4. The simple sentence.

The simple sentence as a monopredicative syntactic structure. The notion of the predicative line.

The sentence as a main syntactic unit performs the function of predication. The basic predicative meanings are expressed by the finite verb which is connected with the subject of the sentence. This predicative connection is referred to as the predicative line of the sentence. Depending on their predicative complexity, sentences can feature one predicative line or several predicative lines, respectively sentences can be “monopredicative” and “ polypredicative ”. Under this distinction the simple sentence is a sentence in which only one predicative line is expressed,

e.g.: We have much in common. It is raining. 

In respect of predication a proper simple sentence should be distinguished from a semicomposite sentence (traditional term) or complementational sentence (J.R. Taylor’ s term) and clauseconflational sentence (L.Talmy’ s term).

Semicomposite sentence can include, for example, homogeneous sentence parts: either subjects or predicates, which represent polypredicative structures,

e.g.: 

1. My brother and I were absolutely happy that time.

2.The cousin greeted me and offered a cup of tea.

It is quite evident that the sentences express two different predicative lines: in the first one the two subjects form separate predicative connections and in the second one the two predicates are separately connected with the subject. Semicomposite sentences, as well as complementational sentences, can also include a clause which functions as the subject or the object of the verb,

e.g.:  3. I saw them break into the house.

4.To finish it in time was impossible. 

Clauseconflational sentences, as termed by L.Talmy, are syntactic units which are based on clause fusion. They represent conceptual complex and therefore possess polypredicative structures, though on the formal syntactic level appear as simple sentences. Such like structures are probably based on a higher degree of conceptual integration between parts of an event complex, as compared to semicomposite or complementational sentences

e.g.:

5. The leaves withered away.

6.He whistled his way out of the restaurant. 

7.These cars are expensive to repair.

Representation of polypredication is conditioned by interaction of lexical semantics of sentence elements and a particular type of syntactic construction.

Thus, we may state, that a proper simple sentence, or a single clause sentence, to put it more exactly, is a monopredicative unit, as distinguished from composite and semicomposite sentence

(complementational and clauseconflational sentneces in terms of cognitive approach). 

Communicative Types of sentences.

The sentence is a communicative unit, therefore primary classification of sentence must be based on the communicative principle - the purpose of communication. Traditional grammar recognized three cardinal sentence-types:

a) the declarative sentence expresses a statement, either affirmative or negative;

b) the imperative sentence expresses inducement, either affirmative or negative;

c) the interrogative sentence expresses a question, i.e. request for information wanted by the speaker from the listener .

Interrogative sentences are subdivided into general questions and special questions, disjunctive questions and alternative questions. The last 2 types of questions may be treated as variants of the first 2 types.

The general question is that one in which the relations between the subject and the predicate are questioned. Such questions require a positive or negative answer (yes - no).

In special questions we ask about some definite or specific information, which is marked by the interrogative pronoun or adverb, (d) the exclamatory sentence.

Note: (In modern linguistics it has been demonstrated that exclamatory sentences do not possess the necessary qualities that could place them on one level with those mentioned above).

These are the cardinal communicative sentence types in English.

The structural types of the sentence.

Sentences can be classified according to their structural properties.

The elementary sentence coincides structurally with the so called unexpanded simple sentence, a monopredicative sentence, which includes only obligatory nominative parts. The expanded simple sentence includes also some optional parts, i.e. supplementive modifiers, which do not violate the syntactic status of the simple sentence, i.e. do not make it into a composite or semi-composite sentence.

The two principal parts of the sentence, the subject and the predicate, with the subordinate secondary parts attached to them are the two constitutive members or “axes” of the sentence: the subject group (the subject “axis”) and the predicate group (the predicate “axis”). On the basis of their representation in the outer structure of the sentence, sentences are subdivided into complete sentences and incomplete sentences: in complete sentences both the subject group and the predicate group are present; they are also called “two-member sentences” or “two-axis sentences”; if only one axis is expressed in the outer structure of the sentence, the sentence is defined as incomplete; it is also called “one-member sentence”, “one-axis sentence”.

