The construction is very dynamic, its adverbial constituents preserve clear traces of the corresponding predications, and therefore it approaches the genuine semi-compound sentence of predicate coordination by its semantic nature.
§ 6. The semi-compound sentence of predicate coordination immediately correlates with a compound sentence of complete composition having identical subjects. Both constructions are built upon the same set of base sentences, use the same connective means and reflect the same situation. E.g.:
She looked at him and saw again the devotion, the humility in his eyes. → She looked at him and she saw again the devotion, the humility in his eyes (The latter sentence - from D. du Maurier). The officer received the messengers, took their letters, and though I stood with them, completely ignored me. → The officer received the messengers, took their letters, and though I stood with them, he completely ignored me (The latter sentence - from H.E. Stover).
A question arises whether the compared sentences are absolutely the same in terms of functions and semantics, or whether there is some kind of difference between them which causes them to be used discriminately.
In an attempt to expose the existing functional difference between the two constructions, it has been pointed out that base sentences with identical subjects are connected not into a semi-compound, but into a compound sentence (of complete composition) in the three main cases: first, when the leading sentence is comparatively long; second, when the finite verbs in the two sentences are of different structure; third, when the second sentence is highly emotional.* These tentative formulations should rather be looked upon as practical guides, for they do correspond to the existing tendencies of living speech. But the tendencies lack absolute regularity and, which is far more significant, they do not present complete lingual facts by themselves, but rather are particular manifestations of a general and fundamental mechanism at work. This mechanism is embodied in the actual division of the sentence: as a matter of fact, observations of the relevant contexts show that the structure of the actual division in the two types of sentences is essentially different. Namely, whereas the actual division of the compound sentence with identical subjects presents two (or more) separate informative perspectives characterized by identical themes and different rhemes, the actual division of the semi-compound sentence presents only one perspective, analysed into one theme and one, though complex, rheme; the latter falls into two or more constituent rhemes (sub-rhemes) in various concrete contexts.
* Irtenyeva N.F., Shapkin A.P., Blokh M.Y. The Structure of the English Sentence. M., 1969, p. 110.
The sub-rhemes may be of equal importance from the informational point of view, as in the following example:
We were met by a guide who spoke excellent English and had a head full of facts.
The sub-rhemes may be of unequal informative importance, the predicative expansion rendering the basic semantic content of the sentence. E.g.:
She gave us her address and asked us to come and see her.
The coordinated predicate groups may also be informatively fused into an essentially simple rheme, i.e. into a phrase making up a close informative unity. E.g.:
He took out als diary and began to write. The man looked up and laughed.
As different from the semi-compound construction with its exposed informative properties, the very identity of the subject themes in a compound sentence of complete composition is a factor making it into a communicatively intense, logically accented syntactic unit (compare the examples given at the beginning of the paragraph).
§ 1. We have repeatedly shown throughout the present work that sentences in continual speech are not used in isolation; they are interconnected both semantically-topically and syntactically.
Inter-sentential connections have come under linguistic investigation but recently. The highest lingual unit which was approached by traditional grammar as liable to syntactic study was the sentence; scholars even specially stressed that to surpass the boundaries of the sentence was equal to surpassing the boundaries of grammar.
In particular, such an outstanding linguist as L. Bloomfield, while recognizing the general semantic connections between sentences in the composition of texts as linguistically relevant, at the same time pointed out that the sentence is the largest grammatically arranged linguistic form, i.e. it is not included into any other linguistic form by a grammatical arrangement.*
* See:Bloomfield L. Language. NY„ 1933, p. 170.
However, further studies in this field have demonstrated the inadequacy of the cited thesis. It has been shown that sentences in speech do come under broad grammatical arrangements, do combine with one another on strictly syntactic lines in the formation of larger stretches of both oral talk and written text.
It should be quite clear that, supporting the principle of syntactic approach to arrangement of sentences into a continual text, we do not assert that any sequence of independent sentences forms a syntactic unity. Generally speaking, sentences in a stretch of uninterrupted talk may or may not build up a coherent sequence, wholly depending on the purpose of the speaker. E.g.:
BARBARA. Dolly: don't be insincere. Cholly: fetch your concertina and play something for us (B. Shaw).
