Literature

1. Grammar of the modern Russian literary language / rep. ed. N.Yu. Shvedova. – M., 1970. – P. 541-547.

2. Russian grammar / ch. ed. N.Yu. Shvedova. – T. 2: Syntax. – M., 1980.– P. 92-123, 136-180.

3. Modern Russian language / V.A. Beloshapkova, E.A. Bryzgunova, E.A. Zemskaya and others; edited by V.A. Beloshapkova. – 3rd ed., – M., 2003. – P. 716-763.

At the end of the 60s. XX century In Russian syntactic science, a type of description of the formal organization of a sentence appeared, based on the concept of a structural diagram.

Structural scheme is an abstract sample consisting of minimum components necessary to create an offer.

There are two understandings of the minimum supply:

1. Formal and grammatical minimum(predicative center; T.P. Lomtev, N.D. Arutyunova, P.A. Lekant, etc.) .

This understanding of the minimum was put forward by N.Yu. Shvedova and presented in “Russian Grammar” 1980 and “Grammar of the Modern Russian Literary Language” 1970. The scheme does not include conventional distributors:

The boy threw the ball. N 1 – V f

2. Semantic (nominative) minimum:

The boy threw the ball. N 1 – V f – N 4obj

In this case, some conventional distributors, necessary for the semantic sufficiency of the syntactic structure: a distributor of a transitive verb, expressed by a noun in the form of V.p.; substantive-subject expander ( Smells like bird cherry. Praed N 5); case or prepositional case form with spatial meaning or adverb:

The ball is under the table (there). N 1 V f N 5 loc / Adv loc

Depending on how the predicative minimum is organized (by one or two word forms), the structural schemes differ two-component And one-component:

It is impossible to sit indoors in the spring.Praed Inf

I don't care about you anymore.No N 2

To prove means to convince.Inf cop Inf

The hungry cannot be understood by the well-fed.Inf

What joy!N 2

A structural diagram in the understanding of “Russian Grammar” of 1980 is a syntactic pattern that has not only a formal organization, but also a linguistic meaning.

This meaning, common to all structural schemes, is predicativity. Objective-modal meanings that form predicativeness are expressed using syntactic tenses and moods.

N.Yu. Shvedova clarifies the list syntactic moods, which includes: syntactic indicative (present, past and future tense), syntactic irreal moods (subjunctive, conditional, desirable, imperative, obligatory). All these particular modal-temporal meanings are expressed by certain modifications of the formal organization of the sentence (that is sentence forms). The entire system of sentence forms is called its paradigm.

The complete sentence paradigm is eight-membered, the original form is the present tense form of the syntactic indicative.

Lecture 09.16.15

Constructive syntax (structural)

This section of syntax studies sentences in terms of their general structure. In this regard, first of all, simple and complex sentences are distinguished:

Simple sentences - In these sentences, only one basis is distinguished (predicative line), which in turn consists of the main members of the sentence: subject and predicate. Depending on the implementation of the members of the stem, simple sentences are divided into one-part and two-part. In two-part sentences, both members of the sentence are realized. These proposals, in turn, can be common and non-common. In non-common sentences, only those sentence members are present that are necessary to implement the structure of the given sentence, that is, without these members the sentence would be semantically and syntactically incomplete. For example,the student took the book(the sentence is not common, since the word “book” is a direct object, which must be used with the transitive verb “took”); A good student yesterday took an interesting book from the library (the words “good”, “yesterday”, “in the library”, “interesting” are optional members of the sentence making it common). One-part sentences imply the presence of only one main member. One-part sentences based on

subject are divided into existential (for example, Autumn.), nominative ( For example, "Inspector"), exclamation marks ( For example, FIRE!), index ( For example, Here is the house.). It should be noted that all of the above subtypes are variants of one basic structure

predicate are also divided into impersonal ( For example, It's getting light. It was freezing.), vaguely - personal ( For example, If you're in a hurry, you'll make people laugh.), generalized - personal ( For example, Chickens are counted in the fall.), imperative ( For example, Go away!)

Each of the above subtypes is characterized by a specific form, and thus one-part sentences based on the predicate are differentiated more clearly than those based on the subject.

