Transition from simple sentence to composite

It is common in grammatical theory to distinguish be-tween main and secondary parts of a sentence. Besides these two types there is one more — elements which are said to stand outside the sentence structure.

In starting now to study parts of the sentence in Modern Eng-lish, we will begin by analysing the principle or principles on which this classification is based.

There are two generally recognised main parts of the sentence — the subject and the predicate. As to the secondary parts, their number varies slightly. Among them wo usually find the object (with its subdivisions), the attribute, and the adverbial modifier. Other secondary parts are also sometimes mentioned — the apposition (its relation to the attribute is variously interpreted), the objective predicative, and occasionally some other parts, too.

The reason for calling the subject and the predicate the main parts of the sentence and distinguishing them from all other parts which are treated as secondary, is roughly this. The subject and the predicate between them constitute the backbone of the sentence: without them the sentence would not exist at all, whereas all oilier parts may or may not be there, and if they are there, they serve to define or modify either the subject or the predicate, or each other.

A linguistic experiment to prove the correctness of this view would be to take a sentence containing a subject, a predi-cate, and a number of secondary parts, and to show that any of the secondary parts might be removed without the sentence being destroyed, whereas if either the subject or the predicate were removed there would be no sen-tence left: its "backbone" would be broken. This experiment would probably succeed and prove the point in a vast majority of cases. We will therefore stick to the division of sentence parts into main and secondary, taking the subject and the predicate to be the main parts, and all the others to be secondary THE SUBJECT AND THE PREDICATE

The question now arises, how are we to define the subject of a sentence? The question may also be put in a different way: what criteria do we practically apply when we say that a word (or, some-times, a phrase) is the subject of a sentence?

In trying to give a definition of the subject, we shall have to in-clude in it both general points, valid for language in general, and specific points connected with the structure of Modern English. Thus the definition of the subject in Modern Eng-lish will only partly, not wholly, coincide with its definition, say, in Russian………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 58. Secondary predication.

Another syntactical phenomenon which is best, considered un-der this heading of transition to the composite sentence is based on what is very aptly termed "secondary predication". Before starting to discuss the syntactical phenomena involved, we shall therefore have to explain briefly what is meant by secondary predi-cation. In every sentence there is bound to be predication, without which there would be no sentence. In a usual two-member sentence the8. Secondary predication. predication is between the subject and the predicate. In most sentences this is the only predication they contain. However, there are also sentences which contain one more predication, which is not between the subject and the predicate of the sentence. This predication may conveniently be termed secondary predication. ¹

In Modern English there are several ways of expressing secondary predication. One of them is what is frequently termed the complex object, as seen in the sentences, I saw him run, We heard them sing, The public watched the team play, I want you to come to-morrow, We expect you to visit us, etc. Let us take the first of these sentences for closer examination. The primary predication in this sentence is between the subject I and the predicate saw. I is the doer of the action expressed by the predicate verb. But in this sentence there is one more predication, that between him and run: the verb run expresses the action performed by him. This predication is obviously a secondary one: him is not the subject of a sentence or a clause, and run is not its predicate. The same can be said about all the sentences given above.

On the syntactic function of the group him run (or of its elements) views vary. The main difference is between those who think that him run is a syntactic unit, and those who think that him is one part of the sentence, and run another. If the phrase is taken as a syntactic unit, it is very natural to call it a complex object: it stands in an object relation to the predicate verb saw and consists of two elements.

If, on the other hand, the phrase him run is not considered to be a syntactic unit, its first element is the object, and its second element is conveniently termed the objective predicative.

The choice between the two interpretations remains ar-bitrary and neither of them can be proved to be the only right one. In favour of the view that the phrase is a syntactical unit, a semantic reason can be put forward. In some cases the two ele-ments of the phrase cannot be separated without changing the meaning of the sentence. This is true, for instance, of sentences with the verb hate. Let us take as an example the sentence, I hate you to go, which means much the same as I hate the idea of your going, or The idea of your going is most unpleasant to me. Now, if we separate the two elements of the phrase, that is, if we stop after its first element: I hate you..., the sense is completely changed. This shortened version expresses hatred for "you" which the original full version certainly did not imply.