The cited sequence of two sentences does not form a unity in either syntactic or semantic sense, the sentences being addressed to different persons on different reasons. A disconnected sequence may also have one and the same communication addressee, as in the following case:
DUCHESS OF BERWIC... I like him so much. I am quite delighted he's gone! How sweet you're looking! Where do you get your gowns? And now I must tell you how sorry I am for you, dear Margaret (O. Wilde).
But disconnected sequences like these are rather an exception than the rule. Moreover, they do not contradict in the least the idea of a continual topical text as being formed by grammatically interconnected sentences. Indeed, successive sentences in a disconnected sequence mark the corresponding transitions of thought, so each of them can potentially be expanded into a connected sequence bearing on one unifying topic. Characteristically, an utterance of a personage in a work of fiction marking a transition of thought (and breaking the syntactic connection of sentences in the sequence) is usually introduced by a special author's comment. E.g.:
"You know, L.S., you're rather a good sport." Then his tone gew threatening again. "It's a big risk I'm taking. It's the biggest risk I've ever had to take" (C.P. Snow).
As we see, the general idea of a sequence of sentences forming a text includes two different notions. On the one hand, it presupposes a succession of spoken or written utterances irrespective of their forming or not forming a coherent semantic complex. On the other hand, it implies a strictly topical stretch of talk, i.e. a continual succession of sentences centering on a common informative purpose. It is this latter understanding of the text that is syntactically relevant. It is in this latter sense that the text can be interpreted as a lingual entity with its two distinguishing features: first, semantic (topical) unity, second, semantico-syntactic cohesion.
§ 2. The primary division of sentence sequences in speech should be based on the communicative direction of their component sentences. From this point of view monologue sequences and dialogue sequences are to be discriminated.
In a monologue, sentences connected in a continual sequence are directed from one speaker to his one or several listeners. Thus, the sequence of this type can be characterized as a one-direction sequence. E.g.:
We'll have a lovely garden. We'll have roses in it and daffodils and a lovely lawn with a swing for little Billy and little Barbara to play on. And we'll have our meals down by the lily pond in summer (K. Waterhouse and H. Hall).
The first scholars who identified a succession of such sentences as a special syntactic unit were the Russian linguists N.S. Pospelov and LA. Bulakhovsky. The former called the unit in question a "complex syntactic unity", the latter, a "super-phrasal unity". From consistency considerations, the corresponding English term used in this book is the "supra-sentential construction" (see Ch. I).
As different from this, sentences in a dialogue sequence are uttered by the speakers-interlocutors in turn, so that they are directed, as it were, to meet one another; the sequence of this type, then, should be characterized as a two-direction sequence. E.g.:
"Annette, what have you done? "-"I've done what I had to do" (S. Maugham).
It must be noted that two-direction sequences can in principle be used within the framework of a monologue text, by way of an "inner dialogue" (i.e. a dialogue of the speaker with himself). E.g.:
What were they jabbering about now in Parliament? Some twopenny-ha'penny taxi! (J. Galsworthy).
On the other hand, one-direction sequences can be used in a dialogue, when a response utterance forms not a rejoinder, but a continuation of the stimulating utterance addressed to the same third party, or to both speakers themselves as a collective self-addressee, or having an indefinite addressee. E.g.:
ST. ERTH. All the money goes to fellows who don't know a horse from a haystack. - CANYNGE (profoundly). And care less. Yes! We want men racing to whom a horse means something (J. Galsworthy). ELYOT. I'm glad we didn't go out tonight. AMANDA. Or last night. ELYOT. Or the night before. AMANDA. There's no reason to, really, when we're cosy here (N. Coward).
Thus, the direction of communication should be looked upon as a deeper characteristic of the sentence-sequence than its outer, purely formal presentation as either a monologue (one man's speech) or a dialogue (a conversation between two parties). In order to underline these deep distinguishing features of the two types of sequences, we propose to name them by the types of sentence connection used. The formation of a one-direction sequence is based on syntactic cumulation of sentences, as different from syntactic composition of sentences making them into one composite sentence. Hence, the supra-sentential construction of one-direction communicative type can be called a cumulative sequence, or a "cumuleme". The formation of a two-direction sequence is based on its sentences being positioned to meet one another. Hence, we propose to call this type of sentence connection by the term "occursive", and the supra-sentential construction based on occursive connection, by the term "occurseme".
