Ministry of higher and secondary education of the republic of uzbekistan karakalpak state university

Recommended literature

1. 
   Жигадко В.Н., Иванова И.П., Иофик А.Л. Современный английский язык. М., 1956
   
2. 
   Бархударов Л.С. Структура простого предложения современного английского языка. М., 1966
   
3. 
   Кошевая И.Г. Грамматический строй современного английского языка. М., 1978
   
4. 
   Структурный синтаксис английского языка (теоретический курс) Л., 1981
   
5. 
   Ilyish B.A. The structure of modern English. L., 1971
   
6. 
   Blokh M.Y. A course in Theoretical English Grammar M., 1983
   

Lecture 12
Theme: complex sentence
Problems for discussion:
1 types of complex sentences
2 types of subordinate clauses

1. 
   Subject clauses
   
2. 
   Predicative clauses
   
3. 
   Object clauses
   
4. 
   Attributive clauses
   
5. 
   Types of adverbial clauses:
   

1. 
   Clauses of place
   
2. 
   Clauses of time
   
3. 
   Conditional clauses
   
4. 
   Clauses of result
   
5. 
   Clauses of purpose
   
6. 
   Clauses of concession
   
7. 
   Clauses of manner and comparison
   

The complex sentence is a poly predicative construction built up on the principle of subordination. It is derived from two or more base sentence one of which performs the role of a matrix in relation the others , the insert , sentence. The matrix (meitriks - биолматикаячейка) function of the corresponding base sentence may be more rigorously and less rigorously (rig Ə r Əs - строгийсуровый) pronounced, depending on the type of subordinate connection realized.

When joined into complex sentence, the matrix base sentence becomes the principal clause of it and the insert (in’sƏ:t – вставить) sentence, its subordinate clauses.
The complex sentence of minimal composition includes two clauses – a principal one and a subordinate one. Although the principal clauses positional dominates the principal clause positional dominates the subordinate clause the two form a semantic-syntactic unity within the framework of which they are in fact interconnected, so that the very existence of either of them is supported by the existence of the other.
The subordinate clause is join to the principal clause either by a subordinating connector (subordinator) or with some types of clauses, asyndetically. The functional character of the subordinative connecter is so explicit that ever in traditional grammatical descriptions of complex sentence this connector was approached as a transformer of an independent sentence into a subordinate clause
E.g.: Mary lift the room →I do remember quite well that Mary left the room.
→ he went on with his story after Mary lift the room
→Fred remained in his place though Mary lift the room
→the party was spoilt because after Mary lift the room
→it was a surprise to us all that Mary lift the room
This paradigmatic scheme of the production of the subordinate clause vindicates conldn't she sense now ... and come out? Is clearly interrogative and this is enough make the whole complex sentence interrogative, hough the subordinate clause that he was outside (an object clause) is certainly not interrogative, it is declarative. If to take a complex sentence with an imperative main clause: never you mind now old she is. The main clause never you mind is imperative. The problem of classifying subordinate clauses is one of the vexed (veks-раздражать, огорчать) questions of syntactic theory.
The first apposition in the sphere of principles would seem to be that between Meaning or contents, and syntactical functions. But this opposition is not in itself sufficient to deter mine the possible variants of classification. Under the head of "meaning" we may bring either such notions as "Declarative" (or statement) and interrogative" (or question) and on the haud, a notion like "explanatory".
There remains now the classification of subordinate clauses based on the similarity of their functions with those of parts of the sentence, namely theclassification of clauses into subject, predicative, object, attributive, adverbial, appositional and parenthetical clauses.
In this way the general parallelism between parts of a simple sentence and subordinate clauses within a complex sentence will be kept up. However, there is no sufficient ground for believing that there will be complete parallelism in all respects and all details.
Subordinate clauses may well be expected to have some peculiarities distinguishing them from parts of a simple sentence.
In studying the several types of subordinate clauses and comparing them with the corresponding parts of a simple sentence and point out their peculiarities distinguishing them from parts of a simple sentence and paint out their peculiarities and the meanings which are better rendered by a subordinate clause than by a part of a simple sentence.
Subject clauses. The notion of a subject clause is not quite clearly defined.
The reason for calling these clauses subject clauses would seem to be clear. If the clause is dropped, the subject is missing. Since in the sentences as they are the position which might be occupied by a noun-subject is occupied by a subordinate clause. This seems to be sufficient (sa'fijant-достаточный) reason for terming the clause a subject clause.
Subordinate subject clauses have the function of the subject to the predicate of the principal (main) clause.
They are introduced by:

