Introduction. Syntax is 1 a system of rules and means of creating

part of a sentence coming in between two elements of another part.
An adverbial modifier also comes in between two components of the
predicate in the following sentence: ...he was acting not happily, not with an easy
mind, but impelled to remove some of the weight that had for months, even
through the excitement over Katherine, been pressing him down. (Snow) The
analytical form of the past perfect continuous tense had been pressing is here
separated by the intervening adverbial modifiers, for months and even through
the excitement over Katherine, which come in between the two auxiliaries had
and been. This does not in any way impede the understanding of the sentence,
as the verb had does not in itself give a satisfactory sense and either a verbal
(to complete an analytical verb form) or a noun (in the function of a direct
object) is bound to follow. So there is some tension in the sentence. Analytical
forms admit of being thus "stretched" by insertion of adverbial modifiers.
However, they do not admit insertion of any objects, and this maybe another
objective criterion for distinguishing between the two kinds of secondary parts
of the sentence. Objects can, as is well known, be inserted between elements of
an analytical verb form in German, and they could also appear in this position
in earlier English, namely in Middle English and even in Shakespeare's time.
Compare the line from "Hamlet": Mother, you have my father much offended,
which would not be possible in present-day English.)
The usual statement about adverbial modifiers of time always coming
either at the beginning or at the end of a sentence, and outside the subject predicate group anyway, is much too strict and is not borne out by actual usage.
Here are some examples of adverbial modifiers of time coming either between
the subject and the predicate, or within the predicate, if it consists of more than
one word: Bessie, during that twenty-four hours, had spent a night with Alice and
a day with Muriel. (Cary) Sir Peregrine during this time never left the house once,
except for morning service on Sundays. (Trollope) In the first of these examples
the adverbial modifier of time is separated by commas from the rest of the
sentence, and so must be accounted a loose secondary part of it. But in the
second example a similar adverbial modifier, with the same preposition during,
is not separated by commas, so the looseness does not appear to have any
essential significance here. In our last example the adverbial modifier on each
day in the first clause comes between the two elements of the predicate verb
form, while in the second clause a similar modifier, on each evening, stands
before the subject. The reason for the position of the adverbial modifier in the
first clause (where it might also have stood at the beginning of the clause)
probably is, that the subject of the clause, his grandson, represents the theme,
whereas the adverbial modifier, on each day, belongs to the rheme, together
with the predicate and all the rest of the clause,
We may also compare the following sentence: She had not on that morning
been very careful with her toilet, as was perhaps natural. (Trollope) Here the
adverbial modifier of time also comes in between two elements making up the
analytical form of the link verb. The variant On that morning she had not been
very careful with her toilet... would certainly also be possible, but there would
probably be some greater emphasis on the adverbial modifier, which would
have tended to represent the theme of the sentence, as if the sentence were an
answer to the question: What happened on that morning? Standing as it does
within the predicate, the adverbial modifier is more completely in the shade.
The adverbial modifier of time also stands between the subject and the
predicate in the following sentence: But I saw that he was distracted, and he soon
jell quiet. (Snow) In this example, too, it remains in the shade.
As a contrast to these sentences we can now consider one in which the
adverbial modifier of time stands at the beginning and is marked off by a
comma, so that it is apparently a loose modifier: Three days later, I was surprised
to be rung up by Charles. (Snow) Now in this case it could not come in between
the elements of the predicate, probably because it announces a new situation
(not on the day described so far, but three days later) and this new element of
the situation cannot be brought out properly if the part of the sentence
containing it is left in the shade, as it certainly would be between the elements
of the predicate.
This is also seen in the sentence, In a few minutes she returned, her eyes
shining, her hair still damp. (Snow) The adverbial modifier in a few minutes
could not possibly come between the subject and the predicate. It might have
come after the predicate, and would in that case have been more strongly
stressed, as if the sentence were an answer to the question, When did she
return? That is, the adverbial modifier of time would have represented the
rheme, or at least part of it. As it stands in the original text, the adverbial
modifier rather makes part of the theme, but it is not so completely in the shade
as an adverbial modifier standing between the subject and the predicate (or
within the predicate, for that matter) necessarily is.
