Английского

§ 9. Clauses in a complex sentence may be connected with one an-
other more closely and less closely, similar to the parts of a simple 
sentence. The intensity of connection between the clauses directly 
reflects the degree of their proposemic self-dependence and is 
therefore an essential characteristic of the complex sentence as a 
whole. For instance, a predicative clause or a direct object clause 
are connected with the principal clause so closely that the latter 
cannot exist without them as a complete syntactic unit. Thus, this 
kind of clausal connection is obligatory. Cf.: 
The matter is, we haven't received all the necessary instructions 
yet. → (*) The matter is — I don't know what Mike is going to do 
about his damaged bike. → (*)I don't know — 

---

329
As different from this, an ordinary adverbial clause is connected 
with the principal clause on a looser basis, it can be deleted without 
destroying the principal clause as an autonomous unit of informa-
tion. This kind of clausal connection is optional. Cf.: 
The girl gazed at him as though she was struck by something ex-
traordinary in his appearance. → The girl gazed at him. 
The division of subordinative clausal connections into obligatory 
and optional was employed by the Russian linguist N. S. Pospelov 
(1950) for the introduction of a new classification of complex sen-
tences. In accord with his views, all the complex sentences of 
minimal structure (i.e. consisting of one principal clause and one 
subordinate clause) should be classed as "one-member" complex 
sentences and "two-member" complex sentences. One-member 
complex sentences are distinguished by an obligatory subordina-
tive connection, while two-member complex sentences are distin-
guished by an optional subordinative connection. The obligatory 
connection is determined both by the type of the subordinate clause 
(subject, predicative, object clauses) and the type of the introduc-
tion of the clause (demonstrative correlation). The optional connec-
tion characterises adverbial clauses of diverse functions and at-
tributive clauses of descriptive type. Semantically, one-member 
complex sentences are understood as reflecting one complex logi-
cal proposition, and two-member complex sentences as reflecting 
two logical propositions connected with each other on the subordi-
native principle. 
The rational character of the advanced conception is quite obvious. 
Its strong point is the fact that it consistently demonstrates the cor-
relation between form and meaning in the complex sentence struc-
ture. Far from rejecting the traditional teaching of complex sen-
tences, the "member conception" is based on its categories and de-
velops them further, disclosing such properties of subordinative 
connections which were not known to the linguistic science before. 
Speaking not only of the complex sentence of minimal composi-
tion, but in terms of complex sentences in general, it would be ap-
propriate to introduce the notions of "monolythic" and "segrega-
tive" sentence structures. Obligatory subordinative connections un-
derlie monolythic complexes, while optional subordinative connec-
tions underlie segregative complexes. 

---

330
Monolithic complex sentences fall into four basic types. 
The first of them is formed by merger complex sentences, i.e. sen-
tences with subject and predicative subordinate clauses. The sub-
ordinate clausal part of the merger monolythic complex, as has 
been shown above (see § 2), is fused with its principal clause. The 
corresponding construction of syntactic anticipation should also be 
considered under this heading. Cf.: It was at this point that Bill had 
come bustling into the room. → (*) It was at this point — 
The second subtype of complex sentences in question is formed by 
constructions whose subordinate clauses are dependent on the 
obligatory right-hand valency of the verb in the principal clause. 
We can tentatively call these constructions "valency" monolith 
complexes. Here belong complexes with object clauses and 
valency-determined adverbial clauses: from the point of view of 
subordinative cohesion they are alike. Cf.: 
I don't know when I'm beaten. —» (*) I don't know — Put the book 
where you've taken it from. → (*) Put the book — Her first shock 
was when she came down. → (*) Her first shock was — 
The third subtype of monolythic complex sentences is formed by 
constructions based on subordinative correlations — "correlation" 
monolith complexes. E.g.: 
His nose was as unkindly short as his upper lip was long. You will 
enjoy such a sight as you are not likely to see again. The more I 
think of it, the more I'm convinced of his innocence. 
Restrictive attributive clauses should be included into this subtype 
of correlation monoliths irrespective of whether or not their corre-
lation scheme is explicitly expressed. Cf.: 
This is the same report as was submitted last week. This is the re-
port that was submitted last week. 
Finally, the fourth subtype of monolithic complex sentences is 
formed by constructions whose obligatory connection between the 
principal and subordinate clauses is determined only by the linear 
order of clausal positions. Cf.: If he comes, tell him to wait. →(*) 
If he comes — 
As is easily seen, such "arrangement" monolith complexes are not 
"organically" monolithic, as different from the first three monolith 
subtypes; positional re-arrangement deprives 

---

331
them of this quality, changing the clausal connection from obliga-
tory into optional: Tell him to wait if he comes. → Tell him to wait. 
The rest of the complex sentences are characterised by segregative 
structure, the maximum degree of syntactic option being character-
istic of subordinative parenthetical connection.