7. 
   Conjunctions: that, whether, if;
   
8. 
   Conjunctive pronouns: who, what, which;
   
9. 
   Conjunctive adverbs: when, where, how, why.
   

That he will come is certain. Who broke the glass remained unknown. How he managed to do it is more than I can tell.
When a subject clause is placed at the end of the sentence, it is introduced by the anticipatory "it" (asn'tisipeitari - предварительный, предвосхищающий). E.g. It is strange that he did not come at all.
Subject clauses are not separated by a comma.
Predicative clauses. The reason for calling these clauses predicative is that if they are dropped the sentence will be unfinished. There will be the link verb, but the predicative, which should come after the link verb, will be missing. This seems sufficient reason for terming the clause a predicative clause.
Subordinate predicative clauses have the function of a predicative. The link - verb is in the principal clause. The predicative clause together with the link - verb forms a compound nominal predicate to the subject of the principal clause. E.g.: The question is whether he is able to do it alone. It looks as if it were going to rain. This is why he is so happy.
Predicative clauses are not separated by a comma.
Object clauses. Object clauses are less easily defined and less easily recognizable than either subject and predicative clauses. You may try to apply the same criterion that worked well in the case of subject and predicative clauses, by omitting the subordinate clause and see what part of the sentence is missing.
The easiest cases are those in which the subordinate clause can be replaced by a noun which would be an object in a simple sentence. E.g.: He bought what he wanted. If we drop the subordinate clause what he wanted we get the unfinished sentence He bought..., which has no definite meaning until we add some word that will function as an object. This may be any noun denoting a thing that can be bought, e.g., He bought a briefcase. The similarity in syntactical position between a briefcase and the subordinate clause what he wanted appears to be sufficient reason for saying that what he wanted is an object clause.
The subordinate object clauses have the function of an object to the predicate of the principal clause. Object clauses may also refer to some verbals in the function of their objects. E.g.: she told me that she was willing to help. I should like to know whether they will come. She came up to me saying that the was glad to see me.
Object clauses are introduced by:

1. 
   conjunctions: that, if whether
   
2. 
   conjunctive pronouns: who, what, which
   
3. 
   conjunctive adverbs: when, where, how, why.
   

e.g.: He told me that he would come.
I should like to know what is in the box
He did not tell me where he had put the things.
In speaking of object clauses, special attention must be paid to clauses introduced by prepositions. These clauses may be termed prepositional object clauses, on the analogy of prepositional objects in a simple sentence. E.g.: He was asked about what he was going to do in summer. We thought of how pleasant it world be to spend our vacation in the mountains. I could say nothing but that I was sorey.
Object clauses may be joined to the principal clause asyndetically (безпосредствомсоюзов) e.g.:
I knew he would come. He insisted it should be done by her.
In some cases, though, an object in a simple sentence may have a synonymous object clause, as in the following cases: I heard of his arrival -1 heard that he had arrived.
The meaning of the two sentences in each case is exactly the same, but there is a certain stylistic difference. The simple sentence with the prepositional object sounds rather more literary or even bookish than the complex sentence with the object clause, which is fit for any sort of style.
Attributive clauses. A subordinate clause is said to be attributive if its function in the complex sentence sentence.
An attributive clause server as an attribute to some noun or pronoun in the principal clause. This noun or pronoun is called an antecedent (aenti'si: d (э) nt- ^предшествующий; 2) грам. Антецедент). E.g. There is a man downstairs who wants to see you. All that you tell me is of great interest
Attributive clauses a reintroduced by: 1) Relative pronouns: who, which that 2) Relative adverbs: where? When. E.g.: The boy who is playing there is her brother.
Here is the key that you lost yesterday.
Oliver soon reached the place where the path ended.
It is common knowledge that attributive clauses can be defining: restrictive (or limiting) and non-defining (or descriptive):
a) Limiting attributive clauses limit and define more clearly the antecedent. Such clauses are in traduced by the relative pronouns that, who, which, by relative adverbs or asyndetically (contact - clauses). E.g.: I met the boatman who had taken me across the ferry. The letter that I received yesterday was most welcome.
In a complex sentence with an attributive clause the relative pronoun may be omitted. Such clauses are called contact clauses. In such cases the two parts of the sentence are more closely. Joined together than when the relahve pronouns are used. E.g. I must repeat one thing I said in the last lecture. The man you were taking to has gone. Have you found the book we were talking a bout.
b) Descriptive attributive clauses give some additional information about the antecedent. Descriptive clauses are usually separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma. E.g.: The sun, which had been hidden all day, now came out in all its splendour (splenda - великолепнее, роскошь)
Adverbial clauses. Adverbial clauses refer to a verb, an adjective or an adverb of the principal clause in the function of an adverbial modifier:
I shall speak to him when he comes.
Adverbial clauses are connected with the principal clauses by means of conjunctions: when, of ter, because, il, as if, than, that, etc.
According to the meaning, adverbial clauses are classified: a) As adverbial clauses of time, introduced by the conjunction when express that the subordinate clause are either 1) simultaneous or 2) follow each other: 1) when we reached home, it was already dark 2) when the storm had passed, we continued our way.
Clauses of time introduced by directly and as soon as denote that the two actions closely follow each other: I shall tell him all about it as soon as he comes. I recognized the place directly I saw it.
A clause introduced by before expresses that the action of the principal clause is prior to that of the subordinate Before he locked the door, he walked through the rooms.
A subordinate clause introduced by ofter expresses that the action of the principal clause follows the action of the subordinate clause: After we had walked about two hours, we saw the twinkling eight of a village in the distance.
A clause introduced by since (over since) denotes the starting point of the action expressed by the verb of the principal clause: E.g.: It has been raining ever since I came home.

