UDC 811.161.1
BBK 81.2Rus-92.3
At 15

Valgina N.S.
Rosenthal D.E.
Fomina M.I.

Modern Russian language: Textbook / Edited by N.S. Valgina. - 6th ed., revised. and additional
Moscow: Logos, 2002. 528 p. 5000 copies

Reviewers: Dr. philological sciences Professor N.D. Burvikova,
Doctor of Philology, Professor V.A. Pronin

Contains all sections of the modern Russian language course: vocabulary and phraseology, phonetics, phonology and orthoepy. graphics and spelling, word formation, morphology, syntax and punctuation. In preparing this publication, achievements in the field of the Russian language over the past 15 years have been taken into account. Unlike the fifth edition (M.: graduate School, 1987) the textbook includes materials covering active processes in modern Russian, the list of word formation methods has been expanded. trends in the use of forms are noted grammatical number, gender and case, changes in syntax are taken into account.

For students of higher educational institutions studying in philological and other humanitarian areas and specialties.

ISBN ISBN 5-94010-008-2

Valgina N.S.
Rosenthal D.E.
Fomina M.I.

Modern Russian language
Textbook

From the publisher

This textbook is intended primarily for students of philological specialties of higher educational institutions. But it is also designed for use in educational process By to a wide circle humanitarian specialties - of course, primarily those where mastery of expressive means literary speech is a prerequisite for successful professional activity. It seems that in any case, the textbook will be useful to future lawyers, teachers, art historians, and journalists.
The peculiarity of the publication - the conciseness and compactness of the presentation of the material - takes into account the diversity of needs of the possible audience. Therefore, the duration of the lecture course, practical and independent studies using this textbook may vary depending on the direction, specialty of training of humanists, as well as the form of study: full-time, evening or correspondence.
The textbook contains all sections of the modern Russian language course; vocabulary and phraseology, phonetics, phonology and spelling, graphics and spelling, word formation, morphology, syntax and punctuation.
In preparing this publication, achievements in the field of the Russian language over the past fifteen years were taken into account. The wording of certain theoretical provisions, new concepts were introduced, terminology was clarified, illustrative materials and bibliography were partly updated, active processes in the modern Russian language were highlighted, especially in the field of vocabulary and syntax.
The content of sections and paragraphs has been supplemented with new information, in particular: the provision on the slightly changed status of literary language; the list of word formation methods has been expanded; trends in the use of grammatical number forms are noted; Data is provided on sentences of real and unreal modality, coordination of the forms of subject and predicate, genitive sentences, as well as on the ambiguity of resolving the issue of homogeneity and heterogeneity of predicates, etc.
Thus, the title of the textbook - “Modern Russian Language” - reflects the essential features of the educational material presented in it. Moreover, the textbook to some extent reveals those trends that, as can be foreseen today, will determine the development of the Russian language in the 21st century.
This sixth edition was prepared by N.S. Valgina based on the stable textbook of the same name, which went through five editions.

Introduction

Modern Russian language is national language of the great Russian people, a form of Russian national culture.
The Russian language belongs to the group of Slavic languages, which are divided into three subgroups: eastern - the languages Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian; southern - languages Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Macedonian; Western - languages Polish, Czech, Slovak, Kashubian, Lusatian. Going back to the same source - the common Slavic language, all Slavic languages are close to each other, as evidenced by the similarity of a number of words, as well as the phenomena of the phonetic system and grammatical structure. For example: Russian tribe, Bulgarian tribe, Serbian tribe, Polish plemiê, Czech plemě, Russian clay, Bulgarian clay, Czech hlina, Polish glina; Russian summer, Bulgarian lato, Czech leto, Polish lato; Russian red, Serbian krasan, Czech krasny; Russian milk, Bulgarian milk, Serbian milk, Polish mieko, Czech mleko, etc.
The Russian national language represents a historically established linguistic community and unites the entire set of linguistic means of the Russian people, including all Russian dialects and dialects, as well as social jargons.
Highest form The national Russian language is the Russian literary language.
At different historical stages of the development of the national language - from the national language to the national - in connection with the change and expansion of the social functions of the literary language, the content of the concept of “literary language” changed.
The modern Russian literary language is a standardized language that serves the cultural needs of the Russian people; it is the language of state acts, science, the press, radio, theater, and fiction.
“The division of language into literary and folk,” wrote A.M. Bitter, means only that we have, so to speak, a “raw” language and processed by masters.”
The standardization of a literary language lies in the fact that the composition of the dictionary in it is regulated, the meaning and use of words, pronunciation, spelling and formation of grammatical forms of words follow a generally accepted pattern. The concept of norm, however, does not exclude in some cases options reflecting changes that constantly occur in language as a means human communication. For example, the following stress options are considered literary: far - far, high - high, otherwise - otherwise; gram, forms: waving - waving, meowing - meowing, rinsing - rinsing.
Modern literary language, not without the influence of the media, is noticeably changing its status: the norm is becoming less rigid, allowing for variation. It focuses not on inviolability and universality, but rather on communicative expediency. Therefore, the norm today is often not so much a ban on something as an opportunity to choose. The border between normativity and non-normativity is sometimes blurred, and some colloquial and colloquial linguistic facts become variants of the norm. Becoming a public domain, the literary language easily absorbs previously forbidden means linguistic expression. It is enough to give an example active use the word “lawlessness,” which previously belonged to criminal jargon.
Literary language has two forms: oral and written, which are characterized by features both in terms of lexical composition and grammatical structure, because they are designed for different types perception - auditory and visual.
Written literary language differs from oral language primarily in the greater complexity of syntax and the presence of a large amount of abstract vocabulary, as well as terminological vocabulary, in particular international. Written literary language has stylistic varieties: scientific, official business, journalistic, and artistic styles.
Literary language, as a standardized, processed national language, is opposed to local dialects and jargons. Russian dialects are united into two main groups: the Northern Russian dialect and the Southern Russian dialect. Each group has its own distinctive features in pronunciation, in vocabulary and in grammatical forms. In addition, there are Central Russian dialects, which reflect the features of both dialects.
The modern Russian literary language is the language of interethnic communication between peoples Russian Federation. The Russian literary language introduces all the peoples of Russia to the culture of the great Russian people.
Since 1945, the UN Charter has recognized the Russian language as one of the official languages peace.
Numerous statements of great Russian writers and public figures, as well as many progressive foreign writers about power, wealth and artistic expression Russian language. Derzhavin and Karamzin, Pushkin and Gogol, Belinsky and Chernyshevsky, Turgenev and Tolstoy spoke enthusiastically about the Russian language.
The modern Russian language course consists of the following sections: vocabulary and phraseology, phonetics and phonology, spelling, graphics and spelling, word formation, grammar (morphology and syntax), punctuation.
Vocabulary and phraseology study the vocabulary and phraseological composition of the Russian language and the patterns of its development.
Phonetics describes the sound composition of the modern Russian literary language and the main sound processes occurring in the language; the subject of phonology is phonemes - the shortest sound units, serving to distinguish the sound shells of words and their forms.
Orthoepy studies the norms of modern Russian literary pronunciation.
Graphics introduces the composition of the Russian alphabet, the relationship between letters and sounds, and spelling introduces the basic principle of Russian writing - morphological, as well as phonetic and traditional spellings. Spelling is a set of rules that determine the spelling of words.
Word formation studies morphological composition words and the main types of formation of new words: morphological, morphological-syntactic, lexical-semantic, lexical-syntactic.
Morphology is the study of grammatical categories and grammatical forms of words. She studies lexico-grammatical word ranks, the interaction of lexical and grammatical meanings of a word and ways of expressing grammatical meanings in the Russian language.
Syntax is the study of sentences and phrases. Syntax studies the basic syntactic units - phrases and sentences, types syntactic connection, types of sentences and their structure.
Punctuation is built on the basis of syntax - a set of rules for placing punctuation marks.

Superlinguist is an electronic scientific library, dedicated to theoretical and applied issues of linguistics, as well as the study of various languages.

How the site works

The site consists of sections, each of which includes further subsections.

Home. This section presents general information about the site. Here you can also contact the site administration through the “Contacts” item.

Books. This is the largest section of the site. Here are books (textbooks, monographs, dictionaries, encyclopedias, reference books) on various linguistic areas and languages, full list which are presented in the "Books" section.

For a student. This section contains a lot of useful materials for students: essays, coursework, dissertations, lecture notes, answers to exams.

Our library is designed for any circle of readers dealing with linguistics and languages, from a schoolchild who is just approaching this field to a leading linguist working on his next work.

What is the main purpose of the site

The main goal of the project is to increase scientific and educational level persons interested in linguistics and studying various languages.

What resources are contained on the site?

The site contains textbooks, monographs, dictionaries, reference books, encyclopedias, periodicals, abstracts and dissertations on various directions and languages. Materials are presented in .doc (MS Word), .pdf (Acrobat Reader), .djvu (WinDjvu) and txt formats. Each file is archived (WinRAR).

