Types of sentences

Contents

Introduction

1. The Sentence

2. Classification of Sentences

3. The Simple Sentence and Its Types

4. One Member Sentences

5. The Composite Sentence

6. Compound Sentence

7. Complex Sentence

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The theme of my course paper sounds as following: «Types of Sentences».
Before beginning of investigation in our theme, I would like to say some
words dealt with the theme of my course paper.

The problem of classification of sentences is a highly complicated one,
and this classification we must begin by comparing a few sentences
differing from each other in some respect. Take, for example, the
following two sentences:

(1) But why did you leave England? (GALSWORTHY)

(2) There is to-day more people writing extremely well, in all
departments of life, than ever before; what we have to do is to sharpen
our judgement and pick these out from the still larger number who write
extremely badly. (CRUMP)

Everyone will see that the two sentences are basically different. This
is true, but very general and not grammatically exact. In order to
arrive at a strictly grammatical statement of the difference (or
differences) between them we must apply more exact methods of
observation and analysis.

Standing on such ground, I would like to point out tasks and aims of my
work

1. The first task of my work is to give definition to term «sentence».

2. The second task is to give the classification of sentences in
English.

3. The last task of my work is to characterize each type of sentences
from grammatical point of view.

In our opinion the practical significance of our work is hard to be
overvalued. This work reflects modern trends in linguistics and we hope
it would serve as a good manual for those who want to master modern
English language. Also this work can be used by teachers of English
language for teaching English grammar.

The present work might find a good way of implying in the following
spheres:

1. In High Schools and scientific circles of linguistic kind it can be
successfully used by teachers and philologists as modern material for
writing research works dealing with English verbs.

2. It can be used by teachers of schools, lyceums and colleges by
teachers of English as a practical manual for teaching English grammar.

3. It can be useful for everyone who wants to enlarge his/her knowledge
in English.

After having proved the actuality of our work, I would like to describe
the composition of it:

My work consists of four parts: introduction, the main part, conclusion
and bibliography. Within the introduction part we gave the brief
description of our course paper. The main part of the work includes
several items. There we discussed such problems as the types of
sentences in English, their classification, and etc. In the conclusion
to our work we tried to draw some results from the scientific
investigations made within the present course paper. In bibliography
part we mentioned some sources which were used while compiling the
present work. It includes linguistic books and articles dealing with the
theme, a number of used dictionaries and encyclopedias and also some
internet sources.

1. The Sentence

The notion of sentence has not so far received a satisfactory
definition, which would enable us by applying it in every particular
case to find out whether a certain linguistic unit was a sentence or
not.

Thus, for example, the question remains undecided whether such shop
notices as Book Shop and such book titles as English are sentences or
not. In favour of the view that they are sentences the following
consideration can be brought forward. The notice Book Shop and the title
English Grammar mean ‘This is a book shop’, ‘This is an English
Grammar’; the phrase is interpreted as the predicative of a sentence
whose subject and link verb have been omitted, that is, it is
apprehended as a unit of communication. According to the other possible
view, such notices as Book Shop and such titles as English Grammar are
not units of communication at all, but units of nomination, merely
appended to the object they denote. Since there is as yet no definition
of a sentence which would enable us to decide this question, it depends
on everyone’s subjective view which alternative he prefers. We will
prefer the view that such notices and book titles are not sentences but
rather nomination units.

We also mention here a special case. Some novels have titles formulated
as sentences, e. g. The Stars Look Down, by A. Cronin, or They Came to a
City, by J.B. Priestley. These are certainly sentences, but they are
used as nomination units, for instance, Have you read The Stars Look
Down? Do you like They Came to a City?

With the rise of modern ideas of paradigmatic syntax yet another problem
concerning definition of sentence has to be considered.

In paradigmatic syntax, such units as He has arrived, He has not
arrived, Has he arrived, He will arrive, He will not arrive, Will he
arrive, etc., are treated as different forms of the same sentence, just
as arrives, has arrived, will arrive etc., are different forms of the
same verb. We may call this view of the sentence the paradigmatic view.

Now from the point of view of communication, He has arrived and He has
not arrived are different sentences since they convey different
information (indeed, the meaning of the one flatly contradicts that of
the other).

2. Classification of Sentences

The problem of classification of sentences is a highly complicated one,
and we will first consider the question of the principles of
classification, and of the notions on which it can be based.

