 |
Complex sentences as a whole
|
|
|
|
Of course a complex sentence does not always consist of one main and one subordinate clause. It may contain two, three, or more subordinate clauses, which may or may not be connected with one another. Two subordinate clauses are connected with one another if they belong to the same type (for example, if they are both object clauses). In that case they may be joined by a co-ordinating conjunction (and, but, or). We can see an example in the following sentence: He thought what a handsome pair they made, Lucien and his mother, and how the abbe had no chance at all with them. (R. MACAULAY)
Another type of structure is seen when the subordinate clauses are not connected with each other. For instance, one of two attributive clauses within a complex sentence may modify one part of the head clause, and the other attributive clause may modify another part: On the contrary, here I have everything that disappointed me without anything that I have not already tried and found wanting. (SHAW)
In a similar way two adverbial clauses within a complex sentence may belong to different homogeneous predicates in the head clause, etc.
It is obvious that many varieties are here possible.
Complex Sentences As a Whole 313
And again, the subordinate clauses contained in one complex sentence may have different functions: one may be attributive, another an object clause, a third may be adverbial, and so forth.
So far we have only considered complex sentences with subordinate clauses of the first degree, that is, clauses immediately subordinated to the main clause. However, that is far from being the only possible structure of a complex sentence. A subordinate clause may in its turn have another clause subordinated to it, that is, a subordinate clause of the second degree. That clause of the first degree to which another clause (of the second degree) is subordinated, has thus a twofold syntactical connection: on the one hand, it is a subordinate clause with reference to the main clause, and on the other, it is a head clause with reference to the second-degree subordinate clause. This may be seen, for example, in the following complex sentence: Across her face there was passing a constant stream of infinitesimally delicate changes of expression, the most minute possible contraction of the brows or pursing of the lips, which gave an indication of restlessness that, if at any moment these movements became more marked, would shift into a complete picture of misery. (R. WEST) In this sentence there is an attributive clause of the first degree, an attributive clause of the second degree, and a conditional clause of the third degree.
Many questions remain to be solved concerning the types of clauses which may be subordinates of the first degree and have at the same time further subordinates of the second and higher degrees attached to them, etc. It also remains to be seen whether, for instance, interrogative or imperative clauses can be met with as subordinate clauses of different degrees, etc.
|
|
|
There may also be homogeneous clauses, that is, two or more subordinate clauses, connected either with or without a conjunction, and performing the same syntactical function in the sentence. These clauses may or may not be introduced by the same subordinating conjunction or connective.
Thus, in the following example there are three homogeneous subject clauses. Why Motley had told him, why he must ridiculously, having no rights, question her, and what she might answer were problems he had tried since his first enlightenment to thrust from him. (BUECHNER) That the three clauses are homogeneous is clearly shown by the fact that there is the conjunction and between the second and the third of them, and also by the fact that the predicate of the head clause is were problems, with its link verb in the plural. The words introducing the three clauses are only partly alike: why for the first clause, why for the second, but what for the third.
In our next example the conjunction as introduces the two homogeneous predicative clauses: All this was as it had always been, as it should be, and there was even a special gift, as he crossed between
314 Same General Remarks on Syndetic Composite Sentences
the statues, a huge and moving point of gray between the immobility of gilt and bronze, and proceeded to the side-street that led to the garage. (BUECHNER) The semantic connection between the two predicative clauses is of course quite clear: the first of them states the fact that the thing had always been so, and the second confirms that this was not a fortuitous but a necessary phenomenon due to certain laws. This example illustrates another point, too: it shows that an as -clause can also be predicative (besides being adverbial or attributive).
It is time now to examine the base of the division of conjunctions into co-ordinating and subordinating ones and of clauses into co-ordinated and subordinated ones.
In trying to answer this question we must of course take into account the grammatical structure of the language which we are analysing. Thus, in Modern German the difference between coordinate (or independent) and subordinate clauses is quite plainly expressed by the difference in word order: in a subordinate clause the finite verb predicate invariably comes at the end while in an independent clause the finite verb predicate comes either after the subject, or after an initial secondary part. Accordingly, in German, those conjunctions are termed subordinating, which introduce clauses with word order typical of subordinate clauses.
In a language which does not have any such distinction in word order this criterion is of course inapplicable and we must look for some other. There would seem to be three criteria which are actually applied but not always clearly formulated as such, namely (1) the function of the clause as compared to the corresponding element in a simple sentence, (2) the lexical meaning of the conjunction itself, (3) the possibility or impossibility of the clause in question being used outside the syntactical context in which it is usually found.
