Indirect and represented speech

INDIRECT SPEECH

In characterising indirect speech as compared with direct, we must dwell on two special cases in which a distinction found in direct speech gets lost in a change into indirect speech.

The first of these is the distinction between the past indefinite and the present perfect tense (and also the past perfect). Both of these, when changed into forms appropriate to indirect speech, are replaced by the past perfect. In a similar way, both the past continuous and the present perfect continuous (and, for that matter, the past perfect continuous) of direct speech will be replaced by the past perfect continuous in indirect speech. This is too well known to need illustration.

In terms of modern linguistic science, we may say that the distinction between the past indefinite and the present perfect (and the past perfect) is neutralised in indirect speech. This, in its turn, sheds some new light on the categories of tense and correlation which we discussed above (Chapters IX and X). The question is this: if the past tense (as distinct from the present) has a tense characteristic, and the present perfect (again, as distinct from the present) has a correlation characteristic, what should we think of the past perfect, which corresponds to the one as well as to the other? We have not the slightest reason to give preference to. tense and to declare that tense is the more essential category, or to correlation, and say that correlation is more essential: each of these statements would be quite arbitrary. If we are to stick to an objective and unprejudiced view of facts, the only reasonable and justified conclusion would appear to be this: in the past perfect the two categories of tense and correlation are merged into one, that is, the difference between them is neutralised. This would also seem to show that the past perfect is not entirely parallel to the present perfect, since in the present perfect no such merger is either real or imaginable.

We may also observe that in the opposite operation, that is, in changing indirect speech into direct, we do not know whether the past perfect of indirect speech should be changed into a past indefinite or into a present perfect (or, indeed, left as it is, namely, as a past perfect), unless we take into account the context of the speech (or perhaps even the situation in which it is being pronounced). We have, in making this change into direct speech, to differentiate between two verbal categories which are not distinguished in the indirect speech text. This may be illustrated by the following extract from a modern novel: She remembered that she had come to his house that night only because at a certain time at Madame Guillaume's party, when the Princesse de Cortignac and Monsieur de

332 Indirect and Represented Speech

Gazière were coming toward the alcove where they sat, he had gripped her wrist. (R. WEST) In changing this passage into direct speech, should we change the past perfect forms had come and had gripped into a past tense or into a present perfect, or should we, perhaps, leave them as they are? To decide on this, we must look at the context, and in this particular case it is the words that night and at a certain time that are decisive: the tense to be used in direct speech is the past indefinite.

Another case of two different verbal forms of direct speech being replaced by one and the same form in indirect speech is seen in sentences with their "predicate verb in the future tense and those with their predicate verb in the form "should + infinitive" to express a conditional action. Let us first consider a self-made example: He said, "1 shall come if I have time" and He said, "1 should come if I had time." In converting each of these sentences into indirect speech, we arrive at the same result in both cases, namely, He said that he would come if he had time. Thus the distinction between futurity and conditionally, which is clearly expressed in direct speech, is neutralised in the indirect. We may as well recollect here what we said above (p. 137 ff.) about the grammatical interpretation of forms like I should come in their different applications. We can add now that that analysis is confirmed and reinforced by considerations proceeding from indirect speech. If we accept the view that there are two homonymous forms, the future and the conditional present (I should come, he would come, etc.), we shall have to say that in the sentence He said that he would come if he had time we cannot, without a context or some other additional information, tell whether he would come is a future-in-the-past or a conditional present. If, on the other hand, we prefer the view that I should come, he would come, etc., is always one and the same form (whatever name we may give to it), we shall say that in the sentence He said that he would come if he had time, he would come is that form and the context or some other additional information will only be necessary to find out what exact meaning (or application) the form has in the given case. This may perhaps be taken to be an argument in favour of the unity of the form and against the homonymity theory.

The same of course applies, to the forms I should be coming, I should have come, I should have been coming, and to the corresponding forms in the passive voice of verbs which admit of a passive, e. g. I should be invited, I should have been invited.

In all of these cases, then, the change of direct into indirect speech implies the neutralisation of an opposition existing in direct speech, and the opposite change from indirect to direct speech implies the introduction (or restoration) of an opposition which was not to be seen in the indirect speech.