Let us begin by comparing a few sentences differing from each other in
some respect. Take, for example, the following two sentences:

(1) But why did you leave England? (GALSWORTHY)

Let us, then, proceed to a careful observation of the features which
constitute the difference between the two sentences.

1. The first sentence expresses a question that is the speaker expects
an answer which will supply the information he wants. The second
sentence expresses a statement, that is, the author (or speaker) states
his opinion on a certain subject. He does not ask about anything, or
expect anybody to supply him any information. This difference is
expressed in writing by the first sentence having a question mark at the
end, while the second sentence has a full stop.

2. The first sentence is addressed to a certain hearer (or a few hearers
present), and is meant to provoke the hearer’s reaction (answer). The
second sentence is not addressed to any particular person or persons and
the author does not know how anybody will react to it.

3. The two sentences differ greatly in length: the first consists of
only 6 words, while the second has 39.

4. The first sentence has no punctuation marks within it, while the
second has two commas and a semicolon.

5. The first sentence has only one finite verb (did… leave), while the
second has three (are, have, write).

These would seem to be some essential points of difference. We have riot
yet found out which of them are really relevant from a grammatical
viewpoint. We have not included in the above list those which are quite
obviously irrelevant from that viewpoint; for example, the first
sentence contains a proper name (England), while the second does not
contain any, or, the second sentence contains a possessive pronoun (our)
while the first does not, etc.

Let us now consider each of the five points of difference and see which
of them are relevant from a purely grammatical point of view, for a
classification of sentences.

Point 1 states a difference in the types of thought expressed in the two
sentences. Without going into details of logical analysis, we can merely
say that a question (as in the first sentence), and a proposition (as in
the second) are different types of thought, in the logical acceptation
of that term. The problem now is, whether this difference is or is not
of any importance from the grammatical viewpoint. In Modern English
sentences expressing questions (we will call them, as is usually done,
interrogative sentences) have some characteristic grammatical features.
These features are, in the first place, a specific word order in most
cases (predicate – subject), as against the order subject – predicate in
sentences expressing, propositions (declarative sentences). Thus word
order may, with some reservations, be considered as a feature
distinguishing this particular type of sentence from others. Another
grammatical feature characterizing interrogative sentences (again, with
some reservations) is the structure of the predicate verb, namely its
analytical form «do + infinitive» (in our first sentence, did, leave…,
not left), where in a declarative sentence there would be the simple
form (without do). However, this feature is not restricted to
interrogative sentences: as is well known, it also characterizes
negative sentences. Anyhow, we can (always with some reservations)
assume that word order and the form «do + infinitive» are grammatical
features characterizing interrogative sentences, and in so far the first
item of our list appears to be grammatically relevant. We will,
accordingly, accept the types «interrogative sentence» and «declarative
sentence» as grammatical types of sentences.

Point 2, treating of a difference between a sentence addressed to a
definite hearer (or reader) and a sentence free from such limitation,
appears not to be grammatical, important as it may be from other points
of view. Accordingly, we will not include this distinction among
grammatical features of sentences.

Point 3, showing a difference in the length of the sentences, namely in
the number of words making up each of them, does not in itself
constitute a grammatical feature, though it may be more remotely
connected with grammatical distinctions.

Point 4 bears a close relation to grammatical peculiarities; more
especially, a semicolon would be hardly possible in certain types of
sentences (so-called simple sentences). But punctuation marks within a
sentence are not in themselves grammatical features: they are rather a
consequence of grammatical features whose essence is to be looked for
elsewhere.

Point 5, on the contrary, is very important from a grammatical
viewpoint. Indeed the number of finite verbs in a sentence is one of its
main grammatical features. In this particular instance it should be
noted that each of the three finite verbs has its own noun or pronoun
belonging to it and expressing the doer of the action denoted by the
verb: are has the noun people, have the pronoun we, and write the
pronoun who. These are sure signs of the sentence being composite, not
simple. Thus we will adopt the distinction between simple and composite
sentences as a distinction between two grammatical types.

The items we have established as a result of comparing the two sentences
given earlier certainly do not exhaust all the possible grammatical
features a sentence can be shown to possess. They were only meant to
illustrate the method to be applied if a reasonable grammatical
classification of sentences is to be achieved. If we were to take
another pair or other pairs of sentences and proceed to compare them in
a similar way we should arrive at some more grammatical distinctions
which have to be taken into account in making up a classification. We
will not give any more examples but we will take up the grammatical
classification of sentences in a systematic way.

