complex

Complex sentence 1. Complex sentence as a syntactic unit. Semantic, structural and intonation unity of the parts of the joint venture. 2. Means of expressing syntactic relations in a complex sentence. 3. Union and non-union complex sentences.

The definition of a complex sentence SP is a structural, semantic and intonation combination of predicative units that are grammatically similar to a simple sentence. The difference between a joint venture and a simple one is not quantitative, but qualitative. SP has its own grammatical meaning (typed syntactic relationships between parts), grammatical form, and structural indicators.

Parts of the joint venture are similar to simple sentences. The predicative units included in the joint venture are called components. Like simple sentences, they have: their own predicative center; can be one-part and two-part, common and uncommon; their members are connected by the type of coordination, control and adjacency.

Parts of the SP are elements of the whole. The predicative parts included in the SP do not have independence and completeness and are interconnected and complementary elements of the whole.

The degree of loss of semantic independence of a joint venture expresses various semantic relationships between parts. Depending on the nature of these relationships, differences are observed in the degree of loss of semantic independence of the parts.

The degree of cohesion of the parts of a complex sentence Parts of a complex sentence can be characterized by such close semantic cohesion that the main thing without a subordinate clause often conveys a completely different thought or is characterized by semantic incompleteness. The semantic center, as a rule, is the subordinate clause. I understand that the material is complex.

The parts of a complex sentence are more independent. Within a complex sentence, the semantic independence of the parts is usually great. However, the meaning of the SSP is by no means reducible to the meanings of the parts, since typified syntactic relations arise between the parts.

Independence of parts in some types of complex sentences. Certain types of NGN are also characterized by relatively greater independence of parts (for example, with a subordinate clause). During her first lesson, she learned to stand and walk on her hind legs, which she really liked (Chekhov).

The structural unity of the parts is manifested in the fact that: 1. The parts are structurally dependent on each other, and often one of them receives completeness only as part of a complex P. . . and he's down. When everyone left. . . 2. The number of parts forms either closed, closed, two-part structures, or open, open ones. 3. One of the parts may be incomplete due to their close connection. 4. A secondary term common to the parts is possible. 5. Structural parallelism may be observed: identical aspectual and tense forms of predicate verbs; the same word order, conjunctions, syntactic phrases.

Structural unity is manifested in the structural parallelism of the parts. Structural parallelism is one of the features of the structure of the joint venture: the second part can be built as if on the model of the first. Structural parallelism is created by many components, sometimes in combination: 1) identical aspectual and tense forms of predicate verbs, for example, The wind rustled, bare trees shook on the street outside the window, and dim shadows moved randomly on the chalk wall above my head (Paustovsky)

Structural unity is manifested in the structural parallelism of the parts 2) Identical morphological means of expressing the members of the sentence, for example, Nevsky has become more accessible, simpler, more fun. Trams ring sharper, cab drivers rumble louder, women smile wider, newspapermen shout louder (Gorky) 3) Identical syntactic phrases, for example, Nothing enriches the harsh prosaic word more than poetry, and nowhere does the word sound like this in its complete freshness and pristineness, as in poetry (Paustovsky)

Structural unity is manifested in the structural parallelism of the parts 4) the same word order in the parts, for example, There were technical councils, there were meetings and conferences, commissions worked. 5) the use of the same, similar, synonymous or antonymous lexical elements, for example, My father had a strange influence on me, and our relationship was strange. 6) repetition of identical conjunctions, for example, And ostrich feathers bowed in my brain sway, and blue, bottomless eyes bloom on the far shore (Blok)

Intonation completeness As a communicative unit, a complex sentence is characterized by the presence of intonation of completeness, which forms the closing part. Each previous part, except the closing one, does not have the intonation of the end, and each subsequent part, except the first, does not have the intonation of the beginning, characteristic of a simple sentence. This feature is the most important means of linking the parts into a single whole at the intonation level.

Intonations of different types in a complex sentence A distinctive feature of the intonation of a complex sentence is the possibility of combining intonations of different types, for example, narrative and interrogative, in one sentence. Fashion, of course, is not bad, but what does the foundry have to do with it?

2nd century Means of expressing syntactic relations: intonation; unions; allied words; correlative pronominal words; string of parts; use of tenses and moods; lexical and phraseological elements.

1) Intonation plays a dual role: 1) indicates the unification of individual parts; 2) indicates different relationships between parts. The Russian language has several types of intonation, which, as a rule, include: enumeration intonation; intonation of opposition; intonation of explanation; intonation of explanation. The role of intonation is especially clearly manifested when sentences with the same word composition can be pronounced with one or another intonation. In summer it is dry and hot here, in winter it is frosty (intonation of enumeration and contrast)

2) Conjunctions and 3) allied words Conjunctions are a typical means of combining parts. They indicate the nature of the connection between the parts. Unions belong to different categories depending on the nature of the relationship that they express. Conjunctive words perform a double function: 1) connect parts; 2) are members of a subordinate clause. This feature is clearly revealed in the allied word which, it has a double dependence: it agrees in gender and number with the supporting word in the main part, and its case depends on which member of the sentence it is in the subordinate clause. The book that my friend was delighted with, I did not like. When there is an external coincidence of conjunctions and allied words, it should be remembered that they differ in meaning, and often in pronunciation (the allied word has stress, the union is deprived of it).

4) Correlative words Pronominal correlative words are used in the main part, indicating that what they denote is revealed only in a generalized form in another part. Correlative words serve as evidence of the obligatory presence of a subordinate clause. He spoke confidently and in such a tone as if I was arguing with him (Chekhov)

5) The order of the parts In some cases, a change in the order of the parts leads to a disruption of the connection between them and to the meaninglessness of the entire sentence; in these cases the order of the parts is fixed. Such structures are called inflexible. Solid order is especially common in non-union complex sentences, for example, Here a very interesting picture opened up: a wide hut, the roof of which rested on two pillars, was full of people (Lermontov)

5) The order of parts in a joint venture Sometimes the sequence of parts is determined not so much by the relationships and meaning as by the conjunctions used in them, for example, a conjunction cannot begin 1 part of a complex sentence, but a synonymous conjunction can. In other cases, the order of the parts is free and their rearrangement does not violate syntactic relationships, but creates more or less noticeable stylistic shades, for example, There was a smell of burning, and the air turned blue with smoke. The choice of order of parts depends largely on the context, and in a particular context, changing this order is often undesirable or even unacceptable.

6) Type and tense of verbs The aspect and tense of the verb plays an important role in establishing relationships between parts. The simultaneity of actions is expressed by the forms of one tense of imperfective verbs, and the sequence - by the perfect. Examples: It was quiet, dark, and only high on the peaks here and there a bright golden light trembled and shimmered like a rainbow in the spider’s webs (Chekhov). The whole sky was covered with clouds, and a rare, fine rain began to fall (Chekhov).

7) Lexical elements Sometimes lexical elements are indicators of the connection between parts, as well as exponents of this connection, which in this case, as a rule, turn into phraseological phrases, for example, As for the audience, they spoke approvingly of the picture. Impersonal verb v. Oit with an infinitive dependent on it indicates a condition, the appearance of which immediately causes the appearance of a certain consequence, for example, As soon as you leave the outskirts, the steppe opens up.

3rd century Conjunctive and non-conjunctive complex sentences We can talk about two main ways of connecting parts with the help of conjunctive means and intonation; Using intonation (without conjunctions). Conjunctive sentences, depending on the nature of the conjunctive means, are divided into complex and complex. Sentences whose parts are combined only through intonation are called non-conjunctive.

Semantic differences between a complex and complex sentence The differences lie in the fact that, expressing grammatical meanings, coordinating conjunctions do not indicate the dependent, subordinate nature of one of the parts, but subordinating conjunctions and allied words do.

The boundaries between SSP and SPP The boundaries between complex and complex sentences are not always obvious. Thus, in SSP with the conjunction And when listing successive events, the last parts are thought of as a consequence, the result of the previous one, for example, We were sitting in the front row, and everything was fine for us audible (cf.: We were sitting in the first row, so we could hear everything well)

Boundaries between SSP and SPP Some complex sentences in their grammatical meaning may be close to complex sentences, for example, If heavy rains are expected in the first ten days of July, then clear weather will set in in the second (cf.: Heavy rains are expected in the first ten days of July, and in the second the weather will be clear)

Contradictions between the form of a complex sentence and content In a number of cases (with a certain specific content of the predicative parts) contradictions can be observed between the form of a complex sentence (the main means of communication) and the meaning. Typically, in such cases, a complex sentence is qualified by means of communication, since they express the most general meaning.

SP with a mixed (contaminated form) There are complex sentences with a mixed form, for example, Although new forms of examination were introduced a long time ago, not all students have mastered them. The sentence contains not only the subordinating conjunction although, but also the coordinating adversative conjunction but. The relationship is characterized as acquiescent-adversarial.

Non-conjunct complex sentences In modern linguistic literature, the idea that BSPs are an independent type is consistently defended, despite the similarity of some BSPs in intonation and meaning to complex sentences, and others to complex sentences. The fact is that some non-union complex sentences are close to both complex and complex sentences, for example, I am dying - I have no reason to lie (Turgenev). Wed. : I'm dying, and I have no reason to lie. I'm dying, so there's no need for me to lie.

Non-union complex sentences Among the non-union complex sentences there are sentences that cannot be correlated with either complex or complex sentences, for example, We drove past a pond: ice edges were still visible on the dirty and sloping banks (Aksakov).

Unconjunct complex sentences (result) The absence of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions (the main indicators of composition and subordination), the impossibility of accurately distinguishing intonations of a coordinating and subordinating nature, the presence of unconjunct complex sentences with undifferentiated meaning - all this determines the allocation of BSP into a special structural-semantic group, which in some way then degree is contrasted with complex sentences with conjunction and relative connections.

3. Simple sentence.

3.1 Two-part offer.

3.2 One-part proposal.

3.3 Incomplete sentence

4. Complex sentence.

4.1 Complex sentence.

4.2 Complex sentence.

4.4 Complex polynomial sentence with different types of connection

II Conclusion.

Introduction.

Syntax begins with the connections of linguistic means and the relationships that arise on the basis of these connections. Depending on what and how of the linguistic means enters into connections and relationships, various syntactic constructions are born.

As part of syntactic constructions, inflected words are used in one of their forms (word forms), which together form the morphological paradigm of the word.

Word combinations are built from word forms: warm rain, half of the night, starting to drizzle and so on.

Simple sentences are built from word forms and phrases: Warm rain began to drizzle from mid-night(Paustovsky).

Complex sentences are constructed from simple sentences, differing in the degree of semantic and grammatical cohesion. Yes, from the proposals The wind blew from land and U the water was calm on the shore You can form complex non-conjunctive, complex and complex sentences: The wind blew from land- near the shore the water was calm; The wind blew from the land, and the water was calm near the shore; If the wind blew from land, the water near the shore was calm.(Other variants of complex sentences are possible.)

