Intermediary types of sentences

The structural classification of sentences offers division into simple and composite, which are formed by two or more predicative lines. There are intermediary types of sentences between simple and composite.

(1) sentences with homogeneous parts (sometimes also termed "contracted sentences"). (2) sentences with a dependent appendix, and (3) sentences with secondary predication. Different as they are in many respects, these phenomena are alike in that they gradually get out of the limits of the simple sentence and approach the composite sentence (some of them the compound, others the complex sentence).

SENTENCES WITH HOMOGENEOUS PARTS

By homogeneous parts of a sentence we mean parts of the same category (two or more subjects, two or more predicates, two or more objects, etc.), standing in the same relation to other parts of the sentence (for homogeneous secondary parts we should say: standing in the same relation to the same head word). Such sentences used to be termed "contracted sentences", as if they had been "contracted" of two or more simple sentences. For example, the sentence I met my relatives is "contracted" out of two sentences: I met my relatives, and I met my friends. It introduces a sort of historical element, implying the origin of such sentences.

This category of sentences covers a wider variety of phenomena. Some types of sentences with homogeneous parts quite clearly fit into the general type of simple sentences. This is the case, for instance, with sentences having two or more homogeneous objects to one predicate, e. g. Its literary equipment consists of a single fixed shelf stocked with old paper-covered novels, broken-backed, coffee-stained, torn and thumbed; and a couple of little hanging shelves with a few gifts on them ... The same can be said about sentences having two or more homogeneous adverbial modifiers to one predicate: / only came to thank you and return the coat you lent me. And this is also true of sentences having two or more homogeneous attributes to one head word — even if we take an attribute to be a secondary part of a sentence on the same level as objects and adverbial modifiers. ' If, on the other hand, we take an attribute to be a part of phrase, rather than of a sentence, the presence of homogeneous attributes is still more irrelevant for the general character of the sentence.

However, there are sentences in which only the subject keeps the sentence together: it is the case when there are two verbal predicates, and each predicate has its objects, adverbial modifiers, attributes to nouns functioning as objects, etc: Madame Michel put down her netting and surveyed him sharply over her glasses.

The reason why we cannot call this sentence compound is that it has only one subject and thus cannot be separated into two clauses. If we repeat the subject before the second predicate we shall get a compound sentence consisting of two clauses and identical in meaning with the original sentence with homogeneous parts. Thus the sentence Scarlett stood in her apple-green "second-day" dress in the parlor of Twelve Oaks amid the blaze of hundreds of candle, and saw the plain little face of Melanie Hamilton glow into beauty... cannot be described as a compound one because it has only one subject, but it cannot very well be described as a simple sentence either, as its unity depends on that subject alone while the predicates are different and each of them is accompanied by a set of secondary parts. So it will be safe to say that it stands somewhere between simple and compound sentences.

SENTENCES WITH A DEPENDENT APPENDIX

Under this head we will consider some phenomena which clearly overstep the limits of the simple sentence and tend towards the complex sentence, but which lack an essential feature of a complex sentence. Some of these phenomena are common to English, Russian, and other languages, while some of them are typical of English alone.

In the first place, there are the phrases consisting of the conjunction than and a noun, pronoun, or phrase following an adjective or adverb in the comparative degree, as in these sentences: ...I've known many ladies who were prettier than you... Come cheer up: it takes less courage to climb down than to face capture: remember that. It would always be possible to expand this appendix into a clause by adding the required form of the verb be (or do, or, in some cases, can, etc.) Thus, for instance, the first of the above sentences can be expanded into I've known many ladies who were prettier than you are . . . and the second into . . . it takes less courage to climb down than it does to face capture. After this change we get a clause introduced by the conjunction than and the sentence is a complex one. But that should not make us think that in the original text the verb be or do has been "omitted". These phrases are classified among those intermediate between a simple and a complex sentence.

Very similar to these are the sentences containing an adjective or adverb, which may be preceded by the adverb as, and an additional part consisting of the conjunction as and some other word (an adjective, a noun, or an adverb), as in the following examples: His expression had been as bland and clear as the day without cloud. They contain something which does not fit into the pattern of a simple sentence, yet at the same time they lack something that is necessary to make the sentence complex. So it is most natural to say that they occupy an intermediate position between the two.

Now we shall consider the type of sentence containing a phrase which is introduced by a subordinating conjunction: Tristram had stood about picking up letters, arranging things, as though preparing with some difficulty just the situation he wanted. The subordinate part as though preparing is here clearly distinguished from the secondary parts expressed by participle phrases, picking up letters and arranging things. Catherine, though a little disappointed, had too much good nature to make any opposition. It seems much better to say that the phrase though a little disappointed is a subordinate part than to suppose that it is a subordinate clause, with the subject she and the link verb was ''omitted". As it is, the phrase had best be described as a loose attribute to the subject of the sentence. Compare: Such a compliment recalled all Catherine's consciousness, and silenced her directly; and, though pointedly applied to by the General for her choice of the prevailing colour of the paper and hangings, nothing like an opinion on the subject could be drawn from her. There are some few cases of a subordinating conjunction being used in a simple sentence, thus introducing no subordinate clause of any kind.