It is evident that there are two principles of classification. Applying
one of them, we obtain a classification into declarative, interrogative,
and imperative sentences. We can call this principle that of «types of
communication».

The other classification is according to structure. Here we state two
main types: simple sentences and composite sentences. We will not now go
into the question of a further subdivision of composite sentences, or
into the question of possible intermediate types between simple and
composite ones. These questions will be treated later on (see pages 200
and 254 respectively). Meanwhile, then, we get the following results:

Types of Sentences According to Types of Communication

(1) Declarative

(2) Interrogative

(3) Imperative

Sentences belonging to the several types differ from each other in some
grammatical points, too. Thus, interrogative sentences are characterized
by a special word order. In interrogative sentences very few modal words
are used, as the meanings of some modal words are incompatible with the
meaning of an interrogative sentence. It is clear that modal words
expressing full certainty, such as certainly, surely, naturally, etc.,
cannot appear in a sentence expressing a question. On the other hand,
the modal word indeed, with its peculiar shades of meaning, is quite
possible in interrogative sentences, for instance, Isn’t so indeed?
(SHAKESPEARE)

There are also sentences which might be termed semi-interrogative. The
third sentence in the following passage belongs to this type:

«Well, I daresay that’s more revealing about poor George than you. At
any rate, he seems to have survived it». «Oh, you’ve seen him»? She did
not particularly mark her question for an answer, but it was, after all,
the pivot-point, and Bone found himself replying – that indeed he had.
(BUECHNER) The sentence Oh, you’ve seen him? is half-way between the
affirmative declarative sentence, You have seen him, and the
interrogative sentence, Have you seen him? Let us proceed to find out
the precise characteristics of the sentence in the text as against the
two sentences just given for the sake of comparison. From the
syntactical viewpoint, the sentence is declarative, as the mutual
position of subject and predicate is, you have seen, not have you seen,
which would be the interrogative order. In what way or ways does it,
then, differ from a usual declarative sentence? That is where the
question of the intonation comes in. Whether the question mark at the
end of the sentence does or does not mean that the intonation is not
that typical of a declarative sentence, is hard to tell, though it would
rather seem that it does. To be certain about this a phonetic experiment
should be undertaken, but in this particular case the author gives a
context which itself goes some way toward settling the question. The
author’s words, She did not particularly mark tier question for an
answer, seem to refer to the intonation with which it was pronounced:
the intonation must not have been clearly interrogative, that is not
clearly rising, though it must have differed from the regular falling
intonation to some extent: if it had not been at all different, the
sentence could not have been termed a «question», and the author does
call it a question. Reacting to this semi-interrogative intonation, Bone
(the man to whom the question was addressed) answered in the
affirmative. It seems the best way, on the whole, to term such sentences
semi-interrogative. Their purpose of course is to utter a somewhat
hesitating statement and to expect the other person to confirm it.

Imperative sentences also show marked peculiarities in the use of modal
words. It is quite evident, for example, that modal words expressing
possibility, such as perhaps, maybe, possibly, are incompatible with the
notion of order or request. Indeed, modal words are hardly used at all
in imperative sentences.

The notion of exclamatory sentences and their relation to the three
established types of declarative, interrogative, and imperative
sentences presents some difficulty. It would seem that the best way to
deal with it is this. On the one hand, every sentence, whether
narrative, interrogative, or imperative, may be exclamatory at the same
time, that is, it may convey the speaker’s feelings and be characterized
by emphatic intonation and by an exclamation mark in writing. This may
be seen in the following examples: But he can’t do anything to you! (R.
WEST) What can he possibly do to you! (Idem) Scarlett, spare me! (M.
MITCHELL)

On the other hand, a sentence may be purely exclamatory, that is, it may
not belong to any of the three types classed above. This would be the
case in the following examples: «Well, fiddle-dee-dee!» said Scarlett.
(M. MITCHELL) Oh, for God’s sake, Henry! (Idem)

However, it would perhaps be better to use different terms for sentences
which are purely exclamatory, and thus constitute a special type, and
those which add an emotional element to their basic quality, which is
either declarative, or interrogative, or imperative. If this view is
endorsed, we should have our classification of sentences according to
type of communication thus modified:

(1) Declarative (including emotional ones)

(2) Interrogative (including emotional ones)

(3) Imperative (including emotional ones)

(4) Exclamatory

This view would avoid the awkward contradiction of exclamatory sentences
constituting a special type and belonging to the first three types at
the same time.