A complex syntactic whole is built from simple and complex sentences. For example: Our people have always loved, known and appreciated the forest. It’s not for nothing that so many fairy tales and songs have been written about our dense forests.

In the forests lies our future, the fate of our harvests, our deep rivers, our health and, to a certain extent, our culture. Therefore, the forest must be protected, just as we protect human life, as we protect our culture and all the achievements of our extraordinary era.(Paustovsky). In this complex syntactic whole, simple and complex sentences are united by a common microtheme.

ISystem of syntactic units

The main syntactic units are a phrase, a sentence (simple and complex), and a complex syntactic whole.

1. Collocation as a unit of syntax.

In the history of Russian syntactic theory, the role of phrases and sentences in the general system of syntactic units has been and is assessed ambiguously.

A phrase enters a sentence through its main word, which in a sentence can be a dependent word of another phrase.

Collocations are built on the basis of subordinating relationships between words. Methods of subordinate communication are coordination, control and adjacency.

Coordination is a method of subordinating communication in which the dependent word is placed in the same forms as the main one: favorite book, my book, read book. When coordinated with the change in the forms of the main word, the forms of the dependent word change accordingly: favorite book, favorite books. The means of formalizing agreement is the ending of the dependent word.

Control is a method of subordinating communication in which the dependent word is placed with the main word in a certain case: write a letter(vin. p.), write to mother(dat. p.), cut with a knife(creative p.), sit in a chair(prepositional clause), etc. When controlling with a change in the form of the main word, the form of the dependent word does not change: wrote a letter, wrote a letter, wrote a letter etc.

The means of formalizing control are usually the ending of a dependent word and a preposition.

Control is direct if the form of the dependent word does not have a preposition (carry out the plan, carry out the plan), and prepositional, if the indirect case form is controlled using a preposition (remembering childhood, homesickness, meeting friends and so on.).

Adjunction is a method of subordinating connection in which the dependent unchangeable word is connected with the main one only in meaning and intonation: very appreciate, very dear, very good; he left to study, he said worriedly. Adjacent, as a rule, are unchangeable significant words: adverbs, infinitives, gerunds.

2. Sentence as a unit of syntax.

The sentence is the basic unit of syntax, since it is in the sentence that the most essential functions of language are expressed: cognitive or expressive (language as a tool, an instrument of thinking) and communicative (language as a means of communication). Language is a means of communication only because it expresses thoughts about objective reality.

The sentence is the most multifaceted unit of syntax. It is therefore characterized by a set of characteristics that can be divided into two groups:

1) structural feature - grammatical organization, which includes special structural schemes, special ways of expressing structural elements of the scheme and grammatically formulated syntactic connections and relationships;

2) semantic feature - predicativeness (the relation of the content of a sentence to reality in a modal-temporal sense. The content (semantics) of a sentence is determined primarily by the nature of the thought being expressed. A sentence is characterized by semantic completeness.

We especially note intonation, since it can express both structural and semantic features of a sentence.

Sentences are divided into simple and complex. The “building material” for simple sentences are words (word forms) and phrases, for complex ones - two (or more) sentences. Simple sentences include only one predicative combination, complex ones - at least two. When included in complex sentences, simple sentences, although to varying degrees, lose intonation completeness, often change the order of words, etc., therefore parts of complex sentences are also called predicative units (rather than sentences).

Simple sentences differ from complex ones not only in structure, but also in meaning. Complex sentences have more complex semantics than simple ones. Combining simple sentences into complex ones enriches their speech meaning, and sometimes transforms their grammatical meanings. So, when connecting simple sentences In the yard the acacia tree was bent and tossed about And An angry wind tore her by the drag to the complex using a conjunction as if the real modality of the second sentence is transformed into unreal: In the yard, an acacia tree bent and tossed, as if an angry wind was ruffling its hair.(A. Tolstoy).

3. Simple sentence.

A simple sentence is the central communicative unit of syntax. It has a certain structure (structure) determined by its semantics.

According to the nature of logical-syntactic articulation, simple sentences are divided into articulated (two-component and one-component) and indivisible, among which interjection sentences are the most striking. Based on the presence/absence of minor members, articulated sentences are divided into common and non-widespread. According to structural and semantic completeness, segmented (two-part and one-part) sentences are divided into complete and incomplete.

The main classification system of structural-semantic types of a simple sentence is formed by articulated (two-part and one-part) and indivisible sentences.

A snowy winter forest can be assessed in the form of the following sentences: The forest is like a fairy tale! Wonderful! Oh! The choice of one of the structural-semantic types and its lexical content are determined by subjective factors, among which the most important are the nature of the articulation of thought in the mind of the speaker, his emotional state, vocabulary, etc.

These proposals have common and distinctive features. They are united by the fact that they are all communicative units and have a two-member semantic structure (there is an object of thought (speech) and its characteristic: “definable” and “defining” “statement of something about something”), and what distinguishes them first of all is structure: in the first (two-part) sentence The forest is like a fairy tale! there is a subject and a predicate; in the second (one-part) Wonderful! there is only a predicate; in the third (indivisible) Oh! there is neither subject nor predicate.

3.1 Two-part sentences.

Two-part sentences are sentences with two main members - a subject and a predicate, which can be extended by secondary members. The subject with the secondary members related to it forms a composition, or group, of the subject; the predicate with the secondary members related to it - the composition, or group, of the predicate. For example: Droplets of autumn fog\Rivers of tears run down the tree trunks(Kedrin); The desire to serve the common good / must certainly be a need of the soul, a condition for personal happiness(Chekhov). The compositions of the subject and the predicate, separated by a vertical line, correspond to the components of thought and the actual division: the composition of the subject expresses the logical subject and is the exponent of the “given”, the composition of the predicate expresses the logical predicate and is the exponent of the “new”, therefore the subject precedes the predicate.

The main members of a sentence are included as building components in the structural diagram of two-part sentences and form their predicative center.

3.2 One-part sentence

Single-component sentences are those whose grammatical basis consists of one main member (with or without dependent words). The other main member is not restored (this is their difference from incomplete sentences). The main elements of predicativity (modality, tense, person) in one-component sentences are expressed in one main member. Single-component sentences can act as independent syntactic units and be used as part of complex sentences. Based on the totality of semantic and structural properties, the following main types are distinguished among one-part sentences:

1. Definitely personal (I love the storm in early May).

2. Vaguely personal (A new school was built in our village).

3. Generalized-personal (Tears of sorrow will not help).

4. Impersonal (It’s getting light; I’m shivering; I’m cold.)

5. Infinitives (The clouds cannot hide the sun, there is peace in warwon't win).

6. Nominative (Winter; Here comes winter; Winter!).

7. Vocative (“sentences-addresses”).

Typical (core, central) one-component sentences are those sentences with one main member that do not require another main member and cannot be supplemented by it without changing the nature of the thought expressed, without changing the semantics.

According to the method of expressing the main member, one-part sentences are divided into verbal and nominal.

A common structural property of one-part verbal sentences is the absence of a subject: it does not and cannot exist in all varieties of one-part verbal sentences.

3.3 Incomplete sentences

Complete and incomplete sentences are distinguished by the presence/absence of certain members of the sentence. Complete sentences contain all the members necessary for its understanding outside the context and speech situation: I have known this area for eight years. In incomplete sentences, one or more of its members (main or secondary) are missing.

Usually, the definition of incomplete sentences includes an indication of the context and situation (constitution), which only suggest the lexical specificity of the omitted members of the sentence, that is, they determine the lexical meaning of the omitted word forms. For example: The boy lowered the yacht onto the green water And took a step back, giving room to the breeze. But scraps of sails didn't even move. The ship did not move.

“It won’t float,” the mother sighed. “Let’s go.”

- It will float,- said the boy(Stepanov).

As this text shows, there is no absolute lexical specificity of the subjects for the highlighted incomplete sentences, because nouns can also act as subjects yacht, boat and pronoun He. Incomplete sentences It won't float. Will float is created by the absence of a subject, the position of which is determined by the structural scheme of the sentence and the lexical and grammatical properties of verbal predicates.

A dash is usually placed in place of missing members.

A comparison of complete and incomplete sentences shows that in complete sentences all syntactic connections and relationships are revealed, informative semantics, including grammatical and lexical, are more fully and fully expressed.

However, complete sentences are not always appropriate: repeating the same words can create verbosity and make communication difficult. Incomplete sentences have their own semantic and stylistic advantages: they add liveliness, naturalness, ease to speech, and most importantly, they allow you to actualize the “new”.

4. Complex sentence.

A complex sentence is a syntactic communicative unit of a higher order than a simple sentence.

Like a simple, complex sentence is characterized by intonation and semantic completeness, but expresses more complex content and has a more complex form (structure).

The main means of connecting the predicative parts of a complex sentence include intonation and allied means: conjunctions (and, but, or, if, so that, since, so, although etc.) and allied words - relative pronouns and pronominal adverbs (which, which, whose, who, where, where, from, why and etc.).

Intonation is a universal means of communication, that is, any complex sentence has intonation completeness. In sentences without conjunctions, the role of intonation is especially important.

Thus, we can talk about two main ways of connecting predicative parts in a complex sentence: 1) using conjunctions and intonation; 2) with the help of intonation (of course, this excludes the participation of other means in the organization of a complex sentence, for example, the relationship between the forms of predicates; we are talking only about basic means).

These two methods of communication determine the division of complex sentences into two large groups: 1. Complex sentences with a conjunction or relative connection. For example: The coachman suddenly reined in the horses and the carriage stopped(Chekhov); A blizzard is not scary if a person is not afraid of it(Semushkin); The blue sky spread above me, according to which a sparkling cloud floated quietly and melted(Korolenko). 2. Complex sentences with non-union connections. For example: Crossbills creak, tits ring, the cuckoo laughs, the oriole whistles, the jealous song of the finch sounds incessantly, and a strange bird, the bee-eater, sings thoughtfully(Bitter).

In many cases, there is no clear difference in the grammatical semantics of complex sentences of these two groups. Particularly close in their semantics are complex sentences with a non-union connection and with a conjunction And, expressing the value of an enumeration of events. Such sentences can be freely combined into polynomial complex sentences that have the general meaning of enumeration. For example: The leaves on the birch trees sparkle like medals, the air sparkles in the distance, and the dew sparkles in the grass, now blue, now red, now violet...(Antonov).

Conjunctive complex sentences (with conjunctions and relative words) are divided according to the nature of the syntactic connection and general grammatical meanings into two structural and semantic subgroups: complex sentences - with a coordinating connection between the predicative parts and complex sentences - with a subordinating connection.