4. Direct address and parentheses. The position of these parts of the
sentence is probably more free than that of all other parts. Thus, a direct
address can come in almost anywhere in the sentence, as will be seen from the
following few examples: "Child, I'll try." "Oh, bat, Dotty, we can't go." "Look here,
Renny, why don't you come and work for me?" "Her smelling salts, Scarlett!"
"What does that mean, Mr Kennedy?" (all from M. Mitchell) "Instantly,
Lieutenant, instantly." (Shaw)
Much the same may be said about parentheses. Some types of parenthesis
usually come in between two constituent parts of the predicate: this is
especially true of parentheses expressed by modal words, such as perhaps,
probably, certainly, doubtless, and by the phrases no doubt, without doubt, in
fact.
However, a parenthesis may also refer to one part of the sentence only, and
is then bound to come before that part, e. g. "Tell me," she added with provoking
and yet probably only mock serious eyes and waving the bag towards Roberta,
"what shall I do with him?" (Dreiser) Here the parenthesis probably belongs to
the attribute only mock serious, and it would have to go if that attribute were
dropped.
Issues for discussion.
1. Characterize the parts of sentence in the contrasted languages as whole,
from the point of view of their structure, ways of expression and
meaning.
2. The main parts of the sentence, the types of the subject found in English
and Russian, allomorphic features you can think of.
3. The ways of expression of the predicate in the contrasted languages.
Speak of the types of the predicate in English and Russian.
4. The nomenclature of the secondary parts of the sentence in the
contrasted languages. Give the definitions of all the secondary parts of
the sentence.
5. Characterize the object in English and Russian. Define the direct,
indirect object, complex object. State the allomorphic features of the
object in the languages under study.
6. Describe the features of the attribute in the contrasted languages.
7. Characterize the adverbial modifier from the point of view of its types
and ways of expression in English and Russian.
4. COMPOSITE SENTENCE
A composite sentence in English and Russian, like in all other languages,
contains two or more primary predication centres mostly represented by as
many corresponding clauses. The structural types of the composite sentence
are identified on the ground of the syntactic reflection (and connection) of its
predicate parts which are not always distinctly identified. Thus, common in the
syntactic systems of English and Russian are sentences that are semantically
intermediate between simple extended on the one hand and composite
sentences on the other.
The absence of almost all the secondary predication constructions in
Russian makes it impossible to obtain direct correlative transforms of some
simple and composite sentences. Hence, English compound sentences may
have complex sentences for their equivalents in Russian, e.g.: He leaned far
out of the window and he saw the first light spread
Because of the objective with the infinitive construction in the
second/succeeding English clause of the compound sentence above the
Russian equivalent of it can be only an object subordinate clause.
Within a composite sentence clauses may be joined by means of
coordination or subordination, thus forming a compound or a complex sentence
respectively.
Coordination is a way of linking grammatical elements to make them
equal in rank.
Subordination is a way of linking grammatical elements that makes one of
them dependent upon the other (or they are mutually dependent).
A compound sentence may contain coordinate clauses extended by subordinate clauses, and the resulting structure is a compound-complex sentence.
A complex sentence may contain subordinate clauses joined by means of coordination, the resulting structure being a complex sentence with homogeneous subordinate clauses.A compound sentence consists of two or more clauses of equal rank which form one syntactical whole in meaning and intonation. Clauses that are parts of a compound sentence are called coordinate, as they are joined by coordination.
Coordinate clauses may be linked together with or without a connector; in the first case they are joined syndetically: Yesterday i bought a penny fiddle and put it to my chin to play, but I found its strings painted, so I threw my fiddle away.In the second case they are joined asyndeticaily: Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall / Humpty Dumpty had a great fall; / All the king’s horses, and all the king’s men / Cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again.
1. Compound sentences consist of clauses joined together by coordinating conjunctions. These are very few: and, but, 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 co-ordinating 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 co-ordinating 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 co-ordinated 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.It should be noted that the co-ordinating 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 recognised 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)
2. Complex sentences. Their structure and types. 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 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. 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.Types of subordinate clauses. Above we defined a complex sentence as a sentence containing at least one subordinate clause. Any classification of complex sentences is therefore bound to be based on a classification of subordinate clauses. This will accordingly be our next task.The problem of classifying subordinate clauses is one of the vexed questions of syntactic theory. Several systems have been tried out at various times, and practically each of them has been shown to suffer from some drawback or other. Some of the classifications so far proposed have been inconsistent, that is to say, they were not based on any one firm principle of division equally applied to all clauses under consideration.
