стр. 3
(всего 3)


... > We didn't understand why my uncle was going to refuse. ... > After she hesitated a moment she answered him.
On the other hand, bearing in mind the in-positional nature of a subordinate clause expounded above, it would be altogether irrational to deny a subordinate status to the asyndetic attributive, objective or predicative clauses of the commonest order. Cf.:
They've given me a position I could never have got without them. > They've given me a position which I could never have got without them. We saw at once it was all wrong. > We saw at once that it was all wrong The fact is he did accept the invitation. > The fact is that he did accept the invitation.
Now, one might say, as is done in some older grammatical treatises, that the asyndetic introduction of a subordinate clause amounts to the omission of the conjunctive word joining it to the principal clause. However, in the light of the above paradigmatic considerations, the invalidity of this statement in the context of the discussion appears to be quite obvious: as regards the "omission" or "non-omission" of the conjunctive introducer the compound asyndetic sentence should be treated on an equal basis with the complex asyndetic sentence. In other words, if we defend the idea of the omission of the conjunction with asyndetic subordinate clauses, we must apply this principle also to asyndetic coordinate clauses. But the idea of the omission of the conjunction expounded in its purest, classical form has already been demonstrated in linguistics as fallacious, since asyndetic

connection of clauses is indisputably characterised by its own functional value; it is this specific value that vindicates and supports the very existence of asyndetic polypredication in the system of language. Moreover, many true functions of asyndetic polypredication in distinction to the functions of syndetic polypredication were aptly disclosed in the course of investigations conducted by the scholars who sought to refute the adequacy of coordinate or subordinate interpretation of clausal asyndeton. So, the linguistic effort of these scholars, though not convincing in terms of classification, has, on the whole, not been in vain; in the long run, it has contributed to the deeper insight into the nature of the composite sentence as a polypredicative combination of words.
§ 8. Besides the classical types of coordination and subordination of clauses, we find another case of the construction of composite sentence, namely, when the connection between the clauses combined in a polypredicative unit is expressly loose, placing the sequential clause in a syntactically detached position. In this loosely connected composite, the sequential clause information is presented rather as an afterthought, an idea that has come to the mind of the speaker after the completion of the foregoing utterance, which latter, by this new utterance-forming effort, is forcibly made into the clausal fore-part of a composite sentence. This kind of syntactic connection, the traces of which we saw when treating the syntagmatic bonds of the word, comes under the heading of cumulation. Its formal sign is often the tone of sentential completion followed by a shorter pause than an inter-sentential one, which intonational complex is represented in writing by a semi-final punctuation mark, such as a semicolon, a dash, sometimes a series of periods. Cf.-.
It was just the time that my aunt and uncle would be coming home from their daily walk down the town and I did not like to run the risk of being seen with people whom they would not at all approve of; so I asked them to go on first, as they would go more quickly than I (S. Maugham).
Cumulation as here presented forms a type of syntactic connection intermediary between clausal connection and sentential connection. Thus, the very composite sentence

(loose composite) formed by it is in fact a unit intermediary between one polypredicative sentence and a group of separate sentences making up a contextual sequence.
There is good reason to interpret different parenthetical clauses as specific cumulative constructions, because the basic semantico-syntactic principle of joining them to the initially planned sentence is the same, i. e. presenting them as a detached communication, here - of an introductory or commenting-deviational nature. E.g.:
He was sent for very suddenly this morning, as I have told you already, and he only gave me the barest details before his horse was saddled and he was gone (D. du Maurier). Unprecedented in scale and lavishly financed (? 100,000 was collected in 1843 and 9,000,000 leaflets distributed) this agitation had all the advantages that the railways, cheap newspapers and the penny post could give (A. L. Morton).
If this interpretation is accepted, then the whole domain of cumulation should be divided into two parts: first, the continuative cumulation, placing the cumulated clause in post-position to the expanded predicative construction; second, the" parenthetical cumulation, placing the cumulated clause in inter-position to the expanded predicative construction. The inter-position may be made even into a pre-position as its minor particular case (here belong mostly constructions introduced by the conjunction as: as we have seen, as I have said, etc.). This paradox is easily explained by the type of relation between the clauses: the parenthetical clause (i. e. parenthetically cumulated) only gives a background to the essential information of the expanded original clause. And, which is very important, it can shift its position in the sentence without causing any change in the information rendered by the utterance as a whole. Cf.:
He was sent for very suddenly this morning, as I have told you already. > He was sent for, as I have told you already, very suddenly this morning. > As I have told you already, he was sent for very suddenly this morning.
§ 9. In the composite sentences hitherto surveyed the constitutive predicative lines are expressed separately and explicitly: the described sentence types are formed by minimum two clauses each having a subject and a predicate of "its own. Alongside of these "completely" composite sentences,

there exist constructions in which one explicit predicative line is combined with another one, the latter being not explicitly or completely expressed. To such constructions belong, for instance, sentences with homogeneous predicates, as wall as sentences with verbid complexes. Cf.:
Philip ignored the question and remained silent. I have never before heard her sing. She followed him in, bending her head under the low door.
That the cited utterances do not represent classical, explicitly constructed composite sentence-models admits of no argument. At the same time, as we pointed out elsewhere (see Ch. XXIV), they cannot be analysed as genuine simple sentences, because they contain not one, but more than one predicative lines, though presented in fusion with one another. This can be demonstrated by explanatory expanding transformations. Cf.:
... > Philip ignored the question, (and) he remained silent. ... > I have never before heard how she sings. ... > As she followed him in, she bent her head under the low door.
The performed test clearly shows that the sentences in question are derived each from two base sentences, so that the systemic status of the resulting constructions is in fact intermediary between the simple sentence and the composite sentence. Therefore these predicative constructions should by right be analysed under the heading of semi-composite sentences.
It is easy to see that functionally semi-composite sentences are directly opposed to composite-cumulative sentences: while the latter are over-expanded, the former are under-expanded, i. e. they are concisely deployed. The result of the predicative blend is terseness of expression, which makes semi-composite constructions of especial preference in colloquial speech.
Thus, composite sentences as polypredicative constructions exist in the two type varieties as regards the degree of their predicative explicitness: first, composite sentences of complete composition; second, composite sentences of concise composition. Each of these types is distinguished by its own functional specification, occupies a permanent place in the syntactic system of language and so deserves a separate consideration in a grammatical description.

§ 1. The complex sentence is a polypredicative construction built up on the principle of subordination. It is derived from two or more base sentences one of which performs the role of a matrix in relation to the others, the insert sentences. The matrix function of the corresponding base sentence may be more rigorously and less rigorously pronounced, depending on the type of subordinative connection realised.
When joined into one complex sentence, the matrix base sentence becomes the principal clause of it and the insert sentences, its subordinate clauses.
The complex sentence of minimal composition includes two clauses - a principal one and a subordinate one. Although the principal clause positionally dominates the subordinate clause, the two form a semantico-syntactic unity within the framework of which they are in fact interconnected, so that the very existence of either of them is supported by the existence of the other.
The subordinate clause is joined to the principal clause either by a subordinating connector (subordinator), or, with some types of clauses, asyndetically. The functional character of the subordinative connector is so explicit that even in traditional grammatical descriptions of complex sentences this connector was approached as a transformer of an independent sentence into a subordinate clause. Cf.:
Moyra left the room. > (I do remember quite well) that Moyra left the room. > (He went on with his story) after Moyra left the room. > (Fred remained in his place) though Moyra left the room. > (The party was spoilt) because Moyra left the room. > (It was a surprise to us all) that Moyra left the room...
This paradigmatic scheme of the production of the subordinate clause vindicates the possible interpretation of contact-clauses in asyndetic connection as being joined to the principal clause by means of the "zero"-connector. Cf.: -" (How do you know) 0 Moyra left the room?
Needless to say, the idea of the zero-subordinator simply stresses the fact of the meaningful (functional) character of the asyndetic connection of clauses, not denying the actual absence of connector in the asyndetic complex sentence.
• 303

The minimal, two-clause complex sentence is the main volume type of complex sentences. It is the most important type, first, in terms of frequency, since its textual occurrence by far exceeds that of multi-clause complex sentences; second, in terms of its paradigmatic status, because a complex sentence of any volume is analysable into a combination of two-clause complex sentence units.
§ 2. The structural features of the principal clause differ with different types of subordinate clauses. In particular, various types of subordinate clauses specifically affect the principal clause from the point of view of the degree of its completeness. As is well known from elementary grammatical descriptions, the principal clause is markedly incomplete in complex sentences with the subject and predicative subordinate clauses. E.g.:
And why we descend to their level is a mystery to me. (The gaping principal part outside the subject clause: " - is a mystery to me".) Your statement was just what you were expected to say. (The gaping principal part outside the predicative clause: "Your statement was just - ")
Of absolutely deficient character is the principal clause of the complex sentence that includes both subject and predicative subordinate clauses: its proper segment, i. e. the word-string standing apart from the subordinate clauses is usually reduced to a sheer finite link-verb. Cf.: How he managed to pull through is what baffles me. (The principal clause representation: " - is - ")
A question arises whether the treatment of the subject and predicative clauses as genuinely subordinate ones is rational at all. Indeed, how can the principal clause be looked upon as syntactically (positionally) dominating such clauses as perform the functions of its main syntactic parts, in particular, that of the subject? How can the link-verb, itself just a little more than an auxiliary element, be taken as the "governing predicative construction" of a complex sentence?
However, this seeming paradox is to be definitely settled on the principles of paradigmatic theory. Namely, to understand the status of the "deficiently incomplete and gaping" principal clause we must take into consideration the matrix nature of the principal clause in the sentence: the matrix presents the upper-level positional scheme which is to be completed by predicative constructions on the lower level.

In case of such clauses as subject and predicative, these are all the same subordinated to the matrix by way of being its embedded elements, i. e. the fillers of the open clausal positions introduced by it. Since, on the other hand, the proper segment of the principal clause, i. e. its "nucleus", is predicatively deficient, the whole of the clause should be looked upon as merged with the corresponding filler-subordinate clauses. Thus, among the principal clauses there should be distinguished merger principal clauses and non-merger principal clauses, the former characterising complex sentences with clausal deployment of their main parts, the latter characterising complex sentences with clausal deployment of their secondary parts.
§ 3. The principal clause dominates the subordinate clause positionally, but it doesn't mean that by its syntactic status it must express the central informative part of the communication. The information perspective in the simple sentence does not repeat the division of its constituents into primary and secondary, and likewise the information perspective of the complex sentence is not bound to duplicate the division of its clauses into principal and subordinate. The actual division of any construction, be it simple or otherwise, is effected in the context, so it is as part of a continual text that the complex sentence makes its clauses into rheme-rendering and theme-rendering on the complex-sentence information level.
When we discussed the problem of the actual division of the sentence, we pointed out that in a neutral context the rhematic part of the sentence tends to be placed somewhere near the end of it (see Ch. XXII, § 4). This holds true both for the simple and complex sentences, so that the order of clauses plays an important role in distributing primary and secondary information among them. Cf.: The boy was friendly with me because I allowed him to keep the fishing line.
In this sentence approached as part of stylistically neutral text the principal clause placed in the front position evidently expresses the starting point of the information delivered, while the subordinate clause of cause renders the main sentential idea, namely, the speaker's explanation of the boy's attitude. The "contraposition" presupposed by the actual division of the whole sentence is then like this: "Otherwise the boy wouldn't have been friendly". Should the clause-order of the utterance

be reversed, the informative roles of the clauses will be re-shaped accordingly: As I allowed the boy to keep the fishing line, he was friendly with me.
Of course, the clause-order, the same as word-order in general, is not the only means of indicating the correlative informative value of clauses in complex sentences; intonation plays here also a crucial role, and it goes together with various lexical and constructional rheme-forming elements, such as emphatic particles, constructions of meaningful antithesis, patterns of logical accents of different kinds.
Speaking of the information status of the principal clause, it should be noted that even in unemphatic speech this predicative unit is often reduced to a sheer introducer of the subordinate clause, the latter expressing practically all the essential information envisaged by the communicative purpose of the whole of the sentence. Cf.:
You see that mine is by far the most miserable lot. Just fancy that James has proposed to Mary! You know, kind sir, that I am bound to fasting and abstinence.
The principal clause-introducer in sentences like these performs also the function of keeping up the conversation, i.e. of maintaining the immediate communicative connection with the listener. This function is referred to as "phatic". Verbs of speech and especially thought are commonly used in phatic principals to specify "in passing" the speaker's attitude to the information rendered by their rhematic subordinates:
I think there's much truth in what we hear about the matter. I'т sure I can't remember her name now.
Many of these introducer principals can be re-shaped into parenthetical clauses on a strictly equivalent basis by a mere change of position:
I can't remember her name now, I'т sure. There's much truth, I think, in what we hear about the matter.
§ 4. Of the problems discussed in linguistic literature in connection with the complex sentence, the central one concerns the principles of classification of subordinate clauses. Namely, the two different bases of classification are considered as competitive in this domain: the first is functional, the second is categorial.

In accord with the functional principle, subordinate clauses are to be classed on the analogy of the positional parts of the simple sentence, since it is the structure of the simple sentence that underlies the essential structure of the complex sentence (located on a higher level). In particular, most types of subordinate clauses meet the same functional question-tests as the parts of the simple sentence. The said analogy, certainly, is far from being absolute, because no subordinate clause can exactly repeat the specific character of the corresponding non-clausal part of the sentence; moreover, there is a deep difference in the functional status even between different categorial types of the same parts of the sentence, one being expressed by a word-unit, another by a word-group, still another by a substitute. Cf.:
You can see my state. > You can see my wretched state. > You can see my state being wretched. > You can see that my state is wretched. > You can see that. -"What can you see?
Evidently, the very variety of syntactic forms united by a central function and separated by specific sub-functions is brought about in language by the communicative need of expressing not only rough and plain ideas, but also innumerable variations of thought reflecting the ever developing reality.
Furthermore, there are certain (and not at all casual) clauses that do not find ready correspondences among the non-clausal parts of the sentence at all. This concerns, in particular, quite a number of adverbial clauses.
Still, a general functional analogy (though not identity) between clausal and lexemic parts of the sentence does exist, and, which is very important, it reflects the underlying general similarity of their semantic purpose. So, the functional classification of subordinate clauses on the simple sentence-part analogy does reflect the essential properties of the studied syntactic units and has been proved useful and practicable throughout many years of application to language teaching.
Now, in accord with the categorial principle, subordinate clauses аre to be classed by their inherent nominative properties irrespective of their immediate positional relations in the sentence. The nominative properties of notional words are reflected in their part-of-speech classification. A question
20* 307

arises, can there be any analogy between types of subordinate clauses and parts of speech?
One need not go into either a detailed research or heated argument to see that no direct analogy is possible here. This is made clear by the mere reason that a clause is a predicative unit expressing an event, while a lexeme is a pure naming unit used only as material for the formation of predicative units, both independent and dependent.
On the other hand, if we approach the categorial principle of the characterisation of clauses on a broader basis than drawing plain part-of-speech analogies, we shall find it both plausible and helpful.
As a matter of fact, from the point of view of their general nominative features all the subordinate clauses can be divided into three categorial-semantic groups. The first group includes clauses that name an event as a certain fact. These pure fact-clauses may be terminologically defined as "substantive-nominal". Their substantive-nominal nature is easily checked by a substitute test:
That his letters remained unanswered annoyed him very much. > That fact annoyed him very much. The woman knew only too well what was right and what was wrong. > The woman knew those matters well.
The second group of clauses also name an event-fact, but, as different from the first group, this event-fact is referred to as giving a characteristic to some substantive entity (which, in its turn, may be represented by a clause or a phrase or a substantive lexeme). Such clauses, in compliance with our principle of choosing explanatory terminology, can be tentatively called "qualification-nominal"'. The qualification-nominal nature of the clauses in question, as is the case with the first group of clauses, is proved through the corresponding replacement patterns:
The man who came in the morning left a message. > That man left a message. Did you find a place where we could make a fire? > Did you find such kind of place?
Finally, the third group of clauses make their event-nomination into a dynamic relation characteristic of another, event or a process or a quality of various descriptions. In keeping with the existing practices, it will be quite natural to call these clauses "adverbial". Adverbial clauses are best

tested not by a replacement, but by a definitive transformation. Cf.:
Describe the picture as you see it. > Describe the picture in the manner you see it. All will be well if we arrive in time. > All will be well on condition that we arrive in time.
§ 5. When comparing the two classifications in the light of the systemic principles, it is easy to see that only by a very superficial observation they could be interpreted as alternative (i. e. contradicting each other). In reality they are mutually complementary, their respective bases being valid on different levels of analysis. The categorial features of clauses go together with their functional sentence-part features similar to the categorial features of lexemes going together with their functional characteristics as parts of the simple sentence.
Subordinate clauses are introduced by functional connective words which effect their derivation from base sentences. Categorially these sentence subordinators (or subordinating clausalisers) fall into the two basic types: those that occupy a notional position in the derived clause, and those that do not occupy such a position. The non-positional subordinators are referred to as pure conjunctions. Here belong such words as since, before, until, if, in case, because, so that, in order that, though, however, than, as if, etc. The positional subordinators are in fact conjunctive substitutes. The main positional subordinators are the pronominal words who, what, whose, which, that, where, when, why, as. Some of these words are double-functional (bifunctional), entering also the first set of subordinators; such are the words where, when, that, as, used both as conjunctive substitutes and conjunctions. Together with these the zero subordinator should be named, whose polyfunctional status is similar to the status of the subordinator that. The substitute status of positional subordinators is disclosed in their function as "relative" pronominals, i. e. pronominals referring to syntagmatic antecedents. Cf.:
That was the day when she was wearing her pink dress. Sally put on her pink dress when she decided to join the party downstairs.
The relative pronominal "when" in the first of the cited sentences syntagmatically replaces the antecedent "the day",