Coordinating connection in a complex sentence, as in a simple one, is carried out by coordinating conjunctions (and, yes, but, and, or, either; then..., then... etc.) Coordinating conjunctions, expressing different grammatical meanings, do not indicate the dependent, subordinate nature of one of the predicative parts of a complex sentence in relation to the other. For example: The floor was strewn with wet dust, and boot tracks were visible on it.(Fedin); It's dark here, but I see the sparkle in your eyes(Chekhov);

The subordinating connection in a complex sentence is carried out by subordinating conjunctions (what, in order, how, if, because, if..., then... etc.) and allied words (which, who, whose, how many, where, why etc.) Both of them, being in the subordinate (dependent) part, clearly indicate its dependence on the other (main) predicative part. For example: We should go if he advises.(Goncharov); A guide was needed who knew the forest paths well(Field).

Thus, the difference between complex and complex sentences is that in the first of them the conjunction does not indicate the dependence of one part on the other (predicative parts can be equal), but in the second it does (one of the parts is formalized as dependent).

Finally, there are complex sentences with mixed forms. For example: Although the new transportation schedule was introduced a long time ago, not all drivers have yet mastered it. In this complex sentence (the first part is subordinated to the second) there is not only a subordinating concessive conjunction Although, but also a coordinating adversative conjunction But, and the relations expressed in this sentence are respectively acquiescent-adversative.

4.1 Complex sentence.

A complex sentence is a sentence consisting of two or more predicative parts connected by subordinating conjunctions or allied words. In such a sentence, one part is grammatically independent (main), and the other is grammatically dependent, subordinate (subordinate).

Complex sentences with adverbial clauses. Subordinate clauses with the meaning of external circumstances (place, time, conditions, goals, comparisons, reasons, concessions) extend the entire main part, less often the composition of one of its predicates or a separate phrase in the main part and are mostly attached with semantic conjunctions special for each type. The only exceptions are subordinate clauses, the connection of which with the main part is carried out, as in the pronominal-correlative type, with the help of correlative and relative words (pronominal adverbs). For example: It would seem that there is no place for fun at all where shells dig the ground(Ovechkin) (adverbial part of place); Masha was just about to go to the door, When Shmelev stopped her(Simonov) (subordinate clause); How good is river water? If drink it at noon in large sips from a helmet(Surkov) (subordinate part of the condition); I woke up Pashka to he didn't fall off the wagon(Chekhov) (clause of purpose); Every sound gave rise to some sparks and vague smells, How a drop gives rise to tremors of water(Yu. Kazakov) (subordinate clause of comparison); Klim could not refuse meetings with Inokov, because this unpleasant guy knew a lot and could talk intelligently(Gorky) (subordinate part of the reason); Although she herself, apparently, did not expect anything worthwhile from her feverish activity(Turgenev) (subordinate part of concession).

In complex sentences with subordinate clauses spatial relationships are expressed. The subordinate part can indicate not only the place itself (with a correlative word there), but also on the direction of action of the main part - direct (with the correlative word there) and the reverse (with a correlative word from there). For example: Where the winds licked the snow, the earth bursts loudly at night(Sholokhov); Alexey crawled to where the plane went(Field); He left from where went to the horse yard(). In addition, the actual place of action of the main part can be indicated not only by indicating the place in the subordinate part (relative word Where), but also by indicating the direction (relative words where, where). The same must be said about the designation of the direction of action of the main part.

In complex sentences with subordinate clauses different types of temporal relations are expressed: the action of the main part coincides with the action of the subordinate part (relationships of simultaneity) or precedes it or follows it (relationships of multitemporality).

In sentences with the meaning of simultaneity, the subordinate part is attached by conjunctions when, while, while, as; the predicates in the main and subordinate parts most often have the same tense forms of the imperfect form, or one of them is imperfect and the other is perfect. For example: Bye to him brewed strong tea, he sat and was silent, still thinking(Simonov); ...When I see in front of me Your profile, and eyes, and golden curls... I I'm fascinated, I'm burning... (Pushkin); Only grew bored as the train was approaching to Kruziliha(Panova). In all these sentences, the predicates of the main and subordinate parts are expressed by imperfective verbs; the action of the main part coincides with the action of the subordinate clause throughout its entire length.

In sentences with the meaning of different times of actions, the subordinate part of time is attached by conjunctions when, while, after, since, before, before, as soon as and etc.; The predicates of the main and subordinate parts are most often expressed by forms of the perfect form, or in one of the parts - perfect, and in the other - imperfect. For example: When she came in, lieutenant quickly got up and went towards(Simonov); Until we get down to business, they won't move. moved (Nosov); Since then since then as an eternal judge I was given the omniscience of a prophet, In the eyes of people I read the pages of malice and vice(Lermontov).

In complex sentences with subordinate clauses Both real and unreal conditions can be expressed.

The meaning of the real condition is expressed in sentences with conjunctions if, if, when, once, Moreover, in the main and subordinate parts, predicates are most often used in the form of the indicative mood or infinitive. For example: A big boss, if he sees disorder in someone else’s household, will intervene(Prishvin); If you are a ruddy guy, you will be called a brother to us(Pushkin); When the commander is not timid, the soldiers will follow him into fire and water(Ovechkin); Once you agreed, so you can’t refuse(Dahl). In sentences with a conjunction When subordinate clauses often have a temporal connotation of meaning, and with the conjunction once - connotation of causal justification.

The meaning of the unreal condition is expressed in sentences with conjunctions if only, if only, whenever, Moreover, the predicates in the main and subordinate parts have the form of the subjunctive mood or infinitive. For example: If they offered me one of two things: to be a chimney sweep in St. Petersburg or to be a local prince, then I would take the position of a chimney sweep(Chekhov); If I were an evil person, would I really let the prey slip out of my hands?(Mamin-Sibiryak)

When prepositioning a subordinate clause, it can be connected to the main clause using double conjunctions: If..., then...; If only..., so...; If so... and etc.

In complex sentences with subordinate clauses the latter join the main part by unions in order to, in order to, in order to, then in order to and particles acting as unions If only, if only. Subordinate goals indicate facts that are not real, but only desirable, therefore predicates in subordinate goals can only be expressed by the subjunctive mood (particle would is part of conjunctions) or infinitive. For example me woke up Pashka, to he didn't fall off the wagon(Chekhov); He used all his eloquence, so that turn Akulina away from her intentions(Pushkin); I'm ready for anything if only mom recovered(Paustovsky); For in order to to be happy, you must not only love, but also be loved(Paustovsky).

Subordinate clauses attached by conjunction particles if only, if only, are used only in postposition, expressing a stronger desire, and have an additional connecting connotation.

In complex sentences with comparative clauses can be expressed real (with conjunctions like, like) and presumptive comparisons (with conjunctions as if, as if, as if, exactly, as if). For example: Every sound gave rise to sparks and vague smells, just as a drop gives rise to trembling water.(Kazakov); Small leaves turn bright and green, as if who washed them and put varnish on them(Turgenev). In the first case, facts that are truly similar are compared, in the second, the compared facts are connected only by associative, imaginary connections.

In complex sentences with subordinate clauses Various shades of causal meaning can be expressed. Subordinate clauses are attached by causal conjunctions: because, because, since, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, in connection with the fact that, especially since, since, for and some others. One or another shade of causal meaning depends on which particular conjunction is attached to the subordinate clause.

The broadest causal meaning is expressed by subordinate clauses with conjunctions since, because. For example: He did not take on any overtime or additional work, because he spent all his free time in the experimental workshop(Nikolaev); The Third Corps had to be reinforced with an artillery division, since it was in its sector that an offensive was expected(Bondarev).

Subordinate clauses with conjunctions thanks to And because of have narrower meanings, namely: the former usually indicate a favorable, and the latter an unfavorable reason. Wed: Due to the fact that the train schedule was strictly observed, the number of transportation increased significantly(From newspapers) and Due to the fact that the train schedule was not respected, the number of transportation decreased.

Subordinate clauses with conjunction due to express a weakened causal meaning, sometimes an indirect cause, and with the conjunction especially

What - the most important reason. Wed: Elective classes were held irregularly, due to the fact that the lecturer was unable to truly interest the students and in many cases I did not want to repeat the purely abstract and idealistic thoughts of the German philosopher, especially since in these cases he was not true to himself and paid tribute to his century(Herzen).

Subordinate clauses with conjunctions especially since, fortunately And for always come after the main part and have an additional connecting connotation of meaning. For example: The dogs climbed far into their kennels, fortunately there was no one to bark at(Goncharov); It is known that when crossing fast rivers, you should not look at the water, because your head will immediately spin.(Lermontov).

In complex sentences with subordinate clauses the latter indicate a fact that contradicts the content of the main part; the event spoken of in the subordinate clause should have led to results opposite to those spoken of in the main clause, but it did not.

Subordinate concessive clauses are added to the main clause by one of the concessive conjunctions (although; despite the fact that honor in spite of the fact that; let; let; for nothing) or combinations of relative adverbs how, how much with a particle neither. Depending on how exactly the subordinate part is attached to the main part, there are shades of concessional meaning.

The widest concessive meaning is expressed in sentences with conjunctions Although; although. For example: For a long time my tireless dog continued to scour the bushes, Although she herself, apparently, did not expect anything worthwhile from her feverish activity(Turgenev); It looks neat and clean although his clothes are pretty worn(Fedoseev) In such cases, the subordinate part takes a post position.

If the subordinate part with the same conjunctions occupies preposition, then the complex sentence expresses concessive adversative relations. This is especially evident in cases where the main part has an adversative conjunction But or however. For example: Although I felt very tight and embarrassed in the new dress, however I hid it from everyone(L. Tolstoy); Although it was still early, but the gate was locked(Korolenko). Sentences of this type can be considered transitional (between submission and composition).

Subordinate clauses with conjunctions let him, let him have a connotation of “conscious assumption”. For example: Even if you feel sad, don’t lower your head(Lebedev-Kumach). Subordinate clauses with these conjunctions are usually used in preposition.

Subordinate clauses added using combinations no matter how much clearly express a generalized-concessive (or intensifying-concessive) meaning. For example: Whatever Pantelei Prokofievich protected himself from any difficult experiences; he soon had to endure a new shock(Sholokhov) But How many Sasha neither thought nothing came to his mind(Popov). An intensifying-generalizing shade of meaning is created in this case in the same way as in sentences of the pronominal-correlative type

Complex sentences with subordinate clauses. Subordinate corollaries are attached to the main part or one of its predicates by a conjunction So and are always in a post position. For example: The snow kept getting whiter and brighter, so it hurt my eyes(Lermontov).

In complex sentences with subordinate clauses, the main part is relatively complete in form and content, and the subordinate clause is dependent (one-sided dependence). Therefore, often the subordinate part has a connecting connotation of meaning, that is, it contains, as it were, an additional message. In some cases, the connection between the main and subordinate parts can be so weakened that these parts become intonationally independent sentences. For example: Neither the father nor the mother gave either the girl or the boy an explanation for what they saw. So the children themselves had to resolve the question of the meaning of this spectacle(L. Tolstoy).

