 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
157
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, still, 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 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, it should be
understood that this is of especial importance for the unmarked constructions, in particular for those realized 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.