(1 Voted)

Valgina N.S.

Text theory

Valgina N.S. . Text theory. - M.: Logos, 2003. – 280 s.. E-book. Linguistics. Text linguistics

Abstract (description)

Textbook “Text Theory” – new book prominent Russian philologist Professor N.S. Valgina. Based on the experience of teaching this course at Moscow state university press and the results of many years of research, the book reveals the structure and semantics of the text, the mechanisms of its formation and perception, defines the concepts of meaning and significance, type of information and type of speech, image of the author and image of style. A special place is given to the information richness of the text and ways to increase it.
For students of higher educational institutions studying in the specialties and areas of “Philology”, “Linguistics”, “Literary Studies”. “Journalism”, “Book Science”, “Publishing and Editing”. Of interest to linguists, philosophers, psychologists, cultural experts and press workers, teachers and specialists in a wide range of humanities disciplines.

Contents (table of contents)

Preface
Text theory. Its subject and object
Text and its perception
Functional and pragmatic aspects in text learning
Text as a complete informational and structural whole. Units of text
Pragmatic setting of the text and pragmatic setting of the author
Units of text – utterance and interphrase unity
Integrity and coherence as constructive features of a text
Re-nomination
Paragraph as a compositional and stylistic unit of text
Types of thematic (classic) paragraph
Paragraph Functions
Types of information and functional-semantic types of speech (methods of presentation)
Author's modality. Author's image
Types of texts
Non-fiction and fiction texts
Verbal (artistic) image
Inverted image
Categories of time and space in literary and non-fiction texts
Text within text
Forms of representation of authorship in literary and non-fiction texts
Monologue and dialogic text
Literary text, prose and poetry
The concept of creolized text
Text as a functional-style category
Manifestation of the author's individuality in the style of the text
information content of the text and ways to increase it
Semiotic and communicative methods of compressing information in text
Meaning and meaning. Text reading depth
Information-structural and tonal (stylistic) characteristics of the text
Style as a means of realizing the constructive idea of a work
Conclusion
Application. Sample program course "Text Theory"
Bibliography

Valgina N.S. Syntax of modern Russian language

Valgina N.S.

Syntax of the modern Russian language: Textbook

M.: Agar, 2000. 416 p. 10000 copies

The textbook contains program material on all sections of the course on the syntax of the modern Russian language: phrases; simple and complex sentences; complex syntactic whole (interphrase unity) and paragraph.

Syntactic units are assessed from the point of view of the normativity of their use, synonymous and stylistic possibilities. The grammatical structure of syntactic units, their meaning and functions in speech, as well as the practice of use are considered. The principle of semantic-structural description of phrases and sentences and the conditions of their functioning is consistently carried out.

The principles of Russian punctuation and the main functions of punctuation marks are determined, taking into account modern printing practice.