Complex sentences with subordinating clauses. Subordinating clauses are attached to the entire main part or, less commonly, to one of its members by relative pronouns What(in various forms without prepositions and with prepositions), why, why, For what etc. The main part in such complex sentences is complete in its form and content, and the subordinate clause, dependent in its form, expresses a subordinating - connecting meaning - contains an additional message, an assessment of what is said in the main part, a conclusion, a consequence from that , what is said in the main part, individual comments about the message contained in the main part, etc. For example: The dew has fallen What predicted good weather tomorrow(Mamin-Sibiryak); We walked on tiptoe in the hallway, why Parasha laughed a lot(Aksakov); We returned to Russia at the end of December, then wife spent a month with her father(); ...He took upon himself the burden of general supervision of forest affairs, resulting in the editors listened to him, his colleagues fawned on him(Leonov); She had to not be late for the theater, which is why she was in a hurry(Chekhov).

In subordinate clauses, an intensifying-contrastive particle is often used And, emphasizing that the message contained in the subordinate clause is caused by the message contained in the main one. Wed. two such proposals: One corner of the curtain was slightly turned up, which made it possible to look into the bedroom(Chekhov) and One corner of the curtain was slightly folded, which made it possible to look into the bedroom.

Complex sentences with severalsubordinate clauses. Above, only sentences consisting of one main and one subordinate part were considered. This form is the most typical for a complex sentence, the most common in both written and oral varieties of literary language.

However, in the Russian language, especially in writing styles and in the language of fiction, sentences that are more complex in form, consisting of several parts, are often found.

Based on what the subordinate parts refer to and how they relate to each other, two types of polynomial complex sentences are distinguished.

I. Polynomial complex sentences with sequential subordination of subordinate clauses. In such sentences, the main part is the main part only for one of the subordinate clauses, which in turn is the main part for the next subordinate clause, etc. Schematically, this method can be represented as follows: Marya had already seen him from afar and knew What he is a delegate to the Ninth Party Congress, one of those three hundred and forty delegates whom the congress sent to the front

Tell him, to held on until Bye I will not give the order to retreat...(Fadeev).

More precisely, the last sentence, for example, can be limited using the following linear diagram:

[...verb], (to... until), (until...)

If the first subordinate clause is located before the second subordinate clause (for it the main one), then a combination of conjunctions is formed and its use changes somewhat, since the connection between such sentences is closer. For example: I thought that if at the decisive moment I did not overcome the stubborn old man, then later it would be difficult for me to free myself from his tutelage(Pushkin).

[verb], (what (if...), then...)

https://pandia.ru/text/78/064/images/image002_29.gif" height="12">A. With homogeneous subordination, subordinate clauses refer to the same main word or to the entire main word and belong to the same structural semantic type. Schematically, in the most general form, such sentences can be depicted as follows:

Here are some examples: But it seems that the song is still going on, that there is no end to it and there will never be an end (Bunin); It was that hour before night when outlines, lines, colors, distances are erased; when the daylight is still confused, inextricably linked with the night.

Homogeneous subordinate clauses, like homogeneous members, can be connected to each other without conjunctions and with the help of coordinating conjunctions And, less often a, but. For example me replied that nature is good and that sunsets are especially good in our area(Soloukhin); And Lyubka hugged Ulya, with whom she had become friends since that meeting with Turkenich, but whom she had not yet had time to say hello, and kissed her like a sister.(Fadeev).

B. With heterogeneous subordination, subordinate clauses are added: 1) to different words of the main sentence, or one part to the entire main sentence, and the other to one of its words; 2) to one word or the entire main thing - all subordinate clauses, different in their structural and semantic types.

The general scheme of such proposals can be presented as follows:

https://pandia.ru/text/78/064/images/image007_7.gif" width="616" height="96 src=">

4.2 Compound sentence

A compound sentence is a syntactic unit that is a combination of two or more simple sentences and is characterized by semantic, intonation and structural unity.

Predicative parts in complex sentences are connected

coordinating conjunctions, which are located between the predicative parts and serve to express general grammatical meanings - semantic relations between these parts: connective, adversative, disjunctive, etc. These general meanings, in turn, are differentiated by various means. Thus, in complex sentences expressing connecting relations, the relationships between the aspectual and tense forms of the predicates play an important role: Transparent forest alone turns black And the spruce turns green through the frost, And the river glitters under the ice(Pushkin) (the simultaneity of actions in terms of the present tense determined the use of imperfective predicates in the form of the present tense in all three parts); It will pass time and we'll be gone forever(Chekhov) (the sequence of actions in terms of the future determined the use of perfective verbs in the form of the future tense in both parts).

Compound sentences with connecting conjunctions. In complex sentences with connecting conjunctions (and, yes, neither... nor, too, also) connecting relationships are expressed. Based on structural features and grammatical meanings, complex sentences with connecting conjunctions are divided into two large groups: 1) homogeneous composition and 2) heterogeneous composition.

1. In complex sentences of the first group, predicative parts are connected by conjunctions and, yes, neither... nor and express connective-enumerative relations (homogeneous events occurring simultaneously or following each other are listed). Such sentences can be either binomial or polynomial (with repeating conjunctions). The homogeneity of their parts is usually determined by the presence in their composition of a common member, or subordinate part, or the same relationship of parts with the previous context, or, finally, the same attitude of the speaker to the listed events.

2. In complex sentences of the second group, of heterogeneous composition, predicative parts are joined by conjunctions yes, also, too and express connective-distributive connective-resultative and other relations of heterogeneous connection. Such sentences can only be two-term.

Compound sentences withdividing unions. In complex sentences with disjunctive conjunctions (or (or), either, then... then, not that... not that, either... or) Separation relations are expressed - relations of mutual exclusion or alternation. Compound sentences with disjunctive conjunctions can be either binomial or polynomial; most of them are of a homogeneous composition.

1. Relationships of mutual exclusion are expressed using conjunctions or (or), either, not that... not that, either... or.

Unions or (or), or can be single or repeating; they indicate that the content of the first predicative part excludes the possibility of the content of the second and subsequent parts, and vice versa. Union or is stylistically neutral and is used in all varieties of literary language. The colloquial version of this conjunction is il - has a connotation of obsolescence, the conjunction is also colloquial or. For example: Let him move to the outbuilding in the village, or I will move from here(Chekhov); Or the plague will catch me, Or the frost will ossify me, Or a barrier will slam into my forehead A slow disabled person(Pushkin).

In sentences with a neutral repeating conjunction not that... not that relations of mutual exclusion are complicated by an indication of the difficulty of distinguishing one from two or from a number of phenomena, due to the uncertainty of impressions from each of them. For example: Not that who was given the horse, not that who's new arrived(Danilevsky).

The same relationship is expressed by the repeated conjunction either... or having a touch of conversational style, for example: Either the rustle of the ear, the flutter of the breeze, either a warm hand strokes your hair(Surkov).

2. In alternation sentences (with a repeating conjunction then... then) it is said that the events reported in the predicative parts exist in different time plans, that is, they alternate. Such sentences are used in all stylistic varieties of literary language. For example: That The sun shines dimly, then a black cloud hangs(Nekrasov). Her chest rose high, and then she seemed to be holding her breath.(Lermontov).

Compound sentences with adversative conjunctions. In complex sentences with adversative conjunctions (ah, but, yes, same, but, however etc.) comparative and adversative relations are expressed, that is, the opposition of events, their difference or inconsistency is indicated. All such sentences, regardless of whether their parts are homogeneous or heterogeneous, can only be binomial.

According to structural features and basic grammatical meanings, all complex sentences with adversative conjunctions are divided into two groups:

1) comparative and 2) adversative sentences.

1. In comparative sentences (with conjunctions oh yeah) phenomena that are different in some respect are compared, and these phenomena, despite all their dissimilarity, do not cancel each other out, but seem to coexist. The most common among such sentences are those with the broadest meaning and stylistically neutral conjunction A. For example: The bottom of the tower was stone, and the top was wooden...(Chekhov); He is already over forty, and she is thirty...(Chekhov).

2. In adversative sentences (with conjunctions but, yes, however, but, but etc.) various types of adversative relations are expressed: adversative - restrictive, adversative - concessive, adversative - compensatory, etc. All these types of relations are based on the inconsistency of the events spoken of in the predicative parts. The most common and stylistically neutral is the conjunction But. Union Yes has a colloquial character, and the conjunction however book.

In adversative restrictive sentences (with conjunctions but, however, yes) such events are reported, the second of which limits the manifestation of the first, interferes with it or clarifies it, refuting it in some part.

In adversative-concessive sentences (with conjunctions but, however, yes) the adversative meaning is complicated by the concessive meaning (one phenomenon should have caused another, but did not). For example: I had my own room in the house, but I lived in the yard in a shack...(Chekhov). Wed. complex sentence with a concessive clause: Although I had my own room in the house, I lived in the yard in a shack. The concessional meaning is formed mainly by the lexical composition of the parts, so its connotation is inherent in many types of both complex and complex sentences. Wed: I had my own room in the house, but I lived in the yard in a shack; I did not live in a house where I had my own room, but in a shack in the yard.

A distinctly adversative-concessive meaning is expressed using particles nevertheless, nevertheless, all the same, meanwhile, for all that etc. In this case, the concessive-adversative meaning is equally manifested in sentences with the conjunction But, and in sentences with the conjunction A. Wed, for example: I always fight with them, but still I love them very much(Dostoevsky); Mother was crying every minute, her health was getting worse day by day, she was apparently wasting away, and yet we worked with her from morning to night(Dostoevsky). Wed. also with adverbs still (still), already (already): The snow is still white in the fields, and the waters are noisy in spring(Tyutchev).

In adversative-compensative sentences (with conjunctions but, but, yes) any phenomenon is considered from different sides, and one side is most often assessed as negative, and the second - as positive. For example: The Cossacks dismounted in front of the river. The ford was shallow But the current is very fast(Arsenyev); The guns are rusting in the arsenals, but shakos sparkle(Simonov). Wed. sentence with complex conjunction formation but then: He will have a lot of work, but in winter he will rest(Saltykov-Shchedrin).

Compoundsentences with connecting unions. Coordinating conjunctions can be used in a complex sentence in a connecting meaning.

In sentences with connecting conjunctions (yes and, and then, and not that, not that etc.) express connecting relations, complicated by various additional meanings.

In sentences with a conjunction yes and an additional intensifying value is expressed. For example: You won’t tell me anything new, and I won’t tell you either(Simonov); He[Sintsov] I didn’t ask anymore - and why ask?(Simonov).

In sentences with conjunctions and then, and not that, not that the meaning of a warning is expressed (the second predicative part indicates what may happen if the action of the first part does not take place). For example: You must talk to your father today, otherwise he will worry about your departure(Pisemsky); Advise them to meet me with childlike love and obedience, not that they cannot avoid cruel punishment(Pushkin); Answer me, not That I'll worry(Pushkin).

As can be seen from the above examples, the main area of ​​use of connecting constructions, correlative with the essay, is casual colloquial speech.

