E. N. Nikitina, 2011

Vaguely personal proposals– a type of sentences whose main member is a predicate in the form 3l. plural present, future tense, plural form. past tense and subjunctive mood, denoting the action or state of an unnamed personal (see Animacy) subject. For example: Behind the wall sing ;At the door knocked.

The predicate can be either verbal or nominal. The nominal predicate is expressed by a short adjective or short participle; in the nominal predicate, the meanings of the verbal categories of mood, tense, person, as well as the nominal category of number are expressed by a copula (in modern times - a zero copula). For example: Here you are always (were, will be) happy ; At home (were, will be) alarmed .

A nominal predicate can be represented by the indirect case of a noun:

(1) In the Leningrad association high opinion about the innovator (gaz., example from [Grammarika 1980])

Since in such sentences only one main member (“composition”) is verbally represented - the predicate, in Russian studies they are classified as so-called. one-part sentences(term by A. A. Shakhmatov), ​​which are contrasted with two-part sentences (with two main members - subject and predicate). One-part sentences, along with indefinite-personal ones, also include the so-called. definitely-personal, generalized-personal and impersonal sentences: see the articles One-part sentences, Impersonality, Definitely-personal sentences, Incomplete sentences.

The basis for the independent status (structural and semantic) of indefinite-personal sentences is that the subject component (member of the sentence) is not restored from the previous sentence. Thus, indefinitely personal sentences are contrasted with incomplete sentences, the essence of which is the completion of omitted members of the sentence from the previous context. Vague personal sentences are used as a communicative technique of not naming the subject of the action or state reported by the predicate. The reasons for silence may be the subject being unknown to the speaker, the subject being unimportant for the presentation, or, conversely, the subject’s special significance.

For example:

(2) He (Sasha) laughed and also got up, and both went to the house. She (Nadya), tall, beautiful, slender, now seemed very healthy and elegant next to him; she felt it, and she felt sorry for him and somehow embarrassed. When entered into the hall, they were already sitting down to dinner. (A. P. Chekhov. The Bride)

– subject of the predicate entered is restored from the previous context: it is she (Nadya) and he (Sasha), therefore, the sentence When entered to the hall - incomplete.

(3) ...through the open window you could hear how it was were in a hurry, How knocked knives like clapping door on the block. (A. P. Chekhov. The Bride)

– predicates hurried, knocked, clapped denote the actions of performing subjects, servants; these subjects are not named in the pretext, are unknown and unimportant to the one who hears the sound (Nade), therefore, predicates organize indefinitely personal sentences. Wed. also predicate sat down from example (2): this predicate characterizes the general action of the persons in the hall (each of whom is not important to the observer of this scene), these persons are not named in the pretext, therefore, the sentence is one-part.

Traditionally they talk about the unknown, the uncertainty of an unnamed personal subject; uncertainty is proven by the synonymous replacement of an indefinite-personal sentence with a two-part sentence with a subject (subject) - an indefinite-personal pronoun in the im.p. : There was a knock on the door = Someone knocked on the door. With synonymous substitution, substitution of a subject in the plural form into a sentence is impossible: with such substitution the meaning changes, cf.: They are calling you =/=They (people) are calling you.

1. Grammatical semantics of personality

Indefinite-personal sentences are a way of linguistic conceptualization of a special type personal subject. Wed: proposal They meowed outside the window means that the action was performed by a person and not an animal.

The predicate of an indefinite-personal sentence is always in the form plural Categorization of the personal subject precisely by the plural form. (and not singular) is non-random in nature: the plural as a particular meaning of the category of number:

• expressing the idea of ​​a discrete set, it reveals a connection with the category of animacy, maximally realizing the latter (in interaction with the category of case) - see in detail [Onipenko 1998 (2004)], [Uspensky 2004], as well as the article Animacy).

Thus, there are languages ​​in which plural verb agreement is possible only with a personal subject (for example, Arabic), cf. also a couple people(singular, inanimate) – People(plural, soul).

• can express the uncertainty of the subject (see referential status)

Wed. “indefinite plural” in [Plungyan 2011:217], correlated with a singular referent: We have guests;Do you have any vacancies? There are new passengers in the carriage: a young woman with a suitcase(the last example belongs to I.I. Revzin).

• may correspond to a different quantitative composition of subjects (from an indefinite set to one) - see examples above;
• semantically related to the 3rd person zone: 1st–2nd l. (And I, And You) are essentially singular (about the meaning of the category of numbers in pairs I–we, you–you see articles Number, Pronoun);

• in connection with the 3rd person reveals a ban on correlation with the most individual subject – I- subject.

NOTE. The exception is sentences with a shifted focus of empathy. Cm. .

In the system of one-part sentences, it is the plural that categorizes the person, while the singular (together with the 3rd person/neuter gender) categorizes the object - in impersonal sentences with predicates of perceptual semantics, most often sound: There was a knock on the door (\u003d Someone knocked) - There is gurgling in the pipe, gurgling(=Something is gurgling); less often – with predicates of visual semantics (see article Impersonality):

(4) The darkness clicked and turned into a blinding day, and from all sides sparkled, shone And turned white. [M. A. Bulgakov. Heart of a Dog (1925)]

(5) And the next morning turned white outside the windows: snow fell in the frost. [AND. S. Shmelev. The Inexhaustible Chalice (1918)]

(6) Far in the distance, beyond the Don and the wooded area, a little it was glimmering, turned white. [B. Ekimov. Stories (2002)]

2. Status of indefinite sentences in the syntactic system

The question of the syntactic status of indefinite-personal sentences is resolved differently in different syntactic concepts.

1. Independent type of sentence

In traditional Russian studies, indefinite personal sentences are usually considered as an independent type of sentences. Compare, in particular, the interpretation of indefinite personal sentences in the following theories:

• in the syntactic system of A. A. Shakhmatov, who first introduced the concept of “indefinite-personal sentences” into scientific use (1920, published in 1925–1927);
• in morphosyntactic theories (the theory of N.Yu. Shvedova, presented in [Grammar 1980], and the theory of V.A. Beloshapkova, adopted in university teaching, see [Beloshapkova 1997]).

The authors provide one-component structural diagrams (predicative bases) corresponding to indefinite-personal sentences: V 3pl - for the verbal predicate, Adj pl short form. (AG-80) and Cop pl3 Adj fpl (V. A. Beloshapkova) – for the nominal predicate; these schemes do not imply a subject position. These structural patterns are contrasted with the structural patterns of a two-part sentence (N 1 V f , N 1 Cop f N 1/5). The term “vaguely personal proposal” itself is not used in AG-80.

• in the domestic school grammar, which accepts the position that in the syntactic system, indefinite finite sentences are an independent structural type of one-part sentences, delimited from two-part sentences.

2. Result of modification of a two-part sentence

In different syntactic concepts of the late 20th – early 21st centuries. indefinite personal sentences are usually considered against the background of a two-part sentence, from the point of view of the relations of production (from two-part to one-part) - both structural and semantic, both in the paradigm and in the text.

• as a derivative of diathesis of a two-part sentence

Indefinite-personal sentences are considered as a (derived) passive diathesis of a two-part sentence with a predicate - a transitive verb: The worker broke the wall - The wall was broken (by the worker) - The wall was broken[Khrakovsky 1974]; see also [Melchuk 1974]; [Paducheva 2004]. The essence of this modification is a decrease in the communicative rank of the subject of the sentence. See the article Pledge.

This approach, however, does not exhaust the entire scope of indefinite-personal sentences: they can also be organized by intransitive verbs that do not have a passive ( They were talking behind the wall).

In [Plungyan 2011] a different approach to indefinite-personal sentences is proposed in terms of their relationship with passive diathesis. Thus, an indefinite personal sentence is understood in this work as original for collateral transformations with an empty or eliminated subject position: The conversation was interrupted => The conversation was interrupted; Classes were held outdoors=>Classes were held outdoors[Plungyan 2011:262–263]. Regarding a two-part sentence with an expressed Agent, an indefinite-personal sentence is considered as the result of an “interpretive” actant derivation. In this case, the “interpretive” actant derivation, while preserving the place of the actant, does not allow its syntactic embodiment and changes the “referential nature” of the participant in the situation [Plungyan 2011:289]. Thus, indefinitely personal sentences are a way to express “the uncertainty of the subject” [Plungyan 2011:293–294]: Have you read your novel?.

V. A. Plungyan calls this construction impersonal, or impersonal, which does not agree with the terminology adopted in Russian studies, where one-part sentences with a predicate of 3 l are traditionally called impersonal. / average, units ( It's getting dark), see Impersonality. In this regard, E. V. Paducheva proposes, within the framework of Latin-language international linguistic terminology, to change the name of predicates in indefinite-personal sentences to implicit personnel: “this form requires a subject-person, but not syntactically attached to the verb, but implied” [Paducheva 2012:37].

• in the syntactic field of a two-part sentence

Being a structural-semantic modification along the subject line, indefinite-personal sentences organize the “immediate periphery” of the syntactic field of a two-part sentence (Communicative Grammar [KG 1998(2004)]).

• in the derivational paradigm of a two-part sentence

In development of the classification of simple sentences presented in the university textbook ed. V. A. Beloshapkova [Beloshapkova 1997], in the article [Beloshapkova, Shmeleva 1981] the authors propose to consider indefinite-personal sentences as a member of the derivational paradigm of a two-part sentence.

3. Question about the subject of indefinite personal sentences

3.1. Ways to interpret the subject

The syntactic theory of A. A. Shakhmatov, as well as morphosyntactic theories in Soviet linguistics (N. Yu. Shvedova, V. A. Beloshapkova), which insist on the structural one-componentity of indefinite-personal sentences, nevertheless recognize the presence of a subject in the semantics of a sentence. Thus, the structure of the sentence is contrasted with its semantic organization.

In Russian linguistics, there is another tradition - the discovery in the composition of indefinite personal sentences of a subject occupying a position in the structure of the sentence. Thus, I. A. Melchuk [Melchuk 1974] introduces the concept of “syntactic zero”, cf. the concept of “zero sign” in R. O. Yakobson [Yakobson 1985], “subject expressed by zero” in M. V. Panov [Panov 1966]. Syntactic zeros are, according to I. A. Melchuk, a “noun” in im.p. plural Ø plural people in sentences like The street was covered with snow and noun in im.p. units Ø elements units s.r. in sentences like The street was covered with snow.

NOTE. It is interesting that in the work [Melchuk 1974] I. A. Melchuk explains the differences in the semantics of two-part and indefinitely personal sentences ( They're calling - They're calling) first considers the possibility of attributing this semantic difference to the form of the predicate. Thus, I. A. Melchuk reproduces the logic of A. A. Shakhmatov, who spoke about a pair of verb forms - definite-personal and indefinite-personal, and rejects it due to the wastefulness of the description: in this case, almost all verb forms in the lexicon would have to be doubled 3l . plural Instead, I. A. Melchuk proposes an interpretation of “subjectless” sentences through the category of subject: then the lexicon is increased by two “zero” nominal units - a “noun” that serves as the subject of an indefinitely personal sentence, and a “noun” that serves as the subject of an impersonal sentence.

The concept of syntactic zero has gained recognition in modern Russian studies. True, the opinion that the essence of nominal zero units in syntax is their pronominal nature has become more widespread (see works [Yakobson 1985], [Bulygina, Shmelev 1997]; [Testelets 2001]; [Onipenko in press]). T.V. Bulygina, developing the idea of ​​“syntactic zero”, calls the subject of indefinite personal sentences “zero pronoun Ø 3l. plural "[Bulygina 1990]. Wed. traditional interpretation of the semantics of indefinite personal sentences due to synonymy with sentences with an indefinite pronoun someone in the subject position.

In the early 2000s. some researchers return to discussing the very concept of syntactic zero (Ya. G. Testelets, E. V. Paducheva). According to Ya. G. Testelets, “non-zero, phonetically expressed units in grammar are facts which the researcher cannot ignore. Zero units are just hypotheses(a tool for linguistic analysis), although they are often very convenient, and the researcher can always accept or reject the idea of ​​grammatical zero” [Chronicle HF 2010]. E.V. Paducheva also recognizes the hypothetical (non-proving) nature of zero: “We will assume that in NLP<неопределенно-личном предложении>there is an implied subject (zero subject) of the 3rd person – THIRD PERSONAL zero” [Paducheva 2012].

The concept of syntactic zero as a tool of linguistic interpretation allowed I. A. Melchuk to explain not only the semantics of indefinitely personal and impersonal sentences (subject people / subject elemental force), but also the form of person, number / person, number and gender of predicates in these types of sentences for agreement account with zero subjects. By means of the syntactic zero, the use of gerunds and reflexive pronouns in indefinite-personal sentences, which must be coreferent to the zero subject, was also justified (for more information on the control of reflexive pronouns and gerunds as the main formal properties of the subject in the Russian language, see the article Subject). In [Testelets 2001], on the contrary, the very existence of a zero subject is justified due to the possible presence of gerunds and reflexive pronouns in indefinite-personal sentences. See also clause 3.7. The use of gerunds and reflexive pronouns in indefinite-personal sentences.

Completing the position of the subject in Russian “one-part sentences” is natural from a typological perspective, in conditions of reducing private language syntactic phenomena to a supra-linguistic structural invariant. The two-part nature of any sentence is also justified within the framework of classical logic: a thought is two-part, its obligatory components are the subject of thought (subject) and the attribute attributed to it (predicate).

The idea of ​​a two-part sentence is supported in modern functional-explanatory theories of syntax (Communicative grammar of the Russian language by G. A. Zolotova, see [KG 1998 (2004)]). Vague personal sentences are qualified in communicative grammar against the background of a two-part sentence - as its derivative, thereby losing their status as an independent type of sentence and are considered as structurally-semantic modification of a two-part sentence along the line of the subject (for more information about the interpretation of indefinite-personal sentences as derivatives of two-part sentences, see). This takes into account the attitude of the unnamed personal subject to I speaker: the unnamed subject is in a relationship of exclusivity with the subject of speech – I speaker is not part of the subjects referred to in the sentence.

T.V. Bulygina also speaks about the discrepancy (distance) between the subject of speech and the zero subject [Bulygina 1990], for whom it is important that the unnamed subject is not in the “focus of empathy” of the speaker, see the development of these ideas in [Bulygina, Shmelev 1997] .

Vaguely personal sentences, as a particular version of “significant absence,” are interpreted within the framework of the artistic whole in connection with the “image of the author.” For example: And what-what Not chatted ;in a whisper told ;whisper to them noticed ; They talked even in the corners that we might have a murder...(Dostoevsky) – indefinitely personal sentences with predicates – speech verbs in the novel “Demons” are a grammatical means of creating a point of view in terms of psychology and ideology (about the point of view, see [Uspensky 2000]) – the distance of the hero-narrator from urban society.

In grammatical studies of a literary text, indefinitely personal sentences can be interpreted as a means of expressing the semantic category of “foreignness” [Penkovsky 2004]: for example, indefinitely personal sentences are often formalized in the fiction of the 19th century, the actions of servants ( But they bring tea; The countess's carriage was brought), which is a development of the idea of ​​distance between the subject of speech and the subject of action.

3.2. Quantitative composition and certainty/uncertainty of the subject

The justification for the independent structural status of indefinite-personal sentences is the impossibility of restoring the subject from the context - in contrast to incomplete sentences (see Ellipsis). This is true, first of all, in relation to predicates of sound semantics ( There's noise in the yard) and in relation to predicates naming the actions of official and executive authorities ( Our water has been turned off;You are sent on a business trip;The street was blocked etc.), see also [Testelets 2001].

In indefinite-personal sentences, the syntactic zero can correlate with subjects of different quantitative composition and different characterization in terms of definiteness / uncertainty; What they have in common is the personality of the subject, the speaker’s non-inclusion in the composition of the subjects of the action.

a) indefinite subject, open set:

(7) And I am not happy when I ask let me read the novel "The Return". (N. Ilyina)

b) indefinite subject, closed set:

(8) (Called on the phone and told my wife): May 7 will solemnly hand over certificates. (M. L. Gasparov)

c) indefinite subject, singular:

(9) They called by phone, they said to the wife: (on May 7 they will solemnly present certificates). (M. L. Gasparov)

d) a specific subject, a single performer:

(10) When carried away candle, Seryozha heard and felt his mother. (L.N. Tolstoy. Anna Karenina) – Vasily Lukich, Seryozha’s tutor

e) a specific subject, an individual, an antagonist, depicted from the point of view of the hero in the focus of empathy:

(11) He is driving, he has just entered... She meets him. How harsh! His don't see, not a word with him... (A.S. Pushkin. Eugene Onegin) - Tatyana does not see Onegin, the statement is uttered from Onegin’s point of view; Onegin “in the focus of empathy”

(12) Litvinov bowed to him and at that very moment, as if obeying a secret command, he ran towards Irina. She was at home. He ordered to report about himself; him immediately accepted. When he entered, she was standing in the middle of the room. (I. S. Turgenev. Smoke) – in the focus of empathy – Litvinov

(13) Around two o'clock in the afternoon, His Majesty's blue cuirassier Count Aven called here with a bonbonniere from Balle; bonbonniere accepted, but to him refused. <…>Finally, late in the evening, at the end of ten o'clock, a girl from Madame Farnoy appeared with a huge cardboard box; her accepted immediately; but when accepted and there was giggling in the hall about this, the bedroom door clicked, and a curious, tear-stained head stuck out; an angry, hasty cry was heard... (A. Bely. Petersburg) - accepted, refused, accepted- predicates denote the actions of the hostess, Sofya Petrovna Likhutina, who allows the messenger to enter, - from the point of view of the cuirassier or servant; accepted– the predicate denotes the actions of an unnamed servant from the point of view of the narrator or the mistress, Likhutina, who appears in the scene synecdochically: tear-stained head, scream.