ISBN 5-89218-113-8

Preface

OFFER

1. Proposal and its signs

COMBINATION

2. Brief history question

3. Collocation and its relationship to the word and sentence

4. Quantitative-structural types of phrases

5. Lexico-grammatical types of phrases

5.1. Verb phrases

5.2. Noun phrases

5.3. Adverbial phrases

6. Word combinations free and non-free

7. Syntactic relationships between the components of the phrase

8. Means of expressing syntactic relations in phrases and sentences

9. Types of syntactic connections in a phrase

10. Types of syntactic connections in a sentence

11. Components of phrases and members of sentences

TYPES OF OFFERS

12. General information

13. Proposals of real and unreal modality. affirmative and negative sentences

14. Declarative, interrogative and incentive sentences

15. Exclamatory sentences

16. Common and non-common offers

17. Two-part and one-part sentences

18. Complete and incomplete sentences

19. Simple and complex sentences

STRUCTURE OF A TWO-PART SENTENCE

20. Main members of a two-part sentence

21. Secondary members of the sentence, their syntactic functions

WAYS OF EXPRESSING THE SUBJECT

22. Expressing the subject using different parts of speech

23. Subject expressed by phrase

TYPES OF PREBACENT AND WAYS OF ITS EXPRESSION

24. General principle classification of predicates

25. Simple verbal predicate

26. Complex verb predicate

27. Compound verb predicate

28. Nominal predicate and types of connectives in it

29. Nominal part predicate

30. Mixed predicate

31. Predicate, expressed by an adverb and interjection

32. Grammatical coordination subject and predicate forms

SECONDARY MEMBERS OF THE SENTENCE

33. Brief history of the issue

34. Morphologized and non-morphologized minor members of the sentence

35. Definitions agreed and inconsistent

36. Application

37. Ways of expressing additions

38. Types of additions and their meanings

39. Additions in active and passive phrases

40. Ways of expressing circumstances

41. Types of circumstances by meaning

WORD ORDER IN A SIMPLE SENTENCE. CURRENT MEMBER OFFER

42. Word order and its role in the organization of speech

43. Syntactic and actual division of sentences. word order and context

44. Word order is stylistically neutral and stylistically significant

45. Grammatical significance of word order

46. The order of the members of the sentence

SINGLE SENTENCES

47. General information about one-part sentences

48. On the history of the issue of one-part sentences

49. Definitely personal proposals

50. Vaguely personal sentences

51. Generalized personal sentences

52. Impersonal offers

53. Infinitive sentences

54. Nominative sentences

55. Constructions that coincide in form with nominative sentences

55.1. Nominative case as a simple name

55.2. The nominative case as a predicate in a two-part sentence

55.3. Nominative cases used in isolation

56. Genitive sentences

WORDS-SENTENCES

57. General information

58. Types of word-sentences

INCOMPLETE AND ELLIPTICAL SENTENCES

59. General information about incomplete sentences

60. Types of incomplete sentences

61. Incomplete sentences in dialogical speech

62. Elliptical sentences

63. Stylistic differentiation of incomplete and elliptical sentences

HOMOGENEOUS TERMS OF THE SENTENCE

64. The concept of syntactic homogeneity and homogeneous members offers

65. Homogeneous main members of a sentence

66. Form of the predicate in sentences with homogeneous subjects

67. Homogeneous secondary members of a sentence

68. Homogeneous and heterogeneous agreed definitions

69. Form of the defined word with several definitions connected by conjunctions

70. Unions with homogeneous members of the sentence

71. Prepositions with homogeneous members of a sentence

72. Generalizing units for homogeneous members of a sentence

SEPARATE MEMBERS OF THE OFFER

73. General concepts

74. From the history of the issue of isolated members of a sentence

75. Separate agreed and inconsistent definitions

76. Standalone applications

77. Isolated circumstances expressed by gerunds and participial phrases

78. Isolated circumstances expressed by nouns and adverbs

79. Separate revolutions with the meaning of inclusion, exclusion and substitution

80. Clarifying, explanatory and connecting members of a sentence

81. Semantic and stylistic functions of isolated members of a sentence

INPUT AND INSERT STRUCTURES

82. General information

83. Introductory words and word combinations

84. Introductory sentences

85. Plug-in structures

APPEAL

86. Concept of conversion

87. Ways of expressing appeals

CONNECTING STRUCTURES

88. Brief history of the issue

89. The essence of accession

90. Structural and grammatical types of connecting structures

90.1. Union connection structures

90.2. Unionless connecting structures

91. Semantic and stylistic functions of connecting structures

COMPLEX SENTENCE

92. The concept of a complex sentence

93. General classification complex sentences

94. Means of expressing syntactic relationships between parts of a complex sentence

COMPLEX SENTENCE

95. Structure of compound sentences

96. Types of compound sentences

97. Sentences with connecting conjunctions

98. Sentences with adversative conjunctions

99. Sentences with disjunctive conjunctions

100. Sentences with gradational conjunctions

101. Compound sentences with connecting relations

COMPLEX SENTENCE

102. General information

103. Brief history of the issue

104. Complex sentences with conditional and non-verbal dependent clauses

105. Grammatical means of connecting parts in a complex sentence

106. Semantic-structural types of complex sentences

107. Complex sentences with attributive subordinate clause

107.1. Subsubstantive-defining sentences

107.2. Pronominal-defining sentences

108. Complex sentences with explanatory clauses

108.1. Explanatory clauses with conjunctive subordination

108.2. Explanatory clauses with relative subordination

108.3. The use of correlative words in explanatory clauses

109. Complex sentences with subordinate clauses

109.1. Complex sentences with simultaneity relation

109.2. Complex sentences with multitemporal relations

110. Complex sentences with subordinate clauses

111. Complex sentences with subordinate clauses of reason

112. Complex sentences with subordinate parts of manner of action, measure and degree

113. Complex sentences with a comparative clause

114. Complex sentences with a conditional clause

115. Complex applications with subordinate clause

116. Complex sentences with subordinate clauses

117. Complex sentences with a subordinate part of the goal

118. Complex sentences with a subordinate clause

119. Complex sentences with comparative relations between parts

120. Complex sentences with explanatory relationships between parts

UNIONAL COMPLEX SENTENCE

121. General information

122. Types of non-union complex sentences

COMPLEX SENTENCES CONSISTING OF MORE THAN TWO PREDICATIVE UNITS

123. General information

124. Polynomial complex sentences

124.1. Sentences with coordinating links

124.2. Sentences with subordinating connections

124.3. Proposals with non-union connection

125. Complex syntactic constructions

126. Contaminated types of complex syntactic constructions

127. Period

COMPLEX SYNTACTIC WHOLE

128. General information

129. Structural features of complex syntactic integers

130. General information

131. Paragraph and complex syntactic whole

132. Paragraph in dialogic and monologue speech

ALIEN SPEECH

133. The concept of someone else’s speech and methods of its transmission

135. Indirect speech

136. Improperly direct speech

PUNCTUATION

137. The concept of punctuation and the history of its study

138. Three principles of Russian punctuation

139. Basic functions of punctuation marks

140. Punctuation features related to the functional purpose of the text

142. Historical variability of punctuation

SYNTAX AND ITS SUBJECT. BASIC SYNTACTIC CONCEPTS

The term “syntax” is used primarily to designate the syntactic structure of a language, which, together with the morphological structure, constitutes the grammar of the language. At the same time, “syntax” as a term is also applicable to the doctrine of syntactic structure; in this case, syntax is a branch of linguistics, the subject of study of which is the syntactic structure of language, i.e. its syntactic units and connections and relationships between them.

The division of grammar into morphology and syntax is determined by the very essence of the objects being studied.

Morphology studies the meanings and forms of words as elements of intraverbal opposition; the meanings of verbal forms that arise in combination with other verbal forms, meanings determined by the laws of word compatibility and sentence construction are the subject of syntax. Therefore in in a broad sense word syntax (gr. syntaxis - composition) is a section of grammar that studies the structure of coherent speech.

If morphology studies words in the aggregate of all possible forms, then syntax studies the functioning of a separate form of a word in various syntactic associations. The minimum unit of communication is a sentence. However syntactic properties words are manifested not only in a sentence, the structure of which is entirely subordinated to the tasks of communication. The syntactic properties of words are also found at a lower level of the language system - in phrases, which are semantic and grammatical combinations of words. Consequently, syntax studies the sentence - its structure, grammatical properties and types, as well as the phrase - the minimal grammatically related combination of words. In this sense, we can talk about the syntax of a sentence and the syntax of a phrase.

The syntax of a phrase reveals the syntactic properties of individual words and establishes the rules for their compatibility with other words, and these rules are determined by the grammatical features of the word as a certain part of speech. Thus, the possibility of phrases like the red banner is determined by the grammatical properties of the combined names: a noun as a part of speech has the property of grammatically subordinating an adjective, and an adjective, as the most consistent part of speech, is able to take a form determined by the form of the noun, which is externally revealed in its inflection; phrases like write a letter also rely on the grammatical properties of combining words: it’s interesting that in in this case even the very grammatical property of the verb (transitivity) is associated with the need to be combined with a certain form of the name; transitive verbs are not only capable of subordinating names, but also need this to express their own semantics. The syntax of the phrase in general language system is a transitional step from the lexical-morphological level to the syntactic level itself. This transitivity is due to the duality of the nature of the phrase, which is as follows. A phrase is constructed from individual lexical units, i.e., like a sentence, it is structurally formed. The functional significance of these units is different - it does not rise above the significance of lexical units.

The syntax of a sentence is a qualitatively new stage in the general language system, determining the linguistic essence, the communicative and functional significance of the language. The syntax of a sentence is based on the study of units of the communicative plan. Connections and relationships between word forms and phrases as part of a sentence are subject to the goals of communication, therefore they are different from connections and relationships between the components of a phrase. However, even at this linguistic level, the general linguistic systematicity manifests itself quite clearly. For example, many even complex syntactic units are structurally based on morphological-syntactic relations, in particular complex sentences with conditional dependence: with an explanatory clause at transitive verb, with the attributive subsubstantive part and others, since such subordinate clauses do not extend the entire subordinating part of the sentence, but separate word in it (or a phrase) as a lexical-morphological unit. The presence of attributive clauses is dictated by the grammatical properties of the name, and the same properties that determine the possibility of a consistent adjective or participle, as well as an inconsistent form of designation of a feature as part of a phrase or the presence of a consistent separate definition in a simple complicated sentence; the same in sentences with verb dependence: extending verb subordinate clause, is determined by the lexico-grammatical properties of the verb. Compare, for example: Dagny felt a rush of air that came from the music and forced herself to calm down. - Dagny felt a rush of air coming from the music and forced herself to calm down (Paust.); Around the clearing where the guys were sitting, birch, aspen and alder trees grew lushly! (Pan.). - Around the clearing, with the children sitting on it, birch, aspen and alder grew lushly; Walking through the courtyard, Seryozha saw that the shutters on his windows were also closed (Pan.). - Seryozha saw the closed shutters...

The general linguistic systematicity is emphasized by the presence of interconnectedness and interpenetration of phenomena of different language levels. This is the foundation on which the building of the general language system rests firmly and which does not allow its individual links to crumble.

So, a phrase and a sentence are distinguished as syntactic units of different levels: a phrase is a pre-communicative level, a sentence is a communicative level, and a phrase is included in the system of communicative means only through a sentence. However, the identification of these syntactic units turns out to be insufficient to judge the ultimate unit of syntactic division. Thus, it is impossible, for example, to recognize a phrase as a minimal syntactic unit. The very concept of a phrase contradicts this, since it presupposes some kind of unification of components. The word as such, as an element of the lexical composition of the language, cannot be recognized as a minimal syntactic unit, since when combined in syntactic units, it is not words in general that are combined, but in the aggregate of them morphological forms, but certain forms of words necessary to express a given content (of course, if form-building is possible). For example, in the combination autumn foliage, two forms of the word are combined - the feminine form singular nominative case noun and the same form of adjective. Consequently, the primary syntactic unit can be recognized as the form of a word or the syntactic form of a word. This also applies to those combining components when the words are devoid of the sign of formation, for example: very fruitful, very pleasant.

The form of a word is, first of all, an element of a phrase. However, its role and purpose are not limited to this. The syntactic form of a word can act as a “building element” not only as part of a phrase, but also as part of a sentence, when it extends the sentence itself or participates in the construction of its basis, for example: It’s damp in the forest; Snow is falling outside the windows; Moscow in festive decorations. It follows from this that syntactic form words participate in the construction of sentences either directly or through a phrase. The existence of a word form as a syntactic unit is confirmed by the extreme case of its functioning, when the syntactic form of a word is transformed into a sentence, i.e. into a unit of a different syntactic level. For example: On a ship, on the way from Palestine to Odessa. Among the deck passengers are many Russian men and women (Bun.). The syntactic form of a word and phrase, on the one hand, and a sentence, on the other, are syntactic units of different functional significance and different syntactic levels, but the units are interconnected and interdependent, units of the general syntactic system of the language. However, even a sentence, being a unit of communication, is significant in language only as a small particular link, which structurally, semantically, and accentologically is subordinate to the general tasks of communication, i.e. acquires its specificity only in connection with other links (proposals). This is how the syntax of a complex whole arises, the syntax of coherent speech, the syntax of a text, which studies units larger than a single sentence, units that have their own rules and laws of construction.

Defining a set of syntactic units is by no means sufficient to describe the syntactic system of a language, since a system is not only a set of elements, but also their connections and relationships. Thus, a syntactic connection serves to express the dependence and interdependence of the elements of a phrase and a sentence and forms syntactic relationships, i.e. those types of syntactic correspondence that are regularly identified in syntactic units, regardless of their level. For example: as a result subordinating connection coordination in combination stone house attributive relations are born between the forms of words in a given syntactic unit; control communication has become the basis for object relations combined to buy a book.

Predicative relations arise as a result of the syntactic connection of the main members of the sentence. At the level of a complex sentence, different types of syntactic connections (subordinating, coordinating, non-conjunctive) also form syntactic relationships - cause-and-effect, temporal, target, comparative-adversative, enumerative, etc. This means that syntax studies the syntactic units of language in their connections and relationships. Content syntactic relations two-dimensional: on the one hand, it reflects the phenomena of the real world, from which it derives its information content (the relationship between an object and its attribute, an action and an object, etc.); on the other hand, it is based on the interaction of the components of the actual syntactic units (dependence, for example, of the controlled form of a word on the controlling one, the coordinated one on the one that determines this coordination, etc.), i.e. relies on syntactic connections. This two-dimensionality of the content of syntactic relations is the essence of syntactic semantics in general and the semantics of syntactic units in particular. Syntactic semantics (or syntactic meaning) is inherent in any syntactic unit and represents its content side; semantic structure Naturally, they can only have units that can be decomposed into components (word combinations, sentences). If we turn to the main syntactic unit - the sentence, then, based on what has been said, one can find in it the content side (reflection of real objects, actions and features) and formal organization ( grammatical structure). However, neither one nor the other reveals another side of the proposal - its communicative significance, its purpose. So, content (what is transmitted), form (how is transmitted) and purpose (for what is transmitted) - these are three conditionally isolated (they exist in unity) aspects of the sentence, which served as the basis for different approaches to the study of sentences - semantic, structural and communicative. All three sides of one phenomenon have “deep analogy and parallelism.” For example, in the simplest sentence The bird flies, the semantic structures (the real bearer of the attribute and the attribute), syntactic, or formal-grammatical (subject and predicate), and communicative (given, i.e. the initial moment of the utterance, and new, i.e. . what is communicated about the given, or, in other terminology, theme and rheme). However, this relationship can be violated, and it is precisely this possible discrepancy between the components of the syntactic, semantic and communicative structure of a sentence that justifies the thesis about the existence and independence of all three levels of sentence division. For example, in the sentence He has fun, a coincidence can only be found regarding the function of the component fun: it is a syntactic predicate, a semantic predicate, and a rheme of the message, while the component to him is the semantic subject of the state and at the same time the topic of the message, but it is not the subject.

Syntactic science knows all three aspects of the study of a sentence, as a result of which an opinion has been formed about the need to distinguish, accordingly, a sentence in a language (taking into account its syntactic semantics and formal organization) and a sentence in speech, i.e. a proposal implemented in a context, in a specific speech situation(taking into account its communicative orientation). The latter is usually called a statement, although the same term is often used - a sentence, meaning its speech content.

A set of syntactic units isolated in a language forms its syntactic means. Like any other, syntactic means have their own specific purpose, i.e. do not exist on their own, but for the sake of certain functions. The particular functions of syntactic units are determined by the general communicative function of syntax. If the communicative function is performed by a sentence (utterance) as a syntactic unit, then the function of any syntactic unit up to communicative level(syntactic form of a word, phrase) we can recognize the role of this unit in the construction of a sentence (as a component of a phrase or a member of a sentence). The concept of function is often identified with the concept of syntactic meaning and, therefore, is directly associated with syntactic semantics. With the differentiated use of these terms, meaning is understood as the expression of extra-linguistic relations, i.e. relations of real reality, in this case the content of the term “function” remains the actual syntactic indicators - “constructive”, associative functions.

To designate syntactic units divided into components, there is also the term “syntactic construction”, which is used both in relation to an abstract language model and in relation to a concrete one. linguistic unit built according to this model.

In the general language system, the syntactic side occupies special place- this is a phenomenon higher order, because to express thoughts it is not enough just to select lexical material; it is necessary to correctly and clearly establish the connection between words and groups of words. No matter how rich you are vocabulary language, ultimately, it always lends itself to inventory. But “the language is inexhaustible in combining words.” It is in the structure of the language, i.e. in its grammar (and primarily in syntax), the basis of its national specificity is laid. It is known that many words in the Russian language are of foreign origin, but they easily coexist with native Russian words. Time has made such words as beets, bed, money, etc., completely Russian, precisely because they obeyed the rules of compatibility of words in the Russian language. In the grammatical design of a word, the syntactic side always comes first: thus, many morphological properties of a word appear as a result of the specifics of its functioning in a sentence; a vivid example of this is the history of the formation and development of adverbs.

The principles of Russian punctuation and the main functions of punctuation marks are determined, taking into account modern printing practice.

SYNTAX AND ITS SUBJECT. BASIC SYNTACTIC CONCEPTS

The division of grammar into morphology and syntax is determined by the very essence of the objects being studied.

Morphology studies the meanings and forms of words as elements of intraverbal opposition; the meanings of verbal forms that arise in combination with other verbal forms, the meanings determined by the laws of compatibility of words and the construction of sentences, are the subject of syntax. Therefore, in the broad sense of the word, syntax (gr. syntaxis - composition) is a section of grammar that studies the structure of coherent speech.

If morphology studies words in the totality of all possible forms, then syntax studies the functioning of a separate form of a word in various syntactic associations. The minimum unit of communication is a sentence. However, the syntactic properties of words are manifested not only in a sentence, the structure of which is entirely subordinated to the tasks of communication. The syntactic properties of words are also found at a lower level of the language system - in phrases, which are semantic and grammatical combinations of words. Consequently, syntax studies the sentence - its structure, grammatical properties and types, as well as the phrase - the minimal grammatically related combination of words. In this sense, we can talk about the syntax of a sentence and the syntax of a phrase.

The syntax of a phrase reveals the syntactic properties of individual words and establishes the rules for their compatibility with other words, and these rules are determined by the grammatical features of the word as a certain part of speech. Thus, the possibility of phrases like the red banner is determined by the grammatical properties of the combined names: a noun as a part of speech has the property of grammatically subordinating an adjective, and an adjective, as the most consistent part of speech, is able to take a form determined by the form of the noun, which is externally revealed in its inflection; phrases like write a letter also rely on the grammatical properties of the combining words: it is interesting that in this case even the grammatical property of the verb itself (transitivity) is associated with the need to combine with a certain form names, transitive verbs are not only capable of subjugating names, but also need this to express their own semantics. The syntax of a phrase in the general language system is a transitional step from the lexical-morphological level to the actual syntactic level. This transitivity is due to the duality of the nature of the phrase, which is as follows. A phrase is constructed from individual lexical units, i.e., like a proposal, it is structured. The functional significance of these units is different - it does not rise above the significance of lexical units.

The syntax of a sentence is a qualitatively new stage in the general language system, determining the linguistic essence, the communicative and functional significance of the language. The syntax of a sentence is based on the study of units of the communicative plan. Connections and relationships between word forms and phrases as part of a sentence are subject to the goals of communication, therefore they are different from connections and relationships between the components of a phrase. However, even at this linguistic level, the general linguistic systematicity manifests itself quite clearly. For example, many even complex syntactic units are constructively based on morphological-syntactic relations, in particular complex sentences with conditional dependence: with an explanatory subordinate part of a transitive verb, with a attributive pre-substantive part, and others, since such subordinate clauses extend not the entire subordinate part of the sentence, but a separate word in it (or phrase) as a lexical-morphological unit. The presence of attributive clauses is dictated by the grammatical properties of the name, and the same properties that determine the possibility of a consistent adjective or participle, as well as an inconsistent form of designation of a feature as part of a phrase or the presence of a consistent separate definition in a simple complicated sentence; the same is true in sentences with a verb dependency: the subordinate clause extending the verb is determined by the lexico-grammatical properties of the verb. Compare, for example: Dagny felt a rush of air that came from the music and forced herself to calm down. - Dagny felt a rush of air coming from the music and forced herself to calm down (Paust.); Around the clearing where the guys were sitting, birch, aspen and alder trees grew lushly! (Pan.). - Around the clearing, with the children sitting on it, birch, aspen and alder grew lushly; Walking through the courtyard, Seryozha saw that the shutters on his windows were also closed (Pan.). - Seryozha saw the closed shutters...

The general linguistic systematicity is emphasized by the presence of interconnectedness and interpenetration of phenomena at different linguistic levels. This is the foundation on which the building of the general language system rests firmly and which does not allow its individual links to crumble.

So, the phrase and the sentence are distinguished as syntactic units of different levels: the phrase is a pre-communicative level, the sentence is a communicative level, and the phrase is included in the system communication means included only through a proposal. However, the identification of these syntactic units turns out to be insufficient to judge the ultimate unit of syntactic division. Thus, it is impossible, for example, to recognize a phrase as a minimal syntactic unit. The very concept of a phrase contradicts this, since it presupposes some kind of unification of components. The word as such, as an element of the lexical composition of a language, cannot be recognized as a minimal syntactic unit, since when combined in syntactic units, it is not words in general, in the totality of their morphological forms, that are combined, but certain forms of words necessary to express a given content (naturally, when shaping possibilities). For example, in the combination autumn foliage, two forms of the word are combined - the feminine singular form of the nominative case of the noun and the same form of the adjective. Consequently, the primary syntactic unit can be recognized as the form of a word or the syntactic form of a word.

This also applies to those combining components when the words are devoid of the sign of formation, for example: very fruitful, very pleasant.