while the conjunction "when" in the second sentence has no relative pronominal status. From the point of view of paradigmatics, though, even the second "when" cannot be understood as wholly devoid of substitute force, since it remains associated systemically with the adverb "then", another abstract indicator of time. So, on the whole the non-substitute use of the double-functional subordinators should be described not as utterly "non-positional", but rather as "semi-positional".
On the other hand, there is another aspect of categorial difference between the subordinators, and this directly corresponds to the nature of clauses they introduce. Namely, nominal clauses, being clauses of fact, are introduced by subordinators of fact (conjunctions and conjunctive subordinators), while adverbial clauses, being clauses of adverbial relations, are introduced by subordinators of relational semantic characteristics (conjunctions). This difference holds true both for monofunctional subordinators and bifunctional subordinators. Indeed, the subordinate clauses expressing time and place and, correspondingly, introduced by the subordinators when and where may be used both as nominal nominators and adverbial nominators. The said difference is quite essential, though outwardly it remains but slightly featured. Cf.:
I can't find the record where you put it yesterday. I forget where I put the record yesterday.
It is easy to see that the first place-clause indicates the place of action, giving it a situational periphrastic definition, while the second place-clause expresses the object of a mental effort. Accordingly, the subordinator "where" in the first sentence introduces a place description as a background of an action, while the subordinator "where" in the second sentence introduces a place description as a fact to be considered. The first "where" and the second "where" differ by the force of accent (the first is unstressed, the second is stressed), but the main marking difference between them lies in the difference between the patterns of their use, which difference is noted by the chosen terms "nominal" and "adverbial". This can easily be illustrated by a question-replacement test: ... > Where can't I find the record? ...> What do I forget?
Likewise, the corresponding subdivision of the nominal

subordinators and the clauses they introduce can be checked and proved on the same lines. Cf.:
The day when we met is unforgettable. > Which day is unforgettable? When we met is of no consequence now. > What is of no consequence now?
The first when-раttеrn is clearly disclosed by the test as a qualification-nominal, while the second, as a substantive-nominal.
Thus, the categorial classification of clauses is sustained by the semantic division of the subordinators which are distinguished as substantive-nominal clausalisers, qualification-nominal clausalisers and adverbial clausalisers. Since, on the other hand, substantive nomination is primary in categorial rank, while qualification nomination is secondary, in terms of syntactic positions all the subordinate clauses are to be divided into three groups: first, clauses of primary nominal positions to which belong subject, predicative and object clauses; second, clauses of secondary nominal positions to which belong attributive clauses; third, clauses of adverbial positions.
§ 6. Clauses of primary nominal positions - subject, predicative, object - are interchangeable with one another in easy reshufflings of sentence constituents. Cf.:
What you saw at the exhibition is just what I want to know. > What I want to know is just what you saw at the exhibition. > I just want to know what you saw at the exhibition.
However, the specific semantic functions of the three respective clausal positions are strictly preserved with all such interchanges, so that there is no ground to interpret positional rearrangements like the ones shown above as equivalent.
The subject clause, in accord with its functional position, regularly expresses the theme on the upper level of the actual division of the complex sentence. The thematic property of the clause is well exposed" in its characteristic uses with passive constructions, as well as constructions in which the voice opposition is neutralised. E.g.:
Why he rejected the offer has never been accounted for. • What small reputation the town does possess derives from two things.

It should be noted that in modern colloquial English the formal position of the subject clause in a complex sentence is open to specific contaminations (syntactic confusions on the clausal level). Here is one of the typical examples: Just because you say I wouldn't have (seen a white elephant- M. B.) doesn't prove anything (E.Hemingway).
The contamination here consists in pressing into one construction the clausal expression of cause and the expression of the genuine theme-subject to which the predicate of the sentence refers. The logical implication of the statement is, that the event in question cannot be taken as impossible by the mere reason of the interlocutor's considering it as such. Thus, what can be exposed of the speaker's idea by way of "de-contaminating" the utterance is approximately like this: Your saying that I wouldn't have doesn't prove anything.
Another characteristic type of syntactic contamination of the subject-clause pattern is its use as a frame for an independent sentence. E. g.: You just get yourselves into trouble is what happens (M. Bradbury).
The cited contamination presents a feature of highly emotional speech. The utterance, as it were, proves to be a living illustration of the fact that where strong feelings are concerned the logic of lingual construction is liable to be trespassed upon. The logic in question can be rehabilitated by a substitution pattern: You just get yourselves into trouble, this is what happens.
As is known, the equivalent subject-clausal function can be expressed by the construction with an anticipatory pronoun (mostly the anticipatory it). This form of expression, emphasising the rheme-clause of the sentence, at the same time presents the information of the subject clause in a semantically stronger position than the one before the verb. Therefore the anticipatory construction is preferred in cases when the content of the subject clause is not to be wholly overbalanced or suppressed by the predicate of the sentence. E. g.: How he managed to pull through is a miracle. -" It is a miracle how he managed to pull through.
Some scholars analyse the clause introduced by the anticipatory construction as presenting two possibilities of interpretation which stand in opposition to each other. Accord-ing to the first and more traditional view, this is just a subject clause introduced by the anticipatory it, while in the light of the second, the clause introduced by it is appositive,

In our opinion, the latter explanation is quite rational; however, it cannot be understood as contrary to the "anticipatory" theory. Indeed, the appositive type of connection between the introducer it and the introduced clause is proved by the very equivalent transformation of the non-anticipatory construction into the anticipatory one; but the exposition of the appositive character of the clause does not make the antecedent it into something different from an introductory pronominal element. Thus, the interpretation of the subject clause referring to the introducer it as appositive, in fact, simply explains the type of syntactic connection underlying the anticipatory formula.
The predicative clause, in conformity with the predicative position as such, performs the function of the nominal part of the predicate, i. e. the part adjoining the link-verb. The link-verb is mostly expressed by the pure link be, not infrequently we find here also the specifying links seem and look; the use of other specifying links is occasional. E. g.:
The trouble is that I don't know Fanny personally. The question is why the decision on the suggested innovation is still delayed. The difficulty seems how we shall get in touch with the chief before the conference. After all those years of travelling abroad, John has become what you would call a man of will and experience.
Besides the conjunctive substitutes, the predicative clause, the same as other nominal clauses, can be introduced by some conjunctions (that, whether, as if, as though). The predicative clause introduced by the conjunctions as if, as though has an adverbial force, which is easily shown by contrast: She looks as though she has never met him. > She behaves as though she has never met him.
While considering subordinate clauses relating to the finite be in the principal clause, care should be taken to strictly discriminate between the linking and non-linking (notional) representations of the verb. Indeed, the linking be is naturally followed by a predicative clause, while the notional be, featuring verbal semantics of existence, cannot join a predicative. Cf.:
It's because he's weak that he needs me. This was because, he had just arrived.
The cited sentences have been shown by B. A. Ilyish as examples of predicative clauses having a non-conventional

nominal-clause conjunction (Ilyish, 276-2771. However, the analysis suggested by the scholar is hardly acceptable, since the introducing be in both examples does not belong to the class of links.
The predicative clause in a minimal complex sentence regularly expresses its rheme. Therefore there is an essential informative difference between the two functional uses of a categorially similar nominal clause: that of the predicative and that of the subject. Cf.:
The impression is that he is quite competent. That he is quite competent is the impression.
The second sentence (of an occasional status, with a sentence-stress on the link-verb), as different from the first, suggests an implication of a situational antithesis: the impression may be called in question, or it may be contrasted against another trait of the person not so agreeable as the one mentioned, etc.
The same holds true of complex sentences featuring subordinate clauses in both subject and predicative positions. Cf.:
How she gets there is what's troubling me (> I am troubled). What's troubling me is how she gets there (> How is she to get there?).
The peculiar structure of this type of sentence, where two nominal clauses are connected by a short link making up all the outer composition of the principal clause, suggests the scheme of a balance. For the sake of convenient terminological discrimination, the sentence may be so called - a "complex balance".
The third type of clauses considered under the heading of clauses of primary nominal positions are object clauses.
The object clause denotes an object-situation of the process expressed by the verbal constituent of the principal clause.
The object position is a strong substantive position in the sentence. In terms of clausal relations it means that the substantivising force of the genuine object-clause derivation is a strongly pronounced nominal clause-type derivation. This is revealed, in particular, by the fact that object clauses can be introduced not only non-prepositionally, but also, if not so freely, prepositionally. Cf.;

They will accept with grace whatever he may offer. She stared at what seemed a faded photo of Uncle Jo taken half a century before. I am simply puzzled by what you are telling me about the Car fairs.
On the other hand, the semantic content of the object clause discriminates three types of backgrounds: first, an immediately substantive background; second, an adverbial background; third, an uncharacterised background of general event. This differentiation depends on the functional status of the clause-connector, that is on the sentence-part role it performs in the clause. Cf.:
We couldn't decide whom we should address. The friends couldn't decide where they should spend their vacation.
The object clause in the first of the cited sentences is of a substantive background (We should address - whom), whereas the object clause in the second sentence is of adverbial-local background (They should spend their vacation - where).
The plot of the novel centred on what might be called a far-fetched, artificial situation. The conversation centred on why that clearly formulated provision of international law had been violated.
The first object clause in the above two sentences is of substantive background, while the second one is of an adverbial-causal background.
Object clauses of general event background are introduced by conjunctions: Now he could prove that the many years he had spent away from home had not been in vain.
The considered background features of subordinate clauses, certainly, refer to their inner status and therefore concern all the nominal clauses, not only object ones. But with object clauses they are of especial contrastive prominence, which is due to immediate dependence of the object clause on the valency of the introducing (subordinating) verb.
An extremely important set of clause-types usually included into the vast system of object clauses is formed by clauses presenting chunks of speech and mental-activity processes. These clauses are introduced by the verbs of speech and mental activity (Lat. "verba sentiendi et declarandi"), whose contextual content they actually expose. Cf.:

Who says the yacht hasn't been properly prepared for the voyage? She wondered why on earth she was worrying so much, when obviously the time had come to end the incident and put it out of mind.
The two sentences render by their subordinate clauses speech of the non-author (non-agent) plane: in the first one actual words of some third person are cited, in the second one a stream of thought is presented which is another form of the existence of speech (i. e. inner speech). The chunk of talk rendered by this kind of presentation may not necessarily be actually pronounced or mentally produced by a denoted person; it may only be suggested or imagined by the speaker; still, even in the latter case we are faced by lingually (grammatically) the same kind of non-author speech-featuring complex construction. Cf.: Do you mean to say that the story has a moral?
Not all the clauses introduced by the verbs in question belong to this type. In principle, these clauses are divided into the ones exposing the content of a mental action (as shown above) and the ones describing the content of a mental action, such as the following: You may tell me whatever you like. Will you tell me what the matter is?
The object clauses in the cited sentences, as different from the foregoing examples, describe the information allowed by the speaker-author (the first sentence) or wanted by the speaker-author (the second sentence), thereby not differing much from non-speech-rendering clauses. As for the speech-rendering object clauses, they are quite special, and it is by right that, as a rule, they are treated in grammar books under the separate heading of "rules of reported speech". Due to their semantic nature, they may be referred to as "reportive" clauses, and the same term will helpfully apply to the corresponding sentences as wholes. Indeed, it is in reportive sentences that the principal clause is more often than not reduced to an introductory phrase akin to a parenthesis of additionally specifying semantics, so that the formally subordinate clause practically absorbs all the essential information rendered by the sentence. Cf.:
Wainright said that Eastin would periodically report to him. > Periodically, Wainright said, Eastin would report to him (A. Hailey),

§ 1. Subordinate clauses of secondary nominal positions include attributive clauses of various syntactic functions. They fall into two major classes: "descriptive" attributive clauses and "restrictive" ("limiting") attributive clauses.
The descriptive attributive clause exposes some characteristic of the antecedent (i. e., its substantive referent) as such, while the restrictive attributive clause performs a purely identifying role, singling out the referent of the antecedent in the given situation. The basis of this classification, naturally, has nothing to do with the artistic properties of the classified units: a descriptive clause may or may not possess a special expressive force depending on the purpose and mastery of the respective text production. Moreover, of the two attributive clause classes contrasted, the restrictive class is distinguished as the more concretely definable one, admitting of the oppositional interpretation as the "marked element": the descriptive class then will be oppositionally interpreted as the "non-restrictive" one, which precisely explains the correlative status of the two types of subordinate clauses.
It should be noted that, since the difference between descriptive and restrictive clauses lies in their functions, there is a possibility of one and the same clausal unit being used in both capacities, depending on the differences of the contexts. Cf.:
At last we found a place where we could make a fire. The place where we could make a fire was not a lucky one.
The subordinate clause in the first of the cited examples informs the listener of the quality of the place (> We found such a place) thereby being descriptive, while the same clause in the second example refers to the quality in question as a mere mark of identification (> The place was not a lucky one) and so is restrictive.
Descriptive clauses, in their turn, distinguish two major subtypes: first, "ordinary" descriptive clauses; second, "continuative" descriptive clauses.
The ordinary descriptive attributive clause expresses various situational qualifications of nounal antecedents. The qualifications may present a constant situational feature or a temporary situational feature of different contextual relations and implications. Cf.:
It gave me a strange sensation to see a lit up window in a big house that was not lived in. He wore a blue shirt the

collar of which was open at the throat. They were playing such a game as could only puzzle us.
The continuative attributive clause presents a situation on an equal domination basis with its principal clause, and so is attributive only in form, but not in meaning. It expresses a new predicative event (connected with the antecedent) which somehow continues the chain of situations reflected by the sentence as a whole. Cf.:
In turn, the girls came singly before Brett, who frowned, blinked, bit his pencil, and scratched his head with it, getting no help from the audience, who applauded each girl impartially and hooted at every swim suit, as if they could not see hundreds any day round the swimming pool (M. Dickens).
It has been noted in linguistic literature that such clauses are essentially not subordinate, but coordinate, and hence they make up with their principal clause not a complex, but a compound sentence. As a matter of fact, for the most part such clauses are equal to coordinate clauses of the copulative type, and their effective test is the replacement of the relative subordinator by the combination and + substitute. Cf.:
I phoned to Mr. Smith, who recognised me at once and invited me to his office. > I phoned to Mr. Smith, and he recognised me at once...
Still, the form of the subordinate clause is preserved by the continuative clause, the contrast between a dependent form and an independent content constituting the distinguishing feature of this syntactic unit as such. Thus, what we do see in continuative clauses is a case of syntactic transposition, i. e. the transference of a subordinate clause into the functional sphere of a coordinate clause, with the aim of achieving an expressive effect. This transpositional property is especially prominent in the which-continuative clause that refers not to a single nounal antecedent, but to the whole principal clause. E. g.:
The tower clock struck the hour, which changed the train of his thoughts. His pictures were an immediate success on the varnishing day, which was nothing to wonder.
The construction is conveniently used in descriptions and reasonings.
To attributive clauses belongs also a vast set of appositive

clauses which perform an important role in the formation of complex sentences. The appositive clause, in keeping with the general nature of apposition, does not simply give some sort of qualification to its antecedent, but defines or elucidates its very meaning in the context. Due to this specialisation, appositive clauses refer to substantive antecedents of abstract semantics. Since the role of appositive clauses consists in bringing about contextual limitations of the meaning of the antecedent, the status of appositive clauses in the general system of attributive clauses is intermediary between restrictive and descriptive.
In accord with the type of the governing antecedent, all the appositive clauses fall into three groups: first, appositive clauses of nounal relation; second, appositive clauses of pronominal relation; third, appositive clauses of anticipatory relation.
Appositive clauses of nounal relation are functionally nearer to restrictive attributive clauses than the rest. They can introduce information of a widely variable categorial nature, both nominal and adverbial. The categorial features of the rendered information are defined by the type of the antecedent.
The characteristic antecedents of nominal apposition are abstract nouns like fact, idea, question, plan, suggestion, news, information, etc. Cf.:
The news that Dr. Blare had refused to join the Antarctic expedition was sensational. We are not prepared to discuss the question who will chair the next session of the Surgical Society.
The nominal appositive clauses can be tested by transforming them into the corresponding clauses of primary nominal positions through the omission of the noun-antecedent or translating it into a predicative complement. Cf.:
... > That Dr. Blare had refused to join the Antarctic expedition was sensational. -" That Dr. Blare had refused to join the Antarctic expedition was sensational news.
The characteristic antecedents of adverbial apposition are abstract names of adverbial relations, such as time, moment, place, condition, purpose, etc. Cf.:
We saw him at the moment he was opening the door of his Cadillac. They did it with the purpose that no one else might share the responsibility for the outcome of the venture.

As is seen from the examples, these appositive clauses serve a mixed or double function, i. e. a function constituting a mixture of nominal and adverbial properties. They may be tested by transforming them into the corresponding adverbial clauses through the omission of the noun-antecedent and, if necessary, the introduction of conjunctive adverbialisers. Cf.:
... > We saw him as he was opening the door of his Cadillac. ... > They did it so that no one else might share the responsibility for the outcome of the venture.
Appositive clauses of pronominal relation refer to an antecedent expressed by an indefinite or demonstrative pronoun. The constructions serve as informatively limiting and attention-focusing means in contrast to the parallel non-appositive constructions. Cf.:
I couldn't agree with all that she was saying in her irritation. > I couldn't agree with what she was saying in her irritation. (Limitation is expressed.) That which did strike us was the inspector's utter ignorance of the details of the case. > What did strike us was the inspector's utter ignorance of the details of the case. (The utterances are practically equivalent, the one with a clausal apposition being somewhat more intense in its delimitation of the desired focus of attention.)
Appositive clauses of anticipatory relation are used in constructions with the anticipatory pronoun (namely, the anticipatory it, occasionally the demonstratives this, that). There are two varieties of these constructions - subjective and objective. The subjective clausal apposition is by far the basic one, both in terms of occurrence (it affects all the notional verbs of the vocabulary, not only transitive) and functional range (it possesses a universal sentence-transforming force). Thus, the objective anticipatory apposition is always interchangeable with the subjective anticipatory apposition, but not vice versa. Cf.:
I would consider it (this) a personal offence if they didn't accept the forwarded invitation. > It would be a personal offence (to me) if they didn't accept the forwarded invitation. You may depend on it that the letters won't be left unanswered. > It may be depended on that the letters won't be left unanswered.

The anticipatory appositive constructions, as is widely known, constitute one of the most peculiar typological features of English syntax. Viewed as part of the general appositive clausal system here presented, it is quite clear that the exposure of their appositive nature does not at all contradict their anticipatory interpretation, nor does it mar or diminish their "idiomatically English" property so emphatically pointed out in grammar books.
The unique role of the subjective anticipatory appositive construction, as has been stated elsewhere, consists in the fact that it is used as a universal means of rheme identification in the actual division of the sentence.
§ 8. Clauses of adverbial positions constitute a vast domain of syntax which falls into many subdivisions each distinguishing its own field of specifications, complications, and difficulties of analysis. The structural peculiarities and idiosyncrasies characterising the numerous particular clause models making up the domain are treated at length in grammatical manuals of various practical purposes; here our concern will be to discuss some principal issues of their functional semantics and classification.
Speaking of the semantics of these clauses, it should be stressed that as far as the level of generalised clausal meanings is concerned, semantics in question is of absolute syntactic relevance; accordingly, the traditional identification of major adverbial clause models based on "semantic considerations" is linguistically rational, practically helpful, and the many attempts to refute it in the light of the "newly advanced, objective, consistently scientific" criteria have not resulted in creating a comprehensive system capable of competing with the traditional one in its application to textual materials.
On the other hand, it would be a mistake to call in question the usefulness of the data obtained by the latest investigations. Indeed, if their original negative purpose has failed, the very positive contribution of the said research efforts to theoretical linguistics is not to be overlooked: it consists in having studied the actual properties of the complicated clausal system of the sentence, above all the many-sided correlation between structural forms and functional meanings in the making of the systemic status of each clausal entity that admits of a description as a separate unit subtype.

Proceeding from the said insights, the whole system of adverbial clauses is to be divided into four groups.
The first group includes clauses of time and clauses of place. Their common semantic basis is to be defined as "localisation" - respectively, temporal and spatial. Both types of clauses are subject to two major subdivisions, one concerning the local identification, the other concerning the range of functions.
Local identification is essentially determined by subordinators. According to the choice of connector, clauses of time and place are divided into general and particularising. The general local identification is expressed by the non-marking conjunctions when and where. Taken by themselves, they do not introduce any further specifications in the time or place correlations between the two local clausal events (i.e. principal and subordinate). As for the particularising local identification, it specifies the time and place correlations of the two events localising the subordinate one before the principal, parallel with the principal, after the principal, and possibly expressing further subgradations of these correspondences.
With subordinate clauses of time the particularising localisation is expressed by such conjunctions as while, as, since, before, after, until, as soon as, now that, no sooner than, etc. E.g.:
We lived here in London when the war ended. While the war was going on we lived in London. We had lived in London all through the war until it ended. After the war ended our family moved to Glasgow. Etc.
With clauses of place proper the particularising localisation is expressed but occasionally, mostly by the prepositional conjunctive combinations from where (bookish equivalent - whence) and to where. E.g.:
The swimmers gathered where the beach formed a small promontory. The swimmers kept abreast of one another from where they started.
For the most part, however, spatial specifications in the complex sentence are rendered not by place-clauses proper, but by adverbial-appositive clauses. Cf.: We decided not to go back to the place from where we started on our journey.
From the functional point of view, clauses of localisation

should be divided into "direct" (all the above ones) and "transferred", the latter mostly touching on matters of reasoning. E.g.:
When you speak of the plain facts there can't be any question of argument. But I can't agree with you where the principles of logic are concerned.
A special variety of complex sentence with a time clause is presented by a construction in which the main predicative information is expressed in the subordinate clause, the actual meaning of temporal localisation being rendered by the principal clause of the sentence. E.g.:
Alice was resting in bed when Humphrey returned. He brought his small charge into the room and presented her to her "aunt" (D. E. Stevenson).
The context clearly shows that the genuine semantic accents in the first sentence of the cited passage is to be exposed by the reverse arrangement of subordination: it is Humphrey's actions that are relevant to the developing situation, not Alice's resting in bed: > Humphrey returned when Alice was resting in bed...
This type of complex sentence is known in linguistics as "inversive"; what is meant by the term, is semantics taken against the syntactic structure. The construction is a helpful stylistic means of literary narration employed to mark a transition from one chain of related events to another one.
The second group of adverbial clauses includes clauses of manner and comparison. The common semantic basis of their functions can be defined as "qualification", since they give a qualification to the action or event rendered by the principal clause. The identification of these clauses can be achieved by applying the traditional question-transformation test of the how-type, with the corresponding variations of specifying character (for different kinds of qualification clauses). Cf.:
He spent the Saturday night as was his wont. > How did he spend the Saturday night? You talk to people as if they were a group. > How do you talk to people? I planned to give my mother a length of silk for a dress, as thick and heavy as it was possible to buy. > How thick and heavy the length of silk was intended to be?

All the adverbial qualification clauses are to be divided into "factual" and "speculative", depending on the real or unreal propositional event described by them.
The discrimination between manner and comparison clauses is based on the actual comparison which may or may not be expressed by the considered clausal construction of adverbial qualification. The semantics of comparison is inherent in the subordinators as if, as though, than, which are specific introducers of comparison clauses. On the other hand, the subordinator as, both single and in the combinations as ... as, not so ... as, is unspecific in this sense, and so invites for a discrimination test to be applied in dubious cases. It should be noted that more often than not a clausally expressed manner in a complex sentence is rendered by an appositive construction introduced by phrases with the broad-meaning words way and manner. E.g.: Mr. Smith looked at me in a way that put me on the alert.
Herein lies one of the needed procedures of discrimination, which is to be formulated as the transformation of the tested clause into an appositive that- or which-clause: the possibility of the transformation marks the clause of manner, while the impossibility of the transformation (i.e. the preservation of the original as-clause) marks the clause of comparison. Cf.:
Mary received the guests as nicely as Aunt Emma had taught her > ... in a (very) nice way that Aunt Emma had taught her. (The test marks the clause as that of manner.) Mary received the guests as nicely as Aunt Emma would have done. > ... in as nice a way as Aunt Emma would have done. (The test marks the clause as comparative.)
Clauses of comparison are subdivided into those of equality (subordinators as, as ... as, as if, as though) and those of inequality (subordinators not so ... as, than). The discontinuous introducers mark, respectively, a more intense rendering of the comparison in question. Cf.:
That summer he took a longer holiday than he had done for many years. For many years he hadn't taken so long a holiday as he was offered that summer.
With clauses of comparison it is very important to distinguish the contracted expression of predication, i.e. predicative zeroing, especially for cases where a clause of comparison as such is combined with a clause of time. Here 324

predicative zeroing may lead to the rise of peculiarly fused constructions which may be wrongly understood. By way of example, let us take the sentence cited in B. Ilyish's book: Do you find Bath as agreeable as when I had the honour of making the enquiry before? (J. Austen)
B. Ilyish analyses the construction as follows: "The when-clause as such is a temporal clause: it indicates the time when an action ("his earlier enquiry") took place. However, being introduced by the conjunction as, which has its correlative, another as, in the main clause, it is at the same time a clause of comparison" [Ilyish, 299].
But time and comparison are absolutely different characteristics, so that neither of them can by definition be functionally used for the other. They may go together only in cases when time itself forms the basis of comparison (I came later than Mr. Jerome did). As far as the analysed example is concerned, its clause of time renders no other clausal meaning than temporal; the clausal comparison proper is expressed reductionally, its sole explicit representative being the discontinuous introducer as ... as. Thus, the true semantics of the cited comparison is to be exposed by paradigmatic de-zeroing: > Do you find Bath as agreeable as it was when I had the honour of making the enquiry before?
The applied principle of analysis of contamination time-comparison clauses for its part supports the zero-conception of other outwardly non-predicative comparative constructions, in particular those introduced by than. Cf.: Nobody could find the answer quicker than John. > Nobody could find the answer quicker than John did (could do).
The third and most numerous group of adverbial clauses includes "classical" clauses of different circumstantial semantics, i.e. semantics connected with the meaning of the principal clause by various circumstantial associations; here belong clauses of attendant event, condition, cause, reason, result (consequence), concession, purpose. Thus, the common semantic basis of all these clauses can be defined as "circumstance". The whole group should be divided into two subgroups, the first being composed by clauses of "attendant circumstance"; the second, by clauses of "immediate circumstance".
Clauses of attendant circumstance are not much varied in structure or semantics and come near to clauses of time. The difference lies in the fact that, unlike clauses of time, the event described by a clause of attendant circumstance

is presented as some sort of background in relation to the event described by the principal clause. Clauses of attendant circumstance are introduced by the conjunctions while and as. E.g.: As (while) the reception was going on, Mr. Smiles was engaged in a lively conversation with the pretty niece of the hostess.
The construction of attendant circumstance may be taken to render contrast; so all the clauses of attendant circumstance can be classed into "contrastive" (clauses of contrast) and "non-contrastive". The non-contrastive clause of circumstance has been exemplified above. Here is an example of contrastive attendant circumstance expressed clausally:
Indeed, there is but this difference between us - that he wears fine clothes while I go in rags, and that while I am weak from hunger he suffers not a little from overfeeding (O. Wilde).
As is clear from the example, a complex sentence with a contrastive clause of attendant circumstance is semantically close to a compound sentence, i.e. a composite sentence based on coordination.
Clauses of immediate circumstance present a vast and complicated system of constructions expressing different explanations of events, reasonings and speculations in connection with them. The system should relevantly be divided into "factual" clauses of circumstance and "speculative" clauses of circumstance depending on the real or unreal predicative denotations expressed. This division is of especial significance for complex sentences with conditional clauses (real condition, problematic condition, unreal condition). Other types of circumstantial clauses express opposition between factual and speculative semantics with a potential relation to some kind of condition inherent in the deep associations of the syntactic constructions. E.g.:
Though she disapproved of their endless discussions, she had to put up with them. (Real concession) > Though she may disapprove of their discussions, she will have to put up with them. (Speculative concession) -" If she disapproved (had disapproved) of their discussions, why would she put up (have put up) with them? (Speculative condition)
The argument was so unexpected that for a moment Jack lost his ability to speak. (Real consequence) > The argument was so unexpected that it would have frustrated Jack's

ability to speak if he had understood the deep meaning of it. (Speculative consequence, based on the speculative condition)
Each type of clauses of circumstance presents its own problems of analysis. On the other hand, it must be pointed out that all the types of these clauses are inter-related both semantically and paradigmatically, which may easily be shown by the corresponding transformations and correlations. Some of such correlations have been shown on the examples above. Compare also:
He opened the window wide that he might hear the conversation below. (Purpose) > Unless he wanted to hear the conversation below he wouldn't open the window. (Condition) > As he wanted to hear the conversation below, he opened the window wide and listened. (Cause) > Though he couldn't hear properly the conversation below, he opened the window and listened. (Concession) > The voices were so low that he couldn't hear the conversation through the open window. (Consequence) > If he hadn't opened the window wide he couldn't have heard the conversation. (Condition)
Certain clausal types of circumstance are closely related to non-circumstantial clausal types. In particular, this kind of connection is observed between conditional clauses and time clauses and finds its specifically English expression in the rise of the contaminated if- and when-clauses: If and when the discussion of the issue is renewed, both parties will greatly benefit by it.
Another important variety of clauses of mixed syntactic semantics is formed by concessive clauses introduced by the connectors ending in -ever. E.g.:
Whoever calls, I'm not at home. However tempting the offer might be, Jim is not in a position to accept it.
Clauses of mixed adverbial semantics present an interesting field of paradigmatic study.
The fourth group of adverbial clauses is formed by parenthetical or insertive constructions. Parenthetical clauses, as has been stated elsewhere, are joined to the principal clause on a looser basis than the other adverbial clauses; still, they do form with the principal clause a syntactic sentential unity, which is easily proved by the procedure of diagnostic elimination. Cf.:

Jack has called here twice this morning, if I am not mistaken. > (*) Jack has called here twice this morning.
As is seen from the example, the elimination of the parenthesis changes the meaning of the whole sentence from problematic to assertive: the original sense of the utterance is lost, and this shows that the parenthesis, though inserted in the construction by a loose connection, still forms an integral part of it.
As to the subordinative quality of the connection, it is expressed by the type of the connector used. In other words, parenthetical predicative insertions can be either subordinative or coordinative, which is determined by the contextual content of the utterance and exposed by the connective introducer of the clause. Cf. a coordinate parenthetical clause: Jim said, and I quite agree with him, that it would be in vain to appeal to the common sense of the organisers.
Cf. the subordinate correlative of the cited clause: Jim said, though I don't quite agree with him, that it would be in vain to appeal to the common sense of the organisers.
Parenthetical clauses distinguish two semantic subtypes. Clauses of the first subtype, illustrated by the first example in this paragraph, are "introductory", they express different modal meanings. Clauses of the second subtype, illustrated by the latter example, are "deviational", they express commenting insertions of various semantic character. Deviational parenthesis marks the loosest possible syntactic connection of clauses combined into a composite sentence.
§ 9. Clauses in a complex sentence may be connected with one another more closely and less closely, similar to the parts of a simple sentence. The intensity of connection between the clauses directly reflects the degree of their proposemic self-dependence and is therefore an essential characteristic of the complex sentence as a whole. For instance, a predicative clause or a direct object clause are connected with the principal clause so closely that the latter cannot exist without them as a complete syntactic unit. Thus, this kind of clausal connection is obligatory. Cf.:
The matter is, we haven't received all the necessary instructions yet. > (*) The matter is - I don't know what Mike is going to do about his damaged bike. > (*)I don't know -

As different from this, an ordinary adverbial clause is connected with the principal clause on a looser basis, it can be deleted without destroying the principal clause as an autonomous unit of information. This kind of clausal connection is optional. Cf.:
The girl gazed at him as though she was struck by something extraordinary in his appearance. > The girl gazed at him.
The division of subordinative clausal connections into obligatory and optional was employed by the Russian linguist N. S. Pospelov (1950) for the introduction of a new classification of complex sentences. In accord with his views, all the complex sentences of minimal structure (i.e. consisting of one principal clause and one subordinate clause) should be classed as "one-member" complex sentences and "two-member" complex sentences. One-member complex sentences are distinguished by an obligatory subordinative connection, while two-member complex sentences are distinguished by an optional subordinative connection. The obligatory connection is determined both by the type of the subordinate clause (subject, predicative, object clauses) and the type of the introduction of the clause (demonstrative correlation). The optional connection characterises adverbial clauses of diverse functions and attributive clauses of descriptive type. Semantically, one-member complex sentences are understood as reflecting one complex logical proposition, and two-member complex sentences as reflecting two logical propositions connected with each other on the subordinative principle.
The rational character of the advanced conception is quite obvious. Its strong point is the fact that it consistently demonstrates the correlation between form and meaning in the complex sentence structure. Far from rejecting the traditional teaching of complex sentences, the "member conception" is based on its categories and develops them further, disclosing such properties of subordinative connections which were not known to the linguistic science before.
Speaking not only of the complex sentence of minimal composition, but in terms of complex sentences in general, it would be appropriate to introduce the notions of "monolythic" and "segregative" sentence structures. Obligatory subordinative connections underlie monolythic complexes, while optional subordinative connections underlie segregative complexes.

Monolithic complex sentences fall into four basic types.
The first of them is formed by merger complex sentences, i.e. sentences with subject and predicative subordinate clauses. The subordinate clausal part of the merger monolythic complex, as has been shown above (see § 2), is fused with its principal clause. The corresponding construction of syntactic anticipation should also be considered under this heading. Cf.: It was at this point that Bill had come bustling into the room. > (*) It was at this point -
The second subtype of complex sentences in question is formed by constructions whose subordinate clauses are dependent on the obligatory right-hand valency of the verb in the principal clause. We can tentatively call these constructions "valency" monolith complexes. Here belong complexes with object clauses and valency-determined adverbial clauses: from the point of view of subordinative cohesion they are alike. Cf.:
I don't know when I'm beaten. -" (*) I don't know - Put the book where you've taken it from. > (*) Put the book - Her first shock was when she came down. > (*) Her first shock was -
The third subtype of monolythic complex sentences is formed by constructions based on subordinative correlations - "correlation" monolith complexes. E.g.:
His nose was as unkindly short as his upper lip was long. You will enjoy such a sight as you are not likely to see again. The more I think of it, the more I'm convinced of his innocence.
Restrictive attributive clauses should be included into this subtype of correlation monoliths irrespective of whether or not their correlation scheme is explicitly expressed. Cf.:
This is the same report as was submitted last week. This is the report that was submitted last week.
Finally, the fourth subtype of monolithic complex sentences is formed by constructions whose obligatory connection between the principal and subordinate clauses is determined only by the linear order of clausal positions. Cf.: If he comes, tell him to wait. >(*) If he comes -
As is easily seen, such "arrangement" monolith complexes are not "organically" monolithic, as different from the first three monolith subtypes; positional re-arrangement deprives

them of this quality, changing the clausal connection from obligatory into optional: Tell him to wait if he comes. > Tell him to wait.
The rest of the complex sentences are characterised by segregative structure, the maximum degree of syntactic option being characteristic of subordinative parenthetical connection.
§ 10. Complex sentences which have two or more subordinate clauses discriminate two basic types of subordination arrangement: parallel and consecutive.
Subordinate clauses immediately referring to one and the same principal clause are said to be subordinated "in parallel" or "co-subordinated". Parallel subordination may be both homogeneous and heterogeneous. For instance, the two clauses of time in the following complex sentence, being embedded on the principle of parallel subordination, are homogeneous - they depend on the same element (the principal clause as a whole), are connected with each other coordinatively and perform the same function: When he agrees to hear me, and when we have spoken the matter over, I'll tell you the result.
Homogeneous arrangement is very typical of object clauses expressing reported speech. E.g.: Mrs. Lewin had warned her that Cadover was an extraordinary place, and that one must never be astonished by anything (A. Huxley).
By heterogeneous parallel subordination, co-subordinate clauses mostly refer to different elements in the principal clause. E.g.: The speakers who represented different nations and social strata were unanimous in their call for peace which is so ardently desired by the common people of the world.
As different from parallel subordination, consecutive subordination presents a hierarchy of clausal levels. In this hierarchy one subordinate clause is commonly subordinated to another, making up an uninterrupted gradation. This kind of clausal arrangement may be called "direct" consecutive subordination. E.g.: I've no idea why she said she couldn't call on us at the time I had suggested.
Alongside of direct consecutive subordination there is another form of clausal hierarchy which is formed without an immediate domination of one subordinate clause over another. For instance, this is the case when the principal clause of a complex multi-level sentence is built up on a merger basis, i.e. includes a subject or predicative clause.