One-member sentences are further divided into:

a) nominal or "naming" sentences;

b) infinitival sentences.

Nominal sentences name a person or thing. The main member in such

sentences is expressed by a noun.

e.g. Winter. Snow.

The main member of infinitival sentences is expressed by an infinitive. Infinitival sentences are fairly common in spoken English and literary prose. Like other units of predicative value, they can communicate not only their denotative meaning but also the connotative suggestions of various circumstances of their use.

e.g. To talk like that to your own mother! To have eloped with a butler!

One-member sentences should be kept apart from two-member sentences with either the subject or the predicate omitted, i. e. from elliptical sentences. An elliptical sentence is a sentence in which one or more word-forms in the principal positions are omitted. Ellipsis here refers only to the structural elements of the sentence, not the informational ones. This means that those words can be omitted, because they have only grammatical, structural relevance, and do not carry any new relevant information.

an elliptical sentence is a sentence with one or more of its parts left out, which can be unambiguously inferred from the context. The main sphere of elliptical sentences is dialogue.

e.g. Where are you going? – To the movies.

In terms of structure the following types of elliptical sentences are singled out:

a) omission of the subject: e.g. Hope to see you soon. b) omission of the predicate in patterns with there is, there are, e. g. Too many mistakes, I am afraid. c) omission of auxiliary, copulative and other function verbs, e. g. You like it here? d) omission of the subject and auxiliary verb, e. g. Hear me? e) omission of the subject and the copula-verb, e. g. Glad to see you again.

Paradigmatics of the simple sentence.

Paradigmatics of the simple sentence is closely connected with the idea of the kernel sentence and sentence derivation, which was introduced by N.Chomsky. He believed that all sentences generated in speech (that is surface structures) are derived from or can be reduced to some limited number of basic syntactic structures which he called “kernel”. The sentence “He did the job carefully and thoroughly” can be reduced to the kernel sentence “He did the job”. The sentence “I saw him come” is derived from two kernel sentences “I saw him” and “He came”.

The derivation of sentences out of kernel ones can be analyzed as a process falling into sets of transformational steps:

1. “morphological arrangement” of the sentence, i.e. morphological changes expressing syntactically relevant categories, such as the predicate categories of the verb: tense, aspect, voice, mood, 

e.g.: He writes. He will be writing/would write/ has written;

2. “functional expansion” includes various uses of functional words,

e.g.: He regretted the trip. He seemed to regret the trip; 

3. “substitution”, e.g.: The children ran out of the house.

They ran out of the house. I want a different book, please. I want a different one, please;

4.“deletion”– elimination of some elements of the sentence in various contextual conditions, e.g.: Would you like to go out? To go out? 

5. “positional arrangement”, e.g.: A loud bang came from there. From there came a loud bang;

6.“intonational arrangement”, e.g.: They should do it on their own. They? Should do it on their own?

Thus, the simple sentence is a monopredicative unit. The grammatical structure of  a simple sentence is mainly determined by its syntactic pattern which presents a system of functionexpressing positions, defined by the syntactic valency of the verb predicate. 

5. The complex sentence. The definition of the complex sentence. The notion of a polypredicative subordination. The principle and subordinate clauses (slot sentences and insert-sentences). Formative words used to connect the principal and subordinate clauses. Merger principal clauses and non-merger principal clauses. The principles of classification of subordinate clauses: Functional types of subordinate clauses; Categorial types of subordinate clauses.

The complex sentence is a polypredicative (with two or more predicative lines expressed) construction built up on the principle of subordination (hypotaxis). It is derived from 2 or more base sentences one of which performs the role of a matrix in relation to the others, the insert sentences. One becomes the principal clause and the other its subordinate clause (insert sentence). The principle and the subordinate clauses form a semantico-syntactic unity. It cannot be destroyed without affecting the structure of the sentence. The existence of either of clauses is supported by the existence of the other, e.g.: He looked as though he were looking at an absolute stranger.

