Study Advice Service
Sentences
Author: Phil Farrar
What is a sentence?
(with examples)
This leaflet will attempt to describe the main characteristics of a sentence in the written language.
How often have you heard or seen the words “not a complete sentence”? Most educated native
speakers of English are able to say whether or not a particular sequence of words forms an
acceptable sentence but would find it very difficult to give a satisfactory definition of one. For
example, the principle that “All sentences begin with a capital letter and end with a full stop”, though
true in most cases, is not sufficient to define an acceptable sentence of English. The difficulty of
defining the term ‘sentence’ is hardly surprising since, according to David Crystal in the Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Language, over 200 definitions have so far been attempted, none of which caters for
all types of sentence!
In the first place, why is a definition of the notion ‘sentence’ so problematic? Attempting to answer
this may help to give an idea of what an acceptable sentence is. Here are some examples of
utterances which could be called sentences:
He wanted to buy a suit.
Go away!
Because he did not have enough money, he had to wait until pay day.
There are two common factors in these examples:
- they all contain a simple verb or a verbal construction and
- they all have an acceptable syntactic structure or a series of these.
These are two good tests to apply to see whether or not an utterance forms a grammatically
complete sentence. However there are grey areas: the following utterances are all syntactically
correct but are they also acceptable as ‘sentences’ since they do not have a complete verb?
The least said the better.
Once bitten, twice shy.
No entry.
Good morning.
Web: www.hull.ac.uk/studyadvice
Email: studyadvice@hull.ac.uk
Tel: 01482 466199
1
Some linguists suggest an answer to this question by saying that “All native speakers can recognise a
well-formed utterance.” but whether or not it can be classified as a sentence begs the question for
theorists.
So, we could say that
He will arrive later this afternoon. or
Later this afternoon, he will arrive.
are acceptable sentences but that the following are not, since the order in which the units combine
does not follow an acceptable syntactic pattern or because the utterance is semantically
incomplete (i.e. it does not convey a complete meaning or idea):
He will later this afternoon arrive.
Arrive later this afternoon he will.
He later this afternoon.
Since English has long ago dispensed with concordance and inflexions at the end of words to show
the grammatical relationship between them, word order is often crucial to the meaning of an
utterance.
The sentences
and
He knows the result
He will ring with all the details
are each correct and complete but simply joining the two together will not make an acceptable
sentence. To achieve this, one He will need to be deleted to avoid repetition and the addition of the
word when or but is required to produce:
or
or
When he knows the result, he will ring with all the details.
He will ring with all the details when he knows the result.
He will ring with all the details, but he knows the result.
(The last two examples have slightly different meanings since the logical connection between the two
halves of the sentence - when/but - is not the same. It is interesting to note here that, in formal
written English, it is advisable not to start sentences with but and that the Present Tense is used to
convey a future meaning, illustrating the fact that human language is not an exact science and not
always logical - thank goodness!)
So, a sentence could be defined as ‘the largest unit [of language] to which syntactic rules apply’
1.
It is a good idea, especially for non-native speakers of English, not to construct sentences which are
too long in order to avoid problems with syntax. Often, one becomes so engrossed in communicating
the meaning or series of ideas that the sentence is syntactically jumbled or incomplete, but it may be
the confusion of subject and verb, or a lack of one of these, which causes the problem. Some
examples showing constructional and other errors may serve to illustrate the point:
1. Crystal D. (1997) “The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language” C.U.P. p. 94
2
Non -s e nte nc e
Corre c te d ex a mple
“Although the XXXX Act 1991 came into force,
which play a key role in the draft, but to what
extent the YYY will improve the situation for
consumers.”
The XXXX Act came into force in 1991 and it
plays a key role in the draft, but to what extent
will the YYY improve the situation for
consumers?
Remarks:
- which is too far from the noun phrase to which
it refers (the XXXX Act).
Structure:
[Main clause] + and + [main clause] + but +
[main clause]
- there is no main clause for the subordinate
clause beginning “Although …”
Note that each main clause has its own
complete verbal form, came into force, plays,
will …improve.
- the modal (auxiliary) verb will should precede
the subject of the main verb improve, thus
changing the statement into a question
- the direct question (to what extent…) has no
question mark
or:
Although the XXXX Act came into force in 1991
and plays a key role in the draft, to what extent
will the YYY improve the situation for
consumers?
Structure:
[Subordinate clause] + and + [subordinate clause]
+ [main clause]
Here too, each clause has a complete verbal form
(see above)
With the development of economies, companies
need to meet higher standards.
Structure:
[noun phrase] + [main clause]
or:
“With the development of the economies, higher The development of economies requires
standards require for companies to meet.”
companies to meet higher standards.
Remarks:
- the second the is not needed.
[main clause]
- require is a transitive verb and has a direct
object, so there is no for.
- here, the verb meet would mean that the
companies would need to meet each other.
Meet can also be transitive, in which case
the sentence is incomplete and would
require an object e.g. “ … to meet certain
criteria.”
3
“This theory closely linked with the stakeholders, This theory is closely linked with the
stakeholders (who are) the underlying elements
the underlying elements of corporate
of corporate governance.
governance.”
Remarks:
- there is no finite or tensed verb, so there is
not a complete sentence.
Structure:
[main clause] + [relative clause]
“Focuses on the company, its survival closely
associated with some other social parts in
broader social system.”
[This essay] focuses on the company. Its
survival is closely associated with some other
aspects of the broader social system.
Remarks:
- the verb focuses has no subject and
associated with is not a complete
construction: there is no auxiliary verb.
- the meaning of social parts is unclear.
- there is repetition of the word social.
Structure:
[main clause] + [main clause]
or:
[This essay] focuses on the company, whose
survival is closely associated with the broader
social system.
Structure:
[main clause] + [relative clause]
“Ethical stakeholders, that is, regardless of
whether there is an improvement of financial
performance, management should take account
into all stakeholders’ benefits, such as human
rights, public relations and environmental
performance.”
Regardless of whether or not there is an
improvement of financial performance,
management should take account of all
stakeholders’ benefits …
Structure:
[subordinate clause] + [main clause]
Remarks:
Note that this sentence is simpler and avoids
- that is is not needed.
- whether should be followed by or not since repetition of the word performance.
there is an implied comparison or
alternative
- the phrasal verb is to take account of, not
into, something (but we do say to take
something into account).
- take account has two different subjects.
Who is taking account of what? If it is the
management which is taking shareholders
into account, then the first two words of the
‘sentence’ are not needed either.
All web addresses in this leaflet were correct at the time of publication.
The information in this leaflet can be made available in an alternative
format on request. Telephone 01482 466199.
© 10/2007
4