E.g.: What he saw made him wince as though he had been struck.
In the cited sentence the comparative subordinate clause is dominated by the whole of the principal clause which includes a subordinate propositional unit in its syntactic position of the subject. Thus, the subordinative structure of the sentence is in fact consecutive, though not directly consecutive. This type of hierarchical clausal arrangement may be called "oblique" consecutive subordination; it is of minor importance for the system of subordination perspective as a whole.
The number of consecutive levels of subordination gives the evaluation of the "depth" of subordination perspective - one of the essential syntactic characteristics of the complex sentence. In the first three examples cited in the current paragraph this depth is estimated as 1; in the fourth example (direct consecutive subordination) it equals 3; in the fifth example (oblique consecutive subordination) it equals 2. The subordination perspective of complex sentences used in ordinary colloquial speech seldom exceeds three consecutive clausal levels.
§ 1. The compound sentence is a composite sentence built on the principle of coordination. Coordination, the same as subordination, can be expressed either syndetically (by means of coordinative connectors) or asyndetically.
The main semantic relations between the clauses connected coordinatively are copulative, adversative, disjunctive, causal, consequential, resultative. Similar semantic types of relations are to be found between independent, separate sentences forming a continual text. As is known, this fact has given cause to some scholars to deny the existence of the compound sentence as a special, regular form of the composite sentence.*
The advanced thesis to this effect states that the so-called "compound sentence" is a fictitious notion developed under
* See: Иофик Л. Л. Сложное предложение в новоанглийском языке. Л., 1968.

the school influence of written presentation of speech; what is fallaciously termed the "compound sentence" constitutes in reality a sequence of semantically related independent sentences not separated by full stops in writing because of an arbitrary school convention.
To support this analysis, the following reasons are put forward: first, the possibility of a falling, finalising tone between the coordinated predicative units; second, the existence, in written speech, of independently presented sentences introduced by the same conjunctions as the would-be "coordinate clauses"; third, the possibility of a full stop-separation of the said "coordinate clauses" with the preservation of the same semantic relations between them.
We must admit that, linguistically, the cited reasons are not devoid of a rational aspect, and, which is very important, they appeal to the actual properties of the sentence in the text. However, the conception taken as a whole gives a false presentation of the essential facts under analysis and is fallacious in principle.
As a matter of fact, there is a substantial semantico-syntactic difference between the compound sentence and the corresponding textual sequence of independent sentences. This difference can escape the attention of the observer when tackling isolated sentences, but it is explicitly exposed in the contexts of continual speech. Namely, by means of differences in syntactic distributions of predicative units, different distributions of the expressed ideas is achieved, which is just the coordinative syntactic functions in action; by means of combining or non-combining predicative units into a coordinative polypredicative sequence the corresponding closeness or looseness of connections between the reflected events is shown, which is another aspect of coordinative syntactic functions. It is due to these functions that the compound sentence does not only exist in the syntactic system of language, but occupies in it one of the constitutive places.
By way of example, let us take a textual sequence of independent monopredicative units:
Jane adored that actor. Hockins could not stand the sight of him. Each was convinced of the infallibility of one's artistic judgment. That aroused prolonged arguments.
Given the "negative" theory of the compound sentence is correct, any coordinative-sentential re-arrangements of the cited sentences must be indifferent as regards the sense

rendered by the text. In practice, though, it is not so. In particular, the following arrangement of the predicative units into two successive compound sentences is quite justified from the semantico-syntactic point of view:
> Jane adored that actor, but Hockins could not stand the sight of him. Each was convinced of the infallibility of one's judgment, and that aroused prolonged arguments.
As different from this, the version of arranging the same material given below cannot be justified in any syntactic or semantic sense:
> *Jane adored that actor. But Hockins could not stand the sight of him, each was convinced of the infallibility of one's judgment. And that aroused prolonged arguments.
On the other hand, some subordinate clauses of a complex sentence can also be separated in the text, thus being changed into specific independent sentences. Still, no one would seek to deny the existence of complex sentence patterns based on optional subordinative connections. Cf.:
Suddenly Laura paused as if she was arrested by something invisible from here. > Suddenly Laura paused. As if she was arrested by something invisible from here.
As for the factor of intonation, it should indeed be invariably taken into account when considering general problems of sentence identification. The propositional intonation contour with its final delimitation pause is one of the constitutive means of the creation and existence of the sentence as a lingual phenomenon. In particular, the developing intonation pattern in the process of speech sustains the semantic sentence strain from the beginning of the sentence up to the end of it. And there is a profound difference between the intonation patterns of the sentence and those of the clause, no matter how many traits of similarity they may possess, including finalising features. Moreover, as is known, the tone of a coordinate clause, far from being rigorously falling, can be rising as well. The core of the matter is that the speaker has intonation at his disposal as a means of forming sentences, combining sentences, and separating sentences. He actively uses this means, grouping the same syntactic strings of words now as one composite sentence, now as so many simple sentences, with the corresponding more

essential or less essential changes in meanings, of his own choice, which is determined by concrete semantic and contextual conditions.
Thus, the idea of the non-existence of the compound sentence in English should be rejected unconditionally. On the other hand, it should be made clear that the formulation of this negative idea as such has served us a positive cause, after all: its objective scientific merit, similar to some other inadequate ideas advanced in linguistics at different times, consists in the very fact that it can be used as a means of counter-argumentation in the course of research work, as a starting point for new insights into the deep nature of lingual phenomena in the process of theoretical analysis sustained by observation.
§ 2. The compound sentence is derived from two or more base sentences which, as we have already stated above, are connected on the principle of coordination either syndetically or asyndetically. The base sentences joined into one compound sentence lose their independent status and become coordinate clauses - parts of a composite unity. The first clause is "leading" (the "leader" clause), the successive clauses are "sequential". This division is essential not only from the point of view of outer structure (clause-order), but also in the light of the semantico-syntactic content: it is the sequential clause that includes the connector in its composition, thus being turned into some kind of dependent clause, although the type of its dependence is not subordinative. Indeed, what does such a predicative unit signify without its syntactic leader?
The coordinating connectors, or coordinators, are divided into conjunctions proper and semi-functional clausal connectors of adverbial character. The main coordinating conjunctions, both simple and discontinuous, are: and, but, or, nor, neither, for, either ... or, neither ... nor, etc. The main adverbial coordinators are: then, yet, so, thus, consequently, nevertheless, however, etc. The adverbial coordinators, unlike pure conjunctions, as a rule can shift their position in the sentence (the exceptions are the connectors yet and so). Cf.:
Mrs. Dyre stepped into the room, however the host took no notice of it. > Mrs. Dyre stepped into the room, the host, however, took no notice of it.

The intensity of cohesion between the coordinate clauses can become loose, and in this case the construction is changed into a cumulative one (see Ch. XXVI). E.g.: Nobody ever disturbed him while he was at work; it was one of the unwritten laws.
As has been stated elsewhere, such cases of cumulation mark the intermediary status of the construction, i.e. its place in syntax between a composite sentence and a sequence of independent sentences.
§ 3. When approached from the semantico-syntactic point of view, the connection between the clauses in a compound sentence should be analysed into two basic types: first, the unmarked coordinative connection; second, the marked coordinative connection.
The unmarked coordinative connection is realised by the coordinative conjunction and and also asyndetically. The unmarked semantic nature of this type of connection is seen from the fact that it is not specified in any way and requires a diagnostic exposition through the marked connection. The exposition properly effected shows that each of the two series of compound predicative constructions falls into two principal subdivisions. Namely, the syndetic and-constructions discriminate, first, simple copulative relations and, second, broader, non-copulative relations. The asyndetic constructions discriminate, first, simple enumerative relations and, second, broader, non-enumerative relations. Cf. examples of the primary connective meanings of the constructions in question:
You will have a great deal to say to her, and she will have a great deal to thank you for. She was tall and slender, her hair was light chestnut, her eyes had a dreamy expression.
The broader connective meanings of the considered constructions can be exposed by equivalent substitutions:
The money kept coming in every week, and the offensive gossip about his wife began to be replaced by predictions of sensational success. > The money kept coming in every week, so the offensive gossip about his wife began to be replaced by predictions of sensational success. The boy obeyed, the request was imperative. > The boy obeyed, for the request was imperative.

The marked coordinative connection is effected by the pure and adverbial coordinators mentioned above. Each semantic type of connection is inherent in the marking semantics of the connector. In particular, the connectors but, yet, stilt, however, etc. express different varieties of adversative relations of clauses; the discontinuous connectors both ... and, neither ... nor express, correspondingly, positive and negative (exclusive) copulative relations of events; the connectors so, therefore, consequently express various subtypes of clausal consequence, etc.
In order to give a specification to the semantics of clausal relations, the coordinative conjunction can be used together with an accompanying functional particle-like or adverb-like word. As a result, the marked connection, as it were, becomes doubly marked. In particular, the conjunction but forms the conjunctive specifying combinations but merely, but instead, but also and the like; the conjunction or forms the characteristic coordinative combinations or else, or rather, or even, etc. Cf.:
The workers were not prepared to accept the conditions of the administration, but instead they were considering a mass demonstration. She was frank with him, or rather she told him everything concerning the mere facts of the incident.
The coordinative specifiers combine also with the conjunction and, thus turning the unmarked coordinative connection into a marked one. Among the specifiers here used are included the adverbial coordinators so, yet, consequently and some others. E.g.: The two friends didn't dispute over the issue afterwards, and yet there seemed a hidden discord growing between them.
It should be specially noted that in the described semantic classification of the types of coordinative relations, the asyndetic connection is not included in the upper division of the system, which is due to its non-specific functional meaning. This fact serves to sustain the thesis that asyndetic connection of clauses is not to be given such a special status in syntax as would raise it above the discrimination between coordination and subordination.
§ 4. It is easily seen that coordinative connections are correlated semantically with subordinative connections so that a compound sentence can often be transformed into
22-149!) 337

a complex one with the preservation of the essential relational semantics between the clauses. The coordinative connections, as different from subordinative, besides the basic opposition to the latter by their ranking quality, are more general, they are semantically less discriminatory, less "refined". That is why the subordinative connection is regularly used as a diagnostic model for the coordinative connection, while the reverse is an exception rather than a rule. Cf.:
Our host had rung the bell on our entrance and now a Chinese cook came in with more glasses and several bottles of soda. > On our entrance, as our host had rung the bell, a Chinese cook came in with more glasses and several bottles of soda. There was nothing else to do, so Alice soon began talking again. > Alice soon began talking again because there was nothing else to do.
Speaking of the diagnostic role of subordinative constructions in relation to coordinative ones, it should be understood that this is of especial importance for the unmarked constructions, in particular for those realised by the conjunction and.
On the other hand, the coordinative connection of clauses is in principle not reducible to the subordinative connection, which fact, as in other similar cases of correlations, explains the separate and parallel existence of both types of clausal connection in language. This can be illustrated by the following example: I invited Mike to join us, but he refused.
It would appear at first sight that the subordinative diagnostic-specifying exposition of the semantic relations between the clauses of the cited sentence can be achieved by the concessive construction: "Though I invited Mike to join us, he refused". But the proper observation of the corresponding materials shows that this diagnosis is only valid for part of the possible contexts. Suffice it to give the following two contextual expansions to the sentence in question, of which only one corresponds to the cited diagnosis.
The first expansion: You are mistaken if you think that Mike was eager to receive an invitation to join us. I invited him, but he refused.
The given concessive reading of the sentence is justified by the context: the tested compound sentence is to be replaced here by the above complex one on a clear basis of equivalence.
The second expansion: It was decided to invite either Mike or Jesse to help us with our work. First I invited Mike, but he refused. Then we asked Jesse to join us.
338 '

It is quite clear that the devised concessive diagnosis is not at all justified by this context: what the analysed construction does render here, is a stage in a succession of events, for which the use of a concessive model would be absurd.
§ 5. The length of the compound sentence in terms of the number of its clausal parts (its predicative volume), the same as with the complex sentence, is in principle unlimited; it is determined by the informative purpose of the speaker. The commonest type of the compound sentence in this respect is a two-clause construction.
On the other hand, predicatively longer sentences than two-clause ones, from the point of view of semantic correlation between the clauses, are divided into "open" and "closed" constructions. Copulative and enumerative types of connection, if they are not varied in the final sequential clause, form "open" coordinations. These are used as descriptive and narrative means in a literary text. Cf.:
They visited house after house. They went over them thoroughly, examining them from the cellars in the basement to the attics under the roof. Sometimes they were too large and sometimes they were too small; sometimes they were too far from the center of things and sometimes they were too close; sometimes they were too expensive and sometimes they wanted too many repairs; sometimes they were too stuffy and sometimes they were too airy; sometimes they were too dark and sometimes they were too bleak. Roger always found a fault that made the house unsuitable (S. Maugham).
In the multi-clause compound sentence of a closed type the final part is joined on an unequal basis with the previous ones (or one), whereby a finalisation of the expressed chain of ideas is achieved. The same as open compound sentences, closed compound constructions are very important from the point of view of a general text arrangement. The most typical closures in such compound sentences are those effected by the conjunctions and (for an asyndetic preceding construction) and but (both for an asyndetic and copulative syndetic preceding construction). Cf., respectively:
His fingernails had been cleaned, his teeth brushed, his hair combed, his nostrils cleared and dried, and he had been dressed in formal black by somebody or other (W. Saroyan).


Pleasure may turn a heart to stone, riches may make it callous, but sorrow - oh, sorrow cannot break it (O. Wilde).
The structure of the closed coordinative construction is most convenient for the formation of expressive climax.
§ 1. In accord with the principles laid down in the introductory description of composite sentences (Ch. XXVI), the semi-composite sentence is to be defined as a sentence with more than one predicative lines which are expressed in fusion. For the most part, one of these lines can be identified as the leading or dominant, the others making the semi-predicative expansion of the sentence. The expanding semi-predicative line in the minimal semi-composite sentence is either wholly fused with the dominant (complete) predicative line of the construction, or partially fused with it, being weakened as a result of the fusing derivational transformation.
The semi-composite sentence displays an intermediary syntactic character between the composite sentence and the simple sentence. Its immediate syntagmatic structure ("surface" structure) is analogous to that of an expanded simple sentence, since it possesses only one completely expressed predicative unit. Its derivational structure ("deep" structure), on the other hand, is analogous to that of a composite sentence, because it is derived from two or more completely predicative units - its base sentences.
There are two different causes of the existence of the semi-composite sentence in language, each of them being essentially important in itself.
The first cause is the tendency of speech to be economical. As a result of this tendency, reductional processes are developed which bring about semi-blending of sentences. The second cause is that, apart from being economical, the semi-composite sentence fulfils its own purely semantic function, different from the function of the composite sentence proper (and so supplementing it). Namely, it is used to show that the events described in the corresponding sentence parts are more closely connected than the events described in the

parts of the composite sentence of complete composition. This function is inherent in the structure - it reflects the speaker's view of reality, his presentation of it. Thus, for different reasons and purposes the same two or several events can be reflected now by one type of structure, now by another type of structure, the corresponding "pleni"- and semi-constructions existing in the syntactic system of language as pairs of related and, for that matter, synonymically related functions. E.g.:
The sergeant gave a quick salute to me, and then he put his squad in motion. > Giving a quick salute to me, the sergeant put his squad in motion. > With a quick salute to me, the sergeant put his squad in motion.
The two connected events described by the cited sentences are, first, the sergeant's giving a salute to the speaker, and, second, the sergeant's putting his squad in motion. The first sentence, of the pleni-composite type, presents these situationally connected events in separate processual descriptions as they happened one after the other, the successive order being accentuated by the structural features of the construction, in particular, its sequential coordinate clause. The second sentence, of the semi-composite participial-expanded type, expresses a semantic ranking of the events in the situational blend, one of them standing out as a dominant event, the other as a by-event. In the presentation of the third construction, belonging to the primitivised type of semi-composition (maximum degree of blending), the fusion of the events is shown as constituting a unity in which the attendant action (the sergeant's salute) forms simply a background detail in relation to the immediately reflected occurrence (the sergeant's putting the squad in motion).
According to the ranking structure of the semi-composite sentences, they should be divided into semi-complex and semi-compound ones. These constructions correspond to the complex and compound sentences of complete composition (i.e., respectively, pleni-complex and pleni-compound sentences).
§ 2. The semi-complex sentence is a semi-composite sentence built up on the principle of subordination. It is derived from minimum two base sentences, one matrix and one insert. In the process of semi-complexing, the insert sentence is transformed into a partially depredicated construction which is embedded in one of the syntactic positions of the

matrix sentence. In the resulting construction, the matrix sentence becomes its dominant part and the insert sentence, its subordinate semi-clause.
The semi-complex sentences fall into a number of subtypes. Their basic division is dependent on the character of predicative fusion: this may be effected either by the process of position-sharing (word-sharing), or by the process of direct linear expansion. The sentences based on position-sharing fall into those of subject-sharing and those of object-sharing. The sentences based on semi-predicative linear expansion fall into those of attributive complication, adverbial complication, and nominal-phrase complication. Each subtype is related to a definite complex sentence (pleni-complex sentence) as its explicit structural prototype.
§ 3. Semi-complex sentences of subject-sharing are built up by means of the two base sentences overlapping round the common subject. E.g.:
The man stood. + The man was silent. > The man stood silent. The moon rose. + The moon was red. > The moon rose red.
From the syntagmatic point of view, the predicate of these sentences forms the structure of the "double predicate" because it expresses two essential functions at once: first, the function of a verbal type (the verb component of the predicate); second, the function of a nominal type (the whole combination of the verb with the nominal component). The paradigmatic analysis shows that the verb of the double predicate, being on the surface a notional link-verb, is in fact a quasi-link.
In the position of the predicative of the construction different categorial classes of words are used with their respective specific meanings and implications: nouns, adjectives, participles both present and past. Cf.:
Sam returned from the polar expedition a grown-up man. They waited breathless. She stood bending over the child's bed. We stared at the picture bewildered.
Observing the semantic, content of the given constructions, we sec that, within the bounds of their functional differences, they express two simultaneous events - or, rather, the simultaneity of the event described by the complicalor expansion with that described by the dominant part. At the