Compound sentences with explanatory conjunctions. A unique group consists of complex sentences, the second part of which is attached to the first by explanatory conjunctions namely, that is. For example: In addition to plants, the garden has rooms for various animals, namely: many towers with lattice towers were built for pigeons, and for pheasants and other birds a huge wire cage was placed between the bushes(Goncharov); On June 12, the forces of Western Europe crossed the borders of Russia and war began, that is, an event contrary to human reason and all human nature took place.(L. Tolstoy).

In these complex sentences, the speaker, with the help of the second part, clarifies and reveals the content of the first. Therefore, in these parts there is a kind of semantic parallelism, which determines the inclusion of these sentences in the group of compound sentences, although explanatory conjunctions indicate the dependent nature of the second part. The first part ends before the union with a significant lowering of the voice and a pause.

Union that is, in addition to the indicated meaning, it can express the meaning of an amendment, a reservation (it has the meaning “more precisely”, “more correctly”). For example: We were sleeping, that is, my sister was sleeping, and I was lying with my eyes open and thinking(Korolenko).

4.3 Complex non-union proposal

A unionless complex sentence is a type of complex sentence, the predicative parts of which are combined into one semantic and structural whole with the help of intonation, without conjunctions or allied words.

Complex non-conjunctive sentences with the meaning of enumeration. These non-union complex sentences are close to homogeneous complex sentences with a conjunction And, which is confirmed by the possibility of inserting between parts of such non-union proposals of the union And, and by the use in one sentence of predicative parts connected without a union and with the help of a conjunction And. Wed, for example: Bands play in the park, various attractions operate, and a boat station is open And There are orchestras playing in the park, various attractions are open and boat station.

Sentences of this type can be either binomial or polynomial; the first part often contains a common member. For example: In the fog that shrouded the road, wheels creaked, people talked and called to each other.(Perventsev).

Complex non-union sentences with the meaning of comparison. In these sentences, the message contained in the first part is compared with the message contained in the second (or contrasted with it). Sentences of this type are characterized by the presence in the predicative parts of words that are opposite or contradictory to each other in meaning. This type is characterized by a two-member structure. Wed, for example: On the right was a swampy impenetrable forest, on the left were reddish pillars of cliffs(Sedov); He is the guest - I am the host(Bagritsky).

Complex non-union sentences with the meaning of explanation. In sentences of this type, the content of the entire first part or any of its members is revealed by a single-term or polynomial second part. For example: Objects lost their shape: everything merged first into a gray, then into a dark mass(Goncharov); At home, Thomas was greeted solemnly: his father gave the boy a heavy silver spoon with an intricate monogram, and his aunt gave him a scarf of her own knitting(Bitter); Here a very interesting picture opened up: a wide hut, the roof of which rested on two pillars, was full of people(Lermontov); Now they faced the most difficult thing: they had to leave their comrade, knowing that he was in danger(Fadeev).

A special place among complex non-conjunctive sentences with the meaning of explanation is occupied by sentences with demonstrative words like this, like this, like this in the first part. Such sentences can express not only an explanation, but also qualitative-definitive or qualitative-adverbial meanings. For example: The whole city is like this: a swindler sits on a swindler and drives the swindler(Gogol); Like all Moscow people, your father is like this: he would like a son-in-law with stars and ranks(Griboyedov); It all happened so unexpectedly: the driver ran a red light and did not have time to brake.

Demonstrative words so, so, so can also express the meaning of degree; in this case, the second part of a complex sentence often indicates not only the degree, but also the consequence. For example: The silence is such that my ears are ringing; It's so quiet - my ears are ringing.

Complex non-conjunctive sentences with conditional consequential and temporal meaning. These sentences are characterized by a certain ratio of modal forms of the predicates of the first and second predicative parts. It is the nature of this relationship that determines whether the unreal or real conditionality of events is expressed in a complex non-union sentence.

If the predicates of the predicative parts are expressed by forms of the subjunctive mood, then the sentence has the meaning of unreal conditionality; For example: If you had stayed until the end, he would have walked you home(S. Antonov). A similar meaning is expressed in cases where the predicate of one of the parts has the form of an imperative mood used in the meaning of the subjunctive, for example: Don't spare a pinch of the fox's hairs, he'd still have his tail.(Krylov).

If the predicates of the predicative parts are expressed by forms of the indicative mood (usually the future tense) or the infinitive in one of the parts, then the sentence has the meaning of a real possibility, for example: If you manage to go to Tashkent, things will get better(Neverov); If I need you, call me(Godenko); I I can handle two with pleasure, but anger can handle three(Mayakovsky).

A special subgroup of non-union complex sentences with conditional-consequential relations are represented by sentences with a generalized meaning. Parts of these sentences have a generalized personal form or predicates - infinitives. Sentences with a generalized meaning are typical primarily of proverbs: If you hurry, you will make people laugh; If you love to ride, love carry a sled; I picked up the tug - don’t say it’s not strong; The forest is being cut down - the chips are flying(Proverbs); Fight alone - life can't be turned around(N. Ostrovsky

Complex non-union sentences with the meaning of cause and effect. This type of sentence falls into two groups: with the meaning of cause and the meaning of effect. The proposals of both groups are characterized by a two-term structure. The meanings of cause and effect depend on the lexical content of the parts.

The predicates in these non-union complex sentences are expressed in different verbal forms, which are associated with different shades of meaning, but the usual ratio of forms is such that the time plan of the part expressing the cause precedes the time plan of the part expressing the effect, the result.

Complex non-conjunctive sentences with explanatory-objective meaning. Sentences of this type are always two-term. The first part contains a word with the meaning of perception of speech, thoughts, feelings or a word indicating these processes, and the second part expresses the object of these processes and reveals their content. Depending on the structure of the first part and the intonation of a complex sentence, all sentences of this type are divided into two groups:

I. Sentences, the first part of which includes an expressed word that needs to be distributed with the help of an internal object; the second part expresses this object and thus, as it were, replaces the unsubstituted position of the word being explained in the first part. Most of these sentences are synonymous with complex sentences with explanatory-objective clauses. For example: I'll definitely tell you: you have talent.(Fadeev); We hear: the heart splashes in the chest. We feel: our voice is pure and clear().

II. Sentences in the first part of which there is no word directly expressing the processes of perception, but there is a word indicating that these processes are taking place (listened, looked closely, looked back, approached, approached and etc.). Such verbs with the meaning of action accompanying the process of perception seem to take on the role of verbs denoting this process, so we can talk about the ellipsis of verbs of perception. Wed: He looked back and saw: a stranger was following him(sentence of the 1st group; the second part extends the verb of perception saw) And He looked back: a stranger was following him.(2nd group sentence; verb looked back, denoting the action accompanying the perception, took on the role of expressing this perception). In both the first and second sentences, the second part expresses the object of perception.

Polynomial complex non-union sentences. Non-union complex sentences can be polynomial, that is, they can consist of three or, rarely, more parts.

4.4 Complex polynomial sentence with different types of connections.

In the Russian language, especially in the language of fiction, complex sentences of combined types are widespread: a) with a conjunctive coordinating and subordinating connection; b) with non-union and allied subordination; c) with conjunctive and non-conjunctive connections; finally, there are complex constructions that include various combinations of these types of sentences. The relationships between the individual parts in such constructions in most cases do not represent anything fundamentally new in comparison with the previously described types of complex, complex and non-union sentences. However, to correctly understand the meaning of polynomial combined complex sentences, be able to establish relationships between their constituent parts.

1. Among polynomial sentences with conjunctional coordinating and subordinating connections, two groups are distinguished:

1) We extend two or more composed parts with a common subordinate clause. For example: When Gavrila Ivanovich began to speak, his thick eyebrows rose and his forehead became covered with fine wrinkles.(Mamin-Sibiryak).

2) Each of the composed parts or one of them has one or more subordinate parts. For example: She spoke quickly, and her eyes looked as if right now, as soon as she had finished everything, he, Serpilin, would take it all will fix(Simonov).

2. Non-union sentences are widespread, parts of which (or one part) are complex sentences. For example: U Dasha’s lips themselves stretched into a smile: this big, handsome man is so unsure of himself that he is ready to hide behind mustard.(); If I tell her these words, it will be shameless: she cannot beat me, but, as an honest and kind girl, she will agree if I offer her my hand().

3. Sentences with non-union and coordinating connections of homogeneous composition are also very common. For example: Roof on it[outbuilding] rusty, the pipe had half collapsed, the steps at the porch had rotted and collapsed, and only traces of the plaster remained.(Chekhov). Less common are various combinations of heterogeneous parts with a conjunctive and non-conjunctive connection. For example: Dasha opened the doors of her room and stopped in bewilderment: it smelled of raw flowers, and immediately she saw a basket with a high handle and a blue bow().

IIConclusion

As we can see, the Russian language has a wealth of syntactic structures. Studying them is a lot of painstaking work, which is necessary to expand knowledge about the language. The Russian language as a subject participates in the development and education of the individual, and the variety of syntactic structures used in the language expands these possibilities.

LITERATURE

1. Babaytseva Russian language.

M., Education, 2002

2. Ram's tongue. Reference materials.

M., Education, 1998

3. Kupalova and proposal.

M., Education, 1989

4. Merkin language. Reference materials.

M., Russian Word, 2005

5. Rosenthal in Russian language,

M., Eksmo, 1998

6. Shan Russian language. Syntax.

M., Education, 1997

A complex sentence is a syntactic unit of a higher order than a simple sentence.

A complex sentence is a combination of two or more predicative parts, functioning as one communication unit. Each of the predicative parts included in it is similar in structure to a simple sentence, however, as part of a complex construction, it loses such features of a sentence as intonation and semantic independence, and interacts with the other part, expressing a detailed message, holistic in nature: We again without collusion collided with her: while going down, she held the key in her hand (V. Nabokov); Everything that life gave me burned down (L. Alekseeva).

Thus, a complex sentence is a polypredicative communicative unit, characterized by structural and semantic unity, as well as intonation integrity. The most important features of a complex sentence, contrasting it with a simple one, are:

• 1) polypredicativity, which determines the presence of a complex mechanism for the mutual adaptation of predicative parts and the use of special means for this: The troika is waiting at the porch, with an impulse. A quick run will take us away (P. Vyazemsky); Friendship is friendship, and service is service;
• 2) polypropositivity - the presence of two or more event or logical propositions and the unification in the semantic structure of a sentence of nominations of two or more events (situations): There was deep darkness in the sky, the dawn has risen (A. Pushkin).

An event proposition is associated with the sphere of being, movement, activity (physical or social); logical proposition - reflecting the relationships established in the process of mental activity, logical reasoning (relationships of identification, identity, etc.). The sign of polypropositivity is not absolute: in the sphere of a complex sentence, an asymmetry is possible between the number of predicative parts and the number of propositions.