Represented Speech 333

REPRESENTED SPEECH

There is another way of reporting a character's speech, or, still more commonly, his thoughts, which is especially common in 20th century authors, but which may occasionally be found in much earlier writers. This is neither direct speech, which reproduces the speaker's exact words, as they were uttered, in quotation marks; nor is it indirect speech, which retells the character's words from the author's point of view, and is characterised by such formulas as, He said that... The third way of reporting a character's speech or his thoughts stands apart from those two. It is not direct speech, as it does not reproduce the speaker's words in their original form, and it is not indirect speech, as it does not introduce them by formulas like He said that..., though the changes in the personal pronouns, etc. are made.

A typical specimen of this third way, which is sometimes referred to as "represented speech", may be seen in the following extract from "Swan Song" by Galsworthy: Jon Forsyte's sensations on landing at Newhaven, by the last possible boat, after five and a half years' absence, had been most peculiar. All the way by car to Wansdon under the Sussex Downs he was in a sort of excited dream. England! What wonderful chalk, what wonderful green! What an air of having been there for ever! The sudden dips into villages, the old bridges, the sheep, the beech clumps! And the cuckoo — not heard for six years! A poet, somewhat dormant of late, stirred within this young man. Delicious old country! Anne would be crazy about this countryside — it was so beautifully finished. When the general strike was over she could come along, and he would show her everything. In the meantime she would be all right with his mother in Paris, and he would be free for any job he could get. The beginning of this passage, up to the words excited dream, belongs to the author. With the word England begins a passage which expresses Jon's feelings, and this goes on up to the word six years. Then comes the sentence A poet . . . young man, which clearly belongs to the author. The last part of the extract, from the words delicious old country to the words he could get again expresses Jon's feelings. If we try to state exactly what signs there are to show that one part of the passage belongs to the author and another expresses Jon's feelings, we will find the following. The points of exclamation clearly show that the sentences thus marked express the character's feelings. So do the one-member sentences England! and Delicious old country! That the sentence A poet . .. young man does not express Jon's feelings is obvious, among other things, from the words young man, which Jon would not use to refer to himself. A characteristic feature is the forms would be, would show, would be, would be. Jon's thoughts would run like this: "When the general strike is over she

884 Indirect and Represented Speech

can come along, and I will show her everything. In the meantime she will be all right with my mother in Paris, and I shall be free for any job I can get." The difference between this reconstruction and the actual text lies in the tenses of the verbs and in the use of personal pronouns (third person in the text and first person in our reconstruction). These latter traits make us think of indirect speech, yet what we find in the text is not pure indirect speech: there is no introductory sentence like he said to himself or he thought and the future-in-the-past forms would be, etc. do not appear as a result of sequence of tenses in subordinate clauses. The units in which the future-in-the-past forms are used are not subordinate clauses but independent sentences. These, then, are characteristic features of represented speech, distinct from direct as well as from, indirect speech.

An essentially similar use is also found in the following passage from a modern novel: Stella was gone. She didn't count with Stella, never had, and never would. (WOODHILL) These are the thoughts of a young girl who has seen her best friend go away in an angry state of mind. The tenses in her own thoughts, as they ran, were, of course, the present, past, and future respectively (do not count, never have, and never shall). In represented speech the tenses are the same as they would have been in indirect speech.

We will not" discuss here those problems of represented speech which are of a stylistic or literary, rather than of a grammatical character. What matters from the grammatical point of view is the use of exclamatory one-member sentences (as distinct from indirect speech) and the use of the future-in-the-past in independent sentences, which is distinct from direct speech.

It may also be noted that represented speech differs from both direct and indirect speech in that it is a mainly literary phenomenon.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, as in the above extract from Galsworthy, what is rendered in this way is not actual speech, that is, words pronounced by a character and heard by another, but thoughts which were not uttered aloud. In a few cases, however, actual loud speech or dialogue can also be rendered in this way. To illustrate this, here is an extract from a novel by Jane Austen, in which indirect speech changes into represented speech: . .. the General, coming forwards, called her hastily, and, as Catherine thought, rather angrily back, demanding whither she were going? And what was there more to be seen? Had not Miss Morland already seen all that could be worth her notice? And did she not suppose her friend might be glad of some refreshment after so much exercise? The transition is gradual, and it is achieved in the following way. The first question to come after the verb demanding is indirect. Only the question mark at its end, which may to some

Represented Speech 385

extent indicate intonation, is something that does not fit into the pattern of indirect speech. The second question is formulated in a way pointing to represented rather than to indirect speech, as is seen from the word order. In an indirect question the order would have been: ... what more there was to be seen, with there and was in the same order as in a declarative sentence. The last two sentences are quite clearly represented speech.

