I didn't mean that my words should hurt you.
  Semi-complex sentences of the object-sharing type, as we have stated above, are closely related to sentences of the subject-sharing type. Structurally this is expressed in the fact that they can be transformed into the passive, their passive counterparts forming the corresponding subject-sharing constructions. Cf.:
  We watched the plane disappear behind the distant clouds. > The plane was watched to disappear behind the distant clouds. They washed the floor clean. > The floor was washed clean.
  Between the two series of constructions, i.e. active and passive, equivalence of the event-relations is observed, so that the difference in their basic meaning is inherent in the difference between the verbal active and passive as such.
  § 5. Semi-complex sentences of attributive complication are derived from two base sentences having an identical element that occupies the position of the subject in the insert sentence and any notional position in the matrix sentence. The insert sentence is usually an expanded one. By the semi-complexing process, the insert sentence drops out its subject-identical constituent and is transformed into a semi-predicative post-positional attribute to the antecedent element in the matrix sentence. E.g.:
  The waves sent out fine spray. + The waves rolled over the dam. > The waves rolling over the dam sent out fine spray. I came in late for the supper. + The supper was served in the dining-room. > I came in late for the supper served in the dining-room.
  The analogy between post-positional attributes (especially of a detached type) and attributive subordinate clauses has always been pointed out in grammar-books of various destination. The common pre-positional attribute is devoid of a similar half-predicative character and is not to be considered as forming a semi-composite construction with the
 345
 
 dominant predicative unit. Cf.: The bored family switched off the TV. - The family, bored, switched off the TV.
  As for the possible detachment of the defining element (construction) in pre-position, this use is rather to be analysed as adverbial, not attributive, the circumstantial semantic component prevailing over the attributive one in this case. Cf.: Bored, the family switched off the TV. > As the family was bored, it switched off the TV.
 , Naturally, the existence of some intermediary types cannot be excluded, which should be exposed in due course by the corresponding contextual observation.
  As is seen, the base syntactic material for producing attributively complicated semi-composites is similar to the derivation base of position-sharing semi-composites. The essential difference between the constructions, though, lies in the character of joining their clausal parts: while the process of overlapping deprives the position-sharing expansion of any self-dependent existence, however potential it might be, the process of linear expansion with the attributive complication preserves the autonomous functional role of the semi-clause. The formal test of it is the possibility of inserting into the construction a relative conjunctive plus the necessary verbal element, changing the attributive semi-clause into the related attributive pleni-clause. E.g.:' This is a novel translated from the French. > This is a novel which has been translated from the French,
  This test resembles a reconstruction, since an attributive complication in many respects resembles a reduced clause. The position-sharing expansion does not admit of this kind of procedure: the very process of overlapping puts it out of the question. The other factor of difference is the obligatory status of the position-sharing expansion (even in constructions of'"free"''object-sharing) against the optional status of the attributive complicator.
  The attributive semi-clause may contain in its head position a present participle, a past participle and an adjective. The present participial attributive semi-clause corresponds to the attributive subordinate clause with a verbal predicate in the active. E.g.: We found dry ground at the base of a tree looking toward the sun. > We found dry ground at the base of a tree that looked toward the sun.
  Naturally, the present participial semi-clause of the attributive type cannot express an event prior to the event
 346
 
 of the dominant clause. So, an attributive clause of complete predicative character expressing such an event has no parallel in a participial attributive semi-clause. E.g.: The squad that picked me up could have been scouts. > (*) The squad picking me up...
  The past participial attributive semi-clause corresponds to the passive attributive subordinate clause. E.g.: You can never rely on the information received from that office. > You can never rely on the information which is received from that office.
  The adjectival attributive semi-clause corresponds to the nominal attributive subordinate clause. E.g.: We admired the lilies white against the blue water. > We admired the lilies which were white against the blue water.
  Semi-complex sentences of participial attributive complication formed by introducer constructions resemble subject-sharing semi-complex sentences. Cf.:
  There is a river flowing through the town. > There is a river which flows through the town. This is John speaking. > This is John who is speaking.
  Still closer to the subject-sharing semi-composite sentence stands the peculiar introducer or demonstrative construction whose attributive semi-clause has a finite verb predicate. This specific semi-complex sentence, formed much on the pattern of common subject overlapping, is called the "apo-koinou" construction (Greek "with a common element"). E.g.:
  It was you insisted on coming, because you didn't like restaurants (S. O'Casey), He's the one makes the noise at night (E. Hemingway). And there's nothing more can be done (A. Christie).
  The apo-koinou construction is considered here under the heading of the semi-complex sentence of attributive complication on the ground of its natural relation to the complex sentence with an attributive subordinate clause, similar to any common semi-complex sentence of the type in question. The apo-koinou construction should be classed as a familiar colloquialism of occasional use.
  § 6. Semi-complex sentences of adverbial complication are derived from two base sentences one of which, the insert
 347
 
