which is very important, they appeal to the actual properties of the sentence in the text. However, the conception taken as a whole gives a false presentation of the essential facts under analysis and is fallacious in principle. p align="justify"> As a matter of fact, there is a substantial semantico-syntactic difference between the compound sentence and the corresponding textual sequence of independent sentences. This difference can escape 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 action; 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 functions. 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. p align="justify"> 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. p align="justify"> 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 rendered by the text. In practice, though, it is not so. In particular, the following arrangement of the predicative units into two successive 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. p align="justify"> 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. p align="justify"> On the other hand, some subordinate clauses of a complex sentence 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 subordinative connections. Cf.: p align="justify"> Suddenly Laura paused as if she was arrested by something invisible from here. ? Suddenly Laura paused. As if she was arrested by something invisible from here. p align="justify"> As for the factor of intonation, it should indeed be invariably taken into account when considering general problems of sentence identification. The propositional intonation contour with its final delimitation pause is one of the constitutive means of the creation and existence 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 intonation patterns of the sentence and those of the clause, no matter how many traits of similarity they may possess, including finalising 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 separating 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 essential or less essential changes in meanings, of his own choice, which is determined by concrete semantic and contextual conditions.
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 linguistics 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 observation.
The compound sentence is derived from two or more base sentences whic...