The form of a word is, first of all, an element of a phrase. However, its role and purpose are not limited to this. The syntactic form of a word can act as a “building element” not only as part of a phrase, but also as part of a sentence, when it extends the sentence itself or participates in the construction of its basis, for example: It’s damp in the forest; Snow is falling outside the windows; Moscow in festive decorations. It follows from this that the syntactic form of a word is involved in the construction of a sentence either directly or through a phrase. The existence of a word form as a syntactic unit is confirmed extreme case its functioning when the syntactic form of a word is transformed into a sentence, i.e. into a unit of a different syntactic level. For example: On a ship, on the way from Palestine to Odessa. Among the deck passengers are many Russian men and women (Bun.). The syntactic form of a word and phrase, on the one hand, and a sentence, on the other, are syntactic units of different functional significance and different syntactic levels, but the units are interconnected and interdependent, units of the general syntactic system of the language. However, even a sentence, being a unit of communication, is significant in language only as a small private link, which is structurally, semantically, and accentologically subordinate common tasks communications, i.e. acquires its specificity only in connection with other links (proposals). This is how the syntax of a complex whole arises, the syntax of connected speech, the syntax of a text that studies units larger than separate offer, units that have their own rules and laws of construction.

Defining a set of syntactic units is by no means sufficient to describe the syntactic system of a language, since a system is not only a set of elements, but also their connections and relationships. Thus, a syntactic connection serves to express the dependence and interdependence of the elements of a phrase and a sentence and forms syntactic relationships, i.e. those types of syntactic correspondence that are regularly identified in syntactic units, regardless of their level. For example: as a result of the subordinating connection of agreement in the combination stone house, attributive relations are born between the forms of words in a given syntactic unit; The control relationship became the basis for object relations in combination with the buy book.

Predicative relations arise as a result of the syntactic connection of the main members of the sentence. At the level complex sentence different types of syntactic connections (subordinating, coordinating, non-conjunctive) also form syntactic relationships - cause-and-effect, temporal, target, comparative-adversative, enumerative, etc. This means that syntax studies the syntactic units of language in their connections and relationships. The content of syntactic relations is two-dimensional: on the one hand, it reflects the phenomena of the real world, from which it derives its information content (the relationship between an object and its attribute, an action and an object, etc.); on the other hand, it is based on the interaction of the components of the actual syntactic units (dependence, for example, of the controlled form of a word on the controlling one, the coordinated one on the one that determines this coordination, etc.), i.e. relies on syntactic connections. This two-dimensionality of the content of syntactic relations is the essence of syntactic semantics in general and the semantics of syntactic units in particular. Syntactic semantics (or syntactic meaning) is inherent in any syntactic unit and represents its content side; Naturally, only units that can be decomposed into components (word combinations, sentences) can have a semantic structure. If we turn to the main syntactic unit - the sentence, then, based on what has been said, we can find in it the content side (reflection of real objects, actions and features) and formal organization (grammatical structure). However, neither one nor the other reveals another side of the proposal - its communicative significance, its purpose. So, content (what is transmitted), form (how is transmitted) and purpose (for what is transmitted) - these are three conditionally isolated (they exist in unity) aspects of the sentence, which served as the basis for different approaches to the study of sentences - semantic, structural and communicative. All three sides of one phenomenon have “deep analogy and parallelism.” For example, in the simplest sentence The bird flies, the semantic structures (the real bearer of the attribute and the attribute), syntactic, or formal-grammatical (subject and predicate), and communicative (given, i.e. the initial moment of the utterance, and new, i.e. . what is communicated about the given, or, in other terminology, theme and rheme). However, this relationship can be violated, and it is precisely this possible discrepancy between the components of the syntactic, semantic and communicative structure of a sentence that justifies the thesis about the existence and independence of all three levels of sentence division. For example, in the sentence He has fun, a coincidence can only be found regarding the function of the component fun: it is a syntactic predicate, a semantic predicate, and a rheme of the message, while the component to him is the semantic subject of the state and at the same time the topic of the message, but it is not the subject.

Syntactic science knows all three aspects of the study of a sentence, as a result of which an opinion has been formed about the need to distinguish a sentence in a language accordingly (taking into account its syntactic semantics and formal organization) and a sentence in speech, i.e. a sentence implemented in context, in a specific speech situation (taking into account its communicative orientation). The latter is usually called a statement, although the same term is often used - a sentence, meaning its speech content.

The particular functions of syntactic units are determined by the general communicative function of syntax. If the communicative function is performed by a sentence (utterance) as a syntactic unit, then the function of any syntactic unit of the pre-communicative level (syntactic form of a word, phrase) can be recognized as the role of this unit in the construction of a sentence (as a component of a phrase or a member of a sentence). The concept of function is often identified with the concept of syntactic meaning and, therefore, is directly associated with syntactic semantics. With the differentiated use of these terms, meaning is understood as the expression of extra-linguistic relations, i.e. relations of real reality, in this case the content of the term “function” remains the actual syntactic indicators - “constructive”, associative functions.

To designate syntactic units divided into components, there is also the term “syntactic construction”, which is used both in relation to an abstract language model and in relation to a specific language unit built according to this model.

In the general language system syntactic side occupies a special place - this is a phenomenon of the highest order, because to express thoughts it is not enough just to select lexical material; it is necessary to correctly and clearly establish the connection between words and groups of words. No matter how rich the vocabulary of a language is, in the end it always lends itself to inventory. But “the language is inexhaustible in combining words.” It is in the structure of the language, i.e. in its grammar (and primarily in syntax), the basis of its national specificity is laid. It is known that many words in the Russian language are of foreign origin, but they easily coexist with native Russian words. Time has made such words as beets, bed, money, etc., completely Russian, precisely because they obeyed the rules of compatibility of words in the Russian language. In the grammatical design of a word, the syntactic side always comes first: thus, many morphological properties of a word appear as a result of the specifics of its functioning in a sentence; a vivid example of this is the history of the formation and development of adverbs.

Syntactic structure The Russian language is being enriched and improved. As a result of constant interaction individual elements In the general syntactic system of the language, parallel syntactic constructions appear to express the same content. Structural variability leads, in turn, to stylistic differentiation.

Stylistic possibilities modern Russian syntax are quite noticeable and quite wide. The presence of options in the ways of expressing thoughts and, consequently, in the syntactic organization of speech allows us to develop a whole system syntactic means, adapted to function in various types communication, in different speech situations (in different functional styles speech).

The study of syntactic units and their stylistic properties creates the possibility of targeted selection expressive means language, their conscious use in different speech contexts. Selection of syntactic units corresponding specific goals verbal communication, is always associated with the search for the optimal option. Moreover, this optimal option must satisfy the requirements not only the right meaning, but also the necessary emotional sound. And this purely emotional side of the utterance is very often created by means of syntax. In particular, the constructions of expressive syntax have not only an information function, but also an influence function. From this it is clear how important the targeted study of the syntactic system of a language is.

OFFER

Proposal and its signs

The science of language knows fundamentally different approaches to the study of a sentence as a syntactic unit. A comparison of different attempts to define a sentence reveals two main trends: 1) attempts to define a sentence using non-linguistic concepts (logical, logical-psychological); 2) the desire to find purely linguistic criteria in the approach to the proposal.

Representatives of different linguistic areas. In these definitions, the difference in grammatical concepts was especially clearly manifested, which, in turn, is explained by the difference in the theoretical views of scientists on language in general and its connection with thinking processes in particular.

The most clearly logical essence of the sentence and its members is revealed among representatives of the logical-syntactic direction, in particular in the definition of F.I. Buslaeva: “The object that we are judging is called the subject (subjectum, subject).

What we think or judge about an object (subject) is called the predicate (praedicatum, prädicat). The addition of a predicate to a subject is called a judgment. A judgment expressed in words is a proposition.” Such a definition, firstly, identifies logical concepts and grammatical concepts and, secondly, impoverishes the very concept of a sentence, narrowing it to a judgment. If it can be argued that any judgment is expressed by a sentence, i.e. is formalized in the form of a sentence (cannot exist outside of a sentence), then it is absolutely unacceptable to state the opposite, i.e. the fact that every sentence is at the same time a judgment. In a judgment something is always affirmed or something is denied. The proposal may have neither one nor the other. Sentences like Will you go to college? or Leave here immediately! do not convey judgments. Their content is of a different kind - not a message about something, but an incentive to communicate and an incentive to action. The concept of a sentence is not adequate to the concept of a judgment in another respect: sentences of different forms can express the same judgment, for example: I am in pain and I am in pain; and vice versa, one sentence can contain two propositions, for example: Apart from the large house in Zamoskvorechye, nothing reminded of the night battle (Leon.).

Just as a sentence and a judgment, being correlative, are not identical, so the members of a sentence and the members of a judgment are not identical. The subject of a judgment is something previously known, the predicate is something new that constitutes the cognitive value of the judgment. There may be sentences in which the subject of the judgment coincides with grammatical subject, and the predicate - with a grammatical predicate. However this special case. For example, in the sentence Brother arrived (with the emphasis on the verb), the subject brother and the predicate arrived correspond to the subject and predicate of the judgment. In another speech situation, the subject and predicate may change places, while the subject and predicate will remain unchanged, for example: Who arrived? - Brother has arrived (emphasis on the word brother). The concept of novelty is associated here with the content of the word brother, which takes on the function of a logical predicate.