Types of Sentences According to Structure

(1) Simple

(2) Composite

The relations between the two classifications should now be considered.

It is plain that a simple sentence can be either declarative, or
interrogative, or imperative. But things are somewhat more complicated
with reference to composite sentences. If both (or all) clauses making
up a composite sentence are declarative, the composite sentence as a
whole is of course declarative too. And so it is bound to be in every
case when both (or all) clauses making a composite sentence belong to
the same type of communication (that is the case in an overwhelming
majority of examples). Sometimes, however, composite sentences are found
which consist of clauses belonging to different types of communication.
Here it will sometimes he impossible to say to what type of
communication the composite sentence as a whole belongs. We will take up
this question when we come to the composite sentence.

Some other questions connected with the mutual relation of the two
classifications will be considered as we proceed.

3. The simple sentence and its types

We will now study the structure of the simple sentence and the types of
simple sentences.

First of all we shall have to deal with the problem of negative
sentences. The problem, briefly stated, is this: do negative sentences
constitute a special grammatical type, and if so, what are its
grammatical features? In other words, if we say, «This is a negative
sentence», do we thereby give it a grammatical description?

The difficulty of the problem lies in the peculiarity of negative
expressions in Modern English. Let us take two sentences, both negative
in meaning: (1) She did not know when she would be seeing any of them
again. (R. MACAULAY) (2) Helen’s tremendous spell – perhaps no one ever
quite escaped from it. (Idem) They are obviously different in their ways
of expressing negation. In (1) we see a special form of the predicate
verb (did… know, not knew) which is due to the negative character of the
sentence and is in so far a grammatical sign of its being negative. In
(2), on the other hand, there is no grammatical feature to show that the
sentence is negative. Indeed, there is no grammatical difference
whatever between the sentences Nobody saw him and Everybody saw him. The
difference lies entirely in the meaning of the pronouns functioning as
subject, that is to say, it is lexical, not grammatical. The same is of
course true of such sentences as / found nobody and / found everybody.
On the other hand, in the sentence / did not find anybody there is again
a grammatical feature, viz. the form of the predicate verb (did… find,
not found).

The conclusion to be drawn from these observations is obviously this.
Since in a number of cases negative sentences are not characterized as
such by any grammatical peculiarities, they are not a grammatical type.
They are a logical type, which may or may not be reflected in
grammatical structure. Accordingly, the division’ of sentences into
affirmative and negative ought not to be included into their grammatical
classification.

Before we proceed with our study of sentence structure it will be well
to consider the relation between the two notions of sentence and clause.
Among different types of sentences treated In a syntactic investigation
it is naturally the simple sentence that comes first. It is with
specimens of simple sentences that we study such categories as parts of
the sentence, main and secondary; homogeneous members, word order, etc.
It is also with specimens of simple sentences that we illustrate such
notions as declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory
sentences, as two-member and one-member sentences, and so forth. As long
as we limit ourselves to the study of simple sentences, the notion of
«clause» need not occur at all.

When, however, we come to composite sentences (that is, sentences
consisting of two or more clauses), we have to deal with the notions of
main clause, head clause, and subordinate clause. Everything we said
about the simple sentence will also hold good for clauses: a clause also
has its parts (main and secondary), it can also be a two-member or a
one-member clause; a main clause at least must also be either
declarative, interrogative, imperative, or exclamatory, etc. We will
consider these questions in due course.

So then we will take it for granted that whatever is said about a simple
sentence will also apply to an independent clause within a composite
sentence. For instance, whatever we say about word order in a simple
sentence will also apply to word order in an independent clause within a
composite sentence, etc.

It has been usual for some time now to classify sentences into
two-member and one-member sentences.

This distinction is based on a difference in the so-called main parts of
a sentence. We shall therefore have to consider the two problems, that
of two-member and one-member sentences and that of main parts of the
sentence, simultaneously.

In a sentence like Helen sighed (R. MACAULAY) there obviously are two
main parts: Helen, which denotes the doer of the action and is called
(grammatical) subject, and sighed, which denotes the action performed by
the subject and is called (grammatical) predicate. Sentences having this
basic structure, viz. a word (or phrase) to denote the doer of the
action and another word (or phrase) to denote the action, are termed
two-member sentences. However, there are sentences which do not contain
two such separate parts; in these sentences there is only one main part:
the other main part is not there and it could not even be supplied, at
least not without a violent change in the structure of the sentence.
Examples of such sentences, which are accordingly termed one-member
sentences, are the following: Fire! Come on! or the opening sentence of
«An American Tragedy»: Dusk – of a summer night. (DREISER)

There is no separate main part of the sentence, the grammatical subject,
and no other separate main part, the grammatical predicate. Instead
there is only one main part (fire, come on, and dusk, respectively).
These, then, are one-member sentences.