We will first of all point out what principles of classification are possible and then see how they work when applied to Modern English. It is quite conceivable that a sort of combined principle will have to be evolved, that is, one principle might be taken as the ruling one, and the main types established in accordance with it, and another principle, or perhaps other principles, taken as secondary ones and applied for a further subdivision of clauses obtained according to the first principle.It might also prove expedient to have two different classifications independent of each other and based on different principles.As we proceed to point out the various principles which may be taken as a base for classification, we shall see that even that is a matter of some difficulty, and liable to lead to discussion and controversy.The first opposition in the sphere of principles would seem to be that between meaning, or contents, and syntactical function. But this opposition is not in itself sufficient to determine the possible variants of classification. For instance, under the head of "meaning" we may bring either such notions as "declarative" (or "statement") and "interrogative" (or "question"), and, on the other hand, a notion like "explanatory". Under the head of "function" we may bring either the position of a clause within a complex sentence, defined on the same principles as the position of a sentence part within a simple sentence, or (as is sometimes done) on the analogy between a clause and a part of speech performing the same function within a simple sentence. Besides, for certain types of clauses there may be ways of characterising them in accordance with their peculiarities, which find no parallel in other clauses. For instance, clauses introduced by a relative pronoun or relative adverb may be termed "relative clauses", which, however, is not a point of classification. In order to obtain a clearer idea of how these various principles would work out in practice, let us take a complex sentence and define its subordinate clauses in accordance with each of these principles. Let the sentence be this: It was unreal, grotesquely unreal, that morning skies which dawned so tenderly blue could be profaned with cannon smoke that hung over the town like low thunder clouds, that warm noontides filled with the piercing sweetness of massed honeysuckle and climbing roses could be so fearful, as shells screamed into the streets, bursting like the crack of doom, throwing iron splinters hundreds of yards, blowing people and animals to bits. (Mitchell) Let us first look at the two subordinate clauses introduced by the conjunction that: (1) that morning skies.
.. could be profaned with cannon smoke, (2) that warm noontides.. , could be so fearful. From the point of view of meaning they may be called declarative clauses, or subordinate statements, as they contain statements which are expressed in subordinate clauses. From the point of view of function they may be termed, if we consider them as something parallel to parts of a simple sentence, either appositions to the impersonal it which opens the sentence, or subject clauses, if we take the view that the it is merely an introductory subject, or a "sham" subject, as it is sometimes called. If, last not least, we wish to compare the clauses to the part of speech which might perform the corresponding function in a simple sentence, we may call them noun clauses, or substantive clauses, which is a very usual way of treating them in English school grammars.Now let us turn to the clause coming after the noun skies of the first subordinate clause: which dawned so tenderly blue. From the viewpoint of meaning this clause can also be said to be declarative, or a subordinate statement. It may also be termed a relative clause, because it is introduced by a relative pronoun and has a relative connection with the noun skies (or the phrase morning skies). From the functional point of view it may be called an attributive clause, and if we compare it to the part of speech which might perform the corresponding function in a simple sentence, we may call it an adjective clause, which is also common in English school grammars. The same considerations also apply to the clause that hung over the town like low thunder clouds; it is evident from the context that the word that which opens the clause is a relative pronoun (without it the clause would have no subject). Now we take the last subordinate clause: as shells screamed into the streets, bursting like the crack of doom, throwing iron splinters hundreds of yards, blowing people and animals to bits. This again would be a declarative clause or a subordinate statement, and from the viewpoint of function it may be termed an adverbial clause, as it corresponds to an adverbial modifier in a simple sentence. More exactly, it might be termed an adverbial clause of time. Now, for the last item, if we compare it to the part of speech performing the corresponding function in a simple sentence, we might term it an adverb clause, which, however, is too close to the term "adverbial clause" to be of much use in distinguishing the two notions.
To sum up these various possibilities, we have, for the first two clauses, the following terms: declarative clause, or subordinate statement; apposition clause, or subject clause; noun clause. For the second two clauses: declarative clause, or subordinate statement; attributive clause; adjective clause. For the clause coming last: declarative, or subordinate statement; adverbial clause of time; adverb clause.