Compound sentences (CSS). In these sentences there are at least two predicative lines (or stems), which are centers for the formation of simple sentences as part of a complex one, which are called “clauses”. SSPs imply the presence of a coordinating connection between clauses, that is, there is syntactic equality between all clauses (in other words, the main and subordinate clauses do not differ). The writing part can be union or non-union. If there is a conjunction connection, depending on the conjunction involved, several types of this connection can be distinguished: connecting (for example, and, and), adversative (for example, a, but, but), disjunctive conjunctions (for example, or, or, or). Complex structures can be of open and closed types. Open constructions suggest the potential possibility of developing the situation described by this sentence by adding additional clauses (for example, They were sitting by the river, the wayves were rolling at the distance, the seagulls were flying above). Closed constructions exclude the possibility of potential development due to the addition of additional clauses (for example, He made faces, he ran about, but the child didn’t smile).

Complex sentences (CSS). In these sentences, clauses reveal an unequal syntactic connection. In this regard, IPP clauses are divided into two types: main clause and subordinate clause(s). Subordinate clauses in one way or another extend either individual parts of the main clause or the main clause as a whole. Accordingly, two types of subordination can be distinguished: private and general. In private subordination, the subordinate clause extends one member of the main clause. Consequently, subordinate clauses can correlate with different syntactic functions of the main one (for example, The boy who sold apples left. (correlated with the subject). I saw that the boy was selling apples. (correlated with the predicate). I saw the boy who sold apples. ( correlates with the addition)). General subordination implies correlation with the main clause as a whole, that is, the subordinate clause extends the situation as a whole (for example, He was late for a meeting, which happened to him extremely rarely.). In some cases, the difference between SSP and NGN can be realized only with the help of intonation, and in writing with the help of punctuation marks (for example, The forest is being cut down - the chips are flying (increased intonation on the word “cut”, this is an NGN with cause-and-effect relationships). Forest they chop, the chips fly (intonation of enumeration, SSP)). If a complex subordinate construction contains several subordinate clauses, then two more types of subordination can be distinguished: sequential and parallel. With sequential subordination, each subsequent clause extends the previous one, and depending on the degree of distance of the subordinate clauses from the main clause, a hierarchy of subordinate clauses is carried out (for example, Yesterday John came to us to tell us how he got to his home where he had not been for many years ). In this case, you can set the depth of subordination, which is equal to three, while the subordinate clauses themselves distinguish, respectively, three hierarchical levels according to the degree of distance from the main one.

With parallel subordination, all subordinate clauses are related to the main clause. Two main options for parallel subordination can be observed:

All subordinate clauses correlate with different parts of the sentence of the main clause (for example, While John's wife was unpacking at the hotel, he himself went to inspect the city, which made a pleasant impression on him. The first subordinate clause extends the predicate to the main clause, the second correlates with the complement of the main clause.) .

Subordinate clauses can correlate with the same member of the sentence of the main clause, while the parallel subordination can be homogeneous (for example, He remembered that he was very cold, that even tea did not warm him. Both subordinate clauses are homogeneous (additional clauses) and correlate with one member) and heterogeneous (for example, When it was dawn, John quickly went so that the train would not leave without him. The subordinate clauses correspond to the word “went”, but the first subordinate clause is of time, and the second is of purpose).

Target: characterize the main features of the syntactic system of the language.

Tasks: 1) highlight the basic units of the syntactic structure of the language; 2) introduce the main types of syntactic connections in phrases and sentences; 3) develop skills in distinguishing between phrases and analytical forms of words.

Syntax was defined above as the grammatical study of coherent speech, of units higher than the word. Syntax begins where we go beyond the limits of a word or a stable combination of words, where coherent speech begins with its free combination of lexical units within the framework of a variable phrase and sentence. Of course, the epithet “free” does not mean the absence of rules. The combination of lexical units is carried out according to certain laws and models, the study of which is the task of syntax. “Freedom” consists in the unforeseen nature of the specific lexical content of these models, in the fact that all syntactic models belong to the language only as abstract models, and their specific content with this or that vocabulary is infinitely diverse and relates to speech. True, at other levels of language we distinguish between the abstract (linguistic) and the concrete (speech). But, for example, the word railway belongs to the Russian language not only by the model on which it is constructed, but also by its entire individual composition of morphemes, while any, even the simplest sentence (The sun has risen) and any variable phrase (tall tree) belong to the language only as a model of construction, and the fact that these, and not any other words, are used in this model is a fact of speech, determined by the content of a given utterance, the intention and task of the speaker. The competence of syntax also includes the consideration of one-word sentences like Fire!, since in them the lexical and grammatical meanings contained in a given word form are supplemented by a specifically syntactic grammatical meaning expressed by the intonation of the sentence.

a) Sentence and phrase

The central concept of syntax is the sentence - the main cell in which human thought is formed and expressed and with the help of which verbal communication between people is carried out.

