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 Composite Sentence

Composite sentences, as we know divide into compound and complex sentences. The difference between them is not only in the relations of coordination or subordination, as usually stated. It is also important to know what is coordinated or subordinated. In compound sentences the whole clauses are coordinated, together with their predications.

In complex sentences a clause is mostly subordinated not to the whole principal clause but to some word in it which may be regarded as its head-word. In I know where he lives the subordinate clause is an adjunct of the objective verb know. In I know the place where he lives the subordinate clause is the adjunct of the noun place. In The important thing is where he lives the subordinate clause is an adjunct of the link-verb is. The only exception is the subordinate clause in a sentence like Where he lives is unknown in which it functions as the subject.

These peculiarities of compound and complex sentences may account for the difference in their treatment. The clauses of compound sentences are often regarded as independent. Some linguists are even of the opinion that compound sentences are merely sequences of simple sentences, combinations of sentences. x The clauses of a complex sentence, on the contrary, are often treated as forming a unity, a simple sentence in which some part is replaced by a clause a. Such extreme views are, to our mind, not quite justified, especially if we take into consideration that the border lines between coordination (parataxis) and subordination (hypotaxis are fluid. A clause may be introduced by a typical subordinating conjunction and yet its connection with the principal clause is so loose that it can hardly be regarded as a subordinate clause at all.

Cf. I met John, who told me (= and he told me) the big news.

Or, conversely, a coordinating conjunction may express relations typical of subordination.

E.g. You must interfere now; for (cf. because) they are getting quite beyond me. (Shaw).

As already noted, the demarcation line between a compound sentence and a combination of sentences, as well as that between compound words and combinations of words, is somewhat vague. Yet, the' majority of compound words and compound sentences are established in the language system as definite units with definite structures. Besides, a similar vagueness can be-observed with regard to the demarcation line between complex sentences and combinations of sentences.

E. g. They are not people, but types. Which makes it difficult for the actors to present them convincingly. (D.W.).

Though coordinating conjunctions may be found to connect independent sentences, they are in an overwhelming majority of cases used to connect clauses.

As to the asyndetically connection of clauses, it is found both in compound and in complex sentences. In either case the relations between the clauses resemble those expressed by the corresponding conjunctions.

E.g. They had a little quarrel, he soon forgot. (London). Here the asyndeton might be replaced by which or but.

Semantically the clauses of a compound sentence are usually connected more closely than independent sentences. These relations may be reduced to a few typical cases that can be listed.

The order of clauses within a compound sentence is often more rigid than in complex sentences. He came at six and we had dinner together, (the place of the coordinate clauses cannot be changed without impairing the sense of the sentence).

Cf. If she wanted to do anything better she must have a great deal more. (Dreiser). She must have a great deal more if she wanted to do anything better.

Especially close is the connection of the coordinate clauses in a case like this.

He expected no answer, and a dull one would have been reproved. (Dreiser).

The prop-word one is an additional link between the clauses.

Though there is some similarity in the function and combinability of subordinate clauses and parts of the sentence, which is justly used as a criterion for the classification of clauses, we must not identify clauses and parts of simple sentences.

Apart from their having predications, clauses differ from parts of the simple sentence in some other respects, too.

a) Very often it is not the clause itself but the conjunction that defines its function and combinability. He speaks the truth may be a simple sentence, a coordinate or a subordinate clause, depending on the conjunction; and he speaks the truth is normally a coordinate clause, when he speaks the truth is often a subordinate clause of time, if he speaks the truth is mostly a subordinate clause of condition, etc.

Thus a conjunction is often a definite marker of a clause, which distinguishes such clauses from most English words having no markers. That probably accounts for the fact that clauses with such markers have a greater freedom of distribution than most parts of a simple sentence.

b) There is often no correlation between clauses and parts of simple sentences. I know that he is ill is correlated with I know that. I am afraid tint he is ill is not correlated with.

I am afraid that. I hope that he is well is not correlated with I hope that, etc.

The most important part of the sentence, the predicate, has no correlative type of clause.

Certain clauses have, as a matter of fact, no counterparts among the parts of the sentence.

E.g. I am a diplomat, aren't I? (Hemingway).

4. The Compound Sentence

The clauses of compound sentences are of equal rank, but usually the clause preceding the conjunction is regarded as the initial clause to which the other clause is related. These relations are mostly determined by the conjunction and are accordingly copulative, adversative, disjunctive, causal, resultative x (see 'Conjunctions').