 sentence, is predicatively reduced and embedded in an adverbial position of the other one, the matrix sentence. E.g.:
  The task was completed. + The task seemed a very easy one. > The task, when completed, seemed a very easy one. The windows were closed.-\-She did not hear the noise in the street. -" The windows being closed, she did not hear the noise in the street.
  The subject of the insert sentence may be either identical with that of the matrix sentence (the first of the above examples) or not identical with it (the second example). This feature serves as the first fundamental basis for classifying the semi-complex sentences in question, since in the derived adverbial semi-clause the identical subject is dropped out and the non-identical subject is preserved. It will be reasonable to call the adverbial semi-clause of the first type (i.e. referring to the subject of the dominant clause) the "conjoint" semi-clause. The adverbial complicator expansion of the second type (i.e. having its own subject) is known under the name of the "absolute construction" (it will further be referred to as "absolutive").
  The given classification may be formulated for practical purposes as the "rule of the subject", which will run as follows: by adverbialising scmi-complexing the subject of the insert sentence is deleted if it is identical with the subject of the matrix sentence,
  The other classificational division of adverbial semi-clauses concerns the representation of the predicate position. This position is only partially predicative, the role of the partial predicate being performed by the participle, either present or past. The participle is derived from the finite verb of the insert sentence; in other words, the predicate of the insert sentence is participialised in the semi-clause. Now, the participle-predicate of the adverbial semi-clause may be dropped out if the insert sentence, presents a nominal or existential construction (the finite verb be). Thus, in accord with this feature of their outer structure, adverbial semi-clauses are divided into participial and non-participial. E.g.:
  One day Kitty had an accident. + She was swinging in the garden. > One day Kitty had an accident while swinging in the garden. (The participle is not to be deleted, being of an actional character.) He is very young.+ He is quite competent in this field. -" Though being very young, he is
 348
 
  quite competent in this field. > Though very young, he is quite competent in this field. (The participle can be deleted, being of a linking nature.) She spoke as if being in a dream. > She spoke as if in a dream. (The predicate can be deleted, since It is expressed by the existential be.)
  The two predicate types of adverbial semi-clauses, similar to the two subject types, can be briefly presented by the "rule of the predicate" as follows: by adverbialising semi-complexing the verb-predicate of the insert sentence is participialised, and may be deleted if it is expressed by be.
  Conjoint adverbial semi-clauses are either introduced by adverbial subordinated conjunctions or joined to the dominant clause asyndetically. The adverbial semantics expressed is temporal, broader local, causal, conditional, comparative. Cf. syndetic introduction of adverbial semi-clauses:
  He was silent as if not having heard the call. > ...as if he had not heard the call. Read on unless told otherwise. > ... unless you are told otherwise. Although kept out of the press, the event is widely known in the diplomatic circles. > Although it is kept out of the press... When in London, the tourists travelled in double-deckers. > When they were in London...
  Asyndetic introduction of adverbial semi-clauses is characteristic of temporal and causal constructions. Cf.:
  Working on the book, the writer travelled much about the country. > When working on the book... Dialling her number, she made a mistake. > While dialling her number... Being tired, I could not accept the invitation. > As I was tired...
  As for the absolutive adverbial semi-clauses, they are joined to the dominant clause either asyndetically, or, mostly for the purpose of emphasis, by the conjunction with. The adverbial semantics of the absolutive complicator expansion is temporal, causal, and attendant-circumstantial. E.g.:
  Everything being settled, Moyra felt relieved. > As everything was settled... Two days having elapsed, the travellers set out on their way. -" When two days had elapsed...With all this work waiting for me, I can't afford to join their Sunday outing. > As all this work is waiting for me... • "
 349
 