We can also say that the following question is of some importance here: which is the guiding factor, that is, do we call a conjunction subordinating because it introduces subordinate clauses or do we call a clause subordinate because it is introduced by a subordinating conjunction, or do both these considerations stand, as it were, on the same level, so that they go hand in hand, without either of them being dependent on the other? It would seem that in different cases this question is treated differently. It seems on the whole to amount to a problem of mutual relations between a lexical and a syntactical, that is, a grammatical, factor.
|
|
|
Let us first consider the question of conjunctions as such. What reasons have we, for instance, for saying that the word though is a subordinating conjunction? Let us take the lexical side of the question first. Though expresses a concessive relation, that is, it expresses a relation between two actions (or situations, etc.), of
Complex Sentences As a Whole 315
which one is an obstacle to another, and that obstacle proves insufficient to actually prevent the action from being performed (or the situation from arising). The action is performed in spite of the obstacle stated in the though- clause. We infer from this analysis that the though- clausecontains some secondary point, whereas the clause with which it is connected contains the main point in the sentence: 1 if the though- clausewere dropped the information about the action which was performed after all would remain all the same. So the reasoning seems to be this: the conjunction though expresses a relation between two actions which stand on an unequal footing; consequently it is a subordinating conjunction and the clause it introduces is bound to be a subordinate clause.
The question can also be approached from the syntactic angle. Namely, we can apply the test whether a unit introduced by the conjunction though can exist separately, as an independent sentence. If we try to isolate the though- clausemaking part of the above example we shall find that it cannot,2 and we shall conclude that though is a subordinating conjunction.
In studying the structure of complex sentences, an important question arises which has been dealt with by various authors recently, namely the question whether a subordinate clause is or is not necessary for the subordinating clause.
Here we must distinguish between two basically different cases, A certain type of subordinate clause may be either absolutely (grammatically) necessary, that is, without it the subordinating clause could not exist at all, or it may be relatively (semantically) necessary, that is, the subordinating clause might exist without it, but the meaning of the sentence would be completely changed, or even it might become almost meaningless. There may probably also be intermediate cases.
Let us first consider some examples of sentences where the subordinate clause is not at all necessary to make the subordinating clause possible. "And you scowled at Jack as if you wanted to kill him." (BRAINE) The subordinate clause could quite easily be omitted. "And you scowled at Jack" would be quite a satisfactory sentence. The same may be said of the sentence Now 1 was out I didn't know what to do. (LESSING) Omitting the subordinate clause
1 This should not be taken to mean that the though- clausecannot in certain circumstances be the rheme of the sentence as a whole. That can be the case when the main action is known already and the new information conveyed in the sentence is about the obstacle which proved unable to prevent it.
2 In making this assertion here we merely rely upon our own speech instinct, which of course is not sufficient proof. To prove the point we ought to study a sufficient amount of texts and to find that in fact no such though- sentences occur there.
316 Some General Remarks on Syndetic Composite Sentences
we get the sentence I didn't know what to do, which is quite acceptable. A last example is: Suddenly I heard a tap-tap tapping that got louder, sharp and clear, and I knew before I saw her that this was the sound of high heels on a pavement though it might just as well have been a hammer against stone. (Idem) Here three subordinate clauses can be dropped without making the remaining sentence impossible: Suddenly I heard a tap-tap tapping (...), and I knew (...) that this was the sound of high heels on a pavement (...), whereas the clause that this was the sound of high heels on the pavement cannot be dropped, as without it the verb knew would not make sense. In this case, then, the object clause that — pavement is absolutely (grammatically) necessary: its omission would destroy the whole sentence.
|
|
|
Now some examples of absolutely necessary subordinate clauses. I felt as if I'd been taken by the scruff of the neck and dropped through a sky of hands and each hand, Alice's; I looked at the cigar and remembered that I'd given up smoking. (BRAINE) The object clause cannot be omitted: a sentence I looked at the cigar and remembered would not make sense.
The same can be said about the sentence She was sure that Susan wouldn't marry me, and she was sure that she could hold me. (BRAINE) If both subordinate clauses are dropped, we get the text She was sure, and she was sure, which is obviously impossible.
Now for some examples of clauses which are relatively (semantically) necessary. The time it took to cross the space of rough grass to the door of the little house was enough to show Dorothy was right. (LESSING) If we drop the subordinate clause we get the text: The time was enough to show Dorothy was right, which is grammatically satisfactory, but leaves the meaning obscure: what time was enough to show that she was right? Here, then, it is a case of a subordinate clause which is semantically necessary, although the grammatical structure as such could well do without it. The same can be said of the following sentence. Though spring had come, none of us saw it. (LAWRENCE) Grammatically the sentence None of us saw it is faultless, but semantically it is unsatisfactory, because we do not see what is meant by it. This pronoun replaces the substantive spring which is used in the subordinate clause (an adverbial clause of concession).
It may not always be equally easy to distinguish between grammatical and semantic necessity of a clause, but the principle of distinction should be clear enough.
Let us consider one more example. She looked at him, as he lay propped upon his elbow, turning towards hers his white face of fear and perplexity, like a child that cannot understand, and is afraid and wants to cry. (Idem) Let us make the following experiment: first drop the second-degree subordinate clause and then
Compound-Complex Sentences 317
both of them. Dropping the second-degree clause, we get the sentence She looked at him, as he lay propped upon his elbow, turning towards hers his white face of fear and perplexity, like a child (...). This is satisfactory, though the point of the phrase like a child remains somewhat obscure. If both clauses are dropped the sentence runs like this: She looked at him, which is quite satisfactory in every respect.
Such analysis should of course be pursued further, and this would probably yield valuable information concerning both the grammatical and the semantic structure of sentences.
|
|
|