Thus, if, when examined in isolation, an important property of indefinite-personal sentences for researchers is their structural-semantic independence, then with a textual approach, researchers discover that indefinite-personal sentences can interact with the context (see Shakhmatov, [Grammatika 1954]): their the zero subject can be conceptualized in connection with a candidate for the role of subject - a noun with the meaning of person in the singular. or plural in the pretext and thereby perform an anaphoric function. Vaguely personal sentences mark the point of view of the hero, who is in the “focus of empathy” [Bulygina 1990], [Bulygina, Shmelev 1997], or the narrator: the author identifies with the hero (internal point of view in relation to the thinking or observing hero), opposing himself to the subject action, which he looks at from the outside (an external point of view on the acting hero). For external and internal points of view, see [Uspensky 2000].

e) I-subject(subject of the maximum degree of reference and individuality) in sentences with displaced"focus of empathy": You They say, put on your coat– in conditions of utterance from the point of view of the addressee (not the speaker, but the addressee in the “focus of empathy”), They wish you well, understand! The fact that an indefinite-personal sentence can express an action I speaker, drew the attention of A. A. Shakhmatov [Shakhmatov 1920], see also [Grammar 1954]. Such usages are commented on by T.V. Bulygina and A.D. Shmelev as follows: “... in principle, statements are possible in which Ø 3mn actually correlates with the speaker; but it is significant that it is in such statements that the effect of “alienation” becomes especially obvious and it is clearly felt that the speaker is taking the point of view of another person” [Bulygina, Shmelev 1997:346].

Subject of sentences with predicate 3l. plural can be understood in the sense of ‘everything, and I including'. Such sentences are called generalized personal: They don’t go to someone else’s monastery with their own rules; Chickens are counted in the fall; They plow the arable land, they don’t wave their arms like that.

So, indefinite-personal sentences reveal the independence of their structure (plural form of the predicate) from the quantitative composition of the conceivable subject, however, the semantics of the conceivable subject may conflict with the name “indefinite-personal sentences”. The ability of indefinite personal sentences to “operate” with the quantitative composition of characters made it possible to call their zero subject “quantifier zero” - by analogy with quantifier pronouns [Onipenko in press].

3.3. Past tense predicates plural with zero subject and the internal point of view problem

The pragmatic characteristic of vaguely personal sentences is represented by the concept of “distance” (exclusivity, exclusion I from the subject of an indefinite personal sentence). But to the semantics of distance from I, characteristic of indefinitely personal sentences, it is impossible to reduce “subjectless” sentences with predicates of the past tense. plural V I-texts (for example, in diaries, letters, artistic texts embodying an internal point of view), where the subjective zero unites I with other subjects, often within the framework of a memory. The usual position of such sentences is the absolute beginning (of a diary entry, paragraph, etc.), which is why such sentences can hardly be called incomplete - due to the lack of pretext, and therefore the referent of the omitted subject.

Anonymity I-the subject intimates the utterance, creates its addresslessness (or being addressed to oneself I), closing the content within I. For example:

(14) Let's go to the Kremlin. There is a month in the sky and pink clouds. Silence, huge drifts of snow. Near the artillery warehouse, a soldier in a sheepskin coat, with a face as if carved out of wood, creaks with felt boots. How unnecessary this guard now seems! Left from the Kremlin - the boys are running and screaming with delight, with unnatural accents. (I. A. Bunin. Damned Days) - fragment from the diaries “Cursed Days”, subjects of sentences with highlighted predicates - I the author of the diary (Bunin) and his wife

The same grammatical technique is used in literary text to create an (almost) internal point of view:

(15) In Oreanda sat on a bench, not far from the church, watched down to the sea and were silent. Yalta was barely visible through the morning fog; white clouds stood motionless on the mountain tops. (A. P. Chekhov. Lady with a Dog) – sentence position – at the beginning of the paragraph; subjects of the selected predicates – Gurov and Anna Sergeevna

(16) We walked And walked And sang"Eternal Memory" and when stopped, it seemed that the legs, the horses, and the blowing wind continued to sing it in the usual way. (B.L. Pasternak. Doctor Zhivago) – the position of the sentence is the absolute beginning.

The considered cases also include a classic example - the beginning of “The Queen of Spades”, organized by two sentences with zero subjects (the first of them by A. A. Shakhmatov [Shakhmatov 2001:81], and in [Grammatika 1952:7] is considered among indefinite-personal ):

(17) One day played in cards from horse guard Narumov. The long winter night passed unnoticed; sat down have dinner at five o'clock in the morning. (A.S. Pushkin. Queen of Spades)

This example has been discussed many times in the philological literature in connection with inclusion/non-inclusion I the narrator into the depicted space and into the composition of the players. In the work “The Style of the Queen of Spades” V.V. Vinogradov indicates the gap between shape predicates (which he called the “indefinite personal form”) and their semantics– the absence of an indication of the subject of action when moving to a new narrative theme inspires “the idea of ​​merging the author with society (i.e. almost giving birth to an image – We)" [Vinogradov 1936]; in other words, a pair of past tense predicates. plural ( played, sat down to dinner), including the mechanism of anaphora, creates conditions for an inclusive understanding of predicates ( I the speaker is part of the subjects of the action, i.e. those who played, sat down to dinner), and not exclusive ( I speaker is not part of the subjects of the action).

Thus, in the context (a coherent text fragment) it may be difficult to qualify such sentences: if in paradigmatic linguistics indefinitely personal and incomplete sentences are clearly opposed, then in syntagmatics a “subjectless” sentence can allow for dual interpretation. In a third-personal narrative, the duality of reading subjective sentences can become a technique of poetics - see the works of A. P. Chekhov.

There are cases when the duality of understanding of such sentences is undesirable (not intended by the author), but possible (that is, different readers interpret the sentence differently). See, for example, different offer qualifications We swam in the Dvina at night(Yu. Kazakov, Northern Diary) in [Grammar 1980] (in which the sentence is classified as indefinitely personal) and in [Paducheva 2012: 35] (which proves that the sentence is incomplete, the subject must be restored in it We).

3.4. Semantics of the “performing” zero in indefinite personal sentences

The texts testify to the semantic dynamics of the “performing” subjective zero in indefinite personal sentences. Performing semantics of the subjective zero in the literature of the 19th – early 20th centuries. was associated with the actions of the authorities and, especially often, servants (the point of view of the hero-nobleman or narrator), and in the 20th century. with the help of vaguely personal sentences, the actions of the authorities are often conveyed, which in [Testelets 2001] are aptly called the “state machine”, cf.:

(18) The French valet handed him shoes with red heels, blue velvet trousers, a pink caftan embroidered with sequins; in the front quickly powdered wig, his brought… (A.S. Pushkin. The Blackamoor of Peter the Great)

(19) Armchairs with grandma straight lowered in the middle of the office, three steps from the general. (F. M. Dostoevsky. Player)

(20) They took me away you at dawn... (A. A. Akhmatova)

(21) Missing Rimsky found with stunning speed; There with Nikanor Ivanovich entered into conversation; That is, how? – asked at Nikanor Ivanovich, squinting. (M. A. Bulgakov. The Master and Margarita)

(22) When rehabilitated Luppola, the wall newspaper published an article “The first director of our institute.” (M. L. Gasparov)

(23) In the USSR shot smart ones, plus a number of those who accidentally fell under the hot hand. [LiveJournal Entry (2004)]

See in Bunin’s diary, written in 1918–20: in this diary we find vaguely personal proposals on the “pre-revolutionary”, noble model (actions of performers):

(24) On Strastnaya stick poster about Yavorskaya's benefit performance. (I. A. Bunin. Damned days)

– and according to the model indicating the position of a private person in relation to the authorities:

(25) From the first of February ordered be a new style. So, in their opinion, today is already the eighteenth. (I. A. Bunin. Damned days)

3.5. “Your novel has been read”

The problem of categorical-semantic boundaries of personality/non-personality, certainty/uncertainty arises when considering the famous phrase from the novel “The Master and Margarita” (see also [Plungyan 2000]; [Paducheva 2001]; [Paducheva 2012]). Turning to the text of the novel allows us to restore the context of the dialogue in which this phrase was heard, its participants, and the person designated by this phrase.

(26) – Have you read your novel?, - Woland spoke, turning to the master, - and they only said one thing, that, unfortunately, it is not finished. So, I wanted to show you your hero.<…>Woland laughed, looking at Margarita, and said: “There’s no need to shout in the mountains, he’s used to landslides anyway, and it won’t alarm him.” You don’t need to ask for him, Margarita, because you already asked for him the one he's so eager to talk to, - here Woland again turned to the master and said: - Well, now you can finish your novel with one phrase! The master seemed to be waiting for this already, while he stood motionless and looked at the sitting procurator. He clasped his hands like a megaphone and shouted so that the echo jumped across the deserted and treeless mountains: “Free!” Free! He's waiting for you!<...>Above the black abyss into which the walls had sunk, an immense city lit up with sparkling idols reigning over it and a garden that had grown luxuriantly over many thousands of these moons. The lunar road long awaited by the procurator stretched straight to this garden, and the pointy-eared dog was the first to run along it. A man in a white cloak with bloody lining rose from his chair and shouted something in a hoarse, ragged voice.<...>All that could be seen was that he, too, quickly ran after his faithful guardian along the lunar road. - Should I go there and get him? – the master asked worriedly, touching the reins. “No,” Woland answered.<...>- So, that’s where it’s going? - asked the master, turned and pointed back to where the recently abandoned city with monastery gingerbread towers, with the sun broken into pieces in the glass, was woven in the rear. “Not either,” Woland replied.<...>- romantic master! The one whom your fictional hero, whom you yourself have just released, is so eager to see, has read your novel.- Here Woland turned to Margarita: - Margarita Nikolaevna! It’s impossible not to believe that you tried to invent the best future for the master, but, really, what I offer you is what I asked for Yeshua for you, for you - even better. (M. A. Bulgakov. The Master and Margarita)

The famous phrase sounds at the end of the novel - in the key dialogue between Woland and the master, in the dialogue of completions, in which, in particular, the fate of the master is decided - as the author of the novel (he must finish his creation - by the highest will: They said that, unfortunately, it is not finished) and as a mortal person (together with Margarita). At the same time, the historical figure, Pilate, appears as the creation of the master, his obedient character, the influence of the will (word) of the master on whom allows the master to complete the suffering of Pilate, and to finish his novel, and to fulfill the highest will; The master's work is completed not in a book, but in a speech act that has an impact on reality ( Free!).

Bulgakov uses the indefinitely personal sentence “non-canonically”: Woland utters the famous phrase - non-person, non-person, and the predicate in it denotes the action of a non-person. Within the framework of a dialogue, the one referred to in the phrase Have you read your novel?, receives four different nominations (point of view in terms of phraseology according to B. A. Uspensky [Uspensky 2000]): (1) as the zero subject of an indefinite personal sentence, (2) as a 3rd person pronoun He, (3) descriptively - through two pronominal sentences T-…To- (the one who...), (4) Yeshua. Thus, as the dialogue develops, the object of nomination receives for the reader a greater and greater degree of certainty and individuality - right up to a proper name (on individuality, see [Stepanov 1981]). It is interesting that Bulgakov gives Woland, who acts as an instrument of the Divine will (“part of that force that eternally wants evil and always does good”), the means of an indefinitely personal proposal, which can also be interpreted in connection with the distance between the subject of action and the subject of speech ( i.e. between Yeshua and Woland), and in connection with the intrigue for the reader (the unknown of the subject of the action), which will receive complete and final resolution at the end of the dialogue. Those. an indefinitely personal sentence receives multiple readings depending on the point of view from which we perceive it: distance from the point of view of Woland (who knows who read the novel) and, possibly, the addressee of the statement - the master (who understands who is being talked about), the unknown of the subject from the point of view of the reader (and Margarita); Therefore, the interpretation of this proposal by E. V. Paducheva is understandable, as she believes that it “expresses uncertainty” [Paducheva 2012].

In this text fragment, the author’s tactics are curious: if in a literary text the subjective zero of an indefinite-personal sentence is usually anaphoric, i.e. is restored from the pretext (see [Bulygina, Shmelev 1997]), then Bulgakov uses the reverse move: the zero pronoun is the subject of an indefinite-personal sentence cataphorically, i.e. is reconstructed from the post-text, thereby moving the reader's attention forward.

3.6. Locatives with subject semantics

In Russian studies, attention has been repeatedly drawn to the fact that prepositional-case groups with locative semantics can metonymically designate indefinite group subjects ([Grammatika 1980]; [Bulygina, Shmelev 1997]; [KG 1998 (2004)]). Locatives from the names of institutions, official bodies, departments, etc. are especially often used. , than the speaker points to the performer - an authoritative, official authority. Usually the locative is at the absolute beginning of the sentence, and the semantics of predicates is limited, mainly mental verbs (such as count), speech (type speak), intellectual (type write), emotive (type welcome), as well as repressive (such as arrest) semantics: In the Kremlin talking about hockey. IN Duma They proposed creating a state fund for alimony.

(27) The IT service determines level of service, but when the idea of ​​SLA is proposed to management, a lot of nuances arise: it turns out that some aspects of business processes are not automated, others require interaction with subcontractors, etc. ["Computerworld" (2004)]

(28) Welcome in Russia increasing the role of African states in world politics, their efforts to resolve the remaining regional conflicts on the continent, their desire for socio-economic development, the establishment of human rights and democracy. [WITH. V. Lavrov. Speech at a reception in honor of Africa Day (2004)]

(29) In the middle of the courtyard in front of the museum building stood a bronze Pushkin, spreading his arms in confusion, as if trying to remind those coming that a dollar at exchange offices they give already 16 (!). [LiveJournal Entry (2004)]

(30) The peaceful Kremlin is preparing for the elections think votes in the referendum offer Kadyrov to represent the country in international humanitarian organizations. ["Tomorrow" (2003)]

(31) As another potential application for its technology the company sees military products. ["Computerworld" (2004)]

(32) Question: How in Russia they estimate results of the EU summit? [Response of the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry to a question from ITAR-TASS and other news agencies in connection with the approval by the EU summit of the text of the Constitution of the European Union (2004)]

(33) A at our school they give free milk and some baked goods to go with it. [Our Children: Teenagers (2004)]

(34) In a huge abandoned cinema in Taipei they play Chinese historical action classic, Kin Hu's 1967 film Dragon Inn. [LiveJournal Entry (2004)]

Locatives with the semantics of home space can also indicate the subject of an indefinite-personal sentence: At home they call him Lesha; In the family they didn't like him.

Locatives with subjective semantics as part of indefinite-personal sentences have the meaning of “part”, i.e. “not all of those who are present in the named space”, cf.: The audience laughed(= all) – The audience laughed(= not all, some), i.e. the composition of subjects has been modified - reduced. Wed. similar ratio of vin.p. – gen.p. (or partitive) objective: drank milk – drank milk.

See, however, the opinion of E. V. Paducheva, who, based on structural considerations, sees a “zero subject” in indefinite-personal sentences with an initial locative [Paducheva 2012]. If we combine these two points of view (Russian about the locative subject and E.V. Paducheva about the zero subject), then this modification can be explained due to the “presence” of a syntactic zero in the sentence, which limits the number of subjects (see about the quantifying nature of zero Ø 3 mln. – [Onipenko in print]).

The semantics of the predicate can limit the subjective understanding of the locative: In the Duma the water was turned off– the locative has only spatial, but not subjective meaning, since the action “turn off the water” does not correlate with the subject - the authority (unlike verbs of speech or repressive semantics).

In design My name is... the absence of spatio-temporal localization and the expansion of the class of subjects to the ultimate maximum (“everyone who knows”) lead to a decrease and, in the limit, to the loss of the actional properties of the verb (approaching the connective) and synonymous relations with nominal identity sentences: My name is Masha = I am Masha, My name is Masha. On the contrary, the appearance of the locative, and thereby spatiotemporal localization, leads to a more actional understanding of the predicate: At home my name is Musya. Therefore, synonymous replacements are also possible - nominative predicative to instrumental predicative (subjectivism of those naming), name is on called: At home they call me (= call me) Musya(for more information about the competition between the nominative and instrumental cases in the predicative position, see the article Nominative Case).

3.7. The use of reflexive pronouns and gerunds in indefinite-personal sentences

Turning to real speech material shows that the correlation of gerunds and reflexive pronouns with the zero subject of indefinite sentences is not consistent due to the discrepancy in the referential and individual status of the zero subject of an indefinite sentence and the subjects to which gerunds and reflexive pronouns are usually coreferent, as well as due to a shift of attention (“focus of empathy”) from the subject of the sentence to the object. For more information about the properties of the subject and the rules for using reflexive pronouns and participles, see the articles Subject, Pronoun and Participle.

Thus, in A. A. Shakhmatov we find: “According to the general rule that prevails throughout the Russian language, the use of gerunds is possible where there is a subject and a predicate. The participle is thus in direct connection with the subject” [Shakhmatov 2001:229]. At the same time, traditional Russian studies recognizes the limited nature of the interaction of gerunds with indefinite personal sentences in particular [Shakhmatov 2001] and with “single-component”<односоставными>in general [Grammar 1980]. Modern studies note that the use of gerunds is typical for sentences with concretely referential, definite, individual subjects (and those in the focus of empathy), see [Glovinskaya 1995], [KG 1998 (2004)], [Nikitina in press]. Wed. also the interaction of non-referential gerunds with basic predicates in sentences with I-by subjects as a trend, as a zone of mass errors [Glovinskaya 1995].

In indefinitely personal sentences, understanding gerunds can be difficult:

(35) That is, how? – asked from Nikanor Ivanovich, squinting(M. A. Bulgakov. The Master and Margarita)

The focus of empathy in this sentence Nikanor Ivanovich: Bulgakov comically plays on the actions of the secret services, boldly combining an indefinitely personal sentence, the subject of which is interpreted non-individually, and a gerund, which requires an individual subject. It seems that gerunds interact normally with 3k predicates. plural rather against the background of the generalized-personal semantics of the subject (which implies the focus of empathy on the subject), rather than exclusive, see, for example: Sitting on matting, they don’t talk about sables. See also the example from the Corpus:

(36) So... One could agree with one statement of Ms. Ryder, and then with a clarification: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon finally realized that not only in the so-called Palestinian Authority, but also in the depths of Israeli land, a more than one generation of those who are only listed as citizens of Israel, but in fact have long become its enemies. But they don’t appease their enemies - they fight them. And only after winning do they sit down at the negotiating table. This is precisely the new reality of Israel, which Ms. Ryder does not see - or rather, does not want to see. How many illegal Arab houses have been built in Israel (what houses? Palaces! [The Swan (2003)]

The highlighted sentences receive a generalized personal reading (“all smart people, and I including’), temporal semantics – ‘always’, their background is a text fragment in the informative register (mode of knowledge).

Below we discuss the possibilities of using an indefinite personal sentence with the subject:

3.7.1. Postpositive participles

Analysis of examples from the Corpus shows that predicates of indefinite-personal sentences (with subjective semantics “do not I") can be accompanied by postpositive gerunds (see below for prepositive gerunds) with interpretative semantics. Thus, the actual action of a certain person is denoted by an indefinitely personal predicate, and the gerund denotes not an action, but an interpretation, an assessment of this action from the point of view of the speaker. Thus, within the framework of the proposal, the effect of a kind of “polyphony” is created. In these cases, the temporal relations between the verbal predicate and the gerund are destroyed (which are possible in the case when both predicates are ascertaining, which allows them to be conceptualized as real actions/states in terms of simultaneity or temporal succession):

(37) To the capital countries Lenya they didn’t let me in, depriving me of thereby giving him the opportunity to achieve global recognition. [AND. E. Keogh. Illusions without illusions (1995-1999)]

(38) About such dwellings they say, offending animals - lair. [IN. M. Shukshin. Viburnum red (1973)]

3.7.2. Prepositive participles

The following cases are possible.

1) In general, prepositive participles show a greater tendency to express proper-temporal relations (SV participles - express temporal succession, denoting a previous action; NSV - simultaneity, see the article Participle) than postpositive ones (which are a way of subjectification), this can be see the iconism of the sign. Temporal relations between the predicate of an indefinite-personal sentence and the gerund are present if they are ascertaining and mean actions. This imposes certain restrictions on the semantics of the subject (definite), and also in terms of spatio-temporal localization, the sentences are maximally individualized: they describe a separate, isolated case in the past or are accompanied by an adverb of time that limits the time frame (i.e. the category of certainty-uncertainty is distributed between name - non-individualized and individualizing means: gerunds and specific spatio-temporal localization).

(39) On the morning of the next day, a detachment of armed riot police appeared, nicknamed by the people “show masks”. At gunpoint, everyone was laid face down on the floor - both women and foreigners who were at the negotiations. Then they destroyed furniture, knocked over several cabinets, broke coffee tables, several computer monitors, and took hard drives and all documents with them. As they were leaving, they hit the lying people on the backs a couple of times with the butts of their machine guns... And the next day the bandits appeared again. Victor realized that things were very bad. He transferred everything to them for the balance of some shell company and left. [A. Tarasov. Millionaire (2004)]

Predicate plural last time in this example can be interpreted as indefinitely personal or understood as an incomplete sentence, the predicate of which is semantically consistent with the subject squad.

Wed. example:

(40) In early childhood, I had the opportunity to lie in our small hospital with a sore throat two or three times. It was boring to listen men who, lighting their first cigarette, remembered that you saw a lot of mice in a dream - why would that be? Or my father-in-law fell into a ditch drunk<...>. If occasionally, having come to their senses, they were interested in my dreams, I got off with empty phrases. “I don’t remember anything. I was running somewhere. I saw birds. Galina Prosovna without a nose.” [Yu. Buyda. City of Executioners]

– the subject of an indefinite personal sentence is localized in time and space – the hospital where the hero lay as a child. Semantically, the subject of an indefinite-personal sentence is comprehended in the pretext - this is men, but not structurally: the subjective zero of an indefinite-personal sentence cannot be coreferent to the verbal object: in the pretext men occupy the position of the object: It was boring listening to men. Semantics of the prepositive participle catching myself– interpretive, perfect, main predicate were interested(=‘asked’) – stating; there is no talk of actual temporal relations between them.

2) Phraseologization of the participle phrase or lexicalization (adverbalization) of a single participle with negation. Negation is a sign interpretative predicate(“polyphony”), a signal of loss of temporary relationships; the absence of punctuation marks in gerunds serves as a signal of the lack of intonation emphasis and an additional signal of the destruction of not only interpredicative relations, but also the actual predicative relations between the zero subject and the forms in question with Not:

(41) In the reception room, where I then moved, without further ado, we took it paper trash bag. [B. Grishchenko. Stranger in the Kremlin (2004)]

(42) Once upon a time, the bronze finger of Leningrad Ilyich pointed to one of the premises of the House of Culture. However, in the recent past, this building was converted into a casino and erotic club. Of course, the close attention of the leader of the world proletariat to a dubious institution seemed inappropriate. sculpture without thinking twice they moved to the territory of a suburban dispensary. ["Evening Yekaterinburg" (2004)]

3.7.3. Reflexive pronouns

Reflexive pronouns within indefinite-personal sentences can interact (on the verge of the norm) with the indirect case, and not with the zero subject in the im.p. (as you might expect, see the articles Pronoun and Subject):

(43) Tourists being evicted from their numbers (Internet resource)

(44) To me already sent to mine address (Internet resource)

As in the case of interaction of gerunds with I, this is not a norm, but rather a grammatical symptom, an indicator that the verbal object (carrying the corresponding morphological form) falls into the focus of empathy.

4. Syntactic synonymy of indefinite-personal sentences

Indefinite sentences organized by transitive verbs are sometimes considered synonyms of passive sentences (see Voice) ( The estimate is prepared by an accountant– The estimate is prepared by an accountant), cm. . Due to the subject semantics and structure of indefinite-personal sentences, we can talk about synonymy with the passive only in cases where the passive sentence satisfies the following structural and semantic requirements:

• correlates with the causative/executive personal subject;
• this person is not named (“syntactic null”);
• indicates distance between the speaker and the subject of the action.

In modern Russian studies, it is believed that there are two ways of expressing the passive in Russian:

• using reflexive verbs - for NSV verbs (see clause 4.1);
• using analytical constructions with participles ending in -н, -т (see passive participles) - for SV verbs (see paragraph 4.2).

For more details, see the article Pledge.

They can claim synonymy with indefinite personal sentences.

4.1. Predicates of indefinite-personal sentences and reflexive-passive predicates as syntactic synonyms

However, in literary texts there are sometimes examples with reflexive-passive imperfective-procedural predicates (within the actual tense) - in multiple meanings; see for example: crowds of wounded... walked, crawled and on stretchers rushed from battery. In this example, there is a general, generalized view of the observer (other terms: panoramic, “bird's eye view” - [Uspensky 2000]) on the vast space and multiplicity of actions and non-referential subjects and objects of action ( crowds of wounded), the multiplicity of actions in the observed space (reproductive register, perceptual mode) approaches the multiplicity of actions in time (informative register, mental mode), the basis of which is the generalizing mental work of the observer - the subject of consciousness.

4.1.3. Syntactic synonyms and the problem of genre

Syntactic synonymy is associated with the problem of genre and mode. Indefinite personal sentences and the passive can enter into synonymous relationships in prescriptive texts. The synonymy of the indefinite-personal sentence and the passive is usually realized in instructive, recommendatory, but not prescriptive texts, for example, in culinary recipes: the onion is chopped, then sauteed - the onion is chopped, then sautéed(about this kind of use of passive forms - the so-called passive recommendation - see in more detail Reflexivity, paragraph 2.2.1) . If a prescription is expressed, then the use of an indefinite personal sentence is uncharacteristic: Photos are cut and pasted – Cut and paste photos – Photos are cut and pasted – ? Photos are cropped and pasted. Wed. also the strangeness of indefinitely personal sentences when expressing a prohibition (it is more natural in this case to use an infinitive construction): Don't walk on the lawn - ? They don't walk on the lawn with normality We don't smoke here(=‘Please do not smoke’, i.e., apparently, in an indefinite-personal sentence the requirement is expressed more gently, in an infinitive sentence it is more categorical).

4.2. SV predicates in indefinite finite sentences and participial predicates: on the problem of syntactic synonymy

Predicates in SV of indefinite-personal sentences can enter into synonymous relations with participial predicates (str., SV, past tense): The flame of the Olympic Games was delivered to St. Petersburg. – On Friday night, the flame of the 2008 Olympic Games was delivered to St. Petersburg by plane from Turkey. Syntactic synonyms have a perfect meaning (= Olympic flame in St. Petersburg): the speaker states the consequence of a completed action (for more information on expressing this meaning with a participial construction, see Passive Participle).

However, these synonymous relationships are limited by genre and functionality. It can be assumed that the discreteness of the subject in an indefinite-personal sentence is semantically connected with its agentivity and, thus, with the maximum control of the subject of the action over the action and its result, in contrast to passiveness: here control over the situation (over the result of the action) passes to the subject of speech , which states a fait accompli. Wed:

(61) In Moscow beaten and robbed son of the President's assistant. (Internet resource) – ??? In Moscow beaten and robbed son of the President's assistant.

Wed. also the inscription on the street memorial tablet:

(62) In 1991 street returned historical name – ??? In 1991 street returned historical name.

Despite the fact that the second option (vaguely personal sentences) is absolutely adequate, in this way it is impossible to convey information about an event in an official message (conveying the point of view of the authorities) - in a newspaper, on television, in a police report. In informal communication, both options seem synonymous.

In the case of a personal object of action and positive semantics of the verb (the action is performed “for the benefit” of its object), synonymous relations between participle and indefinite-personal predicates can be destroyed, cf.: He's combed - He's been combed, which is associated with the opposition of predicates on the basis of controllability / uncontrollability of action. The observed attribute (the result of an action), expressed by a participle, is interpreted in connection with the execution of the will of the object of the action, while in an indefinite-personal sentence the verbal attribute is perceived as not related to the will of the object of the action, the will and control belong to the conceivable subject of the action.

5. Bibliography

• Beloshapkova V.A., Shmeleva T.V. Derivational paradigm of a sentence // Bulletin of Moscow State University, 2. Ser. Philology. 1981. pp. 43–51.
• Bulygina T.V. I, you and others in Russian grammar // RES PHILOLOGICA. Philological research: In memory of Ak. G.V. Stepanova 1919-1986. M.-L. 1990. pp. 111–126.
• Vinogradov V.V. Style of the "Queen of Spades" // Pushkin. Vremnik of the Pushkin Commission of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 2. M.: Publishing house. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1936. pp. 74–147. http://feb-web.ru/feb/pushkin/serial/v36/v36-074-.htm
• Glovinskaya M.Ya. Active processes in grammar (based on innovations and mass language errors) // Russian language of the late twentieth century (1985 – 1995). M. 1996. pp. 237–304.
• http://www.rusgram.narod.ru/
• KG 1998(2004) – Zolotova G.A., Onipenko N.K., Sidorova M.Yu. Communicative grammar of the Russian language. M. 1998(2004). pp. 115–118.
• Nikitina E.N. Once again about participles in indefinite-personal sentences // RYANO (in press).
• philol.msu.ru ›~ruslang/data/pdf/qrlf…2010.pdf http://www.philol.msu.ru/~ruslang/data/pdf/qrlf_8_2010.pdf
• Onipenko N.K. Model of subjective perspective and the problem of classification of egocentric means // Problems of functional grammar. SPb. (in press).
• Paducheva E.V. Causative verbs and decausatives in the Russian language // Russian language in scientific coverage, 1. 2001. pp. 52–79. http://www.ruslang.ru/doc/rjano01.pdf
• Paducheva E.V. Dynamic models in the semantics of vocabulary. M. 2004.
• http://lexicograph.ruslang.ru/TextPdf1/Neopr_Lichn_VYa.pdf
• Panov M.V. Russian language // Languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR. T.1. M. 1966. pp. 106–107.
• Penkovsky A.B. On the semantic category of foreignness in the Russian language // Essays on Russian semantics. M. 2004. P. 5–49.
• Peshkovsky A.M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. M. 1956. pp. 370–376.
• Plungyan V.A. Introduction to grammatical semantics: grammatical meanings and grammatical systems of the world's languages. M.: RSUH. 2011. pp. 191–219.
• Stepanov Yu.S. Names. Predicates. Offers. M. 1981. pp. 85–97.
• Chronicle of HF 2010 – Chronicle of Vinogradov readings at Moscow State University (N.K. Onipenko) // Bulletin of Moscow State University, 4. 2010. pp. 223–226.
• Shakhmatov A.A. Syntax of the Russian language (not finished, 1st edition after the death of the author: 1 volume - 1925; 2 volumes - 1927). M. 2001. pp. 70–81, 125–128 (§116), 229 (§284), 462–465.
• Jacobson R.O. Zero sign // Jacobson R.O. Selected works. M. 1985. http://www.philology.ru/linguistics1/jakobson-85d.htm

6. Basic literature on the topic

• Beloshapkova V.A. (Ed.) Modern Russian language: Textbook. M. 1997. S. 711, 726.
• Bulygina T.V. I, you and others in Russian grammar // RES PHILOLOGICA. Philological research: In memory of Ak. G.V. Stepanova 1919-1986. M.–L. 1990. pp. 111–126.
• Bulygina T.V., Shmelev A.D. Linguistic conceptualization of the world (based on Russian grammar). M. 1997. pp. 335–352.
• Vinogradov V.V. Style of the "Queen of Spades" // Pushkin. Temporary book of the Pushkin Commission of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 2. Ed. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1936. pp. 74–147. http://feb-web.ru/feb/pushkin/serial/v36/v36-074-.htm
• Grammar 1954 – Vinogradov V.V. (Ed.) Grammar of the Russian language: In 2 volumes. M. 1954. Vol. 2. Part 2. P.5–8.
• Grammar 1970 – Shvedova N.Yu. (Ed.) Grammar of the modern Russian literary language. M.: Science. 1970.
• Grammar 1980 – Shvedova N.Yu. (Ed.) Russian grammar. T.2. M. 1980. §§2511–2521. http://www.rusgram.narod.ru/
• Zolotova G.A. Subjective modifications of the Russian sentence // Sagners slavistische Sammlung. Bd 17. Munchen. 1991, pp. 509–515.
• KG 1998 (2004) – Zolotova G.A., Onipenko N.K., Sidorova M.Yu. Communicative grammar of the Russian language. M. 1998 (2004). pp. 115–118.
• Knyazev Yu.p. Verb // Morphology of the modern Russian language. St. Petersburg 2008. pp. 355–542.
• Melchuk I.A. About syntactic zero // Typology of passive constructions. Diathesis and deposits. L. 1974. pp. 343–361.
• Nikitina E.N. Indefinite personality and passiveness: functional differences and identities // Questions of Russian linguistics: Collection of articles. Vol. 13. Phonetics and grammar: present, past, future. M. 2010. pp. 291–302.
• Paducheva E.V. Indefinite-personal sentence and its implied subject // Questions of linguistics, 1. 2012. pp. 27–41.
• Peshkovsky A.M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. M. 2002.
• Plungyan V.A. Introduction to grammatical semantics. Grammatical meanings and grammatical systems of the world's languages. M.: RSUH. 2011. pp. 262–270, 289–297.
• Pushkareva N.V. Vaguely personal sentences as a means of creating a picture of the world in a literary text // Text. Structure and semantics. T.1. M. 2005.
• Bondarko A.V. (Responsible editor) Theory of functional grammar. Personality. Pledgeability. SPb. 1991. pp. 41–120, 168–170.
• Testelets Ya.G. Introduction to general syntax. M. 2001. pp. 310–315.
• Khazova O.N. Russian indefinite personal sentences and their place in the syntactic system of the modern Russian language: Diss…. Ph.D. philological sciences M. 1985.
• Khrakovsky V.S. Passive structures // Typology of passive structures. Diathesis and deposits. L. 1974. P. 5–45.
• Shakhmatov A.A. Syntax of the Russian language. M. 2001.
• Malchukov, A., Siewerska A. (Eds.) Impersonal constructions. A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam–Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2011.