The asymmetry in the relationship between predicativeness and propositionality is manifested in the existence of simple sentences that are characterized by polypropositivity. These are sentences complicated by isolated definitions, circumstances, applications, which are collapsed propositions, as well as sentences with names of positive (event) semantics and sentences with secondary nominal predicates: Person, harmful V force beliefs, you can convince. human harmful By personal anger, can be softened. Only those who harm out of fear are invulnerable and adamant (L. Ginzburg); Arrival the guest was woken up by the little dog, sleeping on Sun(N. Gogol); From this day on, Prince Andrei groom began to go to the Rostovs (L.N. Tolstoy).

In turn, not all complex sentences are polypropositive. Consider, for example, the complex sentence It's good that he did it. The subordinate part in it expresses a proposition (reports a certain “state of affairs”), the main part expresses the subjective attitude of the speaker to what is being communicated (i.e., mode). A complex sentence consisting of two predicative parts turns out to be monopropositive. Thus, polypredicativity can also correspond to monopropositivity.

A complex sentence is a multidimensional unit. It is characterized by: a) in the structural aspect - polypredicativeness and a detailed set of structural elements for connecting the combined predicative parts; b) in the semantic aspect - semantic completeness and semantic integrity, as well as often polypropositivity; c) in the communicative aspect - the unity of the communicative task and intonation completeness.

In the structural aspect, a complex sentence is built according to models (schemes), the elements of which are determined by its polypredicative nature: the combination of predicative parts, different in structure and semantics, requires their structural, semantic and intonation adaptation to each other.

The complex sentence model includes a set of basic and additional means of communication. The main means of communication include: a) coordinating and subordinating conjunctions: The flight of my tired thoughts has become low, And the world of the soul is more waterless and poorer (P. Vyazemsky); If my Russia is over - I’m dying (Z. Gippius); b) allied words, or relata (in a complex sentence): In the river, What we call life, and we are a mirror stream (P. Vyazemsky); c) correlates (indicative words as part of the main part of a complex sentence, signaling its incompleteness): That's sorry and hello that who dies in their prime? (M. Lermontov); d) supporting words in complex sentences of an undivided structure - words directly extended by the subordinate clause: You’re wandering in the forest, Not thinking that suddenly you will become an eyewitness to a certain secret (M. Petrov); d) intonation.

Additional means of communication, namely the structural features of predicative parts, determined by the need for their connection with others, include:

• 1) paradigm complex sentence - the relationship between aspectual and temporal forms and modal plans of the predicates. It has a larger number of members than the simple sentence paradigm (in a complex sentence their maximum number reaches 49), which is explained by different combinations of temporal and modal plans of predicative parts. In addition to temporal and modal characteristics, the paradigm of a complex sentence also takes into account the specific forms of the predicates, since depending on their identity or discrepancy, various relationships of situations in time are conveyed (sequence or simultaneity), cf: When the doctor came (Soviet aspect), the patient calmed down ( owl species) - sequence of actions; When the doctor examined the patient (non-natural type), no one interfered (non-natural type) - simultaneity;
• 2) anaphoric And cataphoric pronouns indicating the incompleteness of one of the parts and its close connection with the other: anaphoric pronominal words refer to the previous predicative part, cataphoric ones - to the subsequent one: In Russia censored department arose before literature; always felt his fatal perfection (V. Nabokov); The whole city is there such: a swindler sits on a swindler and drives the swindler (V. Gogol);
• 3) structural incompleteness one of the predicative parts, the presence of unsubstituted syntactic positions in it: He is in the hall; next: no one(A. Pushkin);
• 4) grammaticalized lexemes, specific for certain complex sentences: for example, in non-target complex sentences the lexemes are used enough, not enough, too, etc.: Genius enough any crumbs of experience in order to be able to recreate an accurate picture (A. Bitov);
• 5) semantic correlation lexical filling of predicative parts, manifested in the presence of words with common semes or in lexical repetition: When clear mind and heart It's clear, and sea purely, like glass: everything is so welcoming and safe, it's like that smilingly bright(P. Vyazemsky);
• 6) loose/fixed (fixed) order predicative parts ( fixed postpositionunfixed postposition): Poetry is lying in the grass, under your feet, so you just have to bend down to see it and pick it up from the ground (B. Pasternak);
• 7) parallelism buildings, relevant for some types of complex and non-union complex sentences: I was gloomy, - other children are cheerful and talkative (M. Lermontov).

The set of means of communication - the structural elements of a complex sentence - forms its model (scheme), which can be either standard or particular. A typical model is a general model according to which all complex sentences of the same structural-semantic type are constructed, a particular model is a model of a specific complex sentence. It includes means of predicative connections that are inherent in a specific syntactic structure and are relevant for its construction. The model of a complex sentence is graphically conveyed in the form of a structural diagram. For example, the sentence Evil exists in order to fight it (I. Brodsky) is built according to the scheme, (p. that). Complex sentence models are divided into free and phraseologized (phraseomodels). The latter include stably reproducible additional means of communication of predicative parts (particles, special lexemes, repetition of words or their forms): Connections connections, but you also need to have a conscience (E. Schwartz). Let's take a closer look at the sentence of the phraseological structure. Once we read this poem more carefully, we will understand its full depth. It is built according to a non-free model, which includes as its constant component such additional means of communication as the word worth (worth) and the adjoining perfective infinitive in the first part. The general model of complex sentences of this variety looks like:

[worth (worth) + infinitive], (v. how).

Such sentences of phraseological structure name two events that are connected by the relations of condition and immediate consequence, cf.: As soon as we carefully read this poem, we will understand its meaning. If we read this poem carefully, we will understand its meaning. In addition, in sentences constructed according to this phrase model, the presence of a characteristic property in a person or object is emphasized, which determines the possibility of what is called the second part. As a result, additional cause-and-effect relationships may arise between the two predicative parts: As soon as he gets sick, everything stops. Thus, this sentence of phraseological structure, like many others built on non-free models, is polysemantic. The model of a complex sentence is an indicator of its grammatical meaning; the structural mechanism of a sentence determines its syntactic semantics.

In the semantic aspect, a complex sentence is a unit characterized by semantic integrity. Its meaning is not the sum of the meanings of its constituent predicative parts. “The grammatical meaning of a complex sentence is usually understood as the semantic relationships between its parts, and one or another grammatical meaning is characteristic not only of one specific sentence, but of all sentences that have the same structure (structure), built according to the same model.” He did not accept offers of gifts because he had nothing to give (I. Goncharov); The dogs climbed far into their kennels, fortunately there was no one to bark at (I. Goncharov); One day Varyusha woke up because Sidor. knocked with his beak on the glass (K. Paustovsky), despite the difference in specific conjunctions, are built according to a general standard model: , (causal subordinating conjunction). A causal connection is established between the events of the first and second predicative parts. Thus, the syntactic meanings of these constructions are the meanings of reason.

There are general and private syntactic meanings. General meanings are meanings inherent in typical models of complex sentences and based primarily on basic means of communication; private syntactic meanings are determined taking into account lexical content and additional means of communication and characterize subtypes of complex sentences or their varieties (within the subtype). Let's compare complex sentences: a) The lamps were burning brightly, and the disabled samovar (K. Paustovsky) sang and sang his simple song; b) It was getting hot, and I hurried home (M. Lermontov); c) Stoltz’s youthful heat infected Oblomov, and he burned with a thirst for work. (I. Goncharov). All of them are built according to a common standard model, and, the main means of communication in it is the connecting union and. The general syntactic meaning of these constructions is the meaning of connection. Their lexical content, the peculiarities of the paradigm and the order of their parts make it possible to identify particular syntactic meanings: a) enumerative meaning; b) effective meaning; c) connecting-extensive meaning.

The distinction between general and particular meanings is essential for the classification of complex sentences: types complex sentences are highlighted taking into account general meanings, subtypes and their varieties - taking into account private syntactic meanings.

A particular meaning can be specified as a result of the use of syntactically specialized elements. These are adverbs, particles (and their combinations), introductory words that perform the function of specifying a certain particular meaning in a complex sentence. Yes, in a sentence Already almost in front of the pillbox lay the advanced riflemen, and along the road All equals it was impossible to walk (N. Tikhonov) the words already and still express a concessionary meaning. The role of such elements is especially great in complex and non-union complex sentences.

Typed lexical elements also play an important role in the implementation of syntactic meanings. These are lexical means that, in various types of complex sentences, regularly express certain meanings, participating in the formation of corresponding grammatical meanings.

There are two types of such lexical elements:

1) typological and constructive elements necessary to realize the basic syntactic meaning of a complex sentence. Thus, antonyms express a comparative meaning, which is basic for complex and non-union sentences with comparative relations: Young- for service, old- for advice (proverb);

complex sentence grammatical connection

2) partial constructive elements that cause additional grammatical meaning that does not coincide with the main meaning of the sentence; Thus, the use of modal words in complex sentences with subordinate clauses modifies the basic syntactic meaning: Right, the bullet hit him in the shoulder, because he suddenly lowered his hand (M. Lermontov). The subordinate clause expresses not a causal, but an investigative meaning, since its logical justification is given in the main part.

In the semantic aspect, a complex sentence acts as a polypropositive unit: it is focused on reporting two or more situations, each of which receives a predicate expression, and may contain several dictum meanings. This feature does not apply, however, to all types of complex sentences. Monopropositive are:

• 1) complex sentences with substantive-attributive (attributive) subordinate clauses, in which the subordinate clause is used not to name a separate situation, but to establish the reference of the name: There are words that only seem banal;
• 2) explanatory-objective complex sentences, in which one part may contain a mode of utterance (give a modal and/or evaluative interpretation of the message), and the second - a dictum (main message): And it seems to me that all people are wandering around in reality more and more extravagantly (P. Vyazemsky ); It’s good that autumn has already passed;
• 3) complex sentences with pronominal-correlative clauses, in which the clause in combination with the correlate gives a detailed name of a person or object: This is all that I heard (M. Bulgakov) - cf.: everything that was heard.

The meaning of a complex sentence can also be organized in such a way that the propositions contained in its parts “correspond to the same situation.” So, in disjunctive compound sentences with conjunctions it is not the same. neither this nor that. or different propositions serve to imprecisely nominate the same situation, not clearly identified by the speaker: Either he [Rudin] was jealous of Natalya, or he regretted her (I. Turgenev).

In the communicative aspect, a complex sentence is considered as an integral unit that performs a specific communicative task. The actual division of a complex sentence is carried out through intonation and the order of parts. With a neutral (objective) order of parts, the topic is usually located at the beginning of the statement (first part); the rhema occupies a postposition, cf.: (Frost). It’s cold, // the snow crunches underfoot. Wed: (Frost). The snow crunches underfoot, // it’s cold. In the last utterance, a change in the order of the parts actualizes the rheme, the first part is highlighted by intonation (raising the pitch of the stressed word and increasing its duration). Theme-rhematic division of a complex sentence reflects the selection of less and more significant information for the speaker: the most important information represents the rheme of the statement.

The boundaries of syntactic and actual division in a complex sentence may not coincide.