  The rule of the predicate is observed in absolulive complicators the same as in conjoint adverbial complicators. Its only restriction concerns impersonal sentences where the link-verb is not to be deleted. Cf.:
  The long luncheon over, the business friend would bow and go his way. > When the long luncheon was over... It being very hot, the children gladly ran down to the lake. > As it was very hot...
  § 7. Semi-complex sentences of nominal phrase complication are derived from two base sentences one of which, the insert sentence, is partially norninalised (changed into a verbid phrase of infinitival or gerundial type) and embedded in one of the nominal and prepositional adverbial positions of the other sentence serving as the matrix. The nominal verbid constructions meet the demands both of economy and expressiveness, and they are widely used in all the functional orders of speech. The gerundial phrase is of a more substantive semantic character, the infinitival phrase, correspondingly, of a more processual semantic character. The gerundial nominalisalion involves the optional change of the noun subject into the possessive, while the infinitival nominalisation involves the use of the preposition for before the subject. E.g.
  Tom's coming late annoyed his mother. > The fact that Tom came late annoyed his mother. For him to come so late was unusual. > It was unusual that he came so late.
  The rule of the subject exposed in connection with the adverbial semi-complexing (see above) applies also to the process of partial nominalisation and is especially important here. It concerns the two types of subject deletion; first, its contextual identification; second, its referring to a general (indefinite) person. Thus, the rule can be formulated in this way: the subject of the verbid phrase is deleted when it is either identified from the context (usually, but not necessarily, from the matrix sentence) or denotes an indefinite person. Cf. the contextual identification of the subject:
  We are definite about it. > Our being definite about it. > Let's postpone being definite about it. Mary has recovered so soon. -" For Mary to have recovered so soon -" Mary is happy to have recovered so soon.
 350
 
 Cf. the indefinite person identification of the subject:
  One avoids quarrels with strangers. -" One's avoiding quarrels with strangers. > Avoiding quarrels with strangers is always a wise policy. One loves spring. -" For one to love spring.>It's but natural to love spring.
  A characteristic function of the infinitive phrase is its use with subordinative conjunctions in nominal semi-clauses. The infinitive in these cases implies modal meanings of obligation, admonition, possibility, etc. E.g.:
  I wondered where to go. -" I wondered where I was to go. The question is, what to do next. > The question is, what we should do next.
  In contrast with nominal uses of infinitive phrases, gerundial phrases are widely employed as adverbial semi-clauses introduced by prepositions. Semi-clauses in question are naturally related to the corresponding adverbial pleni-clauses. Cf.:
  In writing the letter he dated it wrong. > White he was writing the letter he dated it wrong. She went away without looking back. > As she went away she didn't look back. I cleaned my breast by telling you everything. > I cleaned my breast because I told you everything.
  The prepositional use of gerundial adverbial phrases is in full accord with the substantival syntactic nature of the gerund, and this feature differentiates in principle the gerundial adverbial phrase from the participial adverbial phrase as a positional constituent of the semi-complex sentence.
 CHAPTER XXX
 SEMI-COMPOUND SENTENCE
  § 1. The semi-compound sentence is a semi-composite sentence built up on the principle of coordination. Proceeding from the outlined grammatical analysis of the composite sentence, the structure of the semi-compound sentence is derivationally to be traced back to minimum two base sentences having an identical element belonging to one or both of their principal syntactic positions, i.e. either the subject,
 351
 
 or the predicate, or both. By the process of semi-compounding, the sentences overlap round the identical element sharing it in coordinative fusion, which can be either syndetic or asyndetic. Thus, from the formal point of view, a sentence possessing coordinated notional parts of immediately sentential reference (directly related to its predicative line) is to be treated as semi-compound. But different structural types of syntactic coordination even of direct sentential reference (coordinated subjects, predicates, objects, adverbial modifiers) display very different implications as regards semi-compounding composition of sentences.
  By way of a general statement we may say that, other things being equal, the closer the coordinative group is related to the verb-predicate of the sentence, the more directly and explicitly it functions as a factor of sentence semi-compounding.
  For instance, coordinated subjects connected asyndetically in an enumerative sequence or forming a plain copulative syndetic string can hardly be taken as constituting so many shared though separately identified predicative lines with the verbal constituent of the sentence. As different from this, two subject-groups connected adversatively or antithetically are more "live" in their separate relation to the predicative centre; the derivative reference of such a sentence to the two source predicative constructions receives some substantiality. E.g.:
  There was nothing else, only her face in front of me. > There was nothing else in front of me.+There was only her face in front of me.
  Substantially involved in the expression of semi-compounding is a combination of two subjects relating to one predicate when the subjects are discontinuously positioned, so that the first starts the utterance, while the second concludes it with some kind of process-referred introduction. Cf.:
  The entrance door stood open, and also the door of the living-room. -" The entrance door stood open.+ The door of the living-room stood also open.
  However, if we turn our attention to genuine coordinations of predicates (i.e. coordinations of non-repetitive or otherwise primitivising type), both verbal and nominal, we shall immediately be convinced of each element of the group presenting its own predicative centre relating to the one
 352
 