The subordinate clause is joined to the principal clause either by a subordinating connector (subordinator) or asyndetically. Sometimes asyndetic connection is called zero subordinator. In this way the meaningful function of the asyndetic connection is stressed.

Subordination is a way of linking grammatical elements (here: different predicative lines) –это я сама придумала

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.

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

1. Copulative, connecting two members and their meanings, 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Illative, introducing an inference, conclusion, consequence, result: namely, therefore, on that account, consequently, accordingly, for that reason, so, then, hence, etc.

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

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.

Among the principal clauses there should be distinguished:

• merger principal clauses;

• non-merger principal clauses.

The merger principal clauses characterize complex sentences with clausal deployment of their main parts.

The non-merger principal clauses characterize complex sentences with clausal deployment of their secondary parts.

The principal clause dominates the subordinate one positionally, but it doesn’t mean that their syntactic status determines the actual division of the sentence. An important role in theme-rheme division is played by the order of clauses. Compare the following sentences:

1. He is called Mitch (the theme), because his name is Mitchell (the rheme). – Principal clause expresses the starting point, while the subordinate clause renders the main idea (the speaker’s explanation of the reason of “calling him Mitch”).

2. As his name is Mitchell (the theme), he is called Mitch (the rheme). – The informative roles will be re-shaped accordingly.

One of the central problems concerning the complex sentences deals with the principles of classification of subordinate clauses. Within the traditional linguistics the 2 different principles have been put forward. The first is functional and the second is

In accord with the functional principle subordinate clauses are classed on the basis of their similarity in function with parts of a simple sentence. Namely, they are classed into subject, predicative, object, attributive, adverbial clauses. Actually, there are certain clauses that have no correspondences among the parts of a sentence, for example, some adverbial clauses. Still a general functional similarity between the clauses and parts of a simple sentence does exist and it can be clearly seen from their comparison, e.g.: I was completely frustrated yesterday. – “yesterday” can be substituted by a clause: - I was completely frustrated when they told me about it yesterday. – the clause answers the same question “when?”.

The categorial classification draws a parallel between subordinate clauses and parts of speech. According to the categorial principle subordinate clauses are classed by their nominative properties, that is on their analogy with the part-of- speech classification of notional words. From this point of view all subordinate clauses are divided into 3 categorial groups.

The first group is formed by the substantive-nominal clauses. It includes clauses that name an event as a certain fact. They are also called noun-clauses and are similar to the nominative function of a noun. Their noun-like nature is easily revealed by substitution, e.g.: I thought up what we could do under the circumstances. – The clause can be substituted by “the plan”- I thought up the plan.

The second group of clauses is called qualification-nominal or adjective clauses. They name an event as a certain characteristic of another event. The adjective-like nature of these clauses can also be proved by substitution, e.g. The man whom you saw in the hall was our client. – That man was our client; e.g.: Did you find a room where we could hold a meeting? – Did you find such kind of room?

The third group of clauses can be called adverbial. They name an event as a dynamic characteristic of another event. Adverbial clauses are best tested by transformations, e.g.: They will meet us half way if we follow the agreement.- They will meet us half way on condition that we follow the agreement; e.g.: I could hardly make up any plan, as I did not know the details.- I could hardly make up any plan for the reason that I did not know the details.

6. The semi-composite sentence as a polypredicative construction of non unfolded composition of sentence. The fusion of predicative lines in a semi-composite sentence. The principle and complicating part (semi-predicative expansion). The semi-composite sentence from the viewpoint of the surface and deep structures. The semi-compound sentence. The definition. Two-base and multy-base semi-compound sentences with several subjects by one predicate. The syndetic formation of semi compound sentences. Types of connections of events. The semi-complex sentence. The definition. Types of semi-complex sentences. a) Subject-sharing sentences; b) Object-sharing sentences; c) Sentences with attributive complication; d) Sentences with adverbial complication; e) Sentences of nominal phrase complication.