All subsequent numerous definitions of a sentence, revealing the desire to connect a sentence with a complete thought, ultimately go back to Buslaev’s understanding of the sentence. Such definitions are inaccurate, if only because “a sentence is a fact of speech, not thought.”

A different view of the sentence is found among representatives of the psychological-syntactic direction in linguistics. " grammatical sentence is not at all identical and not parallel with a logical judgment,” wrote A.A. Potebnya. And further: “The terms “subject” and “predicate” are obtained from observation of a verbal sentence and are mutually irreplaceable in it. Meanwhile, for logic in a judgment, only the compatibility or incompatibility of two concepts is essential, and which of them will be called a subject, which a predicate, this, contrary to existing opinion, should be indifferent for it...” A.A. Potebnya does not define a sentence, but points to its main feature - predicability and “the proper and original etymological form of the predicate” - the verb.

Ideas by A.A. Potebnya were most clearly expressed by his student D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, who defined a sentence as “a word or such an ordered combination of words that is associated with a special movement of thought, known as “predication” (“predication”).”

A.A. When defining a sentence, Shakhmatov took into account the logical and psychological side of speech. In his opinion, “a sentence is a verbal expression of psychological communication, clothed in a grammatical whole (through the coordination of its constituent parts or appropriate intonation”). Under psychological communication the scientist understood “an act of thinking that aims to communicate to other people the combination of ideas that has taken place in thinking.” Moreover, the simplest communication consists in the fact that two representations are brought “by the movement of the will into a predicative... connection.”

Representatives of the formal syntactic school considered the sentence in itself, autonomously, and explained its properties by its internal structure.

For example, a sentence was defined as a phrase with complete intonation, and the members of a sentence were defined as parts of speech. Thus, the main subject of study is syntax, according to F.F. Fortunatov, was a phrase, a variation of which was the sentence. Representatives of this school paid unequal attention to various syntactic categories. For example, M.N. Peterson was particularly interested in collocation types. Peshkovsky, along with this, paid great attention to the composition of sentences and their typology.

The definition of a sentence given by A.M. is also interesting. Peshkovsky: “Phrase combinations containing a predicate, or indicating by their formal composition an omitted predicate, or, finally, consisting of one predicate; We will call all such phrases sentences.”

Thus, starting with the works of A.A. Potebni, in Russian syntactic science there is a desire to define a sentence on the basis of a specific leading feature that characterizes its organization. Consistent emphasis on the role of the verb in this organization gradually led to a broader understanding of the category of predicability and, finally, predicativity as the main feature of a sentence. However, in most cases, predicativity was understood as a syntactic connection between the subject and the predicate, i.e. two constructive centers of the proposal. In those cases when the language gave examples of other forms of sentences, for example mononomial ones (with one main member), it was necessary to explain the reason for the absence of another member: either by formally omitting it and its presence in the thought (A.A. Potebnya and others), or by a functional one combining them in one main member (A.A. Shakhmatov).

In the 20–40s, scientists began to actively distinguish between the formal and communicative organization of a sentence. The doctrine of the sentence as a unit primarily of the communicative level is inherent in the representatives of the Prague linguistic school (V. Mathesius, B. Gavranek, N.S. Trubetskoy, R.O. Jacobson, etc.). V. Mathesius is considered the creator of actual syntax.

Further, the theory of supply developed along the path of identifying its grammatical features taking into account the general communicative essence and its semantics. So, V.V. Vinogradov gives the following definition: “A sentence is a grammatically designed according to the laws of a given language, integral (i.e., indivisible further on) speech units with the same basic structural features) a unit of speech, which is the main means of formation, expression and communication of thought.”

The definition of a sentence as a minimal, grammatically organized unit that serves to express thoughts, as well as feelings and will, is currently the most widespread (this is mainly the concept of V.V. Vinogradov). The concept of grammatical organization includes the idea of the main feature of a sentence as a syntactic unit - predicativity. Predicativity is a meaningful feature of a sentence. And a sentence is thought of primarily as a predicative unit, in contrast to a phrase - as a non-predicative unit.

The concept of predicativity as a grammatical category includes such grammatical properties of a sentence that allow it to present what is being communicated either as actually being carried out in the present, past and future tense, or as unreal, i.e. only what is desired, possible, assumed, etc. Such grammatical meanings of a sentence can be united by the general meaning of the relationship of what is being communicated to reality, this is general meaning relations are called modality in grammar, and, therefore, a sentence can contain real modality or unreal modality. The general meaning of the reality or unreality of what is being communicated is necessarily tied to a specific time - present, past, future, therefore, the concept of modality is inextricably linked with the meaning of time. This complex of grammatical categories - modality and syntactic tense - is predicativity. If we generalize the meaning of modality and syntactic time, we obtain a general relation of what is being reported to reality. Therefore, predicativity is grammatical category, establishing a general correlation between what is being communicated and reality, and the general correlation includes both the flow of what is being communicated within a certain time (the concept of syntactic time) and the relationship of what is being communicated to reality in terms of reliability (the concept of modality).

So, the sentence has the categories of modality and syntactic tense. Both of these categories form an inextricable unity, which is predication, present in every sentence and being its grammatical meaning, i.e. such a feature that allows you to distinguish a sentence from other syntactic combinations of words (in particular, phrases).

Modality and syntactic tense, and therefore predicativity, have special linguistic means for their expression. Such means are forms of inclination and time, special particles. If there are verbs and verb connectives in a sentence, these meanings are conveyed using the forms of these words in combination with or without particles. For example: The boy is studying, The boy was studying, The boy will study; It was raining, It will rain; Let the boy study, Let the boy study; If it rained, Let it rain; The night was cold, It would have been a cold night; in the absence of verbs and verbal connectives, sentences have a general meaning of the reality of the existence of what is being reported in the present tense, for example: The night is cold; Rain; Twilight.

In addition to the general meaning of modality as the relationship of the communicated to reality (reality or unreality), a sentence can also contain the meaning of the speaker’s attitude to the communicated. The modality of the first plane is called objective, the modality of the second plane is called subjective. Subjective modality (the meaning of the speaker’s attitude to what is being communicated) is usually conveyed by additional lexical-grammatical means and means of intonation. Compare, for example: Brother will come (the general meaning of the reality of what is being reported) and Brother, of course, will come; Brother will probably come (meaning the unconditional or presumed reality of what is being reported). Objective modality is a mandatory feature of a sentence, and subjective modality is optional.

Each sentence, being a unit of communication, has one more mandatory feature - intonation, which also distinguishes this syntactic unit from a phrase. There are intonations general plan- intonation of a message, question, motivation - and more specific intonations accompanying the first - intonation of affirmation, surprise, assumption, etc. The former are determined by the general communicative goals of the sentence; the latter are more closely related to the specific lexical content of sentences and are determined by it. General intonations participate in the formation of objective modality. Compare, for example, sentences of the same lexical composition, pronounced with the intonation of a message and motivation: You will arrive tomorrow (an asserted fact) and you will arrive tomorrow! (request or order). In the first case, the modality is real, in the second it is unreal, in particular motivating.

UDC 811.161.1

BBK 81.2Rus-92.3

Valgina N.S.

Rosenthal D.E.

Fomina M.I.

Modern Russian language: Textbook / Edited by N.S. Valgina. - 6th ed., revised. and additional

Moscow: Logos, 2002. 528 p. 5000 copies

Reviewers: Doctor of Philology, Professor N.D. Burvikova,

Doctor of Philology, Professor V.A. Pronin

Contains all sections of the modern Russian language course: vocabulary and phraseology, phonetics, phonology and orthoepy. graphics and spelling, word formation, morphology, syntax and punctuation. In preparing this publication, achievements in the field of the Russian language over the past 15 years have been taken into account. Unlike the fifth edition (Moscow: Higher School, 1987), the textbook includes materials covering active processes in the modern Russian language, and the list of word formation methods has been expanded. trends in the use of forms of grammatical number, gender and case are noted, changes in syntax are taken into account.

For students of higher educational institutions studying in philological and other humanitarian areas and specialties.

ISBN ISBN 5-94010-008-2

Valgina N.S.

Rosenthal D.E.

Fomina M.I.

Modern Russian language

From the publisher

This textbook is intended primarily for students of philological specialties of higher educational institutions. But it is also designed for use in the educational process in a wide range of humanities - of course, primarily those where mastery of the expressive means of literary speech is a prerequisite for successful professional activity. It seems that in any case, the textbook will be useful to future lawyers, teachers, art historians, and journalists.

The peculiarity of the publication - the conciseness and compactness of the presentation of the material - takes into account the diversity of needs of the possible audience. Therefore, the duration of the lecture course, practical and independent studies using this textbook may vary depending on the direction, specialty of training of humanists, as well as the form of study: full-time, evening or correspondence.