It is a disputed point whether the main part of such a sentence should,
or should not, be termed subject in some cases, and predicate, in
others. This question has been raised with reference to the Russian
language. Academician A. Shakhmatov held that the chief part of a
one-member sentence was either the subject, or the predicate, as the
case might be (for example, if that part was a finite verb, he termed it
predicate). Academician V. Vinogradov, on the other hand, started on the
assumption that grammatical subject and grammatical predicate were
correlative notions and that the terms were meaningless outside their
relation to each other. Accordingly, he suggested that for one-member
sentences, the term «main part» should be used, without giving it any
more specific name. Maybe this is rather a point of terminology than of
actual grammatical theory. We will not investigate it any further, but
content ourselves with naming the part in question the main part of
one-member sentence, as proposed by V. Vinogradov.

One-member sentences should be kept apart from two-member sentences with
either the subject or the predicate omitted, i.e. from elliptical
sentences, which we will discuss in a following chapter. There are many
difficulties in this field. As we have done more than once, we will
carefully distinguish what has been proved and what remains a matter of
opinion, depending to a great extent on the subjective views or
inclinations of one scholar or another. Matters belonging to this latter
category are numerous enough in the sphere of sentence study.

4. One member sentences

We have agreed, to term one-member sentences those sentences which have
no separate subject and predicate but one main part only instead (see p.
190).

Among these there is the type of sentence whose main part is a noun (or
a substantives part of speech), the meaning of the sentence being that
the thing denoted by the noun exists in a certain place or at a certain
time. Such sentences are frequent, for example, in stage directions of
plays. A few examples from modern authors will suffice: Night. A lady’s
bed-chamber In Bulgaria, in a small town near the Dragoman Pass, late in
November in the year 1885. (SHAW) The sixth of March, 1886. (Idem) The
landing dock of the Cunard Line. (FITCH) Living room in the house of
Philip Phillimore. (L. MITCHELL)

Compare also the following passage from a modern novel: No birds singing
in the dawn. A light wind making the palm trees sway their necks, with a
faint dry formal clicking. ^The wonderful hushing of rain on Mareotis.
(DURRELL) Such sentences bear a strong resemblance to two-member
sentences having a present participle for their predicate, which we have
considered on p. 202 ff. It is the context that will show to which of
the two types the sentence belongs. In some cases the difference between
them may be vague or even completely neutralized.

There are some more types of one-member clauses and sentences. Let us
consider a few examples of the less common varieties. And what if he had
seen them embracing in the moonlight? (HUXLEY) The main clause, if it is
to be taken separately, contains only the words and what…? It is clear,
however, that the sentence And what?, if at all possible, would have a
meaning entirely different from that of the sentence as it stands in
Huxley’s text. Be that as it may, the clause and what is clearly a
one-member clause.

A different kind of one-member clause is seen in the following compound
sentence: A good leap, and perhaps one might clear the narrow terrace
and so crash down yet another thirty feet to the sunbaked ground below.
(HUXLEY) The first clause in its conciseness is very effective. These
are the thoughts of a young man standing on a hill and looking down a
steep ravine. The meaning is of course equivalent to that of a sentence
like It would be enough to make a good leap, etc. But the first clause
as it stands in the text is certainly a one-member clause, as every
addition to it would entirely change its structure.

A special semantic type of one-member clauses is characterized by the
following structure: «predicative + adjective expressing emotional
assessment + noun or clause expressing what is assessed by the
adjective», for instance, Strange how different she had become – a
strange new quiescence. (LAWRENCE) The main clause might of course have
been a two-member one: It was strange how different she had become… but
this variant would be stylistically very different from the original. It
is also evident that this type of sentence is limited to a very small
number of adjective predicative’s.

Imperative sentences with no subject of the action mentioned are also to
be classed among one-member sentences, e.g. Get away from me! (M.
MITCHELL) Fear not, fair lady! (Idem) «Don’t tell him anything» she
cried rapidly. (Idem)

It would not, however, be correct to say that imperative sentences must
necessarily have this structure. Occasionally, in emotional speech, they
may have a subject, that is, they belong to the two-member type, as in
the following instance: Don’t you dare touch me! (Idem)

ELLIPTICAL SENTENCES

By «elliptical sentences» we mean sentences with one or more of their
parts left out, which can be unambiguously inferred from the context. We
will apply this term to any sentence of this kind, no matter what part
or parts of it have been left out.