Semi-composite sentences are polypredicative syntactic constructions: they have two or more predicative lines. In a semi-composite sentence the predicative lines are fused, blended, with at least one predicative line being semi-predicative (potentially predicative, partially predicative). In other words, in a semi-composite sentence, one predicative line can be identified as the leading, or dominant one, and the others are semi-predicative expansions.

Paradigmatically, the semi-composite sentence, being a polypredicative construction, is derived from two base sentences. For example: I saw her entering the room. ß I saw her. + She was entering the room. The second kernel sentence has been phrasalized, transformed into a participial phrase (her entering the room), and combined with the first sentence. The two predicative lines fuse, overlapping around the common element, her, which performs the function of the object of the leading, fully predicative part.

Thus, the semi-composite sentence can be defined as a syntactic construction of an intermediary type between the composite sentence and the simple sentence: in its “surface”, syntactic structure, it is similar to a simple sentence, because it contains only one fully predicative line; in its “deep”, semantic structure and in its derivational history, the semi-composite sentence is similar to a composite sentence, because it is derived from two base sentences and reflects two dynamic situations.

Semi-composite sentences are further subdivided into semi-compound sentences, built on the principle of coordination (parataxis), and semi-complex sentences, built on the principle of subordination (hypotaxis).

The semi-compound sentence is a semi-composite sentence built on the principle of coordination (parataxis). Paradigmatically, the semi-compound sentence is built by two or more base sentences, which have an identical subject or an identical predicate (or both); in the process of semi-compounding, the two predicative lines overlap around the common element, the other principal parts being coordinated.

For example, sentences with coordinated (homogeneous) predicates are derived from two or more base sentences having identical subjects; they build a poly-predicatesubject-sharing type of semi-compound sentence, e.g.: She entered the room and closed the door behind her. ß She entered the room. + She closed the door behind her. One of the base sentences, as the example shows, becomes the leading clause of the semi-compound sentence, and the other one is transformed into the sequential coordinate semi-clause (expansion), referring to the same subject.

As for coordinated homogeneous subjects referring to the same predicate (building a poly-subject predicate-sharing type of semi-compound sentence), not all of them build separate predicative lines, but only those which are discontinuously positioned, or those which are connected adversatively, or contrastingly, or are detached in some other way, e.g.: Tom is participating in this project, and Jack too; Tom, not Jack, is participating in this project.ßTom is participating in this project. + Jack is (not) participating in this project. Coordinated subjects connected in a plain syntagmatic string (syndetically or asyndetically) do not form separate predicative lines with the predicate, but are connected with it as a group subject; this is shown by the person and number form of the predicate, cf.: Tom and Jack are participatingin this project.

The semi-compound sentence of predicate coordination is derived from minimum two base sentences having identical subjects. By the act of semi-compounding, one of the base sentences in most cases of textual occurrence becomes the leading clause of complete structure, while the other one is transformed into the sequential coordinate semi-clause (expansion) referring to the same subject. E.g.: The soldier was badly wounded. +The soldier stayed in the ranks. → The soldier was badly wounded, but stayed in the ranks. He tore the photograph in half. + He threw the photograph in the fire. → He tore the photograph in half and threw it in the fire.

By the number of bases joined, (and predicate phrases representing them) semi-compound sentences may be two-base (minimal) or multi-base (more than minimal two-base). The coordinated expansion is connected with the leading part either syndetically or asyndetically.

The syndetic formation of the semi-compound sentence expresses, first, copulative connection of events; then contrast, either comparative or adversative; furthermore, disjunction (alternation), consequence, limitation, elucidation. The conjunctive elements effecting this syndetic semi-compounding of sentences are both pure conjunctions and also words of adverbial nature. The pure conjunction and, the same as with pleni-compound sentences, expresses the unmarked semantic type of semi-compounding; the rest of the connectors render various marked types of it. The pure conjunctions used for semi-compounding, besides the copulative and, are monoconjunctions but, or, nor, and double (discontinuous) conjunctions both ... and, not only ... but also, either ... or, neither ... nor. The conjunctive adverbials are then, so, just, only.