 subject axis of the sentence, thereby forming a strictly compounding fusion of the predicative lines expressed. This fact is so trivially clear that it does not seem to require a special demonstration.
  Hence, we will from now on treat the corresponding sentence-patterns with coordinate predicate phrases as featuring classes of constructions that actually answer the identifying definition of semi-compound sentence; in our further exposition we will dwell on some structural properties and functional semantics of this important sentence-type so widely represented in the living English speech in all its lingual divisions, which alone displays an unreservedly clear form of sentential semi-compounding out of the numerous and extremely diversified patterns of syntactic coordination.
  § 2. The semi-compound sentence of predicate coordination is derived from minimum two base sentences having identical subjects. By the act of semi-compounding, one of the base sentences in most cases of textual occurrence becomes the leading clause of complete structure, while the other one is transformed into the sequential coordinate semi-clause (expansion) referring to the same subject. E.g.:
  The soldier was badly wounded. +The soldier stayed in the ranks. > The soldier was badly wounded, but stayed in the ranks. He tore the photograph in half. + He threw the photograph in the fire. > He tore the photograph in half and threw it in the fire.
  The rare instances contradicting the given rule concern inverted constructions where the intense fusion of predicates in overlapping round the subject placed in the end position deprives the leading clause of its unbroken, continuous presentation. Cf.:
  Before him lay the road to fame. + The road to fame lured him. > Before him lay and lured him the road to fame.
  In case of a nominal predicate, the sequential predicative complement can be used in a semi-compound pattern without its linking part repeated. E.g.:
  My manner was matter-of-fact, and casual. The savage must have been asleep or very tired.
 The same holds true about coordinated verbids related
 23-1499 ' 353
 
 to a common finite verb in the function of an auxiliary or otherwise. E.g.:
  The tiger was at large and burning with rage. He could not recall the face of the peasant girl or remember the feel of her.
  By the number of bases joined, (and predicate phrases representing them) semi-compound sentences may be two-base (minimal) or multi-base (more than minimal two-base). The coordinated expansion is connected with the leading part either syndetically or asyndetically.
  The syndetic formation of the semi-compound sentence expresses, first, copulative connection of events; then contrast, either comparative or adversative; furthermore, disjunction (alternation), consequence, limitation, elucidation. The conjunctive elements effecting this syndetic semi-compounding of sentences are both pure conjunctions and also words of adverbial nature. The pure conjunction and, the same as with pleni-compound sentences, expresses the unmarked semantic type of semi-compounding; the rest of the connectors render various marked types of it. The pure conjunctions used for semi-compounding, besides the copulative and, are monoconjunctions but, or, nor, and double (discontinuous) conjunctions both ... and, not only ... but also, either ... or, neither ... nor. The conjunctive adverbials are then, so, just, only.
  Here are some examples of double-conjunctional formations expressing, respectively, disjunction, simple copulative relation, copulative antithesis, copulative exclusion:
  They either went for long walks over the fields, or joined in a quiet game of chess on the veranda. That great man was both a soldier and a born diplomat. Mary not only put up with his presence, but tried to be hospitable. I am neither for the proposal, nor against the proposal; nor participating in that sham discussion of theirs at all.
  Cf. instances of conjunctive-adverbial introduction of predicate expansion rendering the functional meanings of action ordering (then), of adversative-concessive relation (yet), of consequence (so), of limitation (just):
  His beady eyes searched the clearing, then came back to my face. He was the tallest and bravest, yet was among those to give up life. I knew then that she was laughing,
 354
 
 so laughed with her. The Colonel didn't enlarge on the possible outcome of their adventure, just said a few words of warning against the abrupt turns of the mountain-pass.
  With semi-compound sentences, similar to pleni-compound sentences, but on a larger scale, conjunctions combine with particle-like elements of modal-adverbial description. These elements supplement and specify the meaning of the conjunction, so that they receive the status of sub-conjunction specifiers, and the pairs "conjunction plus sub-conjunctive" become in fact regular conjunctive-coordinative combinations. Here belong such combinations as and then, and perhaps, and probably, and presently, and so, and consequently, etc; but merely, but only, but instead, but nevertheless, etc.; or else, or even, or rather, etc. The specifications given by the sub-conjunctives are those of change of events, probability evaluation, consequence in reasoning, concessive contrast, limiting condition, intensity gradation, and many others, more specific ones. E.g.:
  He waited for some moments longer and then walked down to the garden to where, on the terrace, the jeep was parked (H. E. Bates). She lived entirely apart from the contemporary literary world and probably was never in the company of anyone more talented than herself (J. Austen). To his relief, she was not giving off the shifting damp heat of her anger, but instead was cool, decisive, material (J. Updike). For several hours I discussed this with you, or rather vented exhaustive rewordings upon your silent phantom (J. Updike).

<< Пред.           стр. 11 (из 14)           След. >>

Список литературы по разделу