same time the construction gives informative prominence not to its dominant, but to the complicator, and corresponds to the pleni-complex sentence featuring the complicator event in the principal clause placed in post-position. Cf.:
The moon rose red. > As the moon rose it was red. She stood bending over the child's bed. > As she stood she was bending over the child's bed.
In the subject-sharing semi-composites with reflexivised dominant verbs of intense action the idea of change is rendered. E.g.:
He spoke himself hoarse. > As he spoke he became hoarse. (Further diagnosis: He spoke and spoke until he became hoarse.)
Apart from the described types of subject-sharing sentences there is a variety of them featuring the dominant verb in the passive. E.g.:
The idea has never been considered a wise one. The company was ordered to halt.
These sentences have active counterparts as their paradigmatic derivation bases which we analyse below as semi-complex sentences of object sharing.
§ 4. Semi-complex sentences of object-sharing, as different from those of subject-sharing, are built up of two base sentences overlapping round the word performing different functions in them: in the matrix sentence it is the object, in the insert sentence it is the subject. The complicator expansion of such sentences is commonly called the "complex object". E.g.:
We saw him.-\-He approached us. > We saw him approach us (approaching us). They painted the fence.-\-The fence was (became) green. > They painted the fence green.
Some dominant verbs of such constructions are not used in the same essential meaning outside the constructions, in particular, some causative verbs, verbs of liking and disliking, etc. Cf.: *I made him.+He obeyed. ˜" I made him obey.
This fact, naturally, reflects a very close unity of the constituents of such constructions, but, in our opinion, it can't be looked upon as excluding the constructions from

the syntactic subsystem in question; rather, the subsystem should be divided into the subsets of "free" object-sharing and "bound" object-sharing.
The adjunct to the shared object is expressed by an infinitive, a present or past participle, an adjective, a noun, depending on the structural type of the insert sentence (namely, on its being verbal or nominal).
As is seen from the above, the paradigmatic (derivational) explanation of the sentence with a "complex object" saves much descriptive space and, which is far more important, is at once generalising and practicable.* As for the relations between the two connected events expressed by the object-sharing sentence, they are of the three basic types: first, relations of simultaneity in the same place; second, relations of cause and result; third, relations of mental attitude towards the event (events thought of, spoken of, wished for, liked or disliked, etc.). All these types of relations can be explicated by the corresponding transformations of the semi-complex sentences into pleni-complex sentences.
Simultaneity in the same place is expressed by constructions with dominant verbs of perceptions (see, hear, feel, smell, etc.). E.g.:
He felt the morning breeze gently touching his face. > He felt the morning breeze as it was gently touching his lace. I never heard the word pronounced like that. > I never heard the word as it was pronounced like that.
Cause and result relations are rendered by constructions with dominant causative verbs taking three types of complex objects: an unmarked infinitival complex object (the verbs make, let, get, have, help); a nounal or adjectival complex object (the verbs call, appoint, keep, paint, etc.); a participial complex object (the verbs set, send, keep, etc.). Cf.:
I helped Jo find the photo. > I helped Jo so that he found the photo. The cook beat the meat soft. -" The cook beat the meat so that it was (became) soft.
Different mental presentations of the complicator event are effected, respectively, by verbs of mental perceptions and thinking (think, believe, expect, find, etc.); verbs of speech
* Cf. the classical "syntagmatic" explanation of constructions with complex objects in the cited 13. A. llyish's book, p. 257 ff.

(tell, ask, report, announce, etc.); verbs of wish; verbs of liking and disliking. Cf.:
You will find many things strange here. > You will find that many things are strange here. I didn't mean my words to hurt you. > I didn't mean that my words should hurt you.
Semi-complex sentences of the object-sharing type, as we have stated above, are closely related to sentences of the subject-sharing type. Structurally this is expressed in the fact that they can be transformed into the passive, their passive counterparts forming the corresponding subject-sharing constructions. Cf.:
We watched the plane disappear behind the distant clouds. > The plane was watched to disappear behind the distant clouds. They washed the floor clean. > The floor was washed clean.
Between the two series of constructions, i.e. active and passive, equivalence of the event-relations is observed, so that the difference in their basic meaning is inherent in the difference between the verbal active and passive as such.
§ 5. Semi-complex sentences of attributive complication are derived from two base sentences having an identical element that occupies the position of the subject in the insert sentence and any notional position in the matrix sentence. The insert sentence is usually an expanded one. By the semi-complexing process, the insert sentence drops out its subject-identical constituent and is transformed into a semi-predicative post-positional attribute to the antecedent element in the matrix sentence. E.g.:
The waves sent out fine spray. + The waves rolled over the dam. > The waves rolling over the dam sent out fine spray. I came in late for the supper. + The supper was served in the dining-room. > I came in late for the supper served in the dining-room.
The analogy between post-positional attributes (especially of a detached type) and attributive subordinate clauses has always been pointed out in grammar-books of various destination. The common pre-positional attribute is devoid of a similar half-predicative character and is not to be considered as forming a semi-composite construction with the

dominant predicative unit. Cf.: The bored family switched off the TV. - The family, bored, switched off the TV.
As for the possible detachment of the defining element (construction) in pre-position, this use is rather to be analysed as adverbial, not attributive, the circumstantial semantic component prevailing over the attributive one in this case. Cf.: Bored, the family switched off the TV. > As the family was bored, it switched off the TV.
, Naturally, the existence of some intermediary types cannot be excluded, which should be exposed in due course by the corresponding contextual observation.
As is seen, the base syntactic material for producing attributively complicated semi-composites is similar to the derivation base of position-sharing semi-composites. The essential difference between the constructions, though, lies in the character of joining their clausal parts: while the process of overlapping deprives the position-sharing expansion of any self-dependent existence, however potential it might be, the process of linear expansion with the attributive complication preserves the autonomous functional role of the semi-clause. The formal test of it is the possibility of inserting into the construction a relative conjunctive plus the necessary verbal element, changing the attributive semi-clause into the related attributive pleni-clause. E.g.:' This is a novel translated from the French. > This is a novel which has been translated from the French,
This test resembles a reconstruction, since an attributive complication in many respects resembles a reduced clause. The position-sharing expansion does not admit of this kind of procedure: the very process of overlapping puts it out of the question. The other factor of difference is the obligatory status of the position-sharing expansion (even in constructions of'"free"''object-sharing) against the optional status of the attributive complicator.
The attributive semi-clause may contain in its head position a present participle, a past participle and an adjective. The present participial attributive semi-clause corresponds to the attributive subordinate clause with a verbal predicate in the active. E.g.: We found dry ground at the base of a tree looking toward the sun. > We found dry ground at the base of a tree that looked toward the sun.
Naturally, the present participial semi-clause of the attributive type cannot express an event prior to the event

of the dominant clause. So, an attributive clause of complete predicative character expressing such an event has no parallel in a participial attributive semi-clause. E.g.: The squad that picked me up could have been scouts. > (*) The squad picking me up...
The past participial attributive semi-clause corresponds to the passive attributive subordinate clause. E.g.: You can never rely on the information received from that office. > You can never rely on the information which is received from that office.
The adjectival attributive semi-clause corresponds to the nominal attributive subordinate clause. E.g.: We admired the lilies white against the blue water. > We admired the lilies which were white against the blue water.
Semi-complex sentences of participial attributive complication formed by introducer constructions resemble subject-sharing semi-complex sentences. Cf.:
There is a river flowing through the town. > There is a river which flows through the town. This is John speaking. > This is John who is speaking.
Still closer to the subject-sharing semi-composite sentence stands the peculiar introducer or demonstrative construction whose attributive semi-clause has a finite verb predicate. This specific semi-complex sentence, formed much on the pattern of common subject overlapping, is called the "apo-koinou" construction (Greek "with a common element"). E.g.:
It was you insisted on coming, because you didn't like restaurants (S. O'Casey), He's the one makes the noise at night (E. Hemingway). And there's nothing more can be done (A. Christie).
The apo-koinou construction is considered here under the heading of the semi-complex sentence of attributive complication on the ground of its natural relation to the complex sentence with an attributive subordinate clause, similar to any common semi-complex sentence of the type in question. The apo-koinou construction should be classed as a familiar colloquialism of occasional use.
§ 6. Semi-complex sentences of adverbial complication are derived from two base sentences one of which, the insert

sentence, is predicatively reduced and embedded in an adverbial position of the other one, the matrix sentence. E.g.:
The task was completed. + The task seemed a very easy one. > The task, when completed, seemed a very easy one. The windows were closed.-\-She did not hear the noise in the street. -" The windows being closed, she did not hear the noise in the street.
The subject of the insert sentence may be either identical with that of the matrix sentence (the first of the above examples) or not identical with it (the second example). This feature serves as the first fundamental basis for classifying the semi-complex sentences in question, since in the derived adverbial semi-clause the identical subject is dropped out and the non-identical subject is preserved. It will be reasonable to call the adverbial semi-clause of the first type (i.e. referring to the subject of the dominant clause) the "conjoint" semi-clause. The adverbial complicator expansion of the second type (i.e. having its own subject) is known under the name of the "absolute construction" (it will further be referred to as "absolutive").
The given classification may be formulated for practical purposes as the "rule of the subject", which will run as follows: by adverbialising scmi-complexing the subject of the insert sentence is deleted if it is identical with the subject of the matrix sentence,
The other classificational division of adverbial semi-clauses concerns the representation of the predicate position. This position is only partially predicative, the role of the partial predicate being performed by the participle, either present or past. The participle is derived from the finite verb of the insert sentence; in other words, the predicate of the insert sentence is participialised in the semi-clause. Now, the participle-predicate of the adverbial semi-clause may be dropped out if the insert sentence, presents a nominal or existential construction (the finite verb be). Thus, in accord with this feature of their outer structure, adverbial semi-clauses are divided into participial and non-participial. E.g.:
One day Kitty had an accident. + She was swinging in the garden. > One day Kitty had an accident while swinging in the garden. (The participle is not to be deleted, being of an actional character.) He is very young.+ He is quite competent in this field. -" Though being very young, he is

quite competent in this field. > Though very young, he is quite competent in this field. (The participle can be deleted, being of a linking nature.) She spoke as if being in a dream. > She spoke as if in a dream. (The predicate can be deleted, since It is expressed by the existential be.)
The two predicate types of adverbial semi-clauses, similar to the two subject types, can be briefly presented by the "rule of the predicate" as follows: by adverbialising semi-complexing the verb-predicate of the insert sentence is participialised, and may be deleted if it is expressed by be.
Conjoint adverbial semi-clauses are either introduced by adverbial subordinated conjunctions or joined to the dominant clause asyndetically. The adverbial semantics expressed is temporal, broader local, causal, conditional, comparative. Cf. syndetic introduction of adverbial semi-clauses:
He was silent as if not having heard the call. > ...as if he had not heard the call. Read on unless told otherwise. > ... unless you are told otherwise. Although kept out of the press, the event is widely known in the diplomatic circles. > Although it is kept out of the press... When in London, the tourists travelled in double-deckers. > When they were in London...
Asyndetic introduction of adverbial semi-clauses is characteristic of temporal and causal constructions. Cf.:
Working on the book, the writer travelled much about the country. > When working on the book... Dialling her number, she made a mistake. > While dialling her number... Being tired, I could not accept the invitation. > As I was tired...
As for the absolutive adverbial semi-clauses, they are joined to the dominant clause either asyndetically, or, mostly for the purpose of emphasis, by the conjunction with. The adverbial semantics of the absolutive complicator expansion is temporal, causal, and attendant-circumstantial. E.g.:
Everything being settled, Moyra felt relieved. > As everything was settled... Two days having elapsed, the travellers set out on their way. -" When two days had elapsed...With all this work waiting for me, I can't afford to join their Sunday outing. > As all this work is waiting for me... • "

The rule of the predicate is observed in absolulive complicators the same as in conjoint adverbial complicators. Its only restriction concerns impersonal sentences where the link-verb is not to be deleted. Cf.:
The long luncheon over, the business friend would bow and go his way. > When the long luncheon was over... It being very hot, the children gladly ran down to the lake. > As it was very hot...
§ 7. Semi-complex sentences of nominal phrase complication are derived from two base sentences one of which, the insert sentence, is partially norninalised (changed into a verbid phrase of infinitival or gerundial type) and embedded in one of the nominal and prepositional adverbial positions of the other sentence serving as the matrix. The nominal verbid constructions meet the demands both of economy and expressiveness, and they are widely used in all the functional orders of speech. The gerundial phrase is of a more substantive semantic character, the infinitival phrase, correspondingly, of a more processual semantic character. The gerundial nominalisalion involves the optional change of the noun subject into the possessive, while the infinitival nominalisation involves the use of the preposition for before the subject. E.g.
Tom's coming late annoyed his mother. > The fact that Tom came late annoyed his mother. For him to come so late was unusual. > It was unusual that he came so late.
The rule of the subject exposed in connection with the adverbial semi-complexing (see above) applies also to the process of partial nominalisation and is especially important here. It concerns the two types of subject deletion; first, its contextual identification; second, its referring to a general (indefinite) person. Thus, the rule can be formulated in this way: the subject of the verbid phrase is deleted when it is either identified from the context (usually, but not necessarily, from the matrix sentence) or denotes an indefinite person. Cf. the contextual identification of the subject:
We are definite about it. > Our being definite about it. > Let's postpone being definite about it. Mary has recovered so soon. -" For Mary to have recovered so soon -" Mary is happy to have recovered so soon.

Cf. the indefinite person identification of the subject:
One avoids quarrels with strangers. -" One's avoiding quarrels with strangers. > Avoiding quarrels with strangers is always a wise policy. One loves spring. -" For one to love spring.>It's but natural to love spring.
A characteristic function of the infinitive phrase is its use with subordinative conjunctions in nominal semi-clauses. The infinitive in these cases implies modal meanings of obligation, admonition, possibility, etc. E.g.:
I wondered where to go. -" I wondered where I was to go. The question is, what to do next. > The question is, what we should do next.
In contrast with nominal uses of infinitive phrases, gerundial phrases are widely employed as adverbial semi-clauses introduced by prepositions. Semi-clauses in question are naturally related to the corresponding adverbial pleni-clauses. Cf.:
In writing the letter he dated it wrong. > White he was writing the letter he dated it wrong. She went away without looking back. > As she went away she didn't look back. I cleaned my breast by telling you everything. > I cleaned my breast because I told you everything.
The prepositional use of gerundial adverbial phrases is in full accord with the substantival syntactic nature of the gerund, and this feature differentiates in principle the gerundial adverbial phrase from the participial adverbial phrase as a positional constituent of the semi-complex sentence.
§ 1. The semi-compound sentence is a semi-composite sentence built up on the principle of coordination. Proceeding from the outlined grammatical analysis of the composite sentence, the structure of the semi-compound sentence is derivationally to be traced back to minimum two base sentences having an identical element belonging to one or both of their principal syntactic positions, i.e. either the subject,

or the predicate, or both. By the process of semi-compounding, the sentences overlap round the identical element sharing it in coordinative fusion, which can be either syndetic or asyndetic. Thus, from the formal point of view, a sentence possessing coordinated notional parts of immediately sentential reference (directly related to its predicative line) is to be treated as semi-compound. But different structural types of syntactic coordination even of direct sentential reference (coordinated subjects, predicates, objects, adverbial modifiers) display very different implications as regards semi-compounding composition of sentences.
By way of a general statement we may say that, other things being equal, the closer the coordinative group is related to the verb-predicate of the sentence, the more directly and explicitly it functions as a factor of sentence semi-compounding.
For instance, coordinated subjects connected asyndetically in an enumerative sequence or forming a plain copulative syndetic string can hardly be taken as constituting so many shared though separately identified predicative lines with the verbal constituent of the sentence. As different from this, two subject-groups connected adversatively or antithetically are more "live" in their separate relation to the predicative centre; the derivative reference of such a sentence to the two source predicative constructions receives some substantiality. E.g.:
There was nothing else, only her face in front of me. > There was nothing else in front of me.+There was only her face in front of me.
Substantially involved in the expression of semi-compounding is a combination of two subjects relating to one predicate when the subjects are discontinuously positioned, so that the first starts the utterance, while the second concludes it with some kind of process-referred introduction. Cf.:
The entrance door stood open, and also the door of the living-room. -" The entrance door stood open.+ The door of the living-room stood also open.
However, if we turn our attention to genuine coordinations of predicates (i.e. coordinations of non-repetitive or otherwise primitivising type), both verbal and nominal, we shall immediately be convinced of each element of the group presenting its own predicative centre relating to the one

subject axis of the sentence, thereby forming a strictly compounding fusion of the predicative lines expressed. This fact is so trivially clear that it does not seem to require a special demonstration.
Hence, we will from now on treat the corresponding sentence-patterns with coordinate predicate phrases as featuring classes of constructions that actually answer the identifying definition of semi-compound sentence; in our further exposition we will dwell on some structural properties and functional semantics of this important sentence-type so widely represented in the living English speech in all its lingual divisions, which alone displays an unreservedly clear form of sentential semi-compounding out of the numerous and extremely diversified patterns of syntactic coordination.
§ 2. 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.
The rare instances contradicting the given rule concern inverted constructions where the intense fusion of predicates in overlapping round the subject placed in the end position deprives the leading clause of its unbroken, continuous presentation. Cf.:
Before him lay the road to fame. + The road to fame lured him. > Before him lay and lured him the road to fame.
In case of a nominal predicate, the sequential predicative complement can be used in a semi-compound pattern without its linking part repeated. E.g.:
My manner was matter-of-fact, and casual. The savage must have been asleep or very tired.
The same holds true about coordinated verbids related
23-1499 ' 353