Wed: Since classes were over, // I went home (the boundaries of the components of the actual division coincide with the boundaries of the predicative parts); The house in which I settled // had an interesting history (the subordinate clause, along with the supporting word, is part of the theme - and the boundaries of syntactic and actual division do not coincide). The uniqueness of the actual division of a complex sentence is that its components usually denote whole events, therefore each of the predicative parts can have its own communicative structure.

When expressing the purpose of a statement in a complex sentence, not only single-functional, but also multi-functional parts can be combined, for example, narrative and interrogative: He worked all his life, and what did you do? Thus, compared to a simple proposal, a complex one is characterized by the possibility of combining different goal settings and different functional plans. It has not only a modal, temporal, but also a communicative perspective.

The classification of complex sentences is based on the comparison of means of communication between predicative parts and syntactic meanings. When differentiating complex sentences, quantitative and qualitative criteria for their division are used, related to both their structure and semantics.

• 1) According to the number of predicative parts, two-term/polynomial sentences are distinguished: It was raining, and the trees were rustling from the strong wind (A. Chekhov); For some time he stood at the window: the sky was sour milk; occasionally, in the place where the blind sun floated, opal pits appeared (V. Nabokov);
• 2) according to the presence of conjunctive means of communication, conjunctive/non-conjunctive complex sentences are contrasted: in conjunctive constructions, predicative parts are connected by conjunctions (coordinating or subordinating) or conjunctive words, non-conjunctive sentences are characterized by the absence of conjunctive means of communication: You sing me that song, What before, old mother S sang to us. Yesenin); There will be, there will be time: the sun will come again. Sluchevsky).

3) according to the nature of the model (scheme), sentences constructed according to free models and sentences constructed according to non-free (phraseologized) models (sentences of phraseological structure) are distinguished. Sentences of phraseological structure are built according to special non-free models, which are characterized by the presence of additional stable reproducible means of communication (particles, special lexemes, repetitions). Their features are: a) modelability, based on the stability of the phrase scheme and its reproducibility; b) particularly close connection of predicative parts; c) often a fixed order of parts; d) tendency towards idiomatic meaning; e) the presence of various expressive-evaluative meanings: The more flame in my long-time, the less fire ahead in me who is tired (I. Severyanin); Be brave, don’t be brave, but you won’t be braver than the world (N. Leskov).

The most important and regular elements of the structure of a complex sentence include the basic means of communication (conjunctions and allied words), the relationship between aspectual and modal forms of predicates, the relative position of parts, and in complex sentences, in addition, the presence or absence of correlative (demonstrative) words and the relationship of the subordinate part with the main part (the subordinate part relates to the entire main part or to any word or phrase in it). As already mentioned, quantitatively and qualitatively different combinations of these structural elements form models of complex sentences of different types (of course, taking into account known lexical restrictions), each of which is characterized by its own broad grammatical meaning.

Most complex sentences are constructed using such models; they are the most productive and stylistically neutral. They are called free.

However, there are also complex sentences that are built according to more complex models. They include, in addition to the basic structural elements indicated above, other, more specific elements that make the connection between the predicative parts especially close and determine more specific and complex grammatical meanings. Complex sentences constructed according to such models are limited in their use (usually typical for lively conversational speech). Such models are called non-free.

This, for example, is the complex sentence of Something else, but there are plenty of swamps in Meshchera (K. Paustovsky). The structural model of this sentence, in addition to the comparative conjunction a and the present tense form (enough) with a timeless meaning, also includes a pronominal combination of something else, forming the first part. This also determines the more complex grammatical meaning of this sentence - it expresses not comparative relations, but singular-contrastive ones. Based on the same unfree model, the following sentences are constructed: Who is the other, but he knows; Where else, but in Moscow you will find everything, etc. Wed. a sentence based on a free model: There is little arable land in Meshchera, but there are plenty of swamps.

Individual particles especially often act as additional structural elements, but these can also be various morphological forms of words and even fully significant words.

Thus, the negative particle not and the restrictive particle are only used in complex sentences with the conjunction as, expressing relations of temporary interdependence, for example:

• 1) The peasant gasp Not managed, How a bear sat on him (I. Krylov);
• 2) Only We managed to relax and have lunch, How heard gun shots (A. Pushkin). The first part in such sentences denotes an action that was interrupted by another action, which is mentioned in the second part (a sentence with the particle not), or an action that ended just when the action indicated in the second part of the sentence began (a sentence with the particle only). Thus, the difference in meaning between the first and second sentences depends on the use of different particles in these sentences. Both particles are necessary in organizing such sentences. Without them, such sentences cannot be constructed at all (you cannot say: “We had time to have lunch when…”; “I managed to gasp when…”, etc.).

The verb "managed" also takes part in the structure of these complex sentences, which, in combination with particles, not only directly indicates with its lexical meaning the nature of the relationships expressed in the complex sentence (didn't have time... just managed...).

In sentences with a double conjunction than... those, in which facts interrelated in their development are compared, a mandatory element of the structure is the forms of the comparative degree of adjectives or qualitative adverbs, for example:

• 1) How quicker the fire was burning out, those know better it was becoming a moonlit night (A. Chekhov);
• 2) How more he said, those more blushed (Saltykov-Shchedrin).

In the sentences analyzed above with the elements I didn’t have time..., how...; just had time..., as... and in sentences with the conjunction than... then, in addition to the basic elements of the structure, several more particular elements are distinguished, characteristic only of these sentences. This leads to the fact that the connection between the parts of a complex sentence turns out to be so close that it even seems difficult to decide which part is the main part and which is the subordinate one. In such cases, we can talk about the mutual subordination of parts of a complex sentence.

Thus, the more structural elements included in the model of a complex sentence, the closer the connection between its parts, the less free it is, and, conversely, the fewer such elements, the less close the connection is, the more free the complex sentence is in its structure.

• 4) if it is possible to change the order of predicative parts in complex sentences, flexible and inflexible structures are distinguished. Flexible structures allow different options for the order of parts: If I have to choose a destiny, I will not delude myself with another (N. Krandievskaya). Inflexible structures are structures in which rearrangement of predicative parts and insertion of one part into another is impossible: The train left at seven o'clock in the evening, so Mikhail Ivanovich could have dinner ... before leaving (L. Tolstoy);
• 5) on the basis of “conformity/discrepancy in the number of propositions and predicative parts of a sentence”, symmetrical and asymmetrical constructions are distinguished. In symmetrical constructions, the number of propositions is equal to the number of predicative parts: If you need help, call. In asymmetric constructions, the number of propositions does not correspond to the number of predicative parts and individual links of the semantic structure of the utterance turn out to be not expressed using linguistic means (implicit): If you want to buy bread, then the bakery is to the right. In this statement, the two predicative parts correspond to three components of the semantic structure: If you want to buy bread, then (keep in mind, know) (that) the bakery is to the right. The second component is omitted, which causes an asymmetry in the complex sentence.

Based on function (nature of goal setting), functional types of complex sentences are distinguished. In this case, they differ:

• 1) functional homogeneous sentences - sentences, all predicative parts of which coincide in purpose: a) narrative: I walked slowly: I was sad (M. Lermontov); b) interrogative: Why... others can do everything, but I can’t? (L. Tolstoy); c) incentive: Give everything earthly to the earth, and, like blue smoke, rise to us in the blue, clean and unharmed (F. Sologub).
• 2) syncretic, combining functionally heterogeneous parts: a) narrative-interrogative: Without a doubt, he was in a pitiful position, but what could be done? (L. Tolstoy); b) narrative-motivating: ...You won’t find anything better: turn your tender gaze, girls, to the infantry (A. Tvardovsky); c) incentive-interrogative: Yes, run to the policeman - why is he chilling there? (A. Chekhov); d) motivating-narrative: Understand: lack of freedom from lies leads to atrocity (V Kornilov).

Syncretic functional types are represented mainly in the sphere of complex and non-union complex sentences, the predicative parts of which are characterized by a greater degree of independence than in a complex sentence.

It is traditional to divide sentences into exclamatory and non-exclamatory ones. These types of sentences differ in the presence/absence of emotional coloring in the syntactic structure and, thus, are associated with reflecting the position of the speaker (the author of the statement), with the transmission of his emotions and assessments. The means of expressing emotions is primarily exclamatory intonation, as well as particles, interjections and expressive vocabulary: How lively simple pictures of marching movements appear in my head, and which one modest lovely they gain in memories! (A. Kuprin). Non-exclamatory and exclamatory sentences are unevenly distributed in the system of complex structures. Non-exclamatory sentences predominate, while exclamatory sentences are used, as a rule, in the field of binomial constructions, and they are closely related to functional types of sentences: it is the question or impulse that often expresses the emotions of the speaker.

With all the diversity of structural, semantic and functional characteristics in modern Russian studies, three main features are distinguished that serve as the basis for a consistent multi-level classification of complex sentences:

• 1) presence/absence of means of communication that combine predicative parts. On this basis, classes of union and non-union proposals are distinguished;
• 2) contrast between composition/subordination of predicative parts in the sphere of conjunctional constructions: conjunctional sentences are divided into complex and complex;
• 3) attribution of one predicative part to one word of another part or to the entire part as a single whole (non-division/dismemberment). The last division applies only to complex sentences. As a result, a fairly harmonious classification arises: each division in it makes it possible to identify the semantic originality of the selected class or subclass of sentences, due to the structural features underlying the classification.

Thus, non-union sentences differ from allied sentences in the diffuseness of semantics and the undifferentiated relationships between parts. Complex and complex sentences differ in the degree of autonomy of the parts and the nature of the expressed relationships between them.

The division of complex sentences into undivided and dissected corresponds not only to a complex of structural features that delimit them, but also to significant differences in the nature of the relationships between the parts, which is reflected in the establishment for the former of an analogy with a phrase, for the second (dissected) - with a simple sentence with an adverbial determinant .

The further division of compound and non-conjunct sentences is predominantly traditional in nature: compound sentences are differentiated depending on the type of coordinating conjunction, and then divided into subtypes according to the nature of the syntactic meaning; non-conjunctive complex sentences are classified depending on the relationship between the predicative parts (taking into account additional means of communication) .

Thus, the general classification of complex sentences is generally heterogeneous. Let us turn to a consideration of their main classes.

Composition and subordination as the main methods of grammatical connection of predicative parts in a complex sentence

Predicative units that are components of a complex sentence can be connected by a coordinating, subordinating or undifferentiated connection.

The most important stage in the development of the doctrine of types of connections in a complex sentence was the discussion on the issue of composition and subordination in the 20s of our century. It was discovered by M.N. Peterson, who convincingly showed the uncertainty and instability of the concept of dependence - the independence of the parts of a complex sentence and with great acuity and categoricality expressed the idea that “objective criteria do not make it possible to distinguish the main sentence from the subordinate clause and the composition from the subordination” and that, therefore, in There is no linguistic content in the concepts of composition and subordination.

