Composite sentence ae a polypredicative construction in English and Ukrainian

a) the consecutive form of dependence as in the following complex-compound sentence: 1 am sure < I don't know < whether or not it is true < that all advertising writers and newspaper men want to do other kinds of writing, + but Ed did all right. (Anderson) The structural pattern of this sentence in both languages reveals a consecutive connection between their sub-clauses: Smatr < Sobj < Sobj < Sobj + co-cjS but Sco-ordinate [8, p. 234].

Here each succeeding clause in the complex part of the sentence is subordinate to the preceding clause. Hence, the form of dependence is lineal or direct: Smatr < S1 < S2 + co-cjS. Consequently, the clauses are in the first, in the second, third, etc. degree of subordination. The sub-clauses with a lineal/consecutive dependence may also be of different types as in the following polycomponental complex sentence: The young man was leaning against the mantelshelf... with that strange expression < that one sees on the faces of those < who are absorbed by a play < when some great artist is acting. (Wilde) An identical consecutive dependence of clauses (супідрядність) can also be observed in Ukrainian: Тільки з переказів сухий гомін доходить, <що копали цей колодязь колись чумаки, <чиї дороги пролягли в цих сивих степах.

Similarly in the compound-complex sentence, where there may be a non-lineal and lineal form of dependence between the clauses. Cf. «It was said < that you could always find a way... < for the production of a play, + but when you came down to business < you discovered < that the main condition was < that the leading part should be played by some pretty lady < in whom he was interested.» (Maugham) The form of dependence between the sub-clauses in both parts of this compound-complex sentence is identical in English and in its Ukrainian equivalent: Smatr < Ssubj co-cj but Sadv < Smatr < Sobj < Spre-dic N < Sattriburive.

The existence of different forms or rather directions of dependence can be best observed in polycomponental complex sentences with homogeneous clauses, whose number may range from two to several [2, p. 271].

Isomorphic in English and Ukrainian and presumably in other Indo-European languages are the following patterns of composite sentences:

 A.Jan asked nurse Duggin every day < 1) when she came, < 2) < whether the doctor had sent any word. (Cusack) Джейн питала медсестру Даґґін щодня; <1)коли вона приходила, < 2) чи лікар нічого не переказував.

В. Other judgements were 1) < that the lectures were of no importance; 2) < that nobody took them; < 3) that they don't matter; < 4) that you can take them < 5) if you like; < 6) that they do you no harm. (Leacock)

This complex sentence has a structurally equivalent pattern with six homogeneous predicative clauses in Ukrainian too.Інші сюжети були: 1)що лекції не мають жодного значення, 2)що на них ніхто не ходить, 3)що їх ніхто не бере серйозно до уваги, 4)що їх хто хоче, той відвідує, 5) що відвідування їх не шкодить нічийому здоров’ю.

b) Isomorphic in the contrasted languages are also polycomponental complex sentences with an inverted order of their clauses. Thus, in the affirmative complex sentence below the matrix clause follows the attributive sub-clause: The moment < 1) that he heard Mr. Golspie's visitor going < 2) he would rush out, tell Mr. Golspie < 3) she was there, and thus see her again. (Priestley)

Similarly in Ukrainian: Тієї ж миті, <1), коли він зачував кроки відвідувача з кабінету містера Голспі<2) вин вибігав, доповідав Голспі<3) що вона ще там і знову повертався до неї [9, p. 308].

The structural pattern of this sentence in both contrasted languages has an identical form: namely: NP < Sattr < Smatr. < Sobj + co-cj + predic. construction.

Such homogeneous sub-clauses are mostly used in the polycompo-nental complex sentence where they are joined to the matrix clause in English syndetically or asyndetically, the former way being more frequently observed than the latter.

a) Practically allomorphic for the Ukrainian syntactic system is the existence of polycomponental composite sentences with the tagged/concluding disjunctive clauses. Cf. I think < you told < you were in the services, didn't you? (Cusack) The interrogative tag-clause «didn't you?» refers to the objective sub-clause «you told,» which is clearly reflected in the structural pattern of this polycomponental sentence [6, p. 69].