Thus represented speech, alongside of direct and indirect speech, is a very effective means of rendering the thoughts, and sometimes the uttered words, of characters in a novel or short story.

Chapter XL»!

PUNCTUATION

Though punctuation is not in itself part of the grammatical structure of a language, it cannot be passed over in silence in a treatise on grammar, as it may, and often does, acquire grammatical significance. The other layer of language with which punctuation is connected is of course its phonetic layer, namely intonation.

In different languages the relations between punctuation, intonation, and grammar (syntax) may be different, that is, punctuation may tend to indicate intonation to a greater or to a smaller extent. It certainly always has something to do with grammar. Now from this viewpoint it may be said that in English punctuation is connected with intonation to a greater extent than in Russian. Without going into details at the moment, we may content ourselves with recalling one fact. In Russian there is a strict principle saying that a subordinate clause is always marked off from its head clause by a comma. Thus, practically speaking, if there is no comma in a sentence, we may be certain that there is no subordinate clause in it. In English, on the other hand, there is no such general principle: sometimes a subordinate clause is not separated from its head clause by any punctuation mark whatsoever. This, for instance, is the case in the following sentence: Only now, because of the fact that she felt that she needed a new hat to go with the coat, she decided to say that it cost one hundred and twenty-five instead of one hundred and fifteen. (DREISER) There are several subordinate clauses here which are not marked off by any commas, namely, (1) that she felt (an appositional clause to fact). (2) that she needed a new hat to go with the coat (an object clause to felt). (3) that it cost one hundred and twenty-five instead of one hundred and fifteen (an object clause to say). The absence of commas here is due to the fact that in actual speech there is no intonational break between the subordinate clause and its head clause in any of these cases (this of course has to be ascertained by phonetic experiment and analysis). There are only two commas in the sentence, namely after now (this comma marks the beginning of the loose adverbial modifier because of the fact... with all the subordinate clauses belonging to it), and another after coat, to mark the end of the whole group. Thus from the number of commas no deduction could be made about the number of subordinate clauses found within the sentence.

This general characteristic of English punctuation as distinct from Russian should be kept in mind in dealing with it.

We will no longer speak of the intonational value of punctuation and we will concentrate on its grammatical significance.

Let us first take those punctuation marks which have reference to the sentence as such (that is, as a unit), and serve to point to the

End of the Sentence 337

end of a sentence and to its Communication type. These two functions, though essentially different, are performed by punctuation marks simultaneously.

The punctuation marks performing these functions are, the full stop (.), the question mark (?), and the exclamation mark (!).

The full stop may, in general, be said to be a signal of the end of a sentence, though its use as a sign of abbreviation (in such expressions as а. т., р. т., В. С., A. D., etc.) shows that its sentence-ending function is not necessarily the only one. However, with this reservation the function of the full stop as a signal of sentence end may be said to be almost certain. ¹

The other function of the full stop refers to the communication character of the sentence. Namely, a full stop shows that the sentence is not interrogative and not exclamatory. That is the only conclusion in this way that can be drawn from it. The question whether the sentence is declarative or imperative cannot be settled by the presence of a full stop at the end. Imperative sentences with a full stop at the end are quite possible, though not exactly frequent. Here are a few examples: Oh, just look at the collar, and those sleeves and those pockets. (DREISER) Don't go acting like this. (Idem) The utmost that can be said in this respect is that it is much more likely for a sentence ending with a full stop to be a declarative than an imperative sentence.