Lesson type: learning new things.
Lesson format: lesson - research.
Goals and objectives of the lesson: create conditions for the development of linguistic competence through:
- formation of concepts about indefinite-personal sentences and the ability to find them by meaning and structural features;
- developing skills in using these sentences in speech;
- developing the ability to systematize material to create a presentation;
- development of communication skills, creative thinking;
- nurturing love for the native language; instilling interest in knowledge.
Equipment: Presentation (attachment to the lesson), on the students’ desks there are sheets of “My Presentation” (for each student).

My presentation

Lesson progress

I. Class organization.
Preparation for perception.
The word Presentation appears on the screen.
Teacher: Guys, you see the word presentation on the screen, tell me, how do you understand the lexical meaning of this word? (Children's statements)
Teacher: Now look at the screen (Appendix. Presentation), where this word and its dictionary entry are written.
Teacher reading the meaning of a word from a presentation slide.

II. Goal setting:
Teacher: Today we have an unusual lesson - a lesson - presentation, I have prepared my presentation for you and I will teach you how to make a presentation using the material from the Russian language lesson. You have sheets on which “slides” are conventionally drawn - rectangles. (Slides are stills from the film “My Presentation”). During the lesson you will have to fill them out.
Let's start working.
The sentence appears on the screen: There was a hesitant knock on the door.
Teacher: Now we will spend a syntactic minute. Let's read the sentence on the screen and determine its type by its structure and the presence of main members. What is it like? (simple in composition, one-component in the presence of main members) Can you determine the type of this one-component sentence? (No)
Do we understand “who was knocking”? (No)
Teacher: The character here is thought of as vague, unclear, and non-specific. I'm telling you that this is vague - a personal proposal.
Today we are teaching you a lesson - research. The object of our research is the topic: “Indefinite - personal proposals.” Write the topic on your “slide No. 1”
The topic of the lesson appears on the screen: “Indefinite - personal sentences”
Teacher: We have a new lesson topic today. What goals and objectives should you set for yourself? Think and write down on your “slide number 2” (Students write goals on their “slide”). Word to the students.
Teacher: I also set goals and objectives for the lesson: (The teacher reads the goals from the slide of his presentation). On the screen are goals and objectives.
* Formation in students of concepts about indefinite-personal sentences and the ability to find them by meaning and structural features.
* Development of skills for students to use these sentences in speech.
* Development of skills to systematize material to create a presentation.
Are our goals the same? Discussion.

III. Preparation for the perception of the topic.
1. Teacher: Let’s check how you prepared a message at home about one-part and definitely personal sentences. (The teacher asks for homework, at the request of the students, one student goes to the board and makes a report)
The teacher asks about additions and corrections.
2. The following sentences are written on the screen (presentation):
Walk through the city on the Neva and take a closer look at it.
The park has been closed for a long time.
Teacher: Write down on your “slide number 3” from the presentation screen definitely a personal proposal. Students work and then tell what sentence they wrote down and why.
I Co-creation. Perception of the new.
1. Teacher: today in the lesson you are not passive listeners, but active participants. Don't forget this.
We have a sentence left on our screen. A new slide appears:
The park was closed a long time ago
How is the main term expressed? What are the grammatical meanings of the verb - predicate? (verb 3rd person, plural, past tense). Is the subject important in this sentence? (No)
Teacher: The main thing in this sentence is action
2. A sentence appears on the screen:
Villages and villages are preparing for sowing.
We work orally. (We determine the form of the verb - predicate - 3rd person, plural, present tense). Is it important in this sentence to know who is preparing to sow? (No)
Conclusions: In this sentence, the main thing is action.
3. On the presentation screen there is a sentence:
Tomorrow we will be given new textbooks.
(We determine the form of the predicate - 3rd person, plural, future tense). Teacher: The main thing in this sentence is also action.
Let's draw conclusions together:
What forms are used to express the verb - predicate in indefinite - personal sentences? (Students' answers)
Conclusion: In indefinite-personal sentences there is no character, it is thought of indefinitely, non-specifically. There is no subject in such sentences. That is why they are called indefinitely personal.
Teacher: Now we will fill out slide 4 of your “presentation”, find it. We need to fill out point 6 of the algorithm, write in what form the verb is used - the predicate in indefinite - personal sentences.
4. On their “slide number 4”, students write down the form in which the verb is used - the predicate.
They write.
Teacher: now check to see if you did the task correctly?
At this time, the full algorithm is displayed on the screen.

IV. Primary consolidation of what has been learned.

1. Teacher: In my presentation for learning new material, I offered 3 vague - personal suggestions. I suggest that on my next “slide No. 5” you also write down 3 vaguely personal sentences that you come up with yourself. We think we are working. (On the screen at this time - the complete algorithm is so).
2. Checking the previous task. Corrections, additions.
3. Working with poetic text.
There are numbered sentences on the screen.
Teacher: You see numbered sentences. Now the guys who are sitting on the first option will write down only the numbers of definitely-personal proposals on their draft (on the other side of the “My Presentation” sheet), and the guys who are sitting on the second option – indefinitely-personal proposals)

Students are working.

1) And on the ruins of autocracy
They will write our names!
A. S. Pushkin

2) I love thunderstorms in early May.
F.I. Tyutchev

3) I love you, Petra’s creation,
I love your strict, slender look!
A.S. Pushkin

4) And then we found a large field.
M. Yu. Lermontov

5) I’m wandering along the embankment again..
Yu. Drunina

Check: The answer appears on the board: 2,3, 5 – definitely – personal suggestions; 1, 4 – vague – personal.
4. Game - competition “Who can find an indefinite personal proposal faster and more correctly?” (The purpose of the game: to check how students have learned to distinguish between definite-personal and indefinite-personal sentences)
The teacher reads the sentence slowly, and the students raise their hands if it is vague - personal; they do not raise their hands if it is a definite - personal sentence.
A). Choose a book to your liking.
B) There is noise in the house.
Q) Will you be from Barnaul?
D) Get ready for the lesson!
D) The children were taught drawing.

5. Reflective stage of the lesson.

Teacher: So, let’s summarize our work:
1). Let's return to the sentence we saw at the beginning of the lesson:
There was a hesitant knock on the door.
Now we can say for sure what kind of proposal this is? Why? Prove. (Student presentations: this is an indefinite personal sentence. Prove)
2). Let's summarize our knowledge on the topic studied. Let’s create our next “slide number 6”. You will write one sentence to summarize (the beginning of the sentence is your choice). You can start the text of your “slide number 6” like this:
Presentation screen:
1. During the lesson I was..., I realized that...
2. During the lesson I felt (a) myself..., learned (a)...
Teacher: Have we accomplished the goals and objectives that we set at the beginning of the lesson? Look at your “slide #2” and answer the question. Student answers.

V. Homework:
Teacher comments on homework

1. On pages 108 – 109, paragraph 22, exercise 213.
2. Individual task: Dima Tyulenev and Vlad Domrachev to create their own presentation using the “slides” compiled during the lesson.