The most interesting response to this criticism of the doctrine of composition and submission was the article by A.M. Peshkovsky "Does composition and subordination of sentences exist in the Russian language?" Defending composition and subordination as syntactic concepts behind which there is a certain linguistic content, Peshkovsky pointed to a number of formal features that distinguish complex sentences from complex sentences. He finds these features in conjunctional complex sentences. Peshkovsky considers the most important formal difference between composition and subordination to be the difference between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions, which consists in the fact that with subordination, the relation indicator is found only in one of the connected parts - in the subordinate clause, and the subordinating conjunction “not only rhythmically adjoins its sentence, but constitutes it organic formal belonging"; when composing, “relational indicators stand either with each of the correlating ones (in some cases of connecting and dividing composing), or between the correlating ones, without internally merging with any of them.” Therefore, a coordinating conjunction expressing the relationship between the parts of a complex sentence cannot appear before its first part (except in cases of repetition of the conjunction in open structures).

Peshkovsky associates the properties of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions with the difference in the arrangement of parts of a complex sentence during composition and subordination: the subordinate part, to which the indicator of relation is “soldered” - the subordinating conjunction, can stand before or after the main part or be included in it; in a complex sentence, the parts cannot be included in one another, since the indicator of the relationship - the coordinating conjunction - does not organically merge with any of them.

As for non-union sentences, Peshkovsky believes that “here everything depends on how much the meaning of this or that intonation is identical with the meaning of this or that group of conjunctions.” He identifies three types of intonation, which, in his opinion, functionally fully correspond to three groups of conjunctions (causal, explanatory, connecting), and classifies sentences of these intonation types as subordination (the first two) and composition (the third). Sentences in which there is an intonation that is not specific to any particular type of semantic relationship are classified by Peshkovsky as undifferentiated complex sentences. Thus, Peshkovsky was the first to express the idea that the correlative categories of composition and subordination do not cover all complex sentences.

The named article by Peshkovsky, on the basis of which a chapter on composition and subordination was later written in the book “Russian Syntax in Scientific Coverage,” was, in essence, the first attempt in Russian science to show the linguistic essence of composition and subordination in a complex sentence. Before this, for almost a hundred years the concepts of composition and subordination were used without revealing them and without showing what linguistic facts underlie their opposition. The strength of Peshkovsky’s work was his observations of formal differences in composition and subordination and his very desire to look for differences precisely in structure, in form, without breaking away from the linguistic matter.

Behind the traditional concepts of composition and subordination is the intuitive establishment of isomorphism between the connections of parts in a complex sentence and the connections between the forms of words in a phrase and a simple sentence. But are there formal grounds for establishing such isomorphism? Apparently, they can be found only in the sphere of a conjunctive complex sentence, based on differences in the nature of the conjunctive means.

Peshkovsky’s idea that in non-union complex sentences certain groups of conjunctions are identical to intonation is erroneous: intonation is a phenomenon of a completely different nature than conjunctions, and cannot in any way be considered as a linguistic means that has the same purpose as conjunctions. As the observations of researchers indicate, there is no complete correspondence between intonation structures and types of non-conjunctive complex sentences. The same non-conjunctive structure with the same meaning in different speech conditions can have different intonation design, and therefore, in the language system there is no mandatory assignment of certain intonation structures to the corresponding structures of a non-conjunctive complex sentence.

In accordance with the above, there is reason to accept the following definitions of syntactic connection in a complex sentence. The coordinating connection between the components of a complex sentence is similar to the connection between word forms in open and closed coordinating phrases. It is characterized by the fact that the components it connects (forms of words in a phrase and predicative units in a complex sentence) perform the same syntactic function relative to each other and the whole they form. The main means of expressing coordinating connections are coordinating conjunctions. In complex sentences with a coordinating connection, there is no difference in the function of the part introduced by the conjunction and the part not containing the conjunction, and none of the predicative units being connected occupies the syntactic place of the word form within the other part.

The subordinating connection between the components of a complex sentence is similar to the different types of subordinating connections in a phrase and a simple sentence. It may also have no analogues in syntactic connections in a phrase and a simple sentence, but is always characterized by the fact that the elements it combines differ in their syntactic function and each of them has its place in a complex sentence. The means of expressing the subordinating relationship between the components of a complex sentence are specific: the main exponents of the relationship are subordinating conjunctions and relative pronouns (conjunctive words) that acquire the function of a conjunction.

Coordinating and subordinating connections are clearly differentiated in complex sentences of the conjunction type. In non-union complex sentences there is no opposition between coordinating and subordinating connections. Thus, the connection in non-conjunctive complex sentences should be qualified as undifferentiated. The exception is non-union complex sentences of an open structure: The stove is heating up, the lamp is burning brightly, the ancient clock is knocking. In them, the potential quantitative composition itself characterizes the connection as coordinating, since a subordinating connection is necessarily a relationship between two components.

The coordinating connection between the components of a complex sentence can be open or closed (cf. also in coordinating phrases).

Question about sentences with several predicates and one subject

A complex sentence, like other classes of complex sentences, is contrasted with a simple one based on the property of polypredicativity. However, there are syntactic structures, the classification of which is controversial. These are sentences with homogeneous predicates. The solution to the question of the boundaries of complex (and non-union complex) sentences depends on the solution of questions about their status.

Composed unities with predicates, expressed verbal word forms, are considered ambiguously in syntactic science. Some scientists consistently characterize these sentences as complex (A.M. Peshkovsky, F. Travnichek, V.A. Beloshapkova, etc.), others interpret them as transitional constructions (E.N. Shiryaev), others, in some conditions, consider them as simple complicated sentences, in others - as complex ones (L.V. Shcherba, V.V. Babaytseva).

The consideration of composed unities with predicates, expressed verbal word forms, as polypredicative constructions is based on the recognition of the constitutive role of the predicate in a sentence (it is the predicate that is the bearer of predicative categories - categories of time and modality) and on the interpretation of sentences with homogeneous predicates as messages about several situations - or simultaneous ones, or replacing each other. So, from this point of view, the sentence Orshev said goodbye to the infantrymen and warrant officers and jumped to the ground (O. Ermakov) displays two situations that are closely related to each other, but succeed each other in time. This approach is adopted, for example, in “Russian Grammar” (1980). Taking it into account, monosubjective and polysubjective compound sentences are distinguished.

Mono-subjective compound sentences are polypredicative constructions that represent messages about several situations characterized by the unity of the subject: I accepted your challenge, and I can’t go back (S. Soloviev); Princess. I looked again at the roofs and turrets of Krutoyar, at the river emerging with blue, blue water from under the fog, and went back into the sleepy, warm light (A.N. Tolstoy).

Polysubjective compound sentences are polypredicative constructions, parts of which correspond to different subjects: Here comes Yermil. and the horse stares at him. (I. Turgenev); She mastered all the sciences, and Leonardo was her ideal (S. Solovyov).

An intermediate place between simple and complex sentences of the mono-subject type is occupied by sentences in which the predicates have different grammatical design, and are also combined with a large number of distributors, and are characterized by separate adverbial design: She rode boldly, deftly and in her long blue riding habit with a black hat on her head was beautiful (T. Passek); I’ll rest here - on the sunny threshold of someone else’s hut, and I’ll go again in the mossy twilight of the forest road to collect my mushrooms and songs (L. Alekseeva).

The closeness to mono-subject complex sentences is especially clearly manifested:

• 1) with a difference: a) modal plans of the predicates: He would certainly have come to you, but he was afraid to bother you (I. Turgenev); b) indicators of modality: modal verbs, predicatives (necessary, necessary, etc.): He wanted to get up from the sofa - and could not, he wanted to pronounce a word - and his tongue did not obey. Goncharov); I can’t carry it - and I carry my burden (V. Mayakovsky);
• 2) when the species-time plans of the predicates do not coincide: I froze in a long slumber and meet the early darkness. Akhmatova);
• 3) in the presence of lexical specifiers (adverbs, introductory words, particles) with one of the components of the series specifying a particular syntactic meaning: I stole a bunch of keys from her a month ago and, thus, got the opportunity to go out onto the common balcony (M. Bulgakov) .

However, not all constructions that include a number of verbal word forms belong to mono-subject complex sentences. Simple suggestions are:

• 1) sentences with repetition of lexically identical verb forms of different types: Sat and sit; Read and read;
• 2) sentences with repeated (lexically identical) predicates in the same grammatical form: Autumn leaves rustle, rustle, rustle (V. Bryusov); The summer evening is fading, fading (A. Solodovnikov);
• 3) sentences including predicate-convertives: Some people enter and exit; He sells and buys furniture. “Conversives serve to express differences that have a semantic nature; these differences are associated exclusively with the speaker’s way of understanding a certain situation; the situation itself remains unchanged”;
• 4) sentences that include combinations of verbal predicates that denote different phases of one action, dissected in time: He got up and is standing;
• 5) sentences in which a number of verbal predicates have a common modal or phase modifier (an auxiliary part of the predicate with a modal meaning or the meaning of the beginning, end and continuation of the action): And people began to settle this land, build houses, grow bread; She wanted to scream, to call someone for help;
• 6) sentences with composed unities that represent an indivisible combination: He jumped out of the window;
• 7) sentences in which one verbal predicate is syntactically auxiliary and indicates the position of the person at the moment of action, and the other denotes his action, state or the appearance of any sign: She sits and cries; They stand and laugh; He lies and is silent. These combinations are characterized by a strictly fixed order of the components of the series. So, for example, the following combinations are impossible: *The child is crying and lying down; *She thinks and sits;
• 8) sentences in which predicate verbs have common semes, form a synonymous chain, clarify, concretize each other: Martha and her husband moved past him and went out (V. Nabokov);
• 9) sentences in which one of the predicates completely repeats the semantic composition of the other: She cried and sobbed. The verb to cry means “to shed tears, usually making plaintive inarticulate vocal sounds, crying”, the verb to sob is “to cry loudly, convulsively”; thus, the last predicate verb has common semes with the first; in addition, it includes hyposemes for the intensification of the process “loudly, frantically.” The semantic community of predicate verbs can be accompanied by complications with their emotionally expressive connotations (connotations): All his life he lies and deceives;
• 10) sentences in which a coordinating connection combines nominal components with one connective: He was reddish-blond, bearded and so much taller, larger than ordinary people that he could be shown off. (I. Bunin).

Basic literature for the electronic version of the lecture course

• 1. Kryuchkov S.E. and Maksimov L.Yu. Modern Russian language. Syntax of a complex sentence. Textbook manual for pedagogical students. Institute... - M.: Education, 1977. - 191 p.
• 2. Modern Russian language: Theory. Analysis of linguistic units: Textbook. for students higher textbook institutions: In 2 hours - Part 2: Morphology, Syntax / Ed. E.I. Dibrova. - M.: Publishing center "Academy", 2001. - 704 p.
• 3. Modern Russian language: Textbook. for philol. specialist. higher educational institutions / Edited by V.A. Beloshapkova. - M.: Azbukovnik, 1999. - 928 p.
• 4. Modern Russian language: Textbook / Under the general editorship of L.A. Novikova. - St. Petersburg: Lan publishing house, 2001. - 864 p.