As to clauses linked asyndetically, their relations are likewise of different nature, though, for the most part, copulative or causal-resultative, as in.

His eyes were bloodshot and heavy, his face a deadly white… (Dickens).

Next day his knee was badly swollen, his walking tour was obviously over. (Galsworthy).

The compound sentence usually describes events in their natural order, reflecting the march of events spoken of in the sequence of clauses.

E.g. He got the hitcher instead, and reached over, and drew in the end of the tow-line; and they made a loop in it, and put it over their mast, and then they tided up the sculls, and went and sat down in the stern, and lit their pipes. (J. Jerome).

Herein lies the great expressive force of the compound sentence. It is extensively used in colloquial speech and is often resorted to when events are described in a stately or impressive way.

5. The Complex Sentence

The principal clauses of complex sentences are usually not classified, though their meanings are not neutral with regard to the meanings of the subordinate clauses.

Cf. He will come because he needs your help.

He will come if he needs your help.

Two criteria are most often used in classifying the subordinate clauses of complex sentences: meaning and combinability. When he came is a clause of time according to the meaning imparted by when.

E.g. Wheti he came, it was already late.

But in the sentence I know when he came the same clause is considered objective owing to its subordination to the objective verb know.

There are two ways of using the criterion of combinability. Either subordinate clauses are classified in accordance with their relation to the word of the principal clause «they are attached to, or they are likened to some part of speech *with similar combinability… In the sentences When he came is ' of no importance, I remember when he came the combinability of the subordinate clause resembles that of a noun.

Cf. The fact is of no importance, I remember the fact.

Therefore the clause When he came is considered a noun-clause. If classified in accordance with its relation to the predicate verb, the first clause would be called a subject clause and the second an object clause.

Similarly in This is the man who wishes to see you the subordinate clause may be regarded as an adjective clause in accordance with its own combinability, or as an attributive clause, since its head-word is a noun.

Each of the criteria described has its advantages and disadvantages. But in syntax, it seems, the correlation with the parts of the sentence is preferable to the correlation v with the parts of speech. We shall therefore classify the subordinate clauses into groups parallel to the parts of the simple sentence. Accordingly we snail distinguish subject clauses, complement clauses (predicative, objective, and adverbial), attributive clauses, extension clauses and parenthetical clauses.

Subordinate clauses are connected with the principal clause by conjunctions, conjunctive and relative pro-nouns or asyndetically.

E.g. I have been thinking of Cambridge all through dinner, after (a conjunction) Martin had mentioned a friend of mine who (a relative pronoun) had been killed that spring. (Snow).

He seemed to be asking what (a conjunctive pronoun) was the matter with me. (lb.).

Mauntenay asked me if (a conjunction) / was satisfied with the way (asyndetic subordination) I have spent my life, (lb.).

In connection with the structure of the complex sentence and the means of subordination in it, it is necessary to dwell on the so-called 'sequence of tenses' which is often treated as a formal feature of the complex sentence, a device of subordination. The rule of the sequence of tenses is usually defined as follows: If the predicate verb of the principal clause is in the present or the future tense, the predicate verb of the subordinate clause may be used in any tense required by the sense. If the predicate verb of the principal clause is in the past tense, the verb of the subordinate clause must be used in the past tense too.

The regularity is supposed to be mostly or exclusively characteristic of object subordinate clauses.

From the point of view of Morphology, the so-called sequence of tenses is a morphological problem, not a syntactical one, inasmuch as the past tense forms in the subordinate clauses are used in accordance with the grammatical meanings they express. The following Russian example will help to see it.,

Я тебе все расскажу, когда приеду.

Here the predicate verbs in the principal and in the subordinate clause are both representatives of future tense grammemes. In the corresponding English sentence there would be a future tense verb only in the principal clause. I shall tell you everything when I come.

Now from the point of view of an Englishman the future tense in the Russian subordinate clause might be regarded as depending on the future tense of the principal clause, as a means of subordination, and a certain rule of the sequence of the future tenses in Russian might be formulated.

There is no need, however, to look for any syntactical explanation of the use of the future tense verb in the Russian subordinate clause. It is used there in accordance with its meaning since it denotes an action taking, place after the moment of speech.

What does need accounting for is the 'future tense' meaning of the present tense grammeme come in the English subordinate clause. Here we cannot do without 'syntax. We must state that in certain syntactical surroundings a present tense grammeme may acquire a 'future tense' meaning.

Страницы: 1, 2, 3