Of all the diversified means of connecting base sentences into a semi-compound construction the most important and by far the most broadly used is the conjunction and. Effecting the unmarked semi-compounding connection of sentences, it renders the widest possible range of syntactic relational meanings; as for its frequency of occurrence, it substantially exceeds that of all the rest of the conjunctives used for semi-compounding taken together.

The number of predicative parts in a semi-compound sentence is balanced against the context in which it is used, and, naturally, is an essential feature of its structure. This number may be as great as seven, eight, or even more.

The connection-types of multi-base semi-compound sentences are syndetic, asyndetic, and mixed.

The syndetic semi-compound sentences may be homo-syndetic (i.e. formed by so many entries of one and the same conjunctive) and heterosyndetic (i.e. formed by different conjunctives). The most important type of homosyndetic semi-compounding is the and-type. Its functional meaning is enumeration combined with copulation. E.g.: A harmless young man going nowhere in particular was knocked down and trodden on and rose to fight back and was punched in the head by a policeman in mistake for someone else and hit the policeman back and ended in more trouble than if he had been on the party himself.

The semi-compound sentence of predicate coordination immediately correlates with a compound sentence of complete composition having identical subjects. Both constructions are built upon the same set of base sentences, use the same connective means and reflect the same situation, E.g.: She looked at him and saw again the devotion, the humility in his eyes. → She looked at him and she saw again the devotion, the humility in his eyes. The officer received the messengers, took their letters, and though I stood with them, completely ignored me. —» The officer received the messengers, took their letters, and though I stood with them, he completely ignored me.

The coordinative connections between the parts of semi-compound sentences are the same as the connections in compound sentences proper: unmarked coordination is expressed by the purely copulative conjunction and or by the zero coordinator; marked coordination includes the relations of disjunction (alteration), consequence, elucidation, adversative relations, etc.

In the semi-complex sentence, one kernel sentence functions as a matrix into which the insert kernel sentence is embedded: the insert sentence is transformed into a partially predicative phrase and occupies the position of a nominative part in the matrix sentence. The matrix sentence becomes the dominant part of the semi-complex sentence and the insert sentence becomes its subordinate semi-clause.

Predicative fusion in semi-complex sentences may be effected in two ways: by the process of position-sharing (word-sharing) or by the process of direct linear expansion.

Sentences based on position-sharing fall into two types: sentences of subject-sharing and sentences of object-sharing.

a) Semi-complex sentences of subject-sharing are built up by means of two base sentences overlapping round a common subject, e.g.: They married young. ßThey married. + They were young. The predicate in such sentences is defined as a double predicate, because it is a blend of a verbal predicate with a nominal predicate. Semi-complex sentences with double predicates express the simultaneity of two events, with the informative prominence on the semi-predicative complicator part; this can be shown by the transformation of the sentence into a correspondent complex (pleni-complex) sentence, cf.: When they married, they were young. Another type of the semi-complex sentence of subject-sharing is sentences which include the so-called complex subject constructions; in these sentences, the verb in the dominant part is used in the passive, and the complicator part includes either a participle, or an infinitive, e.g.: She was seen to enter the room / entering the room.Sentences with complex subject constructions, as was mentioned in Unit 11, are passive transforms of sentences with complex object constructions, which make up another type of sentences based on position-sharing.