Sometimes a secondary part of a sentence is added on to it, connected with the main body of the sentence by a co-ordinating conjunction, although there is not in the main body any part that could in any sense be considered to be homogeneous with the part thus added. Here is an example of this kind of sentence: Denis tried to escape, but in vain.

Sentences containing a part thus introduced by a subordinating or co-ordinating conjunction are best classed as sentences with a dependent appendix.

SECONDARY PREDICATION

Another syntactical phenomenon which is best considered under this heading of transition to the composite sentence is based on what is very aptly termed "secondary predication". Before starting to discuss the syntactical phenomena involved, we shall therefore have to explain briefly what is meant by secondary predication.

In every sentence there is bound to be predication, without which there would be no sentence. In a usual two-member sentence the predication is between the subject and the predicate. In most sentences this is the only predication they contain. However, there are also sentences which contain one more predication, which is not between the subject and the predicate of the sentence. This predication may conveniently be termed secondary predication.

In Modern English there are several ways of expressing secondary predication. One of them is what is frequently termed the complex object, as seen in the sentences, I saw him run, We heard them sing, The public watched the team play, I want you to come to-morrow, We expect you to visit us, etc. Let us take the first of these sentences for closer examination. The primary predication in this sentence is between the subject I and the predicate saw. I is the doer of the action expressed by the predicate verb. But in this sentence there is one more predication, that between him and run: the verb run expresses the action performed by him. This predication is obviously a secondary one: him is not the subject of a sentence or a clause, and run is not its predicate. The same can be said about all the sentences given above.

On the syntactic function of the group him run (or of its elements) views vary. The main difference is between those who think that him run is a syntactic unit, and those who think that him is one part of the sentence, and run another. If the phrase is taken as a syntactic unit, it is very natural to call it a complex object: it stands in an object relation to the predicate verb saw and consists of two elements.

If, on the other hand, the phrase him run is not considered to be a syntactic unit, its first element is the object, and its second element is conveniently termed the objective predicative.

The choice between the two interpretations remains arbitrary and neither of them can be proved to be the only right one. In favour of the view that the phrase is a syntactical unit, a semantic reason can be put forward. In some cases the two elements of the phrase cannot be separated without changing the meaning of the sentence. This is true, for instance, of sentences with the verb hate. Let us take as an example the sentence, I hate you to go, which means much the same as I hate the idea of your going, or The idea of your going is most unpleasant to me. Now, if we separate the two elements of the phrase, that is, if we stop after its first element: I hate you . . . , the sense is completely changed. This shortened version expresses hatred for "you" which the original full version certainly did not imply.

In other cases, that is, with other verbs, the separation of the two elements may not bring about a change in the meaning of the sentence. Thus, if we look at our example / saw him run, and if we stop after him: I saw him, this does not contradict the meaning of the original sentence: I saw him run implies that / saw him.

Another case in which the two elements of the phrase cannot be separated is found when the verb expresses some idea like order or request and the second element of the phrase is a passive infinitive. With the sentence He ordered the man to be summoned we cannot possibly stop after man.

The objective predicative need not be an infinitive: it may be a participle (I saw him running, We heard them singing), an adjective (I found him ill. They thought him dead), a stative (I found him asleep), sometimes an adverb, and a prepositional phrase. The sentence I found him there admits of two different interpretations. One of them, which seems to be the more usual, takes the sentence as an equivalent of the sentence There I found him: the adverb there is then an adverbial modifier belonging to the verb find. The other interpretation would make the sentence equivalent to the sentence I found that he was there. In this latter case the adverb there does not show where the action of finding took place, and it is not an adverbial modifier belonging to the predicate verb found. It is part of the secondary predication group him there and has then to be taken as an objective predicative: I found him there is syntactically the same as I found him ill, or I found him asleep.

The choice between the two alternatives evidently depends on factors lying outside grammar. From a strictly grammatical viewpoint it can be said that the difference between an adverbial modifier and an objective predicative is here neutralised.

This type of secondary predication brings the sentence closer to a composite one.

O. Jespersen has proposed the term "nexus" for every predicative grouping of words, no matter by what grammatical means it is realised. He distinguishes between a "junction" (соединение), which is not a predicative group of words (e. g. reading man) and "nexus" (ядерная связь), which is one (e. g. the man reads.) If this term is adopted, we may say that in the sentence I saw him run there are two nexuses: the primary one I saw, and the secondary him run. In a similar way, in the sentence I found him ill, the primary nexus would be I found, and the secondary him ill.

Date: 2015-12-24; view: 1112