 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
142
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.
H A P T E R XXVII
COMPLEX SENTENCE
§ 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 realized.
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)
o 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.
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