to a common finite verb in the function of an auxiliary or otherwise. E.g.:
The tiger was at large and burning with rage. He could not recall the face of the peasant girl or remember the feel of her.
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.
Here are some examples of double-conjunctional formations expressing, respectively, disjunction, simple copulative relation, copulative antithesis, copulative exclusion:
They either went for long walks over the fields, or joined in a quiet game of chess on the veranda. That great man was both a soldier and a born diplomat. Mary not only put up with his presence, but tried to be hospitable. I am neither for the proposal, nor against the proposal; nor participating in that sham discussion of theirs at all.
Cf. instances of conjunctive-adverbial introduction of predicate expansion rendering the functional meanings of action ordering (then), of adversative-concessive relation (yet), of consequence (so), of limitation (just):
His beady eyes searched the clearing, then came back to my face. He was the tallest and bravest, yet was among those to give up life. I knew then that she was laughing,

so laughed with her. The Colonel didn't enlarge on the possible outcome of their adventure, just said a few words of warning against the abrupt turns of the mountain-pass.
With semi-compound sentences, similar to pleni-compound sentences, but on a larger scale, conjunctions combine with particle-like elements of modal-adverbial description. These elements supplement and specify the meaning of the conjunction, so that they receive the status of sub-conjunction specifiers, and the pairs "conjunction plus sub-conjunctive" become in fact regular conjunctive-coordinative combinations. Here belong such combinations as and then, and perhaps, and probably, and presently, and so, and consequently, etc; but merely, but only, but instead, but nevertheless, etc.; or else, or even, or rather, etc. The specifications given by the sub-conjunctives are those of change of events, probability evaluation, consequence in reasoning, concessive contrast, limiting condition, intensity gradation, and many others, more specific ones. E.g.:
He waited for some moments longer and then walked down to the garden to where, on the terrace, the jeep was parked (H. E. Bates). She lived entirely apart from the contemporary literary world and probably was never in the company of anyone more talented than herself (J. Austen). To his relief, she was not giving off the shifting damp heat of her anger, but instead was cool, decisive, material (J. Updike). For several hours I discussed this with you, or rather vented exhaustive rewordings upon your silent phantom (J. Updike).
§ 3. 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 functional meanings expressed by the and-semi-compound patterns can be exposed by means of both coordinative and subordinative correlations. Here are some basic ones:
The officer parked the car at the end of the terrace and went into the Mission. > The officer parked the car ...,

then went into the Mission. (Succession of events, inviting a coordinative exposition) Suddenly the door burst open and Tommy rushed in panting for breath.> As the door burst open, Tommy rushed in ...("Successive simultaneity" of actions, inviting a subordinative exposition) Patterton gavelled for attention and speedily disposed of several routine matters. > Patterton gavelled for attention so that he could dispose and did dispose of several routine matters. (Purpose in successive actions, inviting a subordinative exposition) Her anger and emotion grew, and finally exploded. > Her anger and emotion grew to the degree that they finally exploded. (Successive actions in gradation, inviting a subordinative exposition) He just miscalculated and won't admit it. -" Though he miscalculated, he won't admit it. (Concession in opposition, inviting a subordinative exposition) Mary promised to come and he was determined to wait. > He was determined to wait because Mary had promised to come. (Cause and consequence, inviting a subordinative exposition)
Among the various connective meanings expressed by the conjunction and in combination with the corresponding lexemic constituents of the sentence there are two standing very prominent, due to the regular correlations existing between such constructions and semi-complex patterns with verbid phrases - infinitival and participial.
The first construction expresses a subsequent action of incidental or unexpected character:
He leaped up in time to see the Colonel rushing out of the door (H. E. Bates). > He leaped up in time and saw the Colonel rushing out of the door. Walker woke in his bed at the bourbon house to hear a strange hum and buzz in the air (M. Bradbury). > Walker woke in his bed at the bourbon house and heard a strange hum and buzz in the air.
In these constructions the leading clause, as a rule, includes verbs of positional or psychological change, while the expansion, correspondingly, features verbs of perceptions. As is seen from the examples, it is the semi-compound pattern that diagnoses the meaning of the pattern with the infinitive, not the reverse. The infinitive pattern for its part makes up an expressive stylistic device by virtue of its outward coincidence with an infinitive pattern of purpose: the unexpectedness of the referent action goes together with the contextual unexpectedness of the construction.

The participial construction expresses a parallel attendant event that serves as a characteristic to the event rendered by the leading clause:
He sat staring down the gardens, trying to remember whether this was the seventh or eighth day since the attack had begun (H. E. Bates). > He was sitting and staring down the gardens, and was trying to remember... Rage flamed up in him, contorting his own face (M. Puzo). >Rage flamed up in him and contorted his own face.
With the participial pattern, the same as with the infinitival one, the diagnostic construction is the semi-compound sentence, not vice versa.
The nature of the shown correlations might be interpreted as a reason for considering the relations between the head-verb and the verbid in the tested patterns as coordinative, not subordinative. However, on closer analysis we must admit that diagnosis of this kind is called upon to expose the hidden meanings, but not to level up the differences between units of opposed categorial standings. The verbid patterns remain part of the system of semi-complex sentences because of the hierarchical ranking of their notional positions, while the correlation with semi-compound sentences simply explain their respective semantic properties.
§ 4. The asyndetic formation of the semi-compound sentence stands by its functional features close to the syndetic and-formation in so far as it does not give a rigorous characterisation (semantic mark) to the introduced expansion. At the same time its functional range is incomparably narrower than that of the and-formation.
The central connective meaning distinguishing the asyndetic connection of predicative parts in semi-compound sentences is enumeration of events, either parallel or consecutive. In accord with the enumerative function, asyndetic semi-compounding more often than not is applied to a larger set of base sentences than the minimal two. E.g.:
He closed the door behind him with a shaking hand, found the old car in its parking place, drove along with the drifting lights. They talked, laughed, were perfectly happy late into the night.
Asyndetic semi-compound sentences are often used to

express gradation of intensity going together with a general emphasis. E.g.:
He would in truth give up the shop, follow her to Paris, follow her also to the chateau in the country (D. du Maurier). He never took the schoolbag again, had refused to touch it (J. Updike).
Characteristic of enumerative and gradational semi-compound sentences is the construction where the first two parts are joined asyndetically, and the third part syndetically, by means of the conjunction and. In such three-base constructions the syndetic expansion finalises the sentence both structurally and semantically, making it into an intensely complete utterance. E.g.:
He knows his influence, struts about and considers himself a great duellist. They can do it, have the will to do it, and are actually doing it.
Of the meanings other than enumerative rendered by the construction in question, the most prominent is elucidation combined with various connotations, such as consequence, purpose, additional characteristics of the basic event. Cf.:
The sight of him made me feel young again: took me back to the beaches, the Ardennes, the Reichswald, and the Rhine. I put an arm round her, tried to tease her into resting.
§ 5. 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 (M. Dickens).

A series of successive events is intensely rendered by a homosyndetic construction formed with the help of the conjunctive then. E.g.: You saw the flash, then heard the crack, then saw the smoke ball distort and thin in the wind (E. Hemingway).
Another conjunctive pattern used in homosyndetic semi-compounding is the or-type in its different variants. E.g.:
After dinner we sat in the yard of the inn on hard chairs, or paced about the platform or stumbled between the steel sleepers of the permanent way (E. Waugh). Babies never cried or got the wind or were sick when Nurse Morrison fed them (M. Dickens).
By heterosyndetic semi-compounding the parts of the sentence are divided into groups according to the meanings of the conjunctives. Cf.:
A native woman in a sarong came and looked at them, but vanished when the doctor addressed her (S. Maugham). Ugly sat in the bow and barked arrogantly at passing boats, or stood rockily peering in the river (M. Dickens).
The asyndetic connections in semi-compound sentences, within their range of functions, are very expressive, especially when making up long enumerations-gradations. E.g.:
He had enjoyed a sharp little practice in Split, had meddled before the war in anti-Serbian politics, had found himself in an Italian prison, had been let out when the partisans briefly "liberated" the coast, had been swept up with them in the retreat (E. Waugh).
In the mixed syndetic-asyndetic semi-compound sentence various groupings of coordinated parts are effected. E.g.: He spun completely round, then fell forward on his knees, rose again and limped slowly on (E. Waugh).
In cases where multi-base semi-compound sentences are formed around one and the same subject-predicate combination, they are very often primitivised into a one-predicate sentence with coordinated secondary parts. Of these sentences, a very characteristic type is presented by a construction with a string of adverbial groups. This type of sentence expresses an action (usually, though not necessarily, a movement) or a series of actions continued through a sequence of consecutive place- and time situations. E.g.: Then she took my hand, and we went down the steps of the tower

together, and through the court and to the walls of the rock-place (D. du Maurier).
The construction is very dynamic, its adverbial constituents preserve clear traces of the corresponding predications, and therefore it approaches the genuine semi-compound sentence of predicate coordination by its semantic nature.
§ 6. 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 latter sentence - from D. du Maurier). 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 latter sentence - from H. E. Stover).
A question arises whether the compared sentences are absolutely the same in terms of functions and semantics, or whether there is some kind of difference between them which causes them to be used discriminately.
In an attempt to expose the existing functional difference between the two constructions, it has been pointed out that base sentences with identical subjects are connected not in a semi-compound, but into a compound sentence (of complete composition) in the three main cases: first, when the leading sentence is comparatively long; second, when the finite verbs in the two sentences are of different structure; third, when the second sentence is highly emotional.* These tentative formulations should rather be looked upon as practical guides, for they do correspond to the existing tendencies of living speech. But the tendencies lack absolute regularity and, which is far more significant, they do not present complete lingual facts by themselves, but rather are particular manifestations of a general and fundamental mechanism at work. This mechanism is embodied in the actual division of the
* Irtenyeva N. F., Shapkin A. P., Blokh M. Y. The Structure of the English Sentence. M., 1969, p. 110.

sentence: as a matter of fact, observations of the relevant contexts show that the structure of the actual division in the two types of sentences is essentially different. Namely, whereas the actual division of the compound sentence with identical subjects presents two (or more) separate informative perspectives characterised by identical themes and different rhemes, the actual division of the semi-compound sentence presents only one perspective, analysed into one theme and one, though complex, rheme; the latter falls into two or more constituent rhemes (sub-rhemes) in various concrete contexts.
The sub-rhemes may be of equal importance from the informational point of view, as in the following example: We were met by a guide who spoke excellent English and had a head full of facts.
The sub-rhemes may be of unequal informative importance, the predicative expansion rendering the basic semantic content of the sentence. E.g.: She gave us her address and asked us to come and see her.
The coordinated predicate groups may also be informatively fused into an essentially simple rheme, i.e. into a phrase making up a close informative unity. E.g.: He took out his diary and began to write. The man looked up and laughed.
As different from the semi-compound construction with its exposed informative properties, the very identity of the subject themes in a compound sentence of complete composition is a factor making it into a communicatively intense, logically accented syntactic unit (compare the examples given at the beginning of the paragraph).
§ 1. We have repeatedly shown throughout the present work that sentences in continual speech are not used in isolation; they are interconnected both semantically-topically and syntactically.
Inter-sentential connections have come under linguistic investigation but recently. The highest lingual unit which was approached by traditional grammar as liable to syntactic study was the sentence; scholars even specially stressed

that to surpass the boundaries of the sentence was equal to surpassing the boundaries of grammar.
In particular, such an outstanding linguist as L. Bloomfield, while recognising the general semantic connections between sentences in the composition of texts as linguistically relevant, at the same time pointed out that the sentence is the largest grammatically arranged linguistic form, i.e. it is not included into any other linguistic form by a grammatical arrangement.*
However, further studies in this field have demonstrated the inadequacy of the cited thesis. It has been shown that sentences in speech do come under broad grammatical arrangements, do combine with one another on strictly syntactic lines in the formation of larger stretches of both oral talk and written text.
It should be quite clear that, supporting the principle of syntactic approach to arrangement of sentences into a continual text, we do not assert that any sequence of independent sentences forms a syntactic unity. Generally speaking, sentences in a stretch of uninterrupted talk may or may not build up a coherent sequence, wholly depending on the purpose of the speaker. E.g.:
Barbara. Dolly: don't be insincere. Cholly: fetch your concertina and play something for us (B. Shaw).
The cited sequence of two sentences does not form a unity in either syntactic or semantic sense, the sentences being addressed to different persons on different reasons. A disconnected sequence may also have one and the same communication addressee, as in the following case:
Duchess of Berwic... I like him so much. I am quite delighted he's gone! How sweet you're looking! Where do you get your gowns? And now I must tell you how sorry I am for you, dear Margaret (O. Wilde).
But disconnected sequences like these are rather an exception than the rule. Moreover, they do not contradict in the least the idea of a continual topical text as being formed of grammatically interconnected sentences. Indeed, successive sentences in a disconnected sequence mark the corresponding transitions of thought, so each of them can potentially be expanded into a connected sequence bearing on one
* See: Bloomfield L. Language. N.-Y., 1933, p. 170. 362

unifying topic. Characteristically, an utterance of a personage in a work of fiction marking a transition of thought (and breaking the syntactic connection of sentences in the sequence) is usually introduced by a special author's comment. E.g.:
"You know, L.S., you're rather a good sport." Then his tone grew threatening again. "It's a big risk I'm taking. It's the biggest risk I've ever had to take" (C. P. Snow).
As we see, the general idea of a sequence of sentences forming a text includes two different notions. On the one hand, it presupposes a succession of spoken or written utterances irrespective of their forming or not forming a coherent semantic complex. On the other hand, it implies a strictly topical stretch of talk, i.e. a continual succession of sentences centering on a common informative purpose. It is this latter understanding of the text that is syntactically relevant. It is in this latter sense that the text can be interpreted as a lingual element with its two distinguishing features: first, semantic (topical) unity, second, semantico-syntactic cohesion.
§ 2. The primary division of sentence sequences in speech should be based on the communicative direction of their component sentences. From this point of view monologue sequences and dialogue sequences are to be discriminated.
In a monologue, sentences connected in a continual sequence are directed from one speaker to his one or several listeners. Thus, the sequence of this type can be characterised as a one-direction sequence. E.g.:
We'll have a lovely garden. We'll have roses in it and daffodils and a lovely lawn with a swing for little Billy and little Barbara to play on. And we'll have our meals down by the lily pond in summer (K. Waterhouse and H. Hall).
The first scholars who identified a succession of such sentences as a special syntactic unit were the Russian linguists N. S. Pospelov and L. A. Bulakhovsky. The former called the unit in question a "complex syntactic unity", the latter, a "super-phrasal unity". From consistency considerations, the corresponding English term used in this book is the "supra-sentential construction" (see Ch. I).
As different from this, sentences in a dialogue sequence are uttered by the speakers-interlocutors in turn, so that they are directed, as it were, to meet one another; the sequence

of this type, then, should be characterised as a two-direction sequence. E.g.: "Annette, what have you done?" - "I've done what I had to do" (S. Maugham).
It must be noted that two-direction sequences can in principle be used within the framework of a monologue text, by way of an "inner dialogue" (i.e. a dialogue of the speaker with himself). E.g.: What were they jabbering about now in Parliament? Some two-penny-ha'penny tax! (J. Galsworthy).
On the other hand, one-direction sequences can be used in a dialogue, when a response utterance forms not a rejoinder, but a continuation of the stimulating utterance addressed to the same third party, or to both speakers themselves as a collective self-addressee, or having an indefinite addressee. E.g.:
St. Erth. All the money goes to fellows who don't know a horse from a haystack. -Canynge (profoundly). And care less. Yes! We want men racing to whom a horse means something (J. Galsworthy). Elуоt. I'm glad we didn't go out tonight. Amanda. Or last night. El-yоt. Or the night before. Amanda. There's no reason to, really, when we're cosy here (N. Coward).
Thus, the direction of communication should be looked upon as a deeper characteristic of the sentence-sequence than its outer, purely formal presentation as either a monologue (one man's speech) or a dialogue (a conversation between two parties). In order to underline these deep distinguishing features of the two types of sequences, we propose to name them by the types of sentence-connection used. The formation of a one-direction sequence is based on syntactic cumulation of sentences, as different from syntactic composition of sentences making them into one composite sentence. Hence, the supra-sentential construction of one-direction communicative type can be called a cumulative sequence, or a "cumuleme". The formation of a two-direction sequence is based on its sentences being positioned to meet one another. Hence, we propose to call this type of sentence-connection by the term "occursive", and the supra-sentential construction based on occursive connection, by the term "occurseme".
Furthermore, it is not difficult to see that from the hierarchical point of view the occurseme as an element of the system occupies a place above the cumuleme. Indeed, if the cumuleme is constructed by two or more sentences joined by cumulation, the occurseme can be constructed by two

or more cumulemes, since the utterances of the interlocutors can be formed not only by separate sentences, but by cumulative sequences as well. E.g.:
"Damn you, stop talking about my wife. If you mention her name again I swear I'll knock you down." - "Oh no, you won't. You're too great a gentleman to hit a feller smaller than yourself" (S. Maugham).
As we see, in formal terms of the segmental lingual hierarchy, the supra-proposemic level (identified in the first chapter of the book) can be divided into two sublevels: the lower one - "cumulemic", and the higher one - "occursemic". On the other hand, a fundamental difference between the two units in question should be carefully noted lying beyond the hierarchy relation, since the occurseme, as different from the cumuleme, forms part of a conversation, i.e. is essentially produced not by one, but by two or several speakers, or, linguistically, not by one, but by two or several individual sub-lingual systems working in an intercourse contact.
As for the functional characteristic of the two higher segmental units of language, it is representative of the function of the text as a whole. The signemic essence of the text is exposed in its topic. The monologue text, or "discourse", is then a topical entity; the dialogue text, or "conversation", is an exchange-topical entity. The cumuleme and occurseme are component units of these two types of texts, which means that they form, respectively, subtopical and exchange-sub-topical units as regards the embedding text as a whole. Within the framework of the system of language, however, since the text as such does not form any "unit" of it, the cumuleme and occurseme can simply be referred to as topical elements (correspondingly, topical and exchange-topical), without the "sub "-specification.
§ 3. Sentences in a cumulative sequence can be connected either "prospectively" or "retrospectively".
Prospective ("epiphoric", "cataphoric") cumulation is effected by connective elements that relate a given sentence to one that is to follow it. In other words, a prospective connector signals a continuation of speech: the sentence containing it is semantically incomplete. Very often prospective connectors are notional words that perform the cumulative function for the nonce. E.g.:

I tell you, one of two things must happen. Either out of that darkness some new creation will come to supplant us as we have supplanted the animals, or the heavens will fall in thunder and destroy us (B. Shaw).
The prospective connection is especially characteristic of the texts of scientific and technical works. E.g.:
Let me add a word of caution here. The solvent vapour drain enclosure must be correctly engineered and constructed to avoid the possibility of a serious explosion (From a technical journal).
As different from prospective cumulation, retrospective (or "anaphoric") cumulation is effected by connective elements that relate a given sentence to the one that precedes it and is semantically complete by itself. Retrospective cumulation is the more important type of sentence connection of the two; it is the basic type of cumulation in ordinary speech. E.g.:
What curious "class" sensation was this? Or was it merely fellow-feeling with the hunted, a tremor at the way things found one out? (J. Galsworthy).
§ 4. On the basis of the functional nature of connectors, cumulation is divided into two fundamental types: conjunctive cumulation and correlative cumulation.
Conjunctive cumulation is effected by conjunction-like connectors. To these belong, first, regular conjunctions, both coordinative and subordinative; second, adverbial and parenthetical sentence-connectors (then, yet, however, consequently, hence, besides, moreover, nevertheless, etc.). Adverbial and parenthetical sentence-connectors may be both specialised, i.e. functional and semi-functional words, and non-specialised units performing the connective functions for the nonce. E.g.:
There was an indescribable agony in his voice. And as if his own words of pain overcame the last barrier of his self-control, he broke down (S. Maugham). There was no train till nearly eleven, and she had to bear her impatience as best she could. At last it was time to start, and she put on her gloves (S. Maugham).
Correlative cumulation is effected by a pair of elements one of which, the "succeedent", refers to the other, the

"antecedent", used in the foregoing sentence; by means of this reference the succeeding sentence is related to the preceding one, or else the preceding sentence is related to the succeeding one. As we see, by its direction correlative cumulation may be either retrospective or prospective, as different from conjunctive cumulation which is only retrospective.
Correlative cumulation, in its turn, is divided into substitutional connection and representative connection. Substitutional cumulation is based on the use of substitutes. E.g.:
Spolding woke me with the apparently noiseless efficiency of the trained housemaid. She drew the curtains, placed a can of hot water in my basin, covered it with the towel, and retired (E. J. Howard).
A substitute may have as its antecedent the whole of the preceding sentence or a clausal part of it. Furthermore, substitutes often go together with conjunctions, effecting cumulation of mixed type. E.g.:
And as I leaned over the rail methought that all the little stars in the water were shaking with austere merriment. But it may have been only the ripple of the steamer, after all (R. Kipling).
Representative correlation is based on representative elements which refer to one another without the factor of replacement. E.g.:
She should be here soon. I must tell Phipps, I am not in to any one else (O. Wilde). I went home. Maria accepted my departure indifferently (E. J. Howard).
Representative correlation is achieved also by repetition, which may be complicated by different variations. E.g.:
Well, the night was beautiful, and the great thing not to be a pig. Beauty and not being a pig\ Nothing much else to it (J. Galsworthy).
§ 5. A cumuleme (cumulative supra-sentential construction) is formed by two or more independent sentences making up a topical syntactic unity. The first of the sentences in a cumuleme is its "leading" sentence, the succeeding sentences are "sequential".
The cumuleme is delimited in the text by a finalising intonation contour (cumuleme-contour) with a prolonged pause

(cumuleme-pause); the relative duration of this pause equals two and a half moras ("mora" - the conventional duration of a short syllable), as different from the sentence-pause equalling only two moras.
The cumuleme, like a sentence, is a universal unit of language in so far as it is used in all the functional varieties of speech. For instance, the following cumuleme is part of the author's speech of a work of fiction:
The boy winced at this. It made him feel hot and uncomfortable all over. He knew well how careful he ought to be, and yet, do what he could, from time to time his forgetfulness of the part betrayed him into unreserve (S. Butler).
Compare a cumuleme in a typical newspaper article:
We have come a long way since then, of course. Unemployment insurance is an accepted fact. Only the most die-hard reactionaries, of the Goldwater type, dare to come out against it (from Canadian Press).
Here is a sample cumuleme of scientific-technical report prose:
To some engineers who apply to themselves the word "practical" as denoting the possession of a major virtue, applied research is classed with pure research as something highbrow they can do without. To some business men, applied research is something to have somewhere in the organisation to demonstrate modernity and enlightenment. And people engaged in applied research are usually so satisfied in the belief that what they are doing is of interest and value that they are not particularly concerned about the niceties of definition (from a technical journal).
Poetical text is formed by cumulemes, too:
She is not fair to outward view, | As many maidens be; | Her loveliness I never knew | Until she smiled on me. |Oh, then I saw her eye was bright, | A well of love, a spring of light (H. Coleridge).
But the most important factor showing the inalienable and universal status of the cumuleme in language is the indispensable use of cumulemes in colloquial speech (which is reflected in plays, as well as in conversational passages in works of various types of fiction).

The basic semantic types of cumulemes are "factual" (narrative and descriptive), "modal" (reasoning, perceptive, etc.), and mixed. Here is an example of a narrative cumuleme:
Three years later, when Jane was an Army driver, she was sent one night to pick up a party of officers who had been testing defences on the cliff. She found the place where the road ran between a cleft almost to the beach, switched off her engine and waited, hunched in her great-coat, half asleep, in the cold black silence. She waited for an hour and woke in a fright to a furious voice coming out of the night (M. Dickens).
Compare this with modal cumulemes of various topical standings:
She has not gone? I thought she gave a second performance at two? (S. Maugham) (A reasoning cumuleme of perceptional variety)
Are you kidding? Don't underrate your influence, Mr. O'Keefe. Dodo's in. Besides, I've lined up Sandra Straughan to work with her (A. Hailey). (A remonstrative cumuleme)
Don't worry. There will be a certain amount of unpleasantness but I will have some photographs taken that will be very useful at the inquest. There's the testimony of the gunbearers and the driver too. You're perfectly all right (E. Hemingway). (A reasoning cumuleme expressing reassurance) Etc.
§ 6. Cumuleme in writing is regularly expressed by a paragraph, but the two units are not wholly identical.
In the first place, the paragraph is a stretch of written or typed literary text delimited by a new (indented) line at the beginning and an incomplete line at the close. As different from this, the cumuleme, as we have just seen, is essentially a feature of all the varieties of speech, both oral and written, both literary and colloquial.
In the second place, the paragraph is a polyfunctional unit of written speech and as such is used not only for the written representation of a cumuleme, but also for the introduction of utterances of a dialogue (dividing an occurseme into parts), as well as for the introduction of separate points in various enumerations.
In the third place, the paragraph in a monologue speech can contain more than one cumuleme. For instance, the
24-1499 369

following paragraph is divided into three parts, the first formed by a separate sentence, the second and third ones presenting cumulemes. For the sake of clarity, we mark the borders between the parts by double slash:
When he had left the house Victorina stood quite still, with hands pressed against her chest. // She had slept less than he. Still as a mouse, she had turned the thought: "Did I take him in? Did I?" And if not - what? // She took out the notes which had bought - or sold - their happiness, and counted them once more. And the sense of injustice burned within her (J. Galsworthy).
The shown division is sustained by the succession of the forms of the verbs, namely, the past indefinite and past perfect, precisely marking out the events described.
In the fourth place, the paragraph in a monologue speech can contain only one sentence. The regular function of the one-sentence paragraph is expressive emphasis. E.g.:
The fascists may spread over the land, blasting their way with weight of metal brought from other countries. They may advance aided by traitors and by cowards. They may destroy cities and villages and try to hold the people in slavery. But you cannot hold any people in slavery.
The Spanish people will rise again as they have always risen before against tyranny (E. Hemingway).
In the cited passage the sentence-paragraph marks a transition from the general to the particular, and by its very isolation in the text expressively stresses the author's belief in the invincible will of the Spanish people who are certain to smash their fascist oppressors in the long run.
On the other hand, the cumuleme cannot be prolonged beyond the limits of the paragraph, since the paragraphal border-marks are the same as those of the cumuleme, i.e. a characteristic finalising tone, a pause of two and a half moras. Besides, we must bear in mind that both multicumuleme paragraphs and one-sentence paragraphs are more or less occasional features of the monologue text. Thus, we return to our initial thesis that the paragraph, although it is a literary-compositional, not a purely syntactic unit of the text, still as a rule presents a cumuleme; the two units, if not identical, are closely correlative.

§ 7. The introduction of the notion of cumuleme in linguistics helps specify and explain the two peculiar and rather important border-line phenomena between the sentence and the sentential sequence.
The first of these is known under the heading of "parcellation". The parcellated construction ("parcellatum") presents two or more collocations ("parcellas") separated by a sentence-tone but related to one another as parts of one and the same sentence. In writing the parts, i.e., respectively, the "leading parcella" and "sequential parcella", are delimited by a full stop (finality mark). E.g.:
There was a sort of community pride attached to it now. Or shame at its unavoidability (E.Stephens). Why be so insistent, Jim? If he doesn't want to tell you (J. O'Hara). ...I realised I didn't feel one way or another about him. Then. I do now (J. O'Hara).
Having recourse to the idea of transposition, we see that the parcellated construction is produced as a result of transposing a sentence into a cumuleme. This kind of transposition adds topical significance to the sequential parcella. The emphasising function of parcellation is well exposed by the transformation of de-transposition. This transformation clearly deprives the sequential parcella of its position of topical significance, changing it into an ordinary sentence-part. Cf.:
... > There was a sort of community pride attached to it now or shame at its unavoidability. ...> Why be so insistent, Jim, if he doesn't want to tell you? ... > I didn't feel one way or another about him then.
With some authors parcellation as the transposition of a sentence into a cumuleme can take the form of forced paragraph division, i.e. the change of a sentence into a supra-cumuleme. E.g.:
... It was she who seemed adolescent and overly concerned, while he sat there smiling fondly at her, quite self-possessed, even self-assured, and adult.
And naked. His nakedness became more intrusive by the second, until she half arose and said with urgency, "You have to go and right now, young man" (E. Stephens).
The second of the border-line phenomena in question is the opposite of parcellation, it consists in forcing two
24- 371

different sentences into one, i.e. in transposing a cumuleme into a sentence. The cumuleme-sentence construction is characteristic of uncareful and familiar speech; in a literary text it is used for the sake of giving a vivid verbal characteristic to a personage. E.g.:
I'm not going to disturb her and that's flat, miss (A. Christie). The air-hostess came down the aisle then to warn passengers they were about to land and please would everyone fasten their safety belts (B. Hedworth).
The transposition of a cumuleme into a sentence occurs also in literary passages dealing with reasoning and mental perceptions. E.g.:
If there were moments when Soames felt cordial, they were such as these. He had nothing against the young man; indeed, he rather liked the look of him; but to see the last of almost anybody was in a sense a relief; besides, there was this question of what he had overheard, and to have him about the place without knowing would be a continual temptation to compromise with one's dignity and ask him what it was (J. Galsworthy).
As is seen from the example, one of the means of transposing a cumuleme into a sentence in literary speech is the use of half-finality punctuation marks (here, a semicolon).
§ 8. Neither cumulemes, nor paragraphs form the upper limit of textual units of speech. Paragraphs are connected within the framework of larger elements of texts making up different paragraph groupings. Thus, above the process of cumulation as syntactic connection of separate sentences, supra-cumulation should be discriminated as connection of cumulemes and paragraphs into larger textual unities of the correspondingly higher subtopical status. Cf.:
... That first slip with my surname was just like him; and afterwards, particularly when he was annoyed, apprehensive, or guilty because of me, he frequently called me Ellis.
So, in the smell of Getliffe's tobacco, I listened to him as he produced case after case, sometimes incomprehensibly, because of his allusive slang, often inaccurately. He loved the law (C. P. Snow).

In the given example, the sentence beginning the second paragraph is cumulated (i.e. supra-cumulated) to the previous paragraph, thus making the two of them into a paragraph grouping.
Moreover, even larger stretches of text than primary paragraph groupings can be supra-cumulated to one another in the syntactic sense, such as chapters and other compositional divisions. For instance, compare the end of Chapter XXIII and the beginning of Chapter XXIV of J. Galsworthy's "Over the River":
Chapter XXIII. ... She went back to Condaford with her father by the morning train, repeating to her Aunt the formula: "I'm not going to be ill."
Chapter XXIV. But she was ill, and for a month in her conventional room at Condaford often wished she were dead and done with. She might, indeed, quite easily have died...
Can, however, these phenomena signify that the sentence is simply a sub-unit in language system, and that "real" informative-syntactic elements of this system are not sentences, but various types of cumulemes or supra-cumulemes? - In no wise.
Supra-sentential connections cannot be demonstrative of the would-be "secondary", "sub-level" role of the sentence as an element of syntax by the mere fact that all the cumulative and occursive relations in speech, as we have seen from the above analysis, are effected by no other unit than the sentence, and by no other structure than the inner structure of the sentence; the sentence remains the central structural-syntactic element in all the formations of topical significance. Thus, even in the course of a detailed study of various types of supra-sentential constructions, the linguist comes to the confirmation of the classical truth that the two basic units of language are the word and the sentence: the word as a unit of nomination, the sentence as a unit of predication. And it is through combining different sentence-predications that topical reflections of reality are achieved in all the numerous forms of lingual intercourse.

Ахманова О. С., Микаэлян Г. Б. Современные синтаксические теории. М., 1963.
Бархударов Л. С. (1) Структура простого предложения современного английского языка. М., 1966; (2) Очерки по морфологии современного английского языка. М., 1975.
Бархударов Л. С. Штелинг Д. А. Грамматика английского языка. М., 1973.
Блох М. Я. Вопросы изучения грамматического строя языка. М., 1976.
Блумфилд Л. Язык. М., 1968.
Бурлакова В. В. Основы структуры словосочетания в современном английском языке. Л., 1975.
Воронцова Г. Я. Очерки по грамматике английского языка. М., 1960.
Гальперин И. Р. Текст как объект лингвистического исследования. М., 1981.
Долгова О. В. (1) Семиотика неплавной речи. М., 1978; (2) Синтаксис как наука о построении речи. М., 1980.
Есперсен О. Философия грамматики. М., 1958.
Жигадло В. Я., Иванова И. Я., Иофик Л. Л. Современный английский язык. М., 1956.
Иванова И. Я. Вид и время в современном английском языке. Л., 1961.
Иванова И. Я., Бурлакова В. В., Почепцов Г. Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка. М., 1981.
Иртеньева Я. Ф. Грамматика современного английского языка (теоретический курс). М., 1956.
Корнеева Е. А., Кобрина Я. А., Гузеева К. А., Оссовская М. И. Пособие по морфологии современного английского языка. М. 1974.
Кошевая И. Г. Грамматический строй современного английского языка. М., 1978.
Лайонз Дж. Введение в теоретическую лингвистику. М., 1978.
Мухин A.M. (1) Структура предложений и их модели. Л., 1968; (2) Синтаксемный анализ и проблема уровней языка. Л., 1980.
Плоткин В. Я. Грамматические системы современного английского языка. Кишинев, 1975.
Почепцов Г. Г. (1) Конструктивный анализ структуры предложения. Киев, 1971; (2) Синтагматика английского слова. Киев, 1976.
Слюсарева Я. А. Проблемы функционального синтаксиса современного английского языка. М., 1981.
Смирницкий А. И. (1) Синтаксис английского языка. М., 1957; (2) Морфология английского языка. М., 1959.
Структурный синтаксис английского языка (теоретический курс). /Под ред. Иофик Л.Л. Л., 1981.

