Complex Sentences in Modern English

Abstract

This article analyzes complex sentences in modern English. The article examines the problems and shortcomings encountered in the analysis of complex sentences. Modern solutions to the problems in this process are shown.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

For many years, scientists have been studying syntax in the English language. A special place in his research is occupied by the question of a complex sentence. Like other languages, English cannot do without the use of complex sentences, since with the help of them a person can fully convey his idea to the listener without losing the meaning. According to the work of M. Ya. Bloch “Theoretical Foundations of Grammar” “A sentence is a completely formed unit of message, that is, a unit through which information is directly transmitted from the speaker to the listener in the process of speech communication” [3, p.97]. The traditional classification of sentences into simple, compound and complex ones arose in English grammar in the mid-19th century. Complex sentences, in turn, according to the type of connection between the parts, can be divided into compound and complex. This classification remains the generally accepted scheme for many languages. The type of connection in a complex sentence is composition, in a complex sentence it is subordination. In a complex sentence, its constituent parts are equal from the point of view of syntax, i.e. none of them obeys the other: We were watching TV and father was working. In a complex sentence, its constituent parts are not equivalent in terms of syntax. For example, if we consider the simplest case - a sentence consisting of two parts, one of them will be a condition for the other and will be added as a subordinate clause: I will give you money after I get paid.

Any classification of complex sentences is based on the classification of subordinate clauses. According to the principle of functionality, subordinate clauses should be classified by analogy with parts of a simple sentence, since in the hierarchy of structures a simple sentence is located at a level lower than a complex one. The point is that most types of subordinate clauses perform the same functions as parts of a simple sentence. However, this analogy is not absolute, since there is no such subordinate part that could accurately repeat the specific character of the corresponding part of a simple sentence [1, p. 173].

1. Subject Clauses: Although the meaning of the subject clause is not clearly defined, the idea is that the subject clause in a complex sentence serves the same role as the subject in a simple sentence. Subject clauses are expressed using relative and interrogative pronouns, as well as the word that. For example: That it will be difficult is absolutely clear. What Jack did was very strange to him. The reason for calling these types of clauses subject clauses is this: if you omit the subject clause in a sentence, then there will be no subject at all. Thus, the subject of the subordinate clause takes the place of the subject in the sentence, hence its name [4, p.67].
2. Predicative Clauses: The reason for calling this type of clause predicate clause is that if you leave out this clause in a sentence, it will remain unfinished because after the connecting verb there should be a predicate, but there won’t be one [5, p.277]. The predicate clause performs the function of the nominative part of the predicate, i.e. part attached to a linking verb. Linking verbs are most often represented by the verb be, but there are cases of using look, seem, and the use of other linking verbs depends on the situation.
3. Object Clauses: The object clause is not as easy to define and label as the subject or predicate clause. If you use the same method as with the above clauses, i.e. omitting the subordinate clause and analyzing what was obtained in order to give the concept of a subordinate clause, this will not lead to the desired result.

The easiest way to understand what a clause is is to consider cases in which the clause can be replaced by a noun, which in a simple sentence would serve as an object. For example, this can be applied to a sentence like: She did what she had been asked to do.

If we omit the subordinate clause what she had been asked to do, we get an unfinished sentence She did, which does not have an exact meaning until we add some word that functions as an object. It can be any noun that names anything that can be done, for example: She did her homework. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the similarity in syntactic position between the proposed homework and the subordinate clause what she had been asked to do reveals the reason for calling this subordinate clause a complement clause [7, p. 264].

II. SUBORDINATE CLAUSE

Like the definition in a simple sentence, the subordinate clause in a complex sentence characterizes the object designated by the keyword of the part through some action, state or situation in which the object is involved. Sometimes this characteristic cannot be conveyed exactly in a simple sentence with just one definition; in this case, a complex sentence is formed with a subordinate definition [8].

A. Subordinate Clauses are Divided into Three Classes

1. Restrictive Attributive Clause: This type of subordinate definition expands some characteristics of the described object and indicates individual characteristics. A restrictive subordinate clause plays only a denoting role, highlighting what it refers to in a given situation. [6, p.147] An important sign of a restrictive clause is the fact that the object being described is used with the definite article the, which again indicates that the characteristic separates it from other objects of the same class. For example: The girl who is standing there is my sister.          
2. Classifying Attributive Clause: A classifying clause conveys a characteristic of an object that classifies it into a specific class or group. The object being described is used with the indefinite article. For example: Children who were born in winter are hard- working. If you omit the classifying clause, the meaning of the sentence will change or be disrupted.
3. Descriptive Attributive Clause: A descriptive subordinate clause conveys an additional characteristic of the object being described. This type of clause is more independent than a restrictive clause, because its content can often be expressed by an independent statement giving some additional information about the described object, which is already reasonably designated. [5, p.285]

A descriptive clause may be omitted without affecting the precise understanding of the sentence as a whole. Such a sentence is pronounced with different intonation and a clear pause before the descriptive clause of the definition, which is one of the differences between these two classes of clauses of the definition - there is no such obvious pause before the restrictive clause of the definition.

In writing, a characteristic pause is conveyed by the presence of a comma both before and after the subordinate clause: The boy, who was dressed in the dirty clothes, began to speak.

Adverbial clause. Subordinate adverbials constitute a broad area of syntax, which is divided into many subclasses and each of them has its own specifics, problems and complexity of analysis. But you should not perceive the term “circumstance” as an adjective formed from the word “circumstance”, but as a syntactic term. [4, p.483]

In order to find out whether any clause is adverbial or not, first we determine whether the given clause is an adverbial clause or not. This will also help to find out whether the subordinate clause under study belongs to the type of adverbial, and if so, what this subordinate clause modifies. The method itself consists of omitting the subordinate clause in the question and analyzing what was lost during the omission and what exactly this action affected. If in some cases this method is not satisfactory with its results, you can think about other methods for studying the functions of subordinate parts. [6, p.150]

From all of the above, it follows that different types of connections between parts of a sentence help us express thoughts and intentions, clarify reasons, goals, concessions, etc. By combining parts of a sentence into one, we complicate our speech, thereby making it more complete and beautiful. Moreover, in different situations it is preferable to use certain methods of conveying thoughts, for example, unlike colloquial speech, business language, among other constructions, requires the construction of complex sentences.

References

[1] Arakin, V. D. Comparative typology of English and Russian languages: Textbook. - M.: FIZ-MATLIT, 2005. - 232 p [2] Barkhudarov L.S., Shteling D.A. English Grammar. - M.: Publishing House of Literature in Foreign Languages, 1960. - 422 p. [3] Blokh, M. Ya. Theoretical foundations of grammar: revision. - M.: Higher School, 2002. - 160 p. [4] Veykhman, G. A. New in English grammar. - M.: Higher School, 1990. - 128 p. [5] Ilyish, B. A. The structure of the modern English language. - L.: Education, 1971. - 367 p. [6] Blokh, M. Y. Theoretical English Grammar. Seminars/ M. Y. Blokh, T. N. Semionova, S. V. Timofeyeva.— M.: Higher School, 2004.— 471 p. [7] Rayevska, N. M. Modern English Grammar.— K.: VYŠ?A SKOLA, 1976.—304 p. [8] Composite sentences: [site].— URL: http://englishfromhome.ru/grammar/composite_ sent.php (access date: 03/07/2015)

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Odilov Baxodir Baxtiyarovich. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.