Compound Sentences

Compound sentences are structures of co-ordination with two or more immediate constituents which are syntactically equivalent, i. e. none of them is below the other in rank.

The process of coordination involves the linking of structures of equal grammatical rank — single words and phrases in elementary compound groups or independent clauses in compound sentences. The coordinative conjunctions and the correlatives serve to produce coordination by joining the grammatically equivalent elements. Two or more clauses equal in rank can together be given the status of a single sentence. Such co-ordinated units make up a compound sentence.

The formative words linking the parts of a compound sentence fall into the following types: 1) coordinative conjunctions, 2) conjunctive adverbs, 3) fixed prepositional phrases.

Coordinative conjunctions are rather few in number: and, but, or, yet, for.

Sentence-linking words, called conjunctive advebs are: consequently, furthermore, hence, however, moreover, nevertheless, therefore.

Some typical fixed prepositional phrases functioning as sentence linkers are:

at least, as a result, after a while, in addition, in contrast, in the next place, on the other hand, for example, for instance.

Coordinate connectors can established different semantic relations between clauses. Coordinate sentence linkers can be grouped in the following way:

Copulative, connecting two members and their meanings, the second member indicating an addition of equal importance, or, on the other hand, an advance in time and space, or an intensification, often coming in pairs, then called correlatives: and; both... and; equally... and; alike... and; at once... and; not... nor for neither, or and neither); not (or never)... not (or nor)... either; neither... nor, etc.

Disjunctive, connecting two members but disconnecting their meaning, the meaning in the second member excluding that in the first: or, and in questions whether... or with the force of simple or; or... either; either... or, etc., the disjunctive adverbs else, otherwise, or... or, or... else, in older English other else.

Adversative, connecting two members, but contrasting their meaning: but, but then, only, still, yet, and yet, however, on the other hand, again, on the contrary, etc.

Causal, adding an independent proposition explaining the preceding statement, represented only by the single conjunction for: The brook was very high, for a great deal of rain had fallen over night.

Illative, introducing an inference, conclusion, consequence, result:

namely, therefore, on that account, consequently, accordingly, for that reason, so, then, hence, etc.

Explanatory, connecting words, phrases or sentences and introducing an explanation or a particularisation: namely, to wit, that is, that is to say, or, such as, as, like, for example, for instance, say, let us say, etc.

50. SYNTAX AS A BRANCH OF LINGUISTICS

o Syntax as part of grammar.

o The subject matter of Syntax. Syntax deals with combinability of words, i.e. how words are combined to make meaningful utterances, what patterns they combine on, and what abstract grammatical meaning they express.

o The main objectives of Syntax are:

to study relations between words within word combinations;

to study the sentence as a structural unit which communicates a message in a definite situation.

o The units of syntactic analysis are the sentence and the phrase. They repre­sent different levels of a hierarchy.

o From the constructive point of view both the sentence and the phrase are groups of elements related with each other and organised in a definite way.

Syntax, originating from the Greek words σ υ ν (syn, meaning " co-" or " together") and τ ά ξ ι ς (tá xis, meaning " sequence, order, arrangement"), can in linguistics be described as the study of the rules, or " patterned relations" that govern the way the words in a sentence come together. It concerns how different words (which, going back to Dionysios Thrax, are categorized as nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc.) are combined into clauses, which, in turn, are combined into sentences. Syntax attempts to systematize descriptive grammar, and is unconcerned with prescriptive grammar (see Prescription and description).

There exist innumerable theories of formal syntax — theories that have in time risen or fallen in influence. Most theories of syntax at least share two commonalities: First, they hierarchically group subunits into constituent units (phrases). Second, they provide some system of rules to explain patterns of acceptability/grammaticality and unacceptability/ungrammaticality. Most formal theories of syntax offer explanations of the systematic relationships between syntactic form and semantic meaning.

There are various theories as to how best to make grammars such that by systematic application of the rules, one can arrive at every phrase marker in a language (and hence every sentence in the language).

A modern approach to combining accurate descriptions of the grammatical patterns of language with their function in context is that of systemic functional grammar, an approach originally developed by Michael A.K. Halliday in the 1960s and now pursued actively in all continents. Systemic-functional grammar is related both to feature-based approaches such as Head-driven phrase structure grammar and to the older functional traditions of European schools of linguistics such as British Contextualism and the Prague School.

A syntactic category is either a phrasal category, such as noun phrase or verb phrase, which can be decomposed into smaller syntactic categories, or a lexical category, such as noun or verb, which cannot be further decomposed.

In terms of phrase structure rules, phrasal categories can occur to the left side of the arrow while lexical categories cannot.

The lexical categories are traditionally called the parts of speech. They include nouns, verbs, adjectives, and so on.

51. A complex sentence consists of a principal clause and one or more subordinate clauses. This definition is true, however, only in a general sense. In an exact sense there is often no principal clause; this is the case with complex sentences containing a subject clause or a predicative clause.

Clauses in a complex sentence may be linked in two ways:

1. Syndetically, i.e. by means of subordinating conjunctions or connectives. There is a difference between a conjunction and a connective. A conjunction only serves as a formal element connecting separate clauses, whereas a connective serves as a connecting link and has at the same time a syntactic function in the subordinate clause it introduces.

2. Asyndetically, i.e. without a conjunction or connective.

A subordinate clause may follow, precede, or interrupt the principal clause.

A complex sentence may contain two or more homogeneous clauses coordinated with each other.

A subordinate clause may be subordinated to the principal clause or to another subordinate clause. Accordingly we distinguish subordinate clauses of the first, second, third, etc. degree of subordination.

According to their grammatical function subordinate clauses are divided into subject, predicative, attributive, object, and adverbial clauses.

Subject clauses perform the function of subject to the predicate of the sentence.

Predicative clauses perform the function of a predicative.

Object clauses perform the function of an object to the predicate-verb of the principal clause. An object clause may also refer to a non-finite form of the verb, to an adjective, or to a word belonging to the part of speech expressing state.

Attributive clauses serve as an attribute to a noun (pronoun) in the principal clause. This noun or pronoun is called the antecedent of the clause. According to their meaning and the way they are connected with the principal clause attributive clauses are divided into relative and appositive ones.

Attributive relative clauses qualify the antecedent, whereas attributive appositive clauses disclose its meaning.

Attributive relative clauses can be restrictive and non-restrictive or descriptive.

1. An attributive relative restrictive clause restricts the meaning of the antecedent. It cannot be removed without destroying the meaning of the sentence.

2. An attributive relative non-restrictive clause does not restrict the meaning of the antecedent; it gives some additional information about it.

A variant of the attributive non-restrictive clause is the continuative clause, whose antecedent is not one word but a whole clause.

E.g. He hasn’t helped her, which is a shame.

Attributive appositive clauses disclose the meaning of the antecedent, which is expressed by an abstract noun.

An adverbial clause performs the function of an adverbial modifier. It can modify a verb, an adjective or an adverb in the principal clause.

According to their meaning we distinguish the following kinds of adverbial clauses: adverbial clauses of time, place, cause (reason), purpose, condition, concession, result, manner, and comparison.

(b) Subordinate clauses may be substituted by various syntactic structures, both complex and simple, while retaining the semantic and modal features of the kernel structures. The transforms, therefore, may be represented by word combinations, participial, gerundial, and infinitival constructions.