 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
153
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
organizers.
Cf. the subordinate correlative of the cited clause:
Jim said, though 1 don't quite agree with him, that it would be in vain to appeal to the common sense of the
organizers.
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. According to
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 characterizes ad-
verbial 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.
Monolythic complex sentences fall into four basic types.