The main sphere of elliptical sentences is of course dialogue: it is
here that one or more parts of a sentence are left out because they are
either to be supplied from the preceding sentence (belong-, in to
another speaker) or may be easily dispensed with. We take a few examples
of elliptical sentences from contemporary dramatic works: Charlie. Have
you asked her yet? Captain Jinks. Not often enough. (FITCH) It is clear
here that the answer means: ‘I have, but not often enough’. Aurelia. And
by the way, before I forget it, I hope you’ll come to supper to-night –
here. Will you? After the opera. Captain Jinks. Delighted! (Idem) It is
also clear here that Aurelia’s second sentence means: ‘Will you come to
supper to-night?’ and that the captain’s answer means: ‘I shall be
delighted to come’. Whatever is understood from the preceding context is
omitted, and only the words containing the theme are actually
pronounced. The same is found, for example, in the following bit of
dialogue: Matthew. Why, my dear – you have a very sad expression!
Cynthia. Why not? Matthew. J feel as if I we’re of no use in the world
when 1 see sadness on a young face. Only sinners should feel sad. You
have committed no sin! Cynthia. Yes, I have! (L. MITCHELL) Cynthia’s
first sentence obviously means: ‘Why should I not have a sad
expression?’ and her second, ‘Yes, I have committed a sin!’ Similarly,
in other cases everything but the words representing the theme may be
omitted.

Elliptical sentences or clauses can of course also occur outside
dialogue.’

5. The Composite Sentence.

At the beginning of our work we commented briefly on the problem of
classifying composite sentences. We will adopt as a first principle of
classification the way in which the parts of a composite sentence (its
clauses) are joined together. This may be achieved either by means of
special words designed for this function, or without the help of such
words. In the first case, the method of joining the clauses is
synthetic, and the composite sentence itself may be called synthetic. In
the second case the method of joining the clauses is asyndetic, and so
is the composite sentence itself.

We should distinguish between two variants of synthetic joining of
sentences, the difference depending on the character and syntactic
function of the word used to join them.

This joining word (let us call it this for the time being) may either be
a conjunction, a pronoun or an adverb. If it is a conjunction, it has no
other function in the sentence but that of joining the clauses together.

If it is a pronoun or an adverb (i. e. a relative pronoun or a relative
adverb), its function in the sentence is twofold: on the one hand, it is
a part of one of the two clauses which are joined (a subject, object,
adverbial modifier, etc.), and on the other hand, it serves to join the
two sentences together, that is, it has a connecting function as well.

It is to synthetic composite sentences that the usual classification
into compound and complex sentences should be applied in the first
place.

These are the lines indicated for the Russian language by Prof. N.
Pospelov in 1950. ‘ The question of classifying asyndetic composite
sentences will have to be considered separately (see below, Chapter XL).

We start, then, from a distinction of compound sentences and complex
sentences. The basic difference between the two types would appear to be
clear enough: in compound sentences, the clauses of which they consist
have as it were equal rights, that is, none of them is below the other
in rank, they are coordinated.

In complex sentences, on the other hand, the clauses are not on an equal
footing. In the simplest case, that of a complex sentence consisting of
two clauses only, one of these is the main clause, and the other a
subordinate clause, that is, it stands beneath the main clause in rank.
Of course, there may be more than one main clause and more than one
subordinate clause in a complex sentence.

So far the classification of syndetic composite sentences looks simple
enough. But as we come to the problem of the external signs showing
whether a clause is co-ordinated with another or subordinated to it, we
often run into difficulties. As often as not a clear and unmistakable
sign pointing this way or that is wanting. In such cases we have to
choose between two possible ways of dealing with the problem. Either we
shall have to answer the question in an arbitrary way, relying, that is,
on signs that are not binding and may be denied; or else we shall have
to establish a third, or inter-* mediate, group, which cannot be termed
either clear co-ordination or clear subordination, but is something
between the two, or something indefinite from this point of view. It is
also evident that the problem is connected with that of coordinating and
subordinating conjunctions.

6. Compound Sentence

When discussing simple sentences we had to deal with communication
types: declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory
sentences.