The specificity of a sentence in comparison with “lower” linguistic units is that it is a statement, it is communicative. This means that it is 1) correlated with a specific situation and 2) has a communicative attitude towards affirmation (or denial), question or encouragement to do something.

The communicativeness of a sentence is specified in the syntactic categories of modality and time. These latter are expressed in verbal forms of mood and tense, as well as (especially in the absence of a verb) with the help of intonation, modal words, and words denoting localization in time.

The structure of the sentences is very diverse. They can be realized with the help of one word (Fire! Water! It’s getting light. I’m going! Great! Home?), in particular the analytical form of the word (On the horses! I’ll be glad!), but more often they are realized with the help of a more or less complex combination of words.

A one-word sentence differs in appearance from a word in intonation. In terms of content, it is between the word fire and the one-word sentence Fire! - a huge difference. The word fire is simply the name of a certain class of real phenomena (and the corresponding concept), capable of denoting in speech each individual phenomenon of this class. Offer Fire! - is no longer just a name, but a statement about the presence of a given phenomenon, i.e., a fire, in a given specific situation, at a given moment in time, a statement also accompanied by certain emotional connotations, etc. Similarly, the word form of water is the name of a well-known substances placed in a specific relationship to other words in the potential context. Water Offer! there is a request, a demand, an incentive to take real action in a given specific situation.

Taking one-word sentences containing the actual verb form (I go! Go! Came? It’s getting light. It’s getting light.), we will find that here the difference between the sentence and the corresponding word (word form) is more subtle. All these word forms themselves already contain an indication of the mood, and in the indicative mood - also of tense; they are predicative, that is, they are intended to be either a predicate or, in the absence of other members in the sentence, a whole sentence. And yet, there is a difference between a word form and a sentence consisting of this one word form. We can say that the word go (also dawn, etc.) is only potentially correlated with any suitable situation, while the sentence I go! (Dawn, etc.) is realistically correlated with some situation, real or fictitious, taking place or taking place at a certain point in time, at a certain point in space, etc. The word form go expresses an impulse, but an impulse , potentially addressed to any interlocutor, and the sentence Go! - an impulse actually addressed to a specific addressee, in a certain situation, at a certain point in time, moreover, specified (intonation) as a request, an insistent demand, a categorical order, etc. The word came does not express either a statement or a question, but a sentence Has he come? and Came!, depending on the intonation, express either a question or a statement. We have the same picture in relation to non-verbal predicatives (It's hot. It's time! etc.), only in these cases the forms of moods (except for the indicative) and tenses (except for the present) are analytical.

A sentence realized by a combination of words most often has a predicative structure, i.e. it contains either a predicative word form (“The sun has risen”, “The cranes are flying”, also with a non-verbal predicative “It’s hot here”), or, without such a form, two clearly correlated main members - subject and predicate (He is a university student. The snow is white. The fact is obvious). Everywhere here the construction itself indicates that this is a proposal. And yet, these constructions truly become sentences thanks to the intonation with which they are pronounced (cf. “The sun has risen” with a narrative intonation and “The sun has risen?” with an interrogative intonation). Along with this, combinations of words that do not have a predicative structure and are not normally sentences (white snow, write letters, you and me), can, like a separate non-predicate word (fire, etc.), become sentences, but only in in more special conditions, for example, in the context of other sentences (cf. the beginning of Blok’s “Twelve”: “Black evening. White snow. Wind, wind! A man can’t stand on his feet”), in nominal sentences (titles of literary works, etc.) , in dialogue (What will you do in the evening? - Write letters). Becoming a sentence, such a combination (like a separate non-predicative word that becomes a sentence) receives one or another communicative attitude, connection with a certain situation, and in terms of expression - the corresponding intonation.

Some linguists, emphasizing the difference between combinations containing a predicative word and combinations that do not contain such a word, prefer to designate only the latter type of combination with the term “phrase”. However, another point of view seems more appropriate: a phrase is defined as any combination of two or more significant words, characterized by the presence of a formally expressed semantic connection between them. A phrase can coincide with a sentence or be part of a sentence, and a sentence, as stated, can be realized in the form of a phrase equipped with one or another intonation, a series of interconnected phrases, or a separate word (also a separate significant word accompanied by a service word, for example, Will you come?). Linguists who remove all predicative phrases from the scope of the concept “phrase”, of course, define the phrase differently. For example, they include in their definitions an indication of the “nominal function”, that the phrase “serves as a designation of a single, albeit dismembered concept.”

b) Syntactic connections and functions. Ways of their formal expression

We call a syntactic connection any formally expressed semantic connection between lexical units (words, set phrases) connected to each other in speech, in an act of communication. Usually there are two main types of syntactic connection - composition and subordination.