Indefinite-personal sentences are single-component, subjectless sentences, the main member of which is expressed by a verb of the 3rd person plural of the present and future tense, or a plural form (past tense verbs and conditional mood or adjectives). For example: they say, they tell, they will think, they heard, they would leave; (they are) satisfied; (he) is welcome.

When to use vague personal sentences

Vague personal sentences are used either when the character or characters are not that important, or are implied in the text above. The emphasis is on action described in the proposal.

For example: Now all they talk about is you and where you went.

Did you hear how loud it was when it rained today?

You are called to the authorities - it is necessary that you sign.

In the first example, the speaker wants to emphasize that the action of his interlocutor evoked a response from society. In the second, the speaker wonders whether his interlocutor (or several of them) heard him. He is interested in whether the thunder was heard or not, and not who exactly heard it. In the third example, the speaker conveys information to a third party, who must perform the required action. Here the character is obvious from the context and therefore not indicated.

The 3rd person plural form of the predicate verb does not contain information about the number of figures or the degree of their fame. Therefore, this form can express: 1) group of people: They are already working on this problem. At home they were pleased with me; 2) one face: Bring me something. Hand me the book, please; 3) both one person and a group of persons: They listened to me carefully. I was met at the airport; 4) known and unknown person: There is noise on the street, as always. They say you saw her today?

Vague personal sentences are usually common, i.e. include minor members of the sentence. As a rule, they include two groups:

1) Circumstances of place and time, which usually indirectly characterize the figure: Wasn’t they bringing you yesterday?

2) Direct and indirect objects placed at the beginning of the sentence: At home they already know everything.

Vaguely personal sentences are also often used in dialogues. In this case, there is usually a sentence with which this indefinite-personal sentence is associated, for example:

I met my friend yesterday.

So I saw you with her?

The main member of indefinite-personal sentences is expressed by the conjugated form of the plural verb, in the present and future tense - by the third person plural form. The main block diagram is Vf3pl. Another, less characteristic form is a plural adjective combined with a copula, structural diagram - cop Adj pl. Examples: You are asked to answer the phone. The winner is not judged. You won't be understood here. At the hospital they were very helpful with him. Syntactic semantics of indefinite-personal sentences - action, state of an indefinite subject. The uncertainty of the subject means the following: the subject actually exists, but the speaker represents the action without correlating it with the subject, and the action is “alienated” from the subject. Moreover, in reality the subject can be quite definite. For example: Saying goodbye, Ippolitov kissed her hand. For the first time in her life, her hand was kissed. The second sentence is indefinitely personal, the action of the (known) subject is presented in abstraction from it. The speaker's attention is focused on the action, and not on its producer, which becomes unimportant. Another similar example: She's coming towards you, how stern! Hisdon't see , not a word with him(A. Pushkin. Evgeny Onegin). The action “they don’t see” has a specific real subject (Tatyana), but is presented in abstraction from him.

The indefinite personal meaning is created by the plural form, which is used in a special grammatical meaning: not in the direct (action of several subjects), but figuratively (action of an indefinite subject). Wed: There are children in the yard. They run and make noise. The second sentence is two-part, has incomplete realization, the subject is “children”, the plural form of the verb (“noise”) is used in its literal meaning. There's noise in the corridor- an indefinite personal sentence, the subject is unimportant, the plural form of the verb is used in a figurative meaning.

The paradigm of indefinite-personal sentences is complete: the plural form can be found in any mood and tense. Wed: There is noise in the corridor. There was noise in the corridor. There will be noise in the corridor. If there was noise in the corridor... etc.

The meaning of an indefinite subject, as a rule, is supported by other components of the sentence - secondary members, which, as it were, make up for the absence of a component with the meaning of a subject (subject). There are two main types of secondary members in this role:

• 1) A minor member with an adverbial local (spatial) meaning, indirectly indicating the subject. For example: At work they didn't like him.From home they don't answer. The carriages walked in a familiar line, shaking and creaking. The yellow and blue ones were silent,In green cried and sang(A. Blok). In the first sentence, the adverbial component “at work” not only indicates the place of the situation, but also gives an indication of the subject of the situation (“at work” - “those who worked with him”). In the last example, it is interesting to compare the structure and meaning of the last two sentences. “The yellow and blue were silent” is a two-part sentence in which the subjects are expressed by substantivized adjectives in the nominative case (the grammatical form of the subject). “In the greens they cried and sang” is a one-part indefinite-personal sentence with a single main member in the form Vf pl, containing the component “in the greens” with a spatial-subject meaning.
• 2) A minor member with the meaning of an object, standing at the beginning of a sentence - in the position of an absent subject. For example: These berries don't eat.Oil found here back in the nineteenth century.Aksinho married at the age of seventeen. In the first sentence, the component “these berries” is not a subject, but an object (accusative case form). But it is placed at the beginning of the sentence as the topic of the statement, the rheme of which is the main member of the sentence “they don’t eat.”

There are indefinitely personal sentences that are used in an unextended form - as ready-made lexicalized formulas: They're calling. They knock. They're shooting. It is easy to notice that the main members are expressed here by verbs denoting sound manifestations perceived by humans. Wed. also the indefinite personal meaning of the main parts of complex sentences of explanatory type: They say he has already arrived They said that, They believe that. The main members are verbs of speech and mental activity.

The sentence as a lexical unit, its types and features is dealt with by a special section of language - syntax, which translated from Greek means “construction”. Studying syntax and its units will help you acquire more literate, rich speech and teach you how to use all kinds of stylistic means of language. A person who knows syntax constructs sentences logically in speech.

Concept of offer

The central subject of the study of syntax is the sentence. It is with these units that people express thoughts, write and speak.

You can distinguish a sentence from another lexical unit - a phrase - by the following characteristics:

1. A sentence is a statement about some subject of speech. Statements can be different, contain a narrative, a question or an incentive. The acacia flower smells pleasant.(narrative sentence, expresses a message) What do you all need to be happy?(Rozhdestvensky R.) (interrogative sentence, expresses a question) May every day bring you good things!(S. Marshak) (incentive offer, motivates to action)
2. A sentence is a unit of communication. It contains a complete thought, which is why people talk to each other in sentences.
3. It has a grammatical basis.
4. The sentence is distinguished by intonation completeness.

In Russian, sentences are divided into simple and complex. The difference between them is the quantity in the composition of grammatical bases. For example: The earth was beautiful in its wondrous silver shine. (N. Gogol) We want sunny skies to cover every country. (V. Tushnova). The first example is a simple sentence, containing one predicative stem: Earth- subject; she was beautiful- predicate. The second example is a complex sentence, it contains two grammatical bases: the first - We(subject) we want(predicate); second - sky(subject) it dawned on me(predicate).

One-part sentence

The predicative basis is one of the determining factors in the classification of a sentence. According to its composition, simple sentences of the Russian language are divided into one-part and two-part. The latter contain a complete predicative basis: subject and predicate.

A one-part sentence has one main member. Compare: Acacia smells nice. - It smells nice of acacia. The first sentence is two-part: subject - acacia, predicate - smells; the second sentence is one-part, contains only the predicate - smells.

Examples of indefinite personal sentences

When are vague personal clauses used? Examples can be taken from texts of various styles:

1. In the morning they came to call me on behalf of Pugachev (A.S. Pushkin). Predicate they came to call.
2. They told me: “Don’t hope today, Don’t trust in heaven.” And now the flight to Odessa is delayed again, Now the runway is icy (V. Vysotsky). In this example, simple indefinite personal sentences as part of a complex sentence: in the first part the predicate they said, in the second - predicate give.
3. Love is paid for with love (last). Predicate pay.
4. The family and peas are threshing (last). Predicate thresh.
5. Health is judged by how one enjoys the morning and spring (H. Thoreau). Predicates judge, rejoice.
6. When addressing a person in an official setting, they call their first and last name (etiquette). Predicates they call, they call.

The examples given are vaguely personal sentences from fiction and rule books. One can name a large number of examples, because such units help authors achieve narrative dynamics.

Assignments and exercises

Exercises on the topic “One-part sentences” can be different. For example, make vaguely personal sentences, find them among other one-part ones. You can also offer the task of matching sentences with one main member to the predicate.

Let's look at the options:

1. From a two-part sentence " I propose to start work tomorrow" make something vaguely personal. (Answer: They offer to start work tomorrow).
2. Among those presented, find a vaguely personal proposal. A. No letters arrived for six months. B. What grace! Q. Workers are being laid off at the factory. G. I want to be left alone.(The correct answer is letter B.)
3. Determine which one-part sentences were given in the previous task. A - definitely personal; B - nominative; B - vaguely personal; G - impersonal.