Complex sentence

Plan

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….3
2. General characterization of complex sentence…………………………………4
3. Types of complex sentences……………………………………………………6
4. Thematic and Rhematic clauses………………………………………………..7
5. Classification of subordinate clauses…………………………………………..9
6. Types of subordinate clauses………………………………………………….11
7. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….17
8. Sources………………………………………………………………………..18

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Introduction 
 

     Linguists explain the complex sentence as units of unequal rank, one being categorically dominated by the other. In terms of the positional structure of the sentence it means that by subordination one of the clauses (subordinate) is placed in a dependent position of the other (principal). This latter characteristic has an essential semantic implication clarifying the differences between the two types, of polypredication in question. As a matter of fact, a subordinate clause, however important the information rendered by it might be for the whole communication, presents it as naturally supplementing the information of the principal clause. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

1. General characterization of complex sentence

 

     Firstly, it should be noted the definition of a composite sentence. According to Blokh M. Ya. The composite sentence is a polypredicative construction, it expresses a complicated act of thought, i. e. an act of mental activity which falls into two or more intellectual efforts closely combined  with one another and is formed by two or more predicative lines. [1, 288]

      Ivanova I.P. gives the following definition: the composite sentence is a structural and semantic unity of two or more syntactic structures, each with its own predicative center, folding on the basis of syntactic connection and used in speech communication as a unit of the same simple sentence. [2, 232]

     In combination of sentences into larger units we may observe two different types of grammatical relationship based upon relative position and interaction of sentences. These are co-ordination and subordination. This classification remains the prevalent scheme of the structural classification of sentences in the grammars of all types in various languages. A very important syntactic concept developed along with this classification is the concept of syndeton and asyndeton.

  Sentences joined together by means of special function words designed for this purpose are syndetic, those joined without function words are asyndetic (or contact-clauses). [3, 252]

  The complex sentence is a polypredicative construction built up on the principle of subordination. Semantic relations which can be expressed by subordination are numerous and varied: all such relations as time, place, concession, purpose, etc. are expressly stated in complex sentences only. The means of expressing subordination are conjunctions: when, after, before, while, till, until, though, although, albeit, that, as, because, since; a number of phrases: as soon as, as long as, so long as, notwithstanding that, in order that, according as, etc. Besides, a certain number of conjunctive words are used: the relative pronouns who, which, that, whoever, whatever, whichever, and the relative adverbs where, how, whenever, wherever, however, why, etc.

  We may note that the boundary line between conjunctions and relative adverbs is not quite clearly drawn. We shall also see this when we come to the adverbial clauses introduced by the word when and those introduced by the word where. Historically speaking, conjunctions develop from adverbs, and one word or another may prove to be in an intermediate stage, when there are no sufficient objective criteria to define its status.[4, 269]

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

  When joined into one complex sentence, the matrix base sentence becomes the principal clause of it and the insert sentences, its subordinate clauses.

  The complex sentence of minimal composition includes two clauses — a principal one and a subordinate one. Although the principal clause positionally dominates the subordinate clause, the two form a semantico-syntactic unity within the framework of which they are in fact interconnected, so that the very existence of either of them is supported by the existence of the other.

  The subordinate clause is joined to the principal clause either by a subordinating connector (subordinator), or, with some types of clauses, asyndetically. The functional character of the subordinative connector is so explicit that even in traditional grammatical descriptions of complex sentences this connector was approached as a transformer of an independent sentence into a subordinate clause.  

  e.g. Moyra left the room. → (I do remember quite well) that Moyra left the room. → (He went on with his story) after Moyra left the room. → (Fred remained in his place) though Moyra left the room. → (The party was spoilt) because Moyra left the room. → (It was a surprise to us all) that Moyra left the room.

  This paradigmatic scheme of the production of the subordinate clause vindicates the possible interpretation of contact-clauses in asyndetic connection as being joined to the principal clause by means of the "zero"-connector. Cf.: —» (How do you know) 0 Moyra left the room?

  Needless to say, the idea of the zero-subordinator simply stresses the fact of the meaningful (functional) character of the asyndetic connection of clauses, not denying the actual absence of connector in the asyndetic complex sentence.

  The minimal, two-clause complex sentence is the main volume type of complex sentences. It is the most important type, first, in terms of frequency, since its textual occurrence by far exceeds that of multi-clause complex sentences; second, in terms of its paradigmatic status, because a complex sentence of any volume is analysable into a combination of two-clause complex sentence units. [2, 303] 

2. Types of complex sentence

 

  The notions of declarative, interrogative, and imperative sentence, and also that of exclamatory sentence appear to be applicable to some types of complex sentences as well. For instance, if the main clause of a complex sentence is interrogative or imperative, this implies that the complex sentence as a whole is also interrogative or imperative respectively. A few examples will suffice to illustrate our point.

  e. g. Why couldn't she sense now that he was outside and come out?