Examples of coordinating words: table and chair; me or you; strict but fair. A coordinating connection is characterized by the equality of elements, which is manifested in the possibility of rearrangement without a significant change in meaning (although with conjunctions and, or, the first place in the combination usually has more “weight” than the second: cf. wife and me - me and wife). When composing, the related elements are homogeneous and functionally close; It is not usually noted that one of them somehow changes its grammatical form under the influence of the other.

Examples of subordinating relationships: table leg, down pillow, down pillow, reading a book, reading aloud. Here the relationship is unequal: one element (leg, pillow, reading) is dominant, defined (in a broad sense), the other element (... table, ... made of fluff, down, ... book, ... out loud) - subordinate, dependent, defining, clarifying the meaning of the first.

The elements here either cannot be swapped in roles at all (for example, in reading a book, reading aloud), or the roles cannot be swapped without a radical change in meaning (the fluff from a pillow has a different meaning than a pillow made of fluff, cf. the teacher’s brother and the brother’s teacher). In Russian and in many other languages, the choice of the grammatical form of a subordinate word (if it is multiform) is usually dictated by the form or the presence of a dominant word. However, as we will see, the marking of a subordinating connection can also be given in the dominant word. Some linguists call phrases with subordinating connections syntagmas 1 .

The question of the nature of the connection between the subject and the predicate is controversial. We will return to it below.

In connected speech, syntactic connections are mutually intertwined, and subordination is used more widely and plays a more significant role in the organization of the utterance than

composition.

The syntactic function of a given unit (word, stable phrase) is the relation of this unit to the whole of which it is included, its syntactic role in a sentence or in a variable phrase.

This refers to the functions of sentence members, as well as inserted elements of speech (introductory words, addresses), etc. We will consider some of these functions below. Now let's look at ways to formally express syntactic connections and syntactic functions.

Expression of syntactic connections and functions using word forms, i.e., morphologically. These include: 1) coordination, 2) management, 3) a combination of coordination and management, 4) designation of a subordinating connection in the dominant word.

1. Agreement consists of the repetition of one, several or all grammes of one word in another, related word. This includes agreeing the predicate with the subject in Russian and many other languages, for example: I am reading. You are reading. She sings, We work, etc. (the verb repeats the person and number grammes contained in the subject); He read. She wrote. They worked, the book turned out to be interesting. The books turned out to be interesting (the grammes of gender and number are repeated in the predicate), etc.2 In a number of languages, as mentioned, the verb-predicate is subject to double and triple agreement - not only with the subject, but also with a direct and even indirect object. Agreement is widely used as a means of expressing attributive connections, and the grammes of the defined (dominant) word are repeated in the determiner. In the Russian language, in this case, the grammes of gender, number and case are repeated: new book, new book, about a new book, new books, etc.

A special use of agreement is observed when replacing a title word with a substitute word, for example, “My brother bought a book. She turned out to be interesting” (repetition of gender and number grammes in the substitute word).

2. Control consists in the fact that one word causes the appearance of certain grammes in another word associated with it, which, however, do not repeat the grammes of the first word. Control is widely used as a means of expressing subordinate relationships. Thus, a transitive verb in Russian and many other languages ​​requires the addition of an object in the accusative case (“I’m reading a book”); other categories of verbs control other cases without prepositions - dative (“I rejoice in spring”), genitive (“I achieve results”, “lost peace”, “wanted good”), instrumental (“I move my lips”, “seemed happy”) and various prepositional combinations (“fight against vulgarity”, “participate in a concert”, etc.). Other words require the placement of words dependent on them in certain cases and with certain prepositions - nouns (cf. “thirst for knowledge”, “exception to the rule”), adjectives (“full of strength”, “happy with the purchase”, “adventurous” "), adverbs ("along with me"), non-verbal predicates ("I felt sorry for the poor fellow"). Negative sentences have their own peculiarities of control (in particular, in Russian and other Slavic languages) (cf. I write poetry - I don’t write poetry).

3. The combination of agreement and control occurs, for example, in the Russian language in the groups “numeral + noun”, in which the numeral controls the noun, requiring it to be placed in gender in some cases. p.m. h. (five tables), in others - in a special “counting form” (two steps) 1, and at the same time consistent with it (five tables, five tables, two windows, but two doors). In languages ​​of the so-called ergative structure, the verb-predicate not only agrees with the subject, but at