The other two punctuation marks which can signal the end of a sentence are the question mark and the exclamation mark. This function of theirs may be said to be almost certain. We are, however, bound to say "almost", because we must take into account some special cases, mainly in direct speech, where there may be a question mark or an exclamation mark, though the sentence including direct speech may run on after that, as in the following examples: "Renegade!" said Mr Blythe. (GALSWORTHY) "Why can one always tell an Englishman?" said John. (Idem) Of course there are two things to be distinguished here. The sentence "Renegade!" as pronounced by Mr Blythe is certainly finished where the exclamation mark stands, and so is the sentence "Why can one always tell an Englishman?" as pronounced by John, at the point where the interrogation mark stands. But the sentences "Renegade!" said Mr Blythe and "Why can one always tell an Englishman?" said

¹ It should be noted, too, that in recent times the use of the full stop in abbreviations tends to be restricted. For instance, nowadays no full stop is used if the last letter of an abbreviation is the last letter of the word, as in Mr, Mrs. There is also a tendency to drop the full stop in such abbreviations as n (for noun), v (for verb) in dictionaries, etc. This makes the function of the full stop to mark the sentence end more certain.

838 Punctuation

John, as written by Galsworthy, are not finished at those points. They run on with the word said in both cases and the name of the speaker. So it will perhaps be best to say that the question mark and the exclamation mark do signal the end of the sentence in one way, and do not signal it in another way. There appear to be, as it were, two layers of sentence ends in such cases as these.¹

The functions of the two punctuation marks to show the communication type of the sentence are unmistakable.

The question mark certainly always shows the sentence to be interrogative, even though the question contained in it may be rhetorical, which does not affect the grammatical type of the sentence. The only thing to be noted here is that a question mark is also always used at the end of sentences with a so-called tag-question, as in the following example: By the way, you didn't chance to bring along your dress suit with you, did you? (DREISER) or But you didn't have to fall all over and dream in his eyes, either, did you? (Idem) Such sentences may be taken in different ways. They might, for instance, be termed half-interrogative, or they might be taken as compound sentences, with the first clause declarative, and the second interrogative. But whichever way we choose to look at them, some interrogative quality is found all the same, either in a diluted way in the sentence as a whole, or else in a concentrated state in the latter part of it.

The exclamation mark is a sufficiently certain signal of the sentence being either exclamatory or emotional (see p. 187). It is obvious that a non-exclamatory and non-emotional sentence cannot have an exclamation mark at its end. As to the other peculiarities of the sentence, namely, whether it is an exclamatory sentence, or an emotional, declarative, interrogative, or imperative one, the exclamation mark, of course, does not say anything.

The other punctuation marks have no reference to the sentence as such, except, we may say, indirectly. Some of them do, and some do not, show that the sentence is not finished. Let us first have a look at the punctuation marks which definitely show that the sentence is not finished. These are: the comma (,), the semicolon (;), and the colon (:). If we see any of these punctuation marks in the text, we may be quite sure that the sentence is not finished and will run on.

The other remaining punctuation marks are not certain signs of this. Let us, for instance, consider the dash (—). This may occasionally occur as a sign that the sentence is interrupted, that is,

¹ The full stop does not appear in such ambiguous positions. It is always replaced by a comma when the inserted sentence of the type said he is added.

Repeated Dots 339

it will not run on, though it is not syntactically rounded off. In this case the following word ought to begin with a capital letter: if it began with a small one, this would mean that the sentence is running on. Here are two examples of an interrupted sentence ending with a dash: "But we ain't got Old Joe. We got —" "Shut up, you fool!" (M. MITCHELL) "Why, Uncle Peter! What on earth —" (Idem)

The repeated dots (three and more often four) are also sometimes used in this way. They are a signal showing interruption, if the following word begins with a capital letter (we must set apart cases when that word is a proper name). Repeated dots are, however, much less frequently used in English than in Russian, where they are the usual means of showing interruption in the sentence. Here is an example of this rather rare use in English: Was he not merely thinking of an accident that, had it occurred or could it but occur in his case. .. Ah, — but that could it but occur. There was the dark and evil thought about which he must not, he must not think. He MUST NOT. And yet — and yet.. . He was an excellent swimmer and could swim ashore, no doubt — whatever the distance. (DREISER) Let us first consider the first repeated dots (after case). The sentence is obviously interrupted, as the attributive subordinate clause beginning with the pronoun that and modifying the noun accident is never brought to an end; it ought to have been resumed after the end of the second-degree subordinate clause (a clause of condition) had it occurred or could it but occur in his case, but is not resumed (the capital initial A of the following Ah proves that a new sentence is beginning there). So, in this particular case, the repeated dots stand at the end of an interrupted sentence, though they in themselves would not be sufficient proof that what follows is the beginning of a new sentence.

As to the repeated dots after and yet, it must be said that the words and yet (repeated twice) cannot in themselves be a sentence, and as the following word He begins with a capital Я, it is clear that it is again the beginning of a new sentence, so that the preceding sentence is shown to be interrupted, and the dots clearly stand at the end of this interrupted sentence.

In other cases, of course, both the dash and the repeated dots may come at a place in the sentence which is not its end: the following word begins with a small letter, which is proof that the sentence is continued. Let us first have a look at a dash in such circumstances: It was wrong — wrong — terribly wrong. (DREISER) As the second wrong and terribly begin with a small letter, it is clear that neither the first nor the second dash stands at the end of a sentence, which runs right on from the word it to the third and last wrong.

340 Punctuation

As for repeated dots used elsewhere than at the end of a sentence, they are very seldom met with in texts. Here is one example: And yet as she walked home from this trivial and fairly representative scene, her heart was not nearly so angry as it was sad and sore because of the love and comfort that had vanished and was not likely ever to come again. .. ever. . . ever. Oh, how terrible.. . how terrible! (DREISER) In both sentences the repeated dots are in each case followed by a word beginning with a small letter, and that proves that the sentence is running on.

So much for the possible significance of punctuation marks for the end of a sentence and for its communication type.

Now we come to the meaning of punctuation marks within a sentence.

We must first of all distinguish between punctuation marks going in pairs, those which can, but need not, form pairs, and those that never form pairs.

There are two of them belonging to the first category: brackets (parentheses) and inverted commas. These cannot occur in any other way but in pairs. Two other punctuation marks may, but need not necessarily, be used in pairs. These are dashes and commas. If we have a dash or a comma in a sentence we cannot at once tell whether it makes part of a pair or not: that will only appear as we read on. Two dashes occurring at a close interval from each other may or may not form a pair: this will only be made clear by the grammatical and semantic conditions of the sentence; and the same may be said about two commas.

Let us first have a look at sentences where two dashes do form a pair.

They — Messrs Foster, Crockett and Porter — had been used to make surgical instruments, which were what she would now require. (R. MACAULAY) And the factory section which lay opposite the small city — across the Mohawk — was little more than a red and gray assemblage of buildings with here and there a smoke-slack projecting upward, and connected with the city by two bridges — a dozen blocks apart — one of them directly at his depot, a wide traffic bridge across which traveled a car-line following the curves of Central Avenue, dotted here and there with stores and small houses. (DREISER) There are two pairs of dashes here: the first pair consisting of the dash after city and the one after the Mohawk, and the second consisting of the dash after bridges and the one after apart. That they really are pairs, and not merely a chance accumulation of dashes, is shown by grammatical and lexical features of the sentence, namely, for the first pair of dashes, by the fact that if we omit the words enclosed by the dashes, across the Mohawk, the sentence will lose a closer definition of the site of the factory section described, but will not be changed in any

Punctuation Marks Forming Pairs 841

other way: in fact the words across the Mohawk give a more exact description of the site, as characterised by the preceding text (opposite the small city). The phrase across the Mohawk is a loose adverbial modifier. As to the second pair of dashes, it clearly encloses a loose attribute to the noun bridges, the distance between them being stated to be a dozen blocks. In that case, too, if the words a dozen blocks apart are dropped, the distance between the two bridges will be unknown, but the structure of the sentence will not be otherwise changed.

In other cases two dashes, though they may be close to each other, do not form a pair, and this again becomes clear from grammatical and semantic considerations. Let us take an example from Galsworthy: All I meant was that when you tell me a thing is going to cost so much, I like to — well, in fact, I — like to know where I am. That these two dashes do not form a pair is clear from the fact that we cannot drop the words standing between them without getting an inadmissible text: All I meant was that when you tell me a thing is going to cost so much, I like to like to know where I am. So each of the two dashes has to be taken as a separate unit, and in fact, in this sentence each of them expresses a stopping, or hesitation on the part of the speaker.