The textbook contains all sections of the modern Russian language course; vocabulary and phraseology, phonetics, phonology and spelling, graphics and spelling, word formation, morphology, syntax and punctuation.

In preparing this publication, achievements in the field of the Russian language over the past fifteen years were taken into account. The wording of certain theoretical provisions has been changed, new concepts have been introduced, terminology has been clarified, illustrative materials and bibliography have been partially updated, active processes in the modern Russian language are highlighted, especially in the field of vocabulary and syntax.

The content of sections and paragraphs has been supplemented with new information, in particular: the position on the slightly changed status of the literary language has been substantiated; the list of word formation methods has been expanded; trends in the use of grammatical number forms are noted; Data is provided on sentences of real and unreal modality, coordination of the forms of subject and predicate, genitive sentences, as well as on the ambiguity of resolving the issue of homogeneity and heterogeneity of predicates, etc.

Thus, the title of the textbook - “Modern Russian Language” - reflects the essential features of the educational material presented in it. Moreover, the textbook to some extent reveals those trends that, as can be foreseen today, will determine the development of the Russian language in the 21st century.

This sixth edition was prepared by N.S. Valgina based on the stable textbook of the same name, which went through five editions.

Introduction

The modern Russian language is the national language of the great Russian people, a form of Russian national culture.

The Russian language belongs to the group of Slavic languages, which are divided into three subgroups: eastern - the languages Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian; southern - languages Bulgarian, Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian, Macedonian; Western - languages Polish, Czech, Slovak, Kashubian, Lusatian. Going back to the same source - the common Slavic language, all Slavic languages are close to each other, as evidenced by the similarity of a number of words, as well as the phenomena of the phonetic system and grammatical structure. For example: Russian tribe, Bulgarian tribe, Serbian tribe, Polish plemiê, Czech pl e mě, Russian clay, Bulgarian clay, Czech hlina, Polish glina; Russian summer, Bulgarian Lato, Czech l e to, Polish lato; Russian red, Serbian kr A san, Czech kr a sn y; Russian milk, Bulgarian milk, Serbian milk, Polish mieko, Czech ml e ko, etc.

Russian national language represents a historically established linguistic community and unites the entire set of linguistic means of the Russian people, including all Russian dialects and dialects, as well as social jargons.

The highest form of the national Russian language is Russian literary language.

At different historical stages of the development of the national language - from the national language to the national - in connection with the change and expansion of the social functions of the literary language, the content of the concept of “literary language” changed.

Modern Russian literary language is a standardized language that serves the cultural needs of the Russian people, it is the language of state acts, science, the press, radio, theater, and fiction.

“The division of language into literary and folk,” wrote A.M. Bitter, means only that we have, so to speak, a “raw” language and processed by masters.”

The normalization of a literary language lies in the fact that the composition of the dictionary in it is regulated, the meaning and use of words, pronunciation, spelling and the formation of grammatical forms of words follow a generally accepted pattern. The concept of a norm, however, does not exclude in some cases variants that reflect changes that constantly occur in language as a means of human communication. For example, the following stress options are considered literary: far - far, high - high, otherwise - otherwise; gram, forms: waving - waving, meowing - meowing, rinsing - rinsing.

Modern literary language, not without the influence of means mass media, noticeably changes its status: the norm becomes less rigid, allowing for variation. It focuses not on inviolability and universality, but rather on communicative expediency. Therefore, the norm today is often not so much a ban on something as an opportunity to choose. The border between normativity and non-normativity is sometimes blurred, and some colloquial and colloquial linguistic facts become variants of the norm. Becoming a public domain, the literary language easily absorbs previously forbidden means of linguistic expression. It is enough to give an example of the active use of the word “lawlessness,” which previously belonged to criminal jargon.

Literary language has two forms: oral And written, which are characterized by features both from the lexical composition and from the grammatical structure, because they are designed for different types of perception - auditory and visual.

Written literary language differs from oral language primarily in the greater complexity of syntax and the presence of a large amount of abstract vocabulary, as well as terminological vocabulary, in particular international. Written literary language has stylistic varieties: scientific, official business, journalistic, and artistic styles.

Literary language, as a standardized, processed national language, is opposed to local dialects And jargons. Russian dialects are united into two main groups: the Northern Russian dialect and the Southern Russian dialect. Each group has its own distinctive features in pronunciation, vocabulary and grammatical forms. In addition, there are Central Russian dialects, which reflect the features of both dialects.

Modern Russian literary language is a language interethnic communication peoples of the Russian Federation. The Russian literary language introduces all the peoples of Russia to the culture of the great Russian people.

Since 1945, the UN Charter has recognized the Russian language as one of the official languages of the world.

There are numerous statements by great Russian writers and public figures, as well as many progressive foreign writers, about the strength, wealth and artistic expressiveness of the Russian language. Derzhavin and Karamzin, Pushkin and Gogol, Belinsky and Chernyshevsky, Turgenev and Tolstoy spoke enthusiastically about the Russian language.

The modern Russian language course consists of the following sections: vocabulary and phraseology, phonetics and phonology, spelling, graphics and spelling, word formation, grammar (morphology and syntax), punctuation.

Vocabulary And phraseology study the vocabulary and phraseological composition of the Russian language and the patterns of its development.

Phonetics describes the sound composition of the modern Russian literary language and the main sound processes occurring in the language; the subject of phonology is phonemes - the shortest sound units that serve to distinguish the sound shells of words and their forms.

Orthoepy studies the norms of modern Russian literary pronunciation.

Graphics introduces the composition of the Russian alphabet, the relationship between letters and sounds, and spelling- with the basic principle of Russian writing - morphological, as well as phonetic and traditional spellings. Spelling is a set of rules that determine the spelling of words.

Word formation studies the morphological composition of a word and the main types of formation of new words: morphological, morphological-syntactic, lexical-semantic, lexical-syntactic.

Morphology is the study of grammatical categories and grammatical forms of words. She studies the lexical and grammatical categories of words, the interaction of lexical and grammatical meanings of a word, and ways of expressing grammatical meanings in the Russian language.

Syntax- This is the study of sentences and phrases. Syntax studies the basic syntactic units - phrases and sentences, types of syntactic connections, types of sentences and their structure.

Punctuation is built on the basis of syntax - a set of rules for placing punctuation marks.

VOCABULARY AND PHRASEOLOGY

Russian vocabulary

The concept of vocabulary and lexical system

Vocabulary is the entire set of words of a language, its vocabulary. The branch of linguistics that studies vocabulary is called lexicology(gr. lexikos - vocabulary + logos - teaching). There is a distinction between historical lexicology, which studies the formation of vocabulary in its development, and descriptive lexicology, which deals with issues of word meaning, semantics (gr. semantikos - denoting), volume, structure of vocabulary, etc., i.e. considering various types of relationships between words in a single lexical-semantic system. Words in it can be related by similarity or opposition of meanings (cf., for example, synonyms and antonyms), commonality of functions performed (cf., for example, groups of words in colloquial and book), similarity of origin or proximity of stylistic properties, as well as belonging to the same part of speech and etc. This kind of relationship between words different groups, united by a commonality of characteristics, are called paradigmatic(gr. par a deigma - example, sample) and are fundamental in determining the properties of the system.

Variety system connections is the degree of lexical compatibility of words with each other, otherwise the relationship syntagmatic(Greek syntagma - something connected), which often influence the development of new paradigms. For example, for a long time the word state in meaning was associated only with the word state as “the political organization of society headed by the government or its bodies.” Being a relative adjective in meaning, it was combined with a certain range of words like: system, border, institution, employee and under. Then its syntagmatic relations expanded: it began to be used in combination with words thinking, mind, person, action, deed etc., acquiring at the same time a qualitative-evaluative meaning “able to think and act broadly and wisely.” This, in turn, created conditions for the emergence of new paradigmatic connections, which also influenced the development of new grammatical meanings and forms: since the word in certain cases performs the functions of qualitative adjectives, from it the formation of abstract nouns became possible - statehood, qualitative adverbs - state, antonyms - non-state, anti-state etc.

Consequently, both types of systemic relations are closely related to each other and form an overall complex lexical-semantic system, which is part of the general language system.

Semasiological characteristics of the modern lexical system

Lexical meaning of the word. Its main types

A word differs in its sound design, morphological structure and the meaning and meaning contained in it.

Lexical meaning of the word- this is its content, i.e. historically fixed in the minds of speakers the correlation between a sound complex and an object or phenomenon of reality, “formulated according to the grammatical laws of a given language and being an element of the general semantic system of the dictionary.”

The meaning of words does not reflect the entire set of known signs, objects and phenomena, but only those of them that help to distinguish one object from another. So, if we say: this is a bird, then in this case we are only interested in the fact that before us is a species of flying vertebrate animals, the body of which is covered with feathers, and the forelimbs are transformed into wings. These features help distinguish a bird from other animals, such as mammals.