Furthermore, it is not difficult to see that from the hierarchical point of view the occurseme as an element of the system occupies a place above the cumuleme. Indeed, if the cumuleme is constructed by two or more sentences joined by cumulation, the occurseme can be constructed by two or more cumulemes, since the utterances of the interlocutors can be formed not only by separate sentences, but by cumulative sequences as well. E.g.:
"Damn you, stop talking about my wife. If you mention her name again I swear I'll knock you down." - "Oh no, you won't. You're too great a gentleman to hit a feller smaller than yourself" (S. Maugham).
As we see, in formal terms of the segmental lingual hierarchy, the supra-proposemic level (identified in the first chapter of the book) can be divided into two sublevels: the lower one at which cumulemic connection of sentences are identified, and the higher one at which occursemic connection of sentences are identified. On the other hand, a fundamental difference between the two units in question should be carefully noted lying beyond the hierarchy relation, since the occurseme, as different from the cumuleme, forms part of a conversation, i.e. is essentially produced not by one, but by two or several speakers, or, linguistically, not by one, but by two or several individual sub-lingual systems working in communicative contact.
As for the functional characteristic of the two higher segmental units of language, it is representative of the function of the text as a whole. The signemic essence of the text is exposed in its topic. The monologue text, or "discourse", is then a topical entity, the dialogue text, or "conversation", is an exchange-topical entity. The cumuleme and occurseme are component units of these two types of texts, which means that they form, respectively, subtopical and exchange-subtopical units as regards the embedding text as a whole. Within the framework of the system of language, however, since the text as such does not form any "unit" of it, the cumuleme and occurseme can simply be referred to as topical elements (correspondingly, topical and exchange-topical), without the "sub"-specification.
§ 3. Sentences in a cumulative sequence can be connected either "prospectively" or "retrospectively".
Prospective ("epiphoric", "cataphoric") cumulation is effected by connective elements that relate a given sentence to one that is to follow it. In other words, a prospective connector signals a continuation of speech: the sentence containing it is semantically incomplete. Very often prospective connectors are notional words that perform the cumulative function for the nonce. E.g.:
I tell you, one of two things must happen. Either out of that darkness some new creation will come to supplant us as we have supplanted the animals, or the heavens will fall in thunder and destroy us (B. Shaw).
The prospective connection is especially characteristic of the texts of scientific and technical works. E.g.:
Let me add a word of caution here. The solvent vapour drain enclosure must be correctly engineered and constructed to avoid the possibility of a serious explosion (From a technical journal).
As different from prospective cumulation, retrospective (or "anaphoric") cumulation is effected by connective elements that relate a given sentence to the one that precedes it and is semantically complete by itself. Retrospective cumulation is the more important type of sentence connection of the two; it is the basic type of cumulation in ordinary speech. E.g.:
What curious "class" sensation was this? Or was it merely fellow-feeling with the hunted, a tremor at the way things found one out? (J. Galsworthy).
§ 4. On the basis of the functional nature of connectors, cumulation is divided into two fundamental types: conjunctive cumulation and correlative cumulation.
Conjunctive cumulation is effected by conjunction-like connectors. To these belong, first, regular conjunctions, both coordinative and subordinative; second, adverbial and parenthetical sentence-connectors (then, yet, however, consequently, hence, besides, moreover, nevertheless, etc.). Adverbial and parenthetical sentence-connectors may be both specialized, i.e. functional and semi-functional words, and non-specialized units performing the connective functions for the nonce. E.g.:
There was an indescribable agony in his voice. And as if his own words of pain overcame the last barrier of his self-control, he broke down (S. Maugham). There was no train till nearly eleven, and she had to bear her impatience as best she could. At last it was time to start, and she put on her gloves (S. Maugham).
Correlative cumulation is effected by a pair of elements one of which, the "succeedent", refers to the other, the "antecedent", used in the foregoing sentence; by means of this reference the succeeding sentence is related to the preceding one, or else the preceding sentence is related to the succeeding one. As we see, by its direction correlative cumulation may be either retrospective or prospective, as different from conjunctive cumulation which is only retrospective.
Correlative cumulation, in its turn, is divided into substitutional connection and representative connection. Substitutional cumulation is based on the use of substitutes. E.g.:
Spolding woke me with the apparently noiseless efficiency of the trained housemaid. She drew the curtains, placed a can of hot water in my basin, covered it with the towel, and retired (E.J. Howard).
A substitute may have as its antecedent the whole of the preceding sentence or a clausal part of it. Furthermore, substitutes often go together with conjunctions, effecting cumulation of mixed type. E.g.: