Tactical Purpose:
Compound sentences allow the author to connect separate thoughts together in a smoother way than by simply writing the sentences one after another, as well as allowing the author to easily imply a general relationship between the two sentences. This can help a writer to form a connection in the reader’s mind between two independent thoughts or sentences, making it easier for the writer to get the reader to consider them both as one idea, or to consider the difference between them, depending on the writer’s goal.
Situations in which two different ideas need to be quickly compared and shown to be connected, especially before going more in depth behind the reasoning for the comparison, are attractive places for a writer to use this device allowing both for efficiency and elegance. Furthermore, by forming this connection early, the compound sentence can help to make it easier for the reader to be convinced by an argument based around taking the two ideas together. That is, introducing ideas in such a way that they are initially linked leads to the reader being more likely to accept an argument that assumes that the two are being taken together with some specific relationship in mind, and makes them less likely to question the relationship than if it were brought up later in the argument.
Steps For Analysis:
Identify the compound sentence by looking for examples of conjunctions immediately preceded by a comma, then by checking if the two parts of the sentence linked by the conjunction could each form independent sentences on their own.
Identify the relationship the author is trying to imply through the use of the compound sentence.
For example, the conjunction and could be used to indicate to the reader that two ideas are related through some similarity indicated later, while the conjunction but could be used to indicate that two ideas have an opposing relationship indicated later.
Consider why the compound sentence is making this implicit claim of relationship where it is in the text.
Why is the relationship being brought up here?
Does this function as the initial statement of a claim or idea, or is it a repetition of a previously occurring claim or idea.
Is it being brought up significantly earlier or later than the point in the text where it becomes relevant? If so, why?
Think about why the author wants the reader to consider the two ideas in accordance with that relationship.
Does this hide an assumption made that this relationship is correct?
Does considering a lack of relationship, or a different relationship, lead to an equally plausible but different conclusion?
Is the relationship itself what the author is claiming, or is the relationship itself a piece of evidence to prove a different claim?
Nonfiction Prose Example + Analysis:
The Declaration of Independence:
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
“Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Thomas Jefferson, et al, July 4, Copy of Declaration of Independence. -07-04, 1776. Manuscript/Mixed Material. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/mtjbib000159/>.
The conjoining of two independent sentences by a conjunction and a comma in the bolded sentence above indicates that this sentence is a compound sentence. In this case, the sentence is implying that two things were done, but that they should be seen as one compound action having been done together. The reason this compound sentence is here in the text relates to the format of this part of the text. This part of the Declaration of Independence first states that the authors have petitioned to the king asking him to stop, but they have been denied. Then, the authors state that they have done the same to the British people, but they were denied again. They therefore claim that they have no choice but to declare independence from Britain in order to prevent the continuation of the crimes alleged earlier in the text.
By combining the appeal to the British sense of justice and the appeal to their sense of practicality, indirectly done by pointing out that these actions disrupt their relationship which was important to the British economy at the time, the writers simplify the flow of the argument into, we appealed to the king, we appealed to our fellows, and now we must appeal to God. This compound sentence also serves to conceal two assumptions. First, that the British citizens would agree with the writers’ interpretation of the king’s actions and thus find them unjust, and second that the British citizens have a practical reason to care about their relationship with each other. While both of these seem like reasonable assumptions to make given the economic situation at the time, and the actions taken, they are still unsupported claims the writers expect you to simply agree with, and by combining them together into one more general compound idea that the writers appealed to the British, the specifics of what exactly they did seem less important and so these assumptions are obfuscated.
Ben Pringle