In a similar way, we must find out whether two commas form a pair or not. Here is an example of two commas forming a pair: He looked rather dirty and stupid, and even as much flaminess as that of the young cock, which he had tied by the leg, would never glow in him. (LAWRENCE) If we drop the words between the comma which comes after cock and the one which comes after leg, we shall lose a characteristic of the cock (indeed, these words form a subordinate attributive clause), and the text would run on without them. Thus the two correlative commas are vised to single out a certain element in the sentence (a subordinate clause).

The same may be said about two commas forming a pair in the following sentence: Life had worn him down on one side, till, like that family of which he was the head, he had lost balance. (GALSWORTHY) The words like that family of which he was the head, consisting of a prepositional phrase and a subordinate attributive clause, may be dropped, and the result would be the loss of additional information based upon a comparison between "him" (Old Jolyon Forsyte) and his family: the sentence would run on: Life had worn him down on one side till he had lost balance.

In other cases, again, two commas within a sentence may have nothing to do with each other, as in this example: His features were wide and flattened, and he had prominent, pale eyes... (MAUGHAM) The comma after flattened and the comma after prominent are not in any way connected with each other, the words standing

342 Punctuation

between them do not form any sort of syntactical unit, and they could not be safely dropped without damaging the syntactical structure of the sentence, as will be seen from the following experiment: His features were wide and flattened pale eyes, which is not grammatically tenable. Indeed the two commas perform quite different functions here: the comma after flattened marks off the first clause of the compound sentence from its second clause, while the one after prominent serves to separate from each other two homogeneous attributes (prominent and pale) to the word eyes.

The number of single commas, that is, commas not connected with one another, is probably much greater than that of commas going in pairs.

The remaining punctuation marks never form pairs. For instance, semicolons, though of course there may be two or three or more of them Within a sentence, never combine into pairs.

Let us take a sentence with two semicolons in it: We must pass over De Quincey, whose romantic prose, as in the Mail Coach and the Opium Eater, is infused with the imaginative quality of a dream consciousness; Lamb, with his gentle, whimsical Elia; Hazlitt, whose high spirits and easy-flowing style in My First Acquaintance with the Poets belie his assurance that he found writing so hard. (NORTON)

The same may be said about colons: they never go in pairs either, and it must be added that we seldom find more than one colon in a sentence.

Punctuation marks forming pairs always single out some separate part of the sentence. This may be either a loose secondary part, or a subordinate clause, or a parenthesis, or, last not least, an insertion. We will briefly consider some examples. A number of young English poets — brought up, no doubt, to the notes of Henley's anthology, Lyra Heroica — were either killed during the World War or died while it was going on. (CHADBURN) The two dashes single out a loose attribute, and the first two commas a parenthesis. James Elroy Flecker was a more original poet. Though his poems are usually romantic — The Golden Journey to Samarkand, the prologue to his Eastern play, Hassan, might serve as a general title to them all — he is less oracular than Tennyson, less copious and more self-critical. (CHADBURN) The inserted clause coming in between a subordinate clause of concession and the main clause is marked off by dashes.

Now, whether the portion of the sentence enclosed between two commas, or two dashes, or parentheses, is a loose part, or a subordinate clause, or an insertion, has of course to be determined by careful study of the text and even that may sometimes fail to give a completely certain result.

The Semicolon and the Colon

Now let us proceed to a study of the non-paired punctuation marks with their individual peculiarities, from the grammatical viewpoint.

What grammatical information do we derive from a semicolon in a sentence, that is, what can we suppose about he structure of the sentence, before we take a look at the actual words composing it? It is not possible here to say anything with absolute certainty, as the use of the semicolon is not circumscribed by strict rules. However, more likely than not, a sentence containing a semicolon will be a composite sentence, and very likely a compound one, with the semicolon separating two independent clauses from one another. This is the case, for instance, in the following examples: He had tried to kill Mrs Moore this evening, on the roof of the Nawab Bahadur's house; but she still eluded him, and the atmosphere remained tranquil. (FORSTER) Both before and after the semicolon there is at least one independent clause. I had only seen the poor creature for a few hours when she was taken ill; really this has been needlessly distressing, it spoils one's home-coming. (Idem) In this particular case what precedes the semicolon is a combination of a main and a subordinate clause; what follows it is a combination of two independent clauses. If we were to apply the term "sentence" somewhat loosely, we might say that the semicolon is preceded by a complex sentence and followed by a compound one. What matters, however, is that in each of the two halves there is an independent clause, and thus the sentence may be termed compound in the first place.