   The main clause Why couldn't she sense now . .. and come out? is clearly interrogative, and this is enough to make the whole complex sentence interrogative, though the subordinate clause that he was outside (an object clause) is certainly not interrogative, and should, if anything, be termed declarative. This, it may be noted in passing, is an additional proof that the clause that he was outside is a subordinate clause: its type of communication is irrelevant for the type of communication to which the sentence as a whole belongs, while the type of the clause Why couldn't she sense .. . and come out? is decisive for it.

  The same will be found to be the case in the following examples:

  But who is to guarantee that I get the other sixty-five, and when?

  This is a slightly more complicated case. The main clause of course is who is to guarantee, and it is interrogative. The subordinate clause is that I get the other sixty-five, and it is followed by the words and when, which will probably be best described as an elliptical second subordinate clause, whose full text would run, and when I shall get it (which is an indirect question). It might also be described as a detached adverbial modifier added on to the subordinate clause that I shall get the other sixty-five. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the interrogative main clause But who is to guarantee.. .? is enough to make the entire sentence interrogative, no matter to what type the subordinate clause or clauses belong.

  Now let us take a complex sentence with an imperative main clause:

  Never you mind how old she is.

     The main clause never you mind is imperative and that is enough to make the whole sentence imperative as well.

The same may be said about a number of other sentences. [4, 270] 

3. Rhematic and Thematic clauses

 

  The principal clause dominates the subordinate clause positionally, but it doesn't mean that by its syntactic status it must express the central informative part of the communication. The information perspective in the simple sentence does not repeat the division of its constituents into primary and secondary, and likewise the information perspective of the complex sentence is not bound to duplicate the division of its clauses into principal and subordinate. The actual division of any construction, be it simple or otherwise, is effected in the context, so it is as part of a continual text that the complex sentence makes its clauses into rheme-rendering and theme-rendering on the complex-sentence information level.

  The rhematic part of the sentence tends to be placed somewhere near the end of it. This holds true both for the simple and complex sentences, so that the order of clauses plays an important role in distributing primary and secondary information among them.

  e. g.: The boy was friendly with me because I allowed him to keep the fishing line.

  In this sentence approached as part of stylistically neutral text the principal clause placed in the front position evidently expresses the starting point of the information delivered, while the subordinate clause of cause renders the main sentential idea, namely, the speaker's explanation of the boy's attitude. The "contraposition" presupposed by the actual division of the whole sentence is then like this: "Otherwise the boy wouldn't have been friendly". Should the clause-order of the utterance be reversed, the informative roles of the clauses will be re-shaped accordingly: As I allowed the boy to keep the fishing line, he was friendly with me.

  Of course, the clause-order, the same as word-order in general, is not the only means of indicating the correlative informative value of clauses in complex sentences; intonation plays here also a crucial role, and it goes together with various lexical and constructional rheme-forming elements, such as emphatic particles, constructions of meaningful antithesis, patterns of logical accents of different kinds.

  Speaking of the information status of the principal clause, it should be noted that even in unemphatic speech this predicative unit is often reduced to a sheer introducer of the subordinate clause, the latter expressing practically all the essential information envisaged by the communicative purpose of the whole of the sentence.

  e. g.: You see that mine is by far the most miserable lot. Just fancy that James has proposed to Mary! You know, kind sir, that I am bound to fasting and abstinence.

  The principal clause-introducer in sentences like these performs also the function of keeping up the conversation, i.e. of maintaining the immediate communicative connection with the listener. This function is referred to as "phatic". Verbs of speech and especially thought are commonly used in phatic principals to specify "in passing" the speaker's attitude to the information rendered by their rhematic subordinates:

  I think there's much truth in what we hear about the matter. I'т sure I can't remember her name now.

  Many of these introducer principals can be re-shaped into parenthetical clauses on a strictly equivalent basis by a mere change of position:

  I can't remember her name now, I'т sure. There's much truth, I think, in what we hear about the matter. [ 2, 305 -306] 

4. Classification of Subordinate Clauses

 

     Of the problems discussed in linguistic literature in connection with the complex sentence, the central one concerns the principles of classification of subordinate clauses. Namely, the two different bases of classification are considered as competitive in this domain: the first is functional, the second is categorial.

     In accord with the functional principle, subordinate clauses are to be classed on the analogy of the positional parts of the simple sentence, since it is the structure of the simple sentence that underlies the essential structure of the complex sentence. In particular, most types of subordinate clauses meet the same functional question-tests as the parts of the simple sentence.

  e.g. You can see my state. → You can see my wretched state. → You can see my state being wretched. → You can see that my state is wretched. → You can see that. —»What can you see?