In the process of joint labor activity, in their social practice, people learn objects, qualities, phenomena; and certain features of these objects, qualities or phenomena of reality serve as the basis for the meaning of the word. Therefore, to correctly understand the meaning of words, a wide acquaintance with the public sphere in which the word existed or exists is necessary. Consequently, extra-linguistic factors play an important role in the development of the meaning of a word.

Depending on which feature is used as the basis for the classification, four main types of lexical meanings of words can be distinguished in the modern Russian language.

By connection, correlation with the subject of reality, i.e. According to the method of naming or nomination (Latin nominatio - naming, denomination), direct or basic meanings and figurative or indirect meanings are distinguished.

Direct meaning is one that is directly related to an object or phenomenon, quality, action, etc. For example, the first two meanings of the word hand will be straight: “one of the two upper limbs of a person from the shoulder to the end of the fingers...” and “... as an instrument of activity, labor.”

Portable is a meaning that arises not as a result of direct correlation with an object, but through the transfer of direct meaning to another object due to various associations. For example, the following meanings of the word hand will be figurative:

1) (singular only) manner of writing, handwriting; 2) (plural only) labor force;

3) (plural only) about a person, a person (... with a definition) as the possessor, possessor of something; 4) a symbol of power; 5) (only singular, colloquial) about an influential person who can protect and provide support; 6) (only singular) about someone’s consent to marriage, about readiness to marry.

Connections between words that have a direct meaning are less dependent on context and are determined by subject-logical relations, which are quite broad and relatively free. The figurative meaning depends much more on the context; it has a living or partially extinct imagery.

According to the degree of semantic motivation, meanings are divided into unmotivated(or non-derivative, idiomatic) and motivated(or derivatives of the former). For example, the meaning of the word hand- unmotivated, and the meanings of words manual, sleeve etc. - are already motivated by semantic and word-formation connections with the word hand.

According to the degree of lexical compatibility, meanings are divided into relatively free(these include all direct meanings of words) and unfree. Among the latter, there are two main types:

1) phraseologically related meaning is called one that occurs in words in certain lexically indivisible combinations. They are characterized by a narrowly limited, stably reproduced range of words, the connections of which are determined not by subject-logical relations, but by the internal laws of the lexical-semantic system. The boundaries of the use of words with this meaning are narrow. Yes, the word bosom the figurative meaning “sincere, sincere” is realized, as a rule, only in combination with the word friend (friendship);

2) syntactically determined meaning is called one that appears in a word when it fulfills an unusual role in a sentence. Context plays a significant role in the development of these meanings. For example, when using the word oak as a person characterizing: Eh, you oak, you still don’t understand anything- its meaning “dull, insensitive” (colloquial) is realized.

A type of syntactically determined meaning includes the so-called structurally limited, which arises only under the conditions of using a word in a certain syntactic structure. For example, the relatively recently emerged meaning of “district, region, place of action” for the word geography due to its use in construction with a noun in the genitive case: geography of sports victories.

According to the nature of the nominative functions performed, the meanings are actually nominative and expressive-synonymous.

Nominative are those that directly, directly name an object, phenomenon, quality, action, etc. In their semantics, as a rule, there are no additional features (in particular, evaluative ones). Although over time such signs may appear. (In this case, various types of figurative meanings, but this group is distinguished by a different classification criterion. See type 1.)

For example, words have a nominative meaning writer, assistant, make noise and many more etc.

Expressive-synonymous is the meaning of a word in the semantics of which the emotional-expressive feature predominates. Words with such meanings exist independently, are reflected in the dictionary and are perceived as evaluative synonyms for words that have their own nominative meaning. Wed: writer - scribbler, scribbler; assistant - accomplice; make noise - make noise. Consequently, they not only name the object, the action, but also give a special assessment. For example, chatter(simple) not just “to make noise,” but “to behave noisily, fussily, dissolutely, dishonestly.”

In addition to the indicated main types of lexical meanings, many words in the Russian language have shades of meaning, which, although closely related to the main one, still have differences. For example, along with the first direct meaning of the word hand Dictionaries also give its connotation, i.e. separated by a semicolon indicates “part of the same limb from the metacarpus to the end of the fingers.” (Compare in the dictionary the shades of meaning of the word book and many other words.)

The word as a lexical and grammatical unit of language

The word as the basic unit of language is studied in various branches of linguistics.

Yes, from the point of view phonetic the sound envelope is examined, those vowel and consonant sounds that make up the word are highlighted, the syllable on which the stress falls is determined, etc.

Lexicology(descriptive) first of all clarifies everything related to the meaning of a word: clarifies the types of meanings, determines the scope of use of the word, stylistic coloring, etc. For (historical) lexicology, the important question is the origin of the word, its semantics, sphere of use, stylistic affiliation, etc. at different periods of language development.

From the point of view grammatical the belonging of a word to one or another part of speech, the grammatical meanings and grammatical forms inherent in the word are revealed (see § 106 for more details), the role of words in a sentence. All this complements the lexical meaning of the word.

Grammar and lexical meanings are closely related to each other, therefore a change in the lexical meaning often leads to a change in the grammatical characteristics of the word. For example, in the phrase voiceless consonant word deaf(meaning “a sound formed only with the participation of noise alone, without the participation of the voice”) is a relative adjective. And in the phrase muffled voice word deaf(meaning “muffled, unclear”) is a qualitative adjective, having degrees of comparison, a short form. Consequently, the change in meaning also affected the morphological characteristics of the word.

Lexical meanings influence not only the ways of forming individual grammatical forms, but also the formation of new words. Thus, as a result of the historical development of the meanings of one word fur two appeared different words, which represent different concepts: squirrel fur And blacksmith bellows(see § 5 about this).

The lexical meaning of a word can be unique (such words are called unambiguous), but it can also coexist with other lexical meanings of the same word (such words are called polysemantic).

Polysemy of the word

Polysemy, or polysemy(gr. poly - many + sma - sign), called the property of words to be used in different meanings. Thus, the word core in modern Russian has several meanings:

1) the inner part of the fruit in a hard shell: And the nuts are not ordinary, all the shells are golden,kernels- pure emerald(P.); 2) the basis of something (book): Was destroyed on the Volgacorefascist army; 3) the central part of something (special): core atom; 4) an ancient gun shell in the form of a round cast body: Rollingkernels, bullets whistle, cold bayonets hang(P.). The semantic connection of the selected meanings is close, therefore they are all considered as meanings of the same word.

Word pipe, for example, in phrases water pipe or telescope has the meaning of “a long, hollow, usually round object.” Pipe A brass musical instrument with a strong ringing timbre is also called: My creator! deafened, louder than anypipes! (Gr.). This word is also used in such a special meaning as “a channel in the body for communication between organs,” for example, Eustachianpipe.

Thus, in the process of its historical development, a word, in addition to its original meaning, can acquire a new, derivative meaning.

The ways of forming the meanings of words are different. A new meaning of a word can arise, for example, by transferring the name based on the similarity of objects or their characteristics, i.e. metaphorically (from the gr. metaphora - transfer). For example; by similarity of external characteristics: nose(person) - nose(ship), shapes of objects: apple(Antonovskoe) - apple(eye), according to the similarity of sensations, assessments: warm(current) - warm(participation), etc. It is also possible to transfer names based on the similarity of the functions performed (i.e. functional transfers): feather(goose) - feather(steel), conductor(official accompanying the train) - conductor(in technology, a device that guides a tool).

A new meaning can arise as a result of the appearance of associations by contiguity (so-called metonymic transfers, Greek metonymia - renaming). For example, the name of a material is transferred to a product made from this material: chandelier frombronze(name of material) - An antique store was selling an antiquebronze(product made from this material). Various kinds of co-impliations also arise in a metonymic way (Gr. synekdochē), i.e. naming an action and its result in one word, cf.: do embroidery- exhibition of artistic embroidery; parts and the whole (and vice versa), cf.: flashedpea coatswith caps and grayovercoats(i.e. sailors and infantrymen; in this case, the person is named after the part of his clothing), etc.

Different meanings of a word, as well as their shades, make up its so-called semantic structure and serve as a vivid example of the manifestation of systemic connections within one word. It is this type of relationship that allows writers and speakers to widely use polysemy, both without any special stylistic designation, and for a specific purpose: to give speech expressiveness, emotionality, etc.

In the event of a break or complete loss of semantic connections between different meanings, it becomes possible to name famous word completely different concepts, objects, etc. This is one of the ways to develop new words - homonyms.

Lexical homonyms, their types and role in the language

Homonyms(gr. homos - identical + onyma - name) are words that are different in meaning, but identical in sound and spelling. In lexicology, two types of lexical homonyms are studied: complete and incomplete, or partial.

Modern Russian language Textbook - Valgina N.S. etc.

Valgina N.S.

Text theory

Abstract (description)

Contents (table of contents)