With compound sentences this problem requires special treatment. If both
(or all) clauses making up a compound sentence belong to the same
communication type it is clear that the compound sentence belongs to
this type, too. But there are also compound sentences consisting of
clauses belonging to different communication types. In that case it is
impossible to state to what type the compound sentence as a whole
belongs. Let us consider a few instances of this kind.

There are sentences in which one clause is declarative and the other
exclamatory, as in the following example: After all, she concluded, a
monkey is a ridiculous animal, and how clever of Tristram to recognize
the need for just such a ridiculousness among all his dinner parties…
(BUECHNER) Such examples, however, appear to be rare. The following
sentence had best be considered a compound sentence, with the first
clause declarative, and the second elliptical and interrogative: These
came nearer than most to meaning something to her, but what? (BUECHNER)
The second clause, if completed, would apparently run something like
this: but what did they mean? or, what could they mean?

This absence of a unified communication type in some compound sentences
has given rise to doubts whether what we call a compound sentence can be
called a sentence at all. The solution of the problem-will of course
depend on what we consider to be the necessary features of a sentence.
If we accept unity of communication type as one of them, formations
lacking this feature will have to be excluded. This view would then make
it necessary to develop a theory of units other than a sentence
stretching between a full stop and another full stop, or a question
mark, or an exclamation mark. We will not pursue this analysis any
further but we will take the view that unity of communication type is
not an indispensable feature, and go on recognizing compound sentences
as a special sentence type.

Compound sentences consist of clauses joined together by coordinating
conjunctions. These are very few: and, bat, or, for, yet, so (compare
the chapter on conjunctions, p. 158). Concerning some of them there may
be doubts whether they are conjunctions (thus, yet may also be supposed
to be an adverb), and concerning the word for it may be doubtful whether
it is coordinating or subordinating. The meanings of the conjunctions
themselves are of course a question of lexicology. What concerns us here
is the type of connection between the clauses in a compound sentence.

There has been some discussion about the degree of independence of the
clauses making up a compound sentence. The older view was that they were
completely independent of each other. It was supposed that these clauses
were nothing but independent sentences with a coordinating conjunction
between them indicating their semantic relations. Lately, however, the
opinion has been expressed that the independence of the clauses, and
especially of the second clause (and those which follow it, if any) is
not complete, and that the structure of the second and following clauses
is to some extent predetermined by the first. This view was put forward
in the Academy’s Grammar of the Russian language. It is pointed out here
that the word order of the second clause may be influenced by the
connection it has with the first, and that the verb forms of the
predicates in coordinated clauses are frequently mutually dependent.
‘Part of this is more significant for the Russian language with its
freer word order than for the English, but a certain degree of
interdependence between the clauses is found in English, too.

We will now consider some questions of the grammatical structure of
compound sentences in English.

The semantic relations between the clauses making up the compound
sentence depend partly on the lexical meaning of the conjunction uniting
them, and partly on the meanings of the words making up the clauses
themselves. It should be noted that the coordinating conjunctions differ
from each other in definiteness of meaning: the conjunction ~but has an
adversative meaning which is so clear and definite that there can hardly
be anything in the sentence to materially alter the meaning conveyed by
this conjunction. The meaning of the conjunction and, on the other hand,
which is one of «addition», is wide enough to admit of shades being
added to it by the meanings of other words in the sentence. This will be
quite clear if we compare the following two compound sentences with
clauses joined by this conjunction: The old lady had recognized Ellen’s
handwriting and her fat little mouth was pursed in a frightened way,
like a baby who fears a scolding and hopes to ward it off by tears. (M,
MITCHELL) The bazaar had taken place Monday night and today was only
Thursday. (Idem) The first sentence has a shade of meaning of cause –
result, and this is obviously due to the meanings of the words
recognized and frightened. In the second sentence there is something
like an adversative shade of meaning, and this is due to the relation in
meaning between the word Monday in the first clause and that of the
words only Thursday in the second. In a similar way other shades of
meaning may arise from other semantic relations between words in two
co-ordinate clauses.