     In accord with the categorial principle, subordinate clauses аre to be classed by their inherent nominative properties irrespective of their immediate positional relations in the sentence. The nominative properties of notional words are reflected in their part-of-speech classification.

     From the point of view of their general nominative features all the subordinate clauses can be divided into three categorial-semantic groups. The first group includes clauses that name an event as a certain fact. These pure fact-clauses may be terminologically defined as "substantive-nominal". Their substantive-nominal nature is easily checked by a substitute test:

  That his letters remained unanswered annoyed him very much. → That fact annoyed him very much. The woman knew only too well what was right and what was wrong. → The woman knew those matters well.

     The second group of clauses also name an event-fact, but, as different from the first group, this event-fact is referred to as giving a characteristic to some substantive entity (which, in its turn, may be represented by a clause or a phrase or a substantive lexeme). Such clauses, in compliance with our principle of choosing explanatory terminology, can be tentatively called "qualification-nominal"'. The qualification-nominal nature of the clauses in question, as is the case with the first group of clauses, is proved through the corresponding replacement patterns:

  The man who came in the morning left a message. → That man left a message. Did you find a place where we could make a fire? → Did you find such kind of place?

     Finally, the third group of clauses make their event-nomination into a dynamic relation characteristic of another, event or a process or a quality of various descriptions. In keeping with the existing practices, it will be quite natural to call these clauses "adverbial". Adverbial clauses are best tested not by a replacement, but by a definitive transformation.

  e.g. Describe the picture as you see it. → Describe the picture in the manner you see it. All will be well if we arrive in time. → All will be well on condition that we arrive in time.

     Subordinate clauses are introduced by functional connective words which effect their derivation from base sentences. Categorially these sentence subordinators (or subordinating clausalisers) fall into the two basic types: those that occupy a notional position in the derived clause, and those that do not occupy such a position. The non-positional subordinators are referred to as pure conjunctions. Here belong such words as since, before, until, if, in case, because, so that, in order that, though, however, than, as if, etc. The positional subordinators are in fact conjunctive substitutes. The main positional subordinators are the pronominal words who, what, whose, which, that, where, when, why, as. Some of these words are double-functional (bifunctional), entering also the first set of subordinators; such are the words where, when, that, as, used both as conjunctive substitutes and conjunctions. Together with these the zero subordinator should be named, whose polyfunctional status is similar to the status of the subordinator that. The substitute status of positional subordinators is disclosed in their function as "relative" pronominals, i. e. pronominals referring to syntagmatic antecedents.

  e.g. That was the day when she was wearing her pink dress.  

5. Types of Subordinate Clauses

 

     The categorial classification of clauses is sustained by the semantic division of the subordinators which are distinguished as substantive-nominal clausalisers, qualification-nominal clausalisers and adverbial clausalisers. Since, on the other hand, substantive nomination is primary in categorial rank, while qualification nomination is secondary, in terms of syntactic positions all the subordinate clauses are to be divided into three groups: first, clauses of primary nominal positions to which belong subject, predicative and object clauses; second, clauses of secondary nominal positions to which belong attributive clauses; third, clauses of adverbial positions.

     Clauses of primary nominal positions — subject, predicative, object — are interchangeable with one another in easy reshufflings of sentence constituents.

     The subject clause, in accord with its functional position, regularly expresses the theme on the upper level of the actual division of the complex sentence. The thematic property of the clause is well exposed" in its characteristic uses with passive constructions, as well as constructions in which the voice opposition is neutralised.

  e.g. Why he rejected the offer has never been accounted for.

    The predicative clause, in conformity with the predicative position as such, performs the function of the nominal part of the predicate, i. e. the part adjoining the link-verb. The link-verb is mostly expressed by the pure link be, not infrequently we find here also the specifying links seem and look; the use of other specifying links is occasional.

  e. g. The trouble is that I don't know Fanny personally.

     The third type of clauses considered under the heading of clauses of primary nominal positions are object clauses.

     The object clause denotes an object-situation of the process expressed by the verbal constituent of the principal clause.

     e.g.    They will accept with grace whatever he may offer. She stared at what seemed a faded photo of Uncle Jo taken half a century before. I am simply puzzled by what you are telling me about the Car fairs

     Subordinate clauses of secondary nominal positions include attributive clauses of various syntactic functions. They fall into two major classes: "descriptive" attributive clauses and "restrictive" ("limiting") attributive clauses.

     The descriptive attributive clause exposes some characteristic of the antecedent (i. e., its substantive referent) as such, while the restrictive attributive clause performs a purely identifying role, singling out the referent of the antecedent in the given situation.