1. 
   Adverbial clauses of place introduced by mhere or mherever (old: whence - откуда; whither - куда): The house stood where the roads met.
   

Subordinate clauses introduced by where inducate:

1. 
   the place where the action is going on (где)Жe.g.:
   

They landed where the forest came down to the water's edge.

2. 
   The place towards which the action is directed (куда)Жe.g.:
   

Presently he returned to where his chair stood.

3. 
   The starting point of the action (откуда): E.g.: Go back where you came from.
   
1. 
   Adverbial clause of cause introduced by because, since, as, for the reason that, on the ground that, suing that, considering that: E.G.:
   

They decided to give up the trip because the we other was so uncertain. As the day was clear, we decided to climb the mountain.
When the subordinate clause gives a reason the consequences of which are stated in the principal clause E.g. As it is already late, you had better go.

3. 
   Adverbial clauses of purpose introduced by that (in order that, so that), lest. E.g: we must hurry lest we should be late, (lest -lest -чтобыне, какбыне).
   
4. 
   Adverbial clauses of result introduced by so that, so ... that, E.g.: The coad was so heavy that he could not lift it.
   
5. 
   Adverbial clauses of comparison (or manner) introduced by as, as if, as though, than, the more ... the more, the less ... the less. E.G.: It is not so easy as you thime. The more difficult you find it, the more you should per severe (рэ: s i' v i э- прочвлитьухарство, настойчивость)
   
6. 
   Adverbial clauses of concessine fkan'sesir - грамм. Уступительный) introduced by though, although, as, even though, however, whoever, whatever, whichever. E.g. Although we could see nothing, we distinctly heard the sound of many oars in the water. However much I try, I cannot pronounce that wordproperly.
   

h) Adverbial clauses of condition, introduced by it, unless, suppose, provided, on condition. E.g.: If I were not so busy, I should grandly half you. Suppose he does not come, what shall we do?
In conditional clauses of unreal condition the conjunction if can be omitted. In such a case there is inversion in the if-clause. Such a construction is possible only when the predicate comprises an auxiliary or modal verb, or when the verbs to have and to be are used as predicates: E.g.: Were he my friend, I should expect his help. Had he time, he would gladly come.
She conditional clause (if clause) is sometimes elliptical, conjunction only of the conjuction and the emphatic word or group of words. E.g. If necessary, I must do it. I am sure you would act in the som way if in his place.
Recommended Literature

1. 
   Ilyish B.A. The structure of modern English, L., 1971.
   
2. 
   Blokh M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. M., 1983.
   
3. 
   Irtenyeva N.F., Barsova O.M., Blokh M.Y., Shapkin A.P. A Theoretical English Grammar. Syntax. M., 1969.
   
4. 
   Linda Thomas, Beginning Syntax, oxford, UK and Cambridge USA 1993
   
5. 
   Бархударов JI.C. Структура простого предложения современного английского языка, М., 1966.
   
6. 
   Почепцов Г.Г. Конструктивный анализ структуры предложения. Киев - 1971.
   
7. 
   Ganshina М.А., Vasilevakaya п. М. English grammar. М., 1958.