Английского

§ 4. It is easily seen that coordinative connections are correlated 
semantically with subordinative connections so that a compound 
sentence can often be transformed into 

---

338
a complex one with the preservation of the essential relational se-
mantics between the clauses. The coordinative connections, as dif-
ferent from subordinative, besides the basic opposition to the latter 
by their ranking quality, are more general, they are semantically 
less discriminatory, less "refined". That is why the subordinative 
connection is regularly used as a diagnostic model for the coordi-
native connection, while the reverse is an exception rather than a 
rule. Cf.: 
Our host had rung the bell on our entrance and now a Chinese cook 
came in with more glasses and several bottles of soda. → On our 
entrance, as our host had rung the bell, a Chinese cook came in 
with more glasses and several bottles of soda. There was nothing 
else to do, so Alice soon began talking again. → Alice soon began 
talking again because there was nothing else to do. 
Speaking of the diagnostic role of subordinative constructions in 
relation to coordinative ones, it should be understood that this is of 
especial importance for the unmarked constructions, in particular 
for those realised by the conjunction and. 
On the other hand, the coordinative connection of clauses is in 
principle not reducible to the subordinative connection, which fact, 
as in other similar cases of correlations, explains the separate and 
parallel existence of both types of clausal connection in language. 
This can be illustrated by the following example: I invited Mike to 
join us, but he refused. 
It would appear at first sight that the subordinative diagnostic-
specifying exposition of the semantic relations between the clauses 
of the cited sentence can be achieved by the concessive construc-
tion: "Though I invited Mike to join us, he refused". But the proper 
observation of the corresponding materials shows that this diagno-
sis is only valid for part of the possible contexts. Suffice it to give 
the following two contextual expansions to the sentence in ques-
tion, of which only one corresponds to the cited diagnosis. 
The first expansion: You are mistaken if you think that Mike was 
eager to receive an invitation to join us. I invited him, but he re-
fused. 
The given concessive reading of the sentence is justified by the 
context: the tested compound sentence is to be replaced here by the 
above complex one on a clear basis of equivalence. 
The second expansion: It was decided to invite either Mike or Jesse 
to help us with our work. First I invited Mike, but he refused. Then 
we asked Jesse to join us. 

---

339
It is quite clear that the devised concessive diagnosis is not at all 
justified by this context: what the analysed construction does ren-
der here, is a stage in a succession of events, for which the use of a 
concessive model would be absurd.