1. Introduction

This article introduces the basic concepts and structural characteristics of comparative clauses (CC sentences) in English, and points out that CC sentences are composed of two clauses with the same structural form, expressing the dual meanings of "comparison" and "correlation". At the same time, the structural relationship between the two clauses in the CC sentence was analyzed, and it was pointed out that although this problem may seem simple, it is actually very tricky because the sentence lacks explicit words to reflect its structural attributes. In addition, a review of relevant literature on the relationship between CC sentence structure was conducted, and it was pointed out that there are some biases and deficiencies in existing research, leading to misunderstandings of CC sentence structure. Finally, the research objective of this article is to delve into the syntactic relationship between two clauses in CC sentences and demonstrate that they have a parallel relationship rather than a subordinate relationship.

2. Principal subordinate structure theory and evidence

Explored the structural relationship between the C1 and C2 clauses in English comparative clauses (CC sentences) at the macro syntactic level, namely the master-slave structure theory. Most scholars and grammar books analyze CC sentences as C2 as the main clause and C1 as the subordinate clause. The evidence supporting this viewpoint includes: 1) In the complement clauses of certain verbs or adjectives, only verbs in C2 can use subjunctive mood, while verbs in C1 cannot, reflecting the subordinate status of C1; 2) The auxiliary verb and subject of the interrogative sentence usually correspond to the main sentence in the compound sentence, further confirming C2 as the main sentence; 3) Inverted auxiliary verbs are a characteristic of the main sentence. In CC sentences, C2 allows the subject and auxiliary verbs to be inverted, indicating that C2 is the main sentence; 4) The phrase 'that' usually appears in C1 but not in C2, indicating that C1 is a subordinate clause and C2 is the main clause. These pieces of evidence collectively support the master-slave structural relationship between C1 and C2 in the CC sentence.

3. Problems with the master-slave structure theory

Explored in depth the problems of the master-slave structure theory in English comparative associative sentences (CC sentences). Firstly, the author points out that although there is evidence to suggest a master-slave syntactic relationship between C1 and C2 in CC sentences, this evidence lacks persuasiveness. For example, the use of subjunctive mood usually appears in subordinate clauses rather than main clauses in the master-slave compound structure, but the explanation based on subjunctive mood in existing research is not sufficient. In addition, the formation of additional interrogative sentences is not always linked to the main clause, and therefore cannot be used as a basis for distinguishing between the main clause and the subordinate clause. The phenomenon of auxiliary verb inversion is not limited to the main clause, and cannot prove whether a sentence has the attributes of a main clause or a subordinate clause. There are different opinions among scholars regarding the use of the sentence marker 'that'. Some believe it can be used for C1, some believe it can be used in both C1 and C2, and some believe it is not necessary in independent clauses.

4. Parallel syntactic structure

In depth exploration of the syntactic structure of comparative associative sentences (CC sentences) in English, it is advocated that CC sentences are actually a parallel syntactic structure, rather than the master-slave structure traditionally believed. The author argues from five aspects: firstly, it points out that the lack of explicit conjunctions in CC sentences makes it more likely that C1 and C2 have a parallel relationship; Secondly, the approach of using semantic analysis instead of syntactic analysis was criticized, emphasizing the formal symmetry between C1 and C2; Furthermore, the semantic asymmetry of CC sentences was analyzed, and it was found that C1 is semantically subordinate to C2, but not a syntactic subordinate structure; In addition, by comparing the 'and' structures in English, evidence is provided for the analysis of the parallel structure of CC sentences; At the same time, cross linguistic evidence was introduced, pointing out that in other languages, CC sentences can use conjunctions, but not in English, which may be related to the dual function of "the" in CC sentences; Finally, the issue of word order in CC sentences with parallel clauses was discussed, and it was believed that their linear word order reflects the logical relationship of events and conforms to the principle of word order similarity. Overall, the author supports the research approach of generative syntax and believes that CC sentences should be regarded as syntactic atomic units to simplify grammar research.

5. Conclusion

Analyzed the master-slave relationship structure of English CC sentences at the macro syntactic level, pointing out that its root lies in the paradoxical syntactic evidence and asymmetric semantic relationships between clauses. The two clauses of the CC sentence form a symmetrical parallel structure in syntax, which is supported by both intra linguistic and cross linguistic evidence. The research results provide a foundation for further exploration of the syntactic construction and structural derivation of CC sentences, indicating that the syntactic construction and derivation of CC sentences follow the constraints of universal grammar theory. The construction of CC sentences is based on the recursive merging operation of the central language, and all operations follow the principles of locality and minimalism. The paper proposes that the grammar based on the central language as the syntactic atomic unit has simplicity and economy, which meets the requirements of simplified grammar theory. The derivation of micro syntactic structures will be discussed in a separate article.