     It should be noted that, since the difference between descriptive and restrictive clauses lies in their functions, there is a possibility of one and the same clausal unit being used in both capacities, depending on the differences of the contexts.

  e.g. At last we found a place where we could make a fire. The place where we could make a fire was not a lucky one.

     Descriptive clauses, in their turn, distinguish two major subtypes: first, "ordinary" descriptive clauses; second, "continuative" descriptive clauses.

     The ordinary descriptive attributive clause expresses various situational qualifications of nounal antecedents 

  e.g. It gave me a strange sensation to see a lit up window in a big house that was not lived in. 

     The continuative attributive clause presents a situation on an equal domination basis with its principal clause, and so is attributive only in form, but not in meaning. It expresses a new predicative event (connected with the antecedent) which somehow continues the chain of situations reflected by the sentence as a whole.

  e.g. In turn, the girls came singly before Brett, who frowned, blinked, bit his pencil, and scratched his head with it, getting no help from the audience, who applauded each girl impartially and hooted at every swim suit, as if they could not see hundreds any day round the swimming pool.

  To attributive clauses belongs also a vast set of appositive clauses which perform an important role in the formation of complex sentences. The appositive clause, in keeping with the general nature of apposition, does not simply give some sort of qualification to its antecedent, but defines or elucidates its very meaning in the context.

     In accord with the type of the governing antecedent, all the appositive clauses fall into three groups: first, appositive clauses of nounal relation; second, appositive clauses of pronominal relation; third, appositive clauses of anticipatory relation.

Clauses of adverbial positions constitute a vast domain of syntax which falls into many subdivisions each distinguishing its own field of specifications, complications, and difficulties of analysis. The structural peculiarities and idiosyncrasies characterising the numerous particular clause models making up the domain are treated at length in grammatical manuals of various practical purposes; here our concern will be to discuss some principal issues of their functional semantics and classification.

     The whole system of adverbial clauses is to be divided into four groups.

     The first group includes clauses of time and clauses of place. Their common semantic basis is to be defined as "localisation" — respectively, temporal and spatial. Both types of clauses are subject to two major subdivisions, one concerning the local identification, the other concerning the range of functions.

     With subordinate clauses of time the particularising localisation is expressed by such conjunctions as while, as, since, before, after, until, as soon as, now that, no sooner than, etc.

  e.g. We lived here in London when the war ended. While the war was going on we lived in London.

     With clauses of place proper the particularising localisation is expressed but occasionally, mostly by the prepositional conjunctive combinations from where (bookish equivalent — whence) and to where.

  e.g. The swimmers gathered where the beach formed a small promontory. The swimmers kept abreast of one another from where they started.

     From the functional point of view, clauses of localisation should be divided into "direct" (all the above ones) and "transferred", the latter mostly touching on matters of reasoning.

  e.g. When you speak of the plain facts there can't be any question of argument. But I can't agree with you where the principles of logic are concerned.

     The second group of adverbial clauses includes clauses of manner and comparison. The common semantic basis of their functions can be defined as "qualification", since they give a qualification to the action or event rendered by the principal clause.

  e.g. He spent the Saturday night as was his wont.

     All the adverbial qualification clauses are to be divided into "factual" and "speculative", depending on the real or unreal propositional event described by them.

     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.

  e.g. That summer he took a longer holiday than he had done for many years.

     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".

     All the clauses of attendant circumstance can be classed into "contrastive" (clauses of contrast) and "non-contrastive".

     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.

     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.

     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.[2, 306-327]

  We can find such vision of types of subordinate clauses in Blokh. As for Ilish, he sums up various possibilities, and distiguish , for the first two clauses, the following terms: declarative clause, or subordinate statement; apposition clause, or subject clause; noun clause. For the second two clauses: declarative clause, or subordinate statement; attributive clause; adjective clause. For the clause coming last: declarative, or subordinate statement; adverbial clause of time; adverb clause.[4, 277] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Conclusion 

  In the conclusion I want to point out that in Modern Theoretical Grammar are given a huge variety of different classification of complex sentences, classification of subordinate clauses and their types, which depends on numerous kind of  its investigation. And still there is no definite classification. Linguists are study this question and most famous of them are Ilyish, Blokh, Raevskaya.   
 

  Sources  

1.  Иванова  П.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почепцова Г.Г. Теор. Грамматика современного английского языка: Учебник. – М.: Высш. школа,1981. – 285с.

 

2. Блох М.Я. Теор. Грамматика англ.яз.: Учебник. Для  студентов филол. Фак. Ун-тов и  фак. Англ. Яз. Педвузов. – М.: Высш. школа,1983 – с. 383

 

3. Раєвська  Н.М. Теор. Граматика сучасної англ. Мови. – К.: Вища школа, 1976 - 303с.

 

4. Ильиш Б.А. Строй современного английского языка. Ленинград: Просвещение, 1971 – 881 с.