 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
140
never could play it. The excuse was plausible, only it was not good enough for us. > The excuse was plausible,
but it was not good enough for us.
§ 7. The means of combining clauses into a polypredicativc sentence are divided into syndetic, i.e.
conjunctional, and asyndetic, i.e. non-conjunctional. The great controversy going on among linguists about this
division concerns the status of syndeton and asyndeton versus coordination and subordination. Namely, the
question under consideration is whether or not syndeton and asyndeton equally express the two types of
syntactic relations between clauses in a composite sentence.
According to the traditional view, all composite sentences are to be classed into compound sentences
(coordinating their clauses) and complex sentences (subordinating their clauses), syndetic or asyndetic types of
clause connection being specifically displayed with both classes. However, this view has of late been subjected
to energetic criticism; the new thesis formulated by its critics is as follows: the "formal" division of clause
connection based on the choice of connective means should be placed higher in the hierarchy than the
"semantic" division of clause connection based on the criterion of syntactic rank. That is, at the higher level of
classification all the composite sentences should be divided into syndetic and asyndetic, while at the lower level
the syndetic composite sentences (and only these) should be divided into compound and complex ones in accor-
dance with the types of the connective words used. The cited principle was put forward by N.S. Pospelov as
part of his syntactic analysis of Russian, and it was further developed by some other linguists. .
But the new approach to coordination and subordination has not been left unchallenged. In particular, B.A.
Ilyish with his characteristic discretion in formulating final decisions has pointed out serious flaws in the non-
traditional reasoning resulting first of all from mixing up strictly grammatical criteria of classification with
general semantic considerations [Ilyish, 318 ff.].
Indeed, if we compare the following asyndetic composite sentences with their compound syndetic
counterparts on the basis of paradigmatic approach, we shall immediately expose unquestionable equality in
their semantico-syntactic status. E.g.:
My uncle was going to refuse, but we didn't understand why. > My uncle was going to refuse, we didn't
understand why. She hesitated a moment, and then she answered him.
> She hesitated a moment, then she
answered him.
The equality of the compound status of both types of sentences is emphatically endorsed when compared
with the corresponding complex sentences in transformational constructional paradigmatics. Cf.:
...
>
We didn't understand why my unele 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 irrationalu 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 characterized 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 contradistinction 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