b) In semi-complex sentences of object-sharing, the common element, round which the fully-predicative and the semi-predicative parts overlap, performs the function of an object in the leading part (the matrix) and the function of the subject in the complicator semi-clause (the insert); for example, in sentences with complex object constructions, which include either a participle, or an infinitive, e.g.: I saw her entering/ enter the room. ß I saw her. + She was entering the room. Such sentences express the simultaneity of two events in the same place (with verbs of perception in the dominant part) or various mental attitudes (with the verbs to tell, to report, to think, to believe, to find, to expect, etc. in the dominant part). There are other types of object-sharing semi-complex sentences, expressing the relations of cause and result, e.g.: The fallen rock knocked him unconscious. ß The fallen rock knocked him. + He became unconscious.Some causative verbs and verbs of liking/disliking are not normally used outside of semi-complex sentences of object-sharing; such complex sentences can be described as sentences of “bound” object-sharing, e.g.: They made me leave; We made him a star; I had my hair done; I want the room done; I like my steaks raw. Most semi-complex sentences of the object-sharing type, though not all of them, are transformable into sentences of the subject-sharing type, cf.: I saw her entering/ enter the room. à She was seen entering / to enter the room; The fallen rock knocked him unconscious.à He was knocked unconscious by the fallen rock. As the examples show, the complicator part in semi-complex sentences of subject-sharing and of object-sharing may include non-finite forms of the verb (the infinitive, participle I or participle II), nouns or adjectives.

Semi-complex sentences of direct linear expansion include sentences with attributive,adverbial and nominal complication. 

c) Semi-complex sentences of attributive complication are built up by means of two base sentences, one of which is transformed into a semi-predicative post-positional attribute to the antecedent element in the matrix sentence, e.g.: The girl crying in the hall looked familiar to me.  The girl looked familiar to me. + The girl was crying. The shared semantic element performs the function of a subject in the insert sentence, which is dropped out in the process of semi-clausaliation (de-predication); in the matrix sentence it may perform any substantive function (it is a subject in the example above). Being linear expansions, attributive semi-clauses are easily restored to the related attributive pleni-clauses with verbal or nominal predicates, e.g.: The girl crying in the hall looked familiar to me. ß The girl, who was crying in the hall, looked familiar to me; You behave like a schoolboy afraid of his teacher.ß  You behave like a schoolboy who is afraid of his teacher.

d) Semi-complex sentences of adverbial complication are derived from two base sentences, one of which, the insert sentence, is predicatively reduced (phrasalized) and embedded into an adverbial position of the other one, the matrix sentence, e.g.: When asked about her family, she blushed.ß She was asked about her family. + She blushed. Adverbial complication can be either conjoint or absolute: if the subject of the insert sentence is identical with the subject of the matrix sentence, it is deleted and a conjoint adverbial semi-clause is built, as in the example above; otherwise, the subject remains and an absolute adverbial construction is built, e.g.: The weather being fine, we decided to have a walk. The weather was fine. + We decided to have a walk; I won’t speak with him staring at me like that.  I won’t speak. + He is staring at me. The partial predicate in an adverbial semi-clause is expressed by a participle (in so-called participial adverbial constructions), or is dropped, if it is the pure link verb to be (except for impersonal sentences, in which the verb to be is not deleted), e.g.: A child of seven, he was already an able musician.  He was a child of seven. + He was already an able musician; I can’t sleep with the radio on.  The radio is on. + I can’t sleep.

e) Semi-complex sentences of nominal complication are derived from two base sentences, one of which, the insert sentence, is partially nominalized (changed into a verbid phrase with an infinitive or a gerund) and embedded in one of the nominal positions of the other sentence, the matrix. Like other types of linear complication, infinitive and gerundial nominal semi-clauses are easily transformed into related fully-predicative subordinate clauses (nominal or adverbial), e.g.: I sent the papers in order for you to study them carefully before the meeting. I sent the papers so that you could study them carefully before the meeting; We expected him to write a letter to you.  We expected that he would write a letter to you. The specific features of nominal semi-clauses are connected with the specific features of the infinitive and the gerund; for example, the infinitive after a subordinative conjunction implies modal meanings of obligation, possibility, etc., e.g.: The question is what to do next.  The question is what we should do next; I sent the papers in order for you to study them carefully before the meeting.à I sent the papers so that you could study them carefully before the meeting; or, gerundial nominal constructions may be introduced by prepositions and may include a noun in the genitive or a possessive pronoun, e.g.: I can’t approve of his hiding himself away.