Its structural equivalent in Ukrainian is a two-componental complex sentence with tag-words (так? правда?) or tag-phrases (чи не так? правда ж?) instead of the subordinate clause which is in the English original.

Cf. I think < you < told < you were in the services, didn't you? (Cusack)

Мені здається, <ти казав, < щоти служив у війську, чи не так?

A specific feature of such sentences in Ukrainian, however, is their possible «inverted» / transformed structure with the tag-words/phrase in the initial position which is impossible in English – Правда ж ти казав, здається, що (ти) служив у війську ? [1, p. 277].

These were only the main and therefore far from all the isomor-phic and allomorphic features characterising the types and paradigmatic classes of these syntactic level units in present-day English in comparison to the corresponding Ukrainian composite sentences of these types.

Generally isomorphic in both languages are also the main features pertaining to the highest language units which are to be partly contrasted.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

Each predicative unit in a composite sentence forms a clause. A clause as a part of a composite sentence corresponds to a separate sentence, but a composite sentence is not at all equivalent to a sequence of the simple sentences underlying its clauses. The purpose of communication in the composite sentence above is the presentation of a certain topic; this is lost in the transformation of the sentence into a sequence of simple sentences.

We found out that there are two principal types of composite sentences: complex and compound. In compound sentences, the clauses are connected on the basis of coordinative connections (parataxis); by coordination the clauses are arranged as units of syntactically equal rank, i.e. equipotently. In complex sentences, the clauses are united on the basis of subordinative connections (hypotaxis); by subordination the clauses are arranged as units of syntactically unequal rank, one of which dominates another.

The connections between the clauses in a composite sentence may be effected syndetically, i.e. by means of special connecting words, conjunctions and other conjunctional words or word-combinations, or asyndetically, i.e. without any conjunctional words used.

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.

A composite sentence in English and Ukrainian, like in all other languages, contains two or more primary predication centres mostly represented by as many corresponding clauses. The structural types of the composite sentence are identified on the ground of the syntactic reflection (and connection) of its predicate parts which are not always distinctly identified.

Thus, common in the syntactic systems of English and Ukrainian are sentences that are semantically intermediate between simple extended on the one hand and composite sentences on the other. These are the so-called semi-compound and semi-complex sentences.

Nevertheless there is much common in the nature and structure of the composite sentence in the syntactic systems of English and Ukrainian. Isomorphism is observed first of all in the nomenclature of the Major Syntax units represented by the compound and complex sentences.

We came to the conclusion, that isomorphism and allomorphism in the system of composite sentences find their expression first and foremost in the realisation of the syntactic connection of their componental parts, i. e. clauses.

As to the isomorphic types of composite sentences, they are amply represented in both contrasted languages in the following three varieties: 1) the polycomponen tal compound sentences; 2) the polycomponental complex sentences; 3) the compound extended sentences; 4) the complex-compound and 5) the compound-complex sentences.

 

 

 

LITERATURE

 

1. Blokh M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. – M., 1994. – 381 p.
2. Bryant M.A. Functional English Grammar. – N.Y., 1995. – 390 р.
3. Ganshina M.A. Vasilevskaya N.M. English Grammar. – M., 1994. – 340 p.
4. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A Grammar of Contemporary English. – Lоndоn, 1992. – 365 р.
5. Жлуктенко Ю.О. Порівняльна граматика англійської та української мов. – К., 1960. – 160 с.
6. Корунець І.В. Порівняльна типологія англійської та української мов. – Вінниця: Нова Книга, 2003. – 464 с.
7. Порівняльні дослідження з граматики англійської, української, російської мов: 36. статей АН УРСР, і-ту мовознавства ім. О.О. Потебні / Відп. ред. Ю.А. Жлуктенко. – К.: Наук. думка, 1981. – 356 с.
8. Широкова А.В. Сравнительная типология разноструктурных языков. – М.: Добросвет, 2000. – 301 с.