Compound sentences with clauses joined by the conjunction or (or by the
double conjunction either – or) seem to be very rare. Here are a few
examples: The light fell either upon the smooth grey black of a pebble,
or the shell pf a snail with its brown, circular veins, or, falling into
a raindrop, it expanded with such intensity of red, blue, and yellow the
thin’ walls of water that one expected them to burst, and disappear. (V.
WOOLF) / think I see them now with sparkling looks; or have they
vanished while I have been writing this description of them? (HAZLITT)
Are you afraid of their biting, or is it a metaphysical antipathy?
(LAWRENCE)

As to the use of tenses in clauses making up a compound sentence, we
should note that there is no general rule of their interdependence.
However, in a number of cases we do find interdependence of co-ordinate
clauses from this point of view. For instance, in the following compound
sentence the tense of the first predicate verb is past perfect and that
of the second past indefinite: She had come to meet the Marquise de
Trayas, but she was half an hour too early. (R. WEST)

The number of clauses in a compound sentence may of course be greater
than two, and in that case the conjunctions uniting the clauses may be
different; thus, the second clause may be joined to the first by one
conjunction, while the third is joined to the second by another, and so
forth. We will only give one example: Gerald was disappointed, for he
had wanted a son, but he nevertheless was pleased enough over his small
black-haired daughter… (M. MITCHELL)

A typical example of a compound sentence with the conjunction so is the
following: The band has struck, so we did our best without it (FITCH)

Besides the conjunctions so far considered, there are a few more, which
are generally classed as subordinating, but which in certain conditions
tend to become coordinating, so that the sentences in which they occur
may be considered to be compound rather than complex, or perhaps we
might put it differently: the distinction between co-ordination and
subordination, and consequently that between compound and complex
sentences, is in such cases neutralized. This concerns mainly the
conjunction while and the adverbial clauses of time introduced by it,
and the conjunction though and the adverbial clauses of concession
introduced by it. We will discuss these cases when we come to the
respective types of adverbial subordinate clauses.

7. Complex Sentence

There is much more to be said about the complex sentence than about the
compound. This is due to several causes, which are, however, connected
with one another.

For one thing, the semantic relations who can be expressed by
subordination are much more numerous and more varied than with
co-ordination: all such relations as time, place, concession, purpose,
etc. are expressly stated in complex sentences only.

Then again, the means of expressing subordination are much more
numerous. There is here a great variety of conjunctions: when, after,
before, while, till, until, though, although, albeit, that, as, because,
since; a number of phrases performing the same function: 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 (see below, p. 286 ff.). 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.

TYPES OF COMPLEX SENTENCES

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. Why
couldn’t she sense now that he was outside and come out? (DREISER) The
main clause why couldn’t she sense now… and come out? is clearly
interrogative», and this is enough to make the whole 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 example: But who
is to guarantee that I get the other sixty-five, and when? (DREISER)
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. (SHAW) 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

Conclusion

In the conclusion of my work, I would like to say some words according
the done investigation. The main research was written in the main part
of my course paper. So here I’ll give content of it with the description
of question discussed in each paragraph.

The main part of my work consists of following items:

· «The Sentence». Here I gave the definition to the term sentence.

· «Classification of Sentences», in this paragraph different types of
classification of English sentences are done.

· In the next five paragraphs «The Simple Sentence and Its Types», «The
Composite Sentence», «Compound Sentence», and «Complex Sentence» I
described types of sentences in English due the classification according
sentence structure. In paragraph «One Member Sentences» I gave the
definition to the rarely discussed elliptical sentences.

Standing on such ground I will add that investigation in the questions
dealt sentences in English and their types is not finished yet, so we
will continue it while writing our qualification work.

I hope that my course paper will arise the sincere interest of students
and teachers to the problem of adjectives in contemporary English.

Bibliography

1. B. Ilyish, The Structure of Modern English.

2. V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. Iofik.» Modern English language»
(Theoretical course grammar) Moscow, 1956 y.

3. Gordon E.M. The Use of adjectives in modern English.

4. М.М. Галииская. «Иностранные языки в высшей школе», вып. 3, М., 1964.

5. Г.Н. Воронцова. Очерки по грамматике английского языка. М., 1960

6. O. Jespersen. Essentials of English Grammar. N.Y., 1938

7. Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика
современного английского языка. – М., 1981. – 285 c.

8. Ch. Barber. Linguistic change in Present-Day English. Edinburgh, 1964

9. The Structure of American English. New York, 1958.

10. World Book Encyclopedia Vol. 1 NY. 1993 pp. 298-299

11. Internet http://madrasati2010.bravehost.com/adj.htm

12. Internet http://www.vestnik.vsu.ru

13. Internet:http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs/theory.htm

14. Inbternet:http://www.englishlanguage.ru/main/verbs_mood.htm

Нашли опечатку? Выделите и нажмите CTRL+Enter