Тер-Минасова С. Г. Словосочетание в научно-лингвистическом и дидактическом аспектах. М., 1981.
Чейф У. Л. Значение и структура языка. М., 1975.
Уфимцева А. А. Слово в лексико-семантической системе языка. М., 1968.
Хлебникова И. Б. Оппозиции в морфологии. М., 1969.
Ярцева В. Н. (1) Историческая морфология английского языка. М.-Л., I960; (2) Исторический синтаксис английского языка. М.-Л., 1961.
Akhmanova О. et. al. Syntax: Theory and Method. Moscow, 1972.
Bryant M. A. Functional English Grammar. N.Y., 1945.
Close R. A. A Reference Grammar for Students of English. Ldn., 1977.
Curme G.O. A Grammar of the English Language. Boston - N.Y., 1935.
Fries Ch.C. The Structure of English. N.Y., 1952.
Ganshina M. A. Vasilevskaya N. M. English Grammar. Moscow, 1964.
Hill A. A. Introduction to Linguistic Structures. N.Y. - Burlingame, 1958.
Hockett Ch. A Course in Modern Linguistics. N.Y., 1958.
Iofik L. L., Chakhoyan L. P. Readings in the Theory of English Grammar. Leningrad, 1972.
Ilyish B. A. The Structure of Modern English. M.-L., 1971.
Irtenyeva N. F., Barsova O. M., Blokh M. Y., Shapkin A. P. A Theoretical English Grammar. Moscow, 1969.
Khaimovich B. S., Rogovskaya B. I. A Course in English Grammar. Moscow, 1967.
Nida E. Morphology. Ann Arbor, 1965.
Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A Grammar of Contemporary English. Ldn., 1972.
Strang B. Modern English Structure. Ldn., 1974.
Sweet H. A New English Grammar Logical and Historical. Pt. 1. Oxf., 1891;. Pt. 2. Oxf., 1898.


absolute and relative generalisation 77; 79; 81
absolute construction 112; 114; 180; 348-350
actional and statal verbs: see verb subclasses
active (verb-form) 177-179
actual division of the sentence 243-250; 256-262; 305
address 269
adjective 38; 41; 203-220; comparison of a. 213-219; subclasses: evaluative, specificative a. 206-207; qualitative, relative a. 205-207
adjectivid 213
adjunct-word 232
adverb 39; 220-229; comparison of a. 227-228; subclasses: functional 226-227; structural 223-226; a. in -ly 228-229
adverbial clause 321-328; subtypes: circumstantial cl. 325-327; localisation cl. 322-323; parenthetical cl. 327-328; qualification cl. 323-325
adverbial complication 347-350
adverbial modifier 98; 101; 235; 269
adverbid 223
agreement (concord) between subject and predicate 135-136; 232-233
agreement in sense (notional concord) 135-136
"allo-emic" theory 22-24
allo-term 22
analytical case 65
analytical form 34-35; 85; 107; 214-219
anaphoric connection: see retrospective connection

appositive clause 318-321
appurtenance 69
article 40; 74-85; identification 74-75; definite a. 76; indefinite a. 76-77; functions 76-83; a. with proper nouns 84; a. determination paradigm 85
artificial utterances 8
aspect 108; 155-176; 182
a-stative prefix 211
aspective meaning 94
asyndetic connection 231; 298-300; 335-337
attribute 235; 269; contact noun a. 50-51; descriptive, limiting a. 80
attributive clause 317-321
attributive complication 345-347
autosemantic and synsemantic elements 229
auxiliary 25; 34; 85; 89
axes of sentence 274-278
be going + Infinitive 151-152 broad-meaning word 48
case 62-74
cataphoric connection: see prospective connection
classes of words: syntactic cl. of w. 42-45
clausalisation 283-284
clause 289-290
cohesion of text 363
combinability: с of noun 50-51; с of verb 97-102; с of infinitive 105-106; с of gerund 109-110; с of pres. participle


111-112; с. of past participle 112-113; с. of adjective 204-205; c. of adverb 221-222
communicative direction 363
communicative purpose 251-255
communicative sentence types 251-268; cardinal с s. t. 251-252; intermediary с s. t. 262-268
complement 98-99
complementive and supplementive verbs: see verb subclasses
completive connection: objective с. с. 233-235; qualifying с. с. 235
completivity 99-101
complex balance 314
complex object 106; 112; 113-114; 281; 343-345
complex sentence 303-332
complex subject 106; 112; 114; 342-343; 345
composite sentence 288-302; 303-361
compound sentence 332-340
concise composition 301-302
conditional mood: see subjunctive mood
conjugation 37
conjunction 40; 41; 45; 231; see also syndetic connection
conjunctive cumulation 366
connective 41-42
consective mood: see subjunctive mood
constant feature category 36; 59
constituent parts of language 6
constructional system of syntactic paradigmatics 283-285
contact noun attribute: see attribute
continuous (verb-form) 155-156; 158-164
continuum 19; 119
conversion 87; 120; 212-213; 224
co-occurrence 23
coordinative connection of clauses 296-298; 332-340; marked, unmarked с. с. 336-337; open, closed с. с. 339-340
coordinative connection of sentence constituents 270-271; 352-353
coordinators 335
corpus 23

correlative cumulation 366-367 countable, uncountable nouns 59-
cumulation 16; 231; 300-301; 363-367
cumuleme 364; 367-371;
cumuleme-sentence 372; factual, modal, mixed c. 369
declarative sentence 251; 256-257 declension 37
deep structure 281; 340
degrees of comparison: of adjectives 213-219; of adverbs 227 deixis (deictic function) 39; 47; 129-130
deletion in transformations: see transformational procedures derivation history 280
derivational perspective 46
descriptions of language 6-7
descriptive attribute: see attribute
determiner 74-75; 83-84; 85
development (category of) 108;
158; 158-166; 176
diachrony: see synchrony and diachrony
dialogue speech 363-365
differential features 28-31 distributional analysis 23-24 distribution: complementary, contrastive, non-contrastive d. 23-24
do-auxiliary 164-166
domination (dominational connection) 232-235; reciprocal d. 232-233 double predicate 92; 342-343
edited speech 291
elative superlative 215-218 elementary sentence 273-274 elliptical article construction 77 elliptical sentence 274-278
eme-term 22
environment 23-24
equipollent opposition 29; 30


equipotent connection 230-231 exclamatory sentence 254-255; 362 exfixation 26
expanded and unexpanded sentence 273-274 extreme quality 220
finitude (category of) 88; 104; 137 fluctuant conversive 224 for-to infinitive phrase 106 functional expansion in transformations; see transformational procedures
functional sentence perspective: see actual division of the sentence functional words 39-40; 44-45; 47;
future tense 128; 143-154 futurity option (category of) 150
gender 53-62; formal g. 56 genitive case 62-64; 66-68; 69-72; g. of adverbial 71; g. of agent 70; g. of author 70; g. of comparison 71; g. of destination 71; g. of dispensed qualification 71; g. of integer 70rg. of patient 71; g. of possessor 69; g. of quantity 72; g. of received qualification 70
gerund 108-110; 116-123; 175 gerundial participle 122
gradual opposition 29
grammatical category 27-31; 35-
37; 156-158
grammatical form 27-31
grammatical idiomatism 34-35
grammatical meaning 27
grammatical morphemes 21 grammatical opposition 28; 29-
32; 35
grammatical repetition 35
grammatical suffixation: see outer inflexion

hybrid categorial formation 36-37 hypotaxis 294-296
immanent category 35-36
immediate constituents 269-271
imperative (verb-form) 188-189 imperative mood 188-189; 190-
191 imperative sentence: see inducive
sentence imperfect (verb-form) 156-157; 166; 173-174
incorrect utterances 8-9 indefinite (verb-form) 155; 172;
marked i. 166
inducive sentence 257-259
infinitive 89; 105-108; 115-118; 161-162; 175; 179-180; marked, unmarked i. 107 infixation 26; 33
inflexion 21; inner, outer i. 33-34 informative purpose 363 informative sentence perspective
ing-form problem 119 insert sentence 303; 342 interjection 40 intermediary phenomena 19; 36-
37; 302
interrogative sentence 259-261 inter-sentential connection 361-
363 intonational arrangement in
transformations: see transformational procedures inversive sentence 323
junctional form 134
kernel element: see head-word kernel sentence 280-281

half-gerund 118-123
head-word (kernel element) 232 hierarchy of levels 14
homonymy 11; 24

language: definition 6 language and speech 11-12 larger syntax 15 leading clause 335 leading sentence 367 let+Infinitive 190-191


letter 14
level of constructions 18
levels of language 14-17
lexemic level 15
lexical morphemes 21
lexical paradigm of nomination
lexicalisation of plural 58 lexico-grammatical category 38 limited case 66
limiting attribute: see attribute limitive and unlimitive verbs 95-
97; 113; 155 ;162-164; 173-174;
linear expansion 342 "linguistic sentence" 239 link-verb 91; 100 logical accent 249-250
macrosystem (supersystem) 11 marked (strong, positive) member
28; 30; 32 matrix sentence 303 may/might+Infinitive 190
meaningful functions of grammar
meaningful gender 56-57
medial voice 180-183 members of sentence: see axes of
microsystem (subsystem) 11
middle voice meaning 183
modal representation (category of)
117 modal verb 89-90; 126; 127; 161;
modal word 40 modality 239
modifier hierarchy 269-270 monologue speech 363-365
monolithic and segregative complex sentences 328-331
mononomination 15 monopredicative sentence 268 mood (category of) 185-203
morph 23
morpheme 15; 17-26
morpheme types: additive, replacive m. 25-26; continuous, discontinuous m. 26; free, bound m. 24; overt, covert m. 25; root, affixal m. 21; segmental, supra-segmental m. 25

morphemic composition of the
word 22
morphemic distribution 23-24 morphemic level 15 morphemic structure 17-26 morphological arrangement in transformations: see transformational procedures morphology 17
names 42; 49
native form 134
neutralisation 32; 54; 95-96; 117; 121; 127; 136; 150; 153-154; 162-164; 173-175; 183; 184; 192; 203
nominalisation 222-223; 233; 235-236; 241-242; complete, partial n. 284
nominal phrase complication 350
nominative aspect of the sentence 240-243
nominative case 73
nominative correlation 19; 20
nominative division of the sentence 243
nominative meaning 15; complete, incomplete n. m. 39
noncommunicative utterances 253
non-contrastive distribution 23-24
non-finite verb 87; see also verbids
non-terms 30
notional link-verbs 92
noun 38; 40; 49-85; general characteristics 49-53; subclasses 52-53; categories 53-85
noun+noun combination 50-51
number (category of): number of noun 57-62; number of verb 128-136
numeral 39
object 50; 98-100; 234-235; 269
object clause 314-316
object sharing 343-346
objective and subjective verbs: see verb subclasses
objective case 73
objective connection: see completive connection


obligatory sentence parts: 272-274
obligatory valency 98
oblique and direct mood meaning 186
occurseme 364
occursive connection 363-365
one-axis sentence 274-277
opposition 27-33; 54; 57; 81-83; 140-141; 143-145; 156-157; 158; 166; 177
oppositional reduction (substitution) 31-32; 59; 60; 61-62; 95-96; see also neutralisation; transposition
optional sentence parts 272-273
optional valency 98
organisational function of verb 97
paradigm 13; 28; p. of nomination
paradigmatic relations 13-14 paradigmatic syntax 47; 278-279 paragraph 292; 369-370 parataxis 295-296 parcellation 371 parenthesis 269
parenthetical clause 30.1; 327-328 parsing of sentence 269-270 participle past (participle II) 112-115; 180
participle present (participle I) 111-112; 118-123; 162; 174
particle 40; 68 particle case 68; 74 parts of speech 37-42; criteria of
identification 37 parts of the sentence 269-272 passive (verb-form) 178-180; p. of action, of state 183-185
passivised and non-passivised
verbs: see verb subclasses past tense 142 peak of informative perspective 244
perfect (verb-form) 156; 166-176 perfect continuous (verb-form)
170; 172-173
person (category of) 125-137 personal pronouns 72-74 phatic function 306 phoneme 14 phonemic distribution 23

phonemic interchange 26
phonemic level 14
phonological opposition 28-29
phrasalisation 284
phrase: stable, free ph. 15; notional, formative ph. 229-230
phrase genitive 66-68
phrasemic level 15
plane of content 10; 29
plane of expression 10; 29
pleni- and semi-constructions 341
pleni-compounding: see semi-compounding
plural: absolute, common pl. 60-62; descriptive pl. 62; discrete pl., pl. of measure 58: multitude pl. 61; repetition pl. 62; set pl. 61
pluralia tantum 59
polar phenomena 19-20
polynomination 15
polypredication 289
polypredicative sentence 268; 289
polysemy 10-11
positional arrangement in transformations: see transformational procedures
positional case 64
positional classes 43-44
possessive postposition 66-67
postpositive 224-225
predicate 232-233; 269
predication 15-16; 86; 231-233; 237; 239-240; 242; 250
predicative aspect of the sentence 240-243
predicative clause 313-314
predicative connection 232-233
predicative functions 285-288
predicative line 268, 288
predicative load 287-288
predicative system of syntactic paradigmatics 283; 285-288
predicative zeroing 325
predicator verbs 89-92
prefix 21
preposition 40; 41; 45; 65; 69
prepositional case 65
prescriptive approach 7-8
present tense 141-143
primary sentence 285
primary syntactic system 285-288
primary time (tense) 140-143
principal clause 304-306; merger, non-merger pr. cl. 305

printed text 291 privative opposition 28-31 processual representation (category of) 117; 118 pronominal case 73-74 pronoun 39; 47-48; 72-74 proposeme 15 proposemic level 15 prospective connection 365-366 purpose of grammar 7-10
qualifying connection: see completive connection
qualitative adverbs 226-227
quantifiers 59; 60
quantitative adverbs 226-227
question: pronominal q. 259-260; alternative q. 260-261
reciprocal voice meaning 181 reduction: thematic r. 250 reflective category 36; 126 reflexive voice meaning 180-182 re-formulation of oppositions 29 relative generalisation: see absolute and relative generalisation repetition plural: see plural replacive morpheme: see morpheme types
representative correlation 367 representative role of pronouns 48 retrospective connection 365-366 retrospective coordination (category of) 108; 110; 156; 166-176; 192; 194-195
reverse comparison 218-219 rheme 79; 244
rhetorical question 264-265
rules of grammar 7-10
scripted speech 293-294
secondary (potential) predication 87; 104
segmental morpheme: see morpheme types
segmental units 14

segregative complex sentences: see monolythic and segregative complex sentences
selectional combinability 52
seme (semantic feature) 30; 59
semi-bound morpheme 25
semi-clause 342
semi-complex sentence 340-351; identification 340-341
semi-composite sentence 268; 301-302; 340-361
semi-compound sentence 351-361; identification 351-353
semi-compounding: marked, unmarked s.-c. 354; homosyndetic, heterosyndetic s.-c. 358-359; vs pleni-compounding 360-361
semi-predication 104; 106; 109-110; 112; 114; 233
sentence (definition) 236
sentence length 290-293
sentence sequence 362-363
sequence of tenses 154-155
sequential clause 335
sequential sentence 367
set plural: see plural
sex indicators 55-56
should + Infinitive 190
sign 11; 12; 14
signeme 14
significative meaning 15
simple sentence 268-288; identification 268-269; parts of s. s. 269-272: structural types of s. s. 274-277; semantic types of s. s. 278
singular: absolute, common s. 59-60
singularia tantum 59
situation-determinant 221
smaller syntax 15
specifiers of names 49
spective mood: see subjunctive mood
speech: see language and speech
split infinitive 107
statal verbs: see verb subclasses
stative 41; 207-212
stem 21; 87
stipulative mood: see subjunctive mood
structural meaning 44
subcategorisation 40-41
subclass migration of verbs 102
sub-conjunctives 355


subject 50; 98; 132-136; 232-233;
subject clause 311-313 subject sharing 342-343 subjunctive mood (verb-form): spective m. 187-190; modal spective (considerative, desiderative, imperative) m. 190-193; conditional (stipulative, consective) m. 193-200 subordinate clauses 303; 306-332; classification 306-311; cl. of primary nominal positions 312-316; cl. of secondary nominal positions 317-321; cl. of adverbial positions 321-328 subordination: s. of sentence constituents 269-271; s. of clauses 296-298; obligatory, optional s. 328-331; parallel, consecutive s. 331-332
subordination perspective 332 subordination ranks 269-270 subordinates 309-311 substantivisation 49; 212-213 substitute 49; 73 substitution in transformations: see transformational procedures substitution testing 43-44; 76 substitutional correlation 367 substitutional function 47-48 suffix 21
superposition 256; 259; 260 supplement 98 suppletivity 26; 33; 46-47; 60; 61;
74; 85; 90; 127; 153 supra-cumulation 372-373 supra-proposemic level 16 supra-segmental units 14; 25 supra-sentential construction 16; 363
surface structure 281; 340 syllable 14 synchronic system 11 synchrony and diachrony 11 syndetic connection 231; 298-300;
336-337; 354-359 synoriymy 11
synsemantic elements: see autosemantic and synsemantic elements
syntactic classes of words 42-45 syntactic derivation 279-281 syntactic paradigm of predicative functions 286

syntagma 12-13
syntagmatic connection 229-236
syntagmatic relations 12-13
syntax 17
synthetical form 32-34
system in language 11-14
systemic approach 11
temporality 137
tense 137-155; 158; 166; 168; 185
tense-retrospect shift 194-195
text 361-373
theme 79; 244
time: absolutive, relative t. 137-140; 144; 154-155
time coordination (category of) 156
time correlation (category of) 170
topical elements of text 365
transform 279-280
transformation 279-284
transformational procedures 281-283
transformational relations 179; 279 transition in the actual division 244 transitive and intransitive verbs: see verb subclasses transitivity 99
transposition 32; 62; 67; 83; 84; 85; 142; 163; 318
two-axis sentence 274-277
two-base transformation 284
unexpanded sentence: see expanded and unexpanded sentence
unity of text 363
unmarked (weak, negative) member 28; 30
utterance: situation utterance, response utterance 253-254
valency: obligatory, optional v.
97-102; 273 274 valency partner 97-98 variable feature category 36; 59 verb 39; 40; 85-203

verb subclasses: actional, statal v. 92-94; complementive, supplementive v. 99-102; limitive, unlimitive v. 95-97; objective, subjective, transitive, intransitive v. 99-101; passivised, non-passivised v. 177; perfective, imperfective v. 96-97; personal, impersonal v. 100; v. of full nominative value 89; 92-102; v. of partial nominative value 89-92
verbids 88-89; 102-123
voice (category of) 108; 110; 176-185

voluntary and non-voluntary future 148-151
word 15; 17-22; definitions of
w. 18
word-morpheme 20; 107 word-sentence 236-237 written speech 293-294
zero article 77-80; 82 zeroing: see deletion; reduction zero morpheme 25; 34 zero-representation 133; see also elliptical sentence; reduction

Марк Яковлевич Блох
Редактор И. С. Маненок Младшие редакторы: И. Б. Мордасова, Е. Г. Назарова
Художник Ю. И. Тиков Художественный редактор В. И. Пономаренко
Технический редактор 3. В. Нуждина Корректоры 3. Ф. Юрескул, Г. А. Данилова
ИБ № 3821
Изд. № А-793. Сдано в набор 11.08.82. Подп. в печать 06.12.82 Формат 84Х1081/32. Бум. тип. № 1. Гарнитура литературная. Печать высокая Объем. 20,16 усл. печ. л. Усл. кр.-отт. 20,16. Уч-изд. л. 22,92. Тираж 29000 экз. Зак. № 1499. Цена 1 руб.
Издательство "Высшая школа", Москва, К-51, Неглинная ул., д. 29/14
Ордена Трудового Красного Знамени
Московская типография № 7 "Искра революции"
"Союзполиграфпрома" Государственного
Комитета СССР по делам издательств,
полиграфии и книжной торговли.
Москва, 121019, пер. Аксакова, 13.




Мультиязыковой проект Ильи Франка www.franklang.ru


стр. 3
(всего 3)