Occasionally, however, this general principle of a semicolon being a sign of a compound sentence will not hold good. There may be special reason inducing a writer to use a semicolon outside a compound sentence; and this will mainly happen in a sentence having a certain amount of commas within it, when some division in the sentence has to be marked off by some punctuation mark stronger than a comma. This is, for instance, the case in the sentence from Norton which we quoted on p. 342.

Thus the semicolon is a punctuation mark affording high probability, but not certainty, of the sentence being compound.

The colon, in so far as grammar is concerned, is rather similar in function to the semicolon. It also is a pretty sure signal of a compound sentence, with the additional shade of meaning of the latter part giving some explanation or illustration of what has been stated in the former. Here is a clear example from E. M. Forster: And it seemed to him for a time that the dead awaited him, and when the illusion faded it left behind it an emptiness that was almost guilt: "This really is the end," he thought, "and I gave her the final blow." What follows the colon is the statement of his thoughts»

Punctuation

illustrating the idea of guilt mentioned in the first part (that preceding the colon).

A similar example is found in the same author: Fielding was a blank, frank atheist, but he respected every opinion his friend held: to do this is essential to friendship. The part preceding the colon in this case is itself a compound sentence (in a somewhat loose application of the term); this, however, is irrelevant for the fact that the colon is a signal of a compound sentence, in so far as there is an independent clause on either side of it.

The function of the colon is somewhat more complicated because it is occasionally used to introduce direct speech. It is well known, however, that this use of the colon is much less characteristic of English than of Russian: in English direct speech is often preceded by a comma, especially if it does not begin a new paragraph.

The grammatical significance of the comma is much harder to define. Its uses are so varied that it appears to be practically impossible to give it a general characteristic: it may mark the end of a main clause, or of a subordinate clause, or it may stand between homogeneous members (whether subjects, predicates, predicatives, objects, adverbial modifiers, or attributes), or it may also mark off an apposition, a direct address, etc. The only thing that may perhaps be said about the function of the comma in general is, that it marks some kind of syntactical division. It will perhaps be best to illustrate this by pointing out contexts in which a comma would not be possible. These are:

(1) The group of attribute and head word (by attribute is meant one that is not loose). No comma would for instance be possible after the word one, or after two, or after distinct in the following sentence: At one period two distinct tombs containing Esmiss Esmoor's remains were reported. (FORSTER) (2) The group of subject and predicate. Thus, no comma would be possible after the word Fielding in the sentence, Fielding said no more (Idem), or after the word Weeks, or after eyes, or Philip, or American in the sentence Weeks spoke seriously, but his gray eyes twinkled a little at the end of his long speech, and Philip flushed when he saw that the American was making fun of him. (MAUGHAM) Commas are also impossible in certain other groups, as between a preposition and a noun. The essential point is, that a comma does mark some kind of grammatical division, at least that between homogeneous parts of a sentence or that between a loose secondary part and the rest of the sentence. The more exact function of a comma in every given case can only be made out by considering its syntactical surroundings.

Such, then, would appear to be the grammatical functions of punctuation marks. They might also be shown by a very simple experiment: dropping all punctuation marks from a certain passage in a text and finding out what points in the grammatical structure

The Comma 345

of the passage are lost or at least obscured by this omission. This would reveal the exact value of punctuation from the grammatical viewpoint. ¹

The function of inverted commas, or quotation marks (" "), stands somewhat apart from that of other punctuation marks. From the grammatical viewpoint inverted commas appear to have no significance.

¹ A similar investigation might be made about the grammatical value of intonation. But this would require experimental study of English pronunciation, which lies beyond the scope of this book. Some main points concerning the grammatical value of intonation are to be found in books on phonetics.

CONCLUSION

In this final section we will consider some general questions of the structure of Modern English.

