Английского

CHAPTER XXVIII
COMPOUND SENTENCE 
§ 1. The compound sentence is a composite sentence built on the 
principle of coordination. Coordination, the same as subordination, 
can be expressed either syndetically (by means of coordinative 
connectors) or asyndetically. 
The main semantic relations between the clauses connected coor-
dinatively are copulative, adversative, disjunctive, causal, conse-
quential, resultative. Similar semantic types of relations are to be 
found between independent, separate sentences forming a continual 
text. As is known, this fact has given cause to some scholars to 
deny the existence of the compound sentence as a special, regular 
form of the composite sentence.* 
The advanced thesis to this effect states that the so-called "com-
pound sentence" is a fictitious notion developed under 
* See: Иофик Л. Л. Сложное предложение в новоанглийском языке. Л., 1968.

---

333
the school influence of written presentation of speech; what is fal-
laciously termed the "compound sentence" constitutes in reality a 
sequence of semantically related independent sentences not sepa-
rated by full stops in writing because of an arbitrary school con-
vention. 
To support this analysis, the following reasons are put forward: 
first, the possibility of a falling, finalising tone between the coordi-
nated predicative units; second, the existence, in written speech, of 
independently presented sentences introduced by the same con-
junctions as the would-be "coordinate clauses"; third, the possibil-
ity of a full stop-separation of the said "coordinate clauses" with 
the preservation of the same semantic relations between them. 
We must admit that, linguistically, the cited reasons are not devoid 
of a rational aspect, and, which is very important, they appeal to 
the actual properties of the sentence in the text. However, the con-
ception taken as a whole gives a false presentation of the essential 
facts under analysis and is fallacious in principle. 
As a matter of fact, there is a substantial semantico-syntactic dif-
ference between the compound sentence and the corresponding 
textual sequence of independent sentences. This difference can es-
cape the attention of the observer when tackling isolated sentences, 
but it is explicitly exposed in the contexts of continual speech. 
Namely, by means of differences in syntactic distributions of 
predicative units, different distributions of the expressed ideas is 
achieved, which is just the coordinative syntactic functions in ac-
tion; by means of combining or non-combining predicative units 
into a coordinative polypredicative sequence the corresponding 
closeness or looseness of connections between the reflected events 
is shown, which is another aspect of coordinative syntactic func-
tions. It is due to these functions that the compound sentence does 
not only exist in the syntactic system of language, but occupies in 
it one of the constitutive places. 
By way of example, let us take a textual sequence of independent 
monopredicative units: 
Jane adored that actor. Hockins could not stand the sight of him. 
Each was convinced of the infallibility of one's artistic judgment. 
That aroused prolonged arguments. 
Given the "negative" theory of the compound sentence is correct, 
any coordinative-sentential re-arrangements of the cited sentences 
must be indifferent as regards the sense 

---

334
rendered by the text. In practice, though, it is not so. In particular, 
the following arrangement of the predicative units into two succes-
sive compound sentences is quite justified from the semantico-
syntactic point of view: 
→ Jane adored that actor, but Hockins could not stand the sight of 
him. Each was convinced of the infallibility of one's judgment, and 
that aroused prolonged arguments. 
As different from this, the version of arranging the same material 
given below cannot be justified in any syntactic or semantic sense: 
→ *Jane adored that actor. But Hockins could not stand the sight 
of him, each was convinced of the infallibility of one's judgment. 
And that aroused prolonged arguments. 
On the other hand, some subordinate clauses of a complex sen-
tence can also be separated in the text, thus being changed into 
specific independent sentences. Still, no one would seek to deny 
the existence of complex sentence patterns based on optional sub-
ordinative connections. Cf.: 
Suddenly Laura paused as if she was arrested by something invisi-
ble from here. → Suddenly Laura paused. As if she was arrested by 
something invisible from here. 
As for the factor of intonation, it should indeed be invariably taken 
into account when considering general problems of sentence identi-
fication. The propositional intonation contour with its final delimi-
tation pause is one of the constitutive means of the creation and ex-
istence of the sentence as a lingual phenomenon. In particular, the 
developing intonation pattern in the process of speech sustains the 
semantic sentence strain from the beginning of the sentence up to 
the end of it. And there is a profound difference between the into-
nation patterns of the sentence and those of the clause, no matter 
how many traits of similarity they may possess, including finalis-
ing features. Moreover, as is known, the tone of a coordinate 
clause, far from being rigorously falling, can be rising as well. The 
core of the matter is that the speaker has intonation at his disposal 
as a means of forming sentences, combining sentences, and sepa-
rating sentences. He actively uses this means, grouping the same 
syntactic strings of words now as one composite sentence, now as 
so many simple sentences, with the corresponding more 

---

335
essential or less essential changes in meanings, of his own choice, 
which is determined by concrete semantic and contextual condi-
tions. 
Thus, the idea of the non-existence of the compound sentence in 
English should be rejected unconditionally. On the other hand, it 
should be made clear that the formulation of this negative idea as 
such has served us a positive cause, after all: its objective scientific 
merit, similar to some other inadequate ideas advanced in linguis-
tics at different times, consists in the very fact that it can be used as 
a means of counter-argumentation in the course of research work, 
as a starting point for new insights into the deep nature of lingual 
phenomena in the process of theoretical analysis sustained by ob-
servation.