The next question is, what are we to make of all this variety of possible treatments, and what classification, or what classifications of subordinate clauses should be accepted as the most rational?
It is perhaps best to start with the last of the enumerated views, viz. that which draws a parallel between subordinate clauses and parts of speech. There is little to be said in favour of this view. The strongest argument here is probably the fact that in Modern English a clause may sometimes be treated like a noun, namely when it is introduced by a preposition, as, for instance, in the following sentence: But after the initial dismay he had no doubt as to what he must do. (Linklater)
This seems practically the only feature which shows some likeness between clauses of the given kind and nouns as such. As for the rest, the analogy is merely one of function: clauses and parts of speech resemble each other only in so far as both of them can perform certain functions in the sentence, viz. that of subject, object, or attribute. This kind of similarity can hardly be said to be a sufficient ground for classifying clauses according to parts of speech. The term "noun clause", for example, can only mean "a clause which performs in a complex sentence one of the functions which a noun can perform in a simple sentence". In a similar way, the term "adjective clause" would mean "a clause which performs in a complex sentence one of the functions that an adjective can perform in a simple sentence". This treatment of clauses does not appear to have any serious foundation, and the only consideration in favour of it, that of clauses sometimes being introduced by prepositions (as if they were nouns), is not strong enough to prove the case. We will therefore not adopt the classification of subordinate clauses based on comparing them with parts of speech.Now let us consider the principle according to which declarative and interrogative clauses (or subordinate statements and subordinate questions) are given as types. This principle has certainly something to say for itself. The difference between the subordinate clauses in the following two sentences viewed from this angle is clear enough: However, she felt that something was wrong. (M. Mitchell) Thereafter, when they talked it over, they always wondered why they had failed to notice Scarlett's charms before. (Idem) It may accordingly be adopted as a criterion for the classification of subordinate clauses. It has a weak point, however, and this is that not every clause will fit into either of these categories. For instance, the subordinate clause in the following sentence cannot naturally be termed either a declarative or an interrogative clause: If he had been destitute and she had had money she would have given him all he wanted. (R. West) The clause if ... money expresses condition, it neither asserts anything nor does it ask any question. There are, of course, a number of clauses of a similar kind. It would appear, therefore, that the distinction between declarative and interrogative clauses (subordinate statements and subordinate questions) applies to certain types of clauses only and cannot be made a general principle of classification.The term "relative clause" may very well be applied to any clause introduced by a relative pronoun or relative adverb.O. Jespersen devotes several chapters of his book "A Modern English Grammar" to relative clauses. In accordance with his general view that elements of language may be divided into primaries, adjuncts, and subjuncts, he treats the syntactical functions of subordinate clauses as falling under these heads: "relative clauses as primaries" and "relative clause adjuncts". From the viewpoint of function the subordinate clauses of these types are of course quite different, yet they may be all termed "relative clauses". This makes it evident that the notion "relative clause" is not a notion of syntactic function, since it cuts right across syntactical divisions.It is also evident that the term "relative clause" cannot be an element of any system: the clauses which are not relative do not make any kind of syntactical type which might be put on the same level as relative clauses: what unites them all is merely the fact that they are non-relative.Thus the notion of "relative clauses", which is doubtless useful in its limited sphere, as a description of a certain type of subordinate clauses characterised by a peculiarity they all share, is useless as an element of a general classification of clauses. In that respect it is no better than "declarative" or "interrogative" clauses.There remains now the classification of subordinate clauses based on the similarity of their functions with those of parts of the sentence, namely the classification of clauses into subject, predicative, object, attributive, adverbial, appositional, and parenthetical clauses. In this way the general parallelism between parts of a simple sentence and subordinate clauses within a complex sentence will be kept up; however, there is no sufficient ground for believing that there will be complete parallelism in all respects and all details: on the contrary, it is most likely that differences between the two will emerge (especially in the sphere of adverbial modifiers and adverbial clauses). Subordinate clauses may well be expected to have some peculiarities distinguishing them from parts of a simple sentence.
In studying the several types of subordinate clauses, we will compare them with the corresponding parts of a simple sentence, and point out their peculiarities, and the meanings which are better rendered by a subordinate clause than by a part of a simple sentence. With this proviso we proceed to examine the various types of clauses.