Over the last few decades many new problems have arisen in the study of sentence structure. Some of them are strictly grammatical, others tend in some measure to reach into the lexical and semantic sphere. One of these problems is that of autosemantic and synsemantic sentences. These terms denote the difference between sentences whose meaning is clear in itself, and does not require either the preceding or the following environment (we might also say: either the left-hand or the right-hand environment) to make it clear, and sentences whose meaning does require such environment and is not clear without it.

As an example of autosemantic sentences we can take the opening sentence of some text: its meaning can certainly not depend on any preceding (left-hand) environment, since such environment is not available, and it is usually independent of any ensuing (right-hand) environment too.

Here is the opening sentence of the novel Room at the Top by John Braine: I came to Warley on a wet September morning with the sky the grey of Gutseley sandstone. The meaning of the sentence is perfectly clear without any outside help. Now let us take a look at the next sentence: I was alone in the compartment. Here things are different. The implications of the word compartment would not be clear without the preceding sentence. What is meant is of course the compartment of a railway carriage, and the idea of a railway carriage, though not expressly mentioned, is clearly suggested by the phrase came to Warley. Though the reader may not know what Warley is, the turn of the phrase suggests that it is a town and that the narrator arrived in it by train. Thus, the words came to Warley pave the way for a correct understanding of the word compartment. The second sentence in the text is synsemantic.

Now let us consider the beginning of another novel, The White Peacock by D. H. Lawrence. Here it is.

I stood watching the shadowy fish slide through the gloom of the mill-pond. They were grey, descendants of the silvery things that had darted away from the monks, in the young days when the valley was lusty. The whole place was gathered in the musing of old age.

The opening sentence is clearly autosemantic. The second sentence is not. The reader would not know what was meant by the pronoun they which is its subject. Only the connection with the opening sentence makes it clear that the pronoun they replaces the substantive fish, which is the object of the first sentence.

Now let us consider another passage further on in the same text:

Conclusion 347

I was almost startled into the water from my perch on the alder roots by a voice saying:

'Well, what is there to look at?' My friend was a young farmer, stoutly built, brown-eyed, with a naturally fair skin burned dark and freckled in patches. He laughed, seeing me start, and looked down at me with lazy curiosity.

The implication of the word water in the first sentence of this passage is made clear by the preceding text, where both mill-pond and stream occur. As to the words my friend in the second sentence of the passage, their meaning would be unintelligible without the direct-speech sentence that precedes it: 'Well, what is there to look at?'; it is clear from this context that my friend is the person who pronounced those words. Thus we see here again a clear instance of a synsemantic sentence.

Now we consider an example of a somewhat different kind. This is the beginning of the novel The World of William Clissold by H. G. Wells.

Yesterday I was fifty-nine, and in a year I shall be sixty — "Getting on for seventy," as the unpleasant old phrase goes. I was born in November, 1865, and this is November, 1924. The average duration of life in England is fifty-one and a half, so I am already eight years and a half beyond the common lot. The percentage of people who live beyond sixty is forty-seven. Beyond seventy it is thirty. Only one in five thousand lives beyond one hundred, and of this small body of centenarians two-thirds are women.

In this passage all sentences but one are autosemantic, that is, each of them is perfectly intelligible without the help of any other. Only the last sentence but one is an exception. Indeed, if wehad come across the sentence Beyond seventy it is thirty, we could not make sense of it — it might even appear to be absurd: how could thirty be beyond seventy? The full version of the sentence, which would make it autosemantic, would run — The percentage of people who live beyond seventy is thirty. As it is in the actual text, the entire phrase the percentage of people who live — has been replaced by the pronoun it, whose right understanding is of course completely dependent on the preceding sentence.

Detailed study of autosemantic and synsemantic sentences would most probably yield important information about the way language works.

Words establishing connections between sentences are of different kinds: here we find personal and possessive pronouns, partly also demonstrative pronouns, pronominal adverbs (such as here, there, now, then), also conjunctions and conjunctive adverbs (such as instead, nevertheless, therefore, however, etc.).

Purely grammatical means of establishing such connections are some verbal forms, e. g. the past perfect, which presupposes that the

848 Conclusion

action expressed by this form preceded some other action, which presumably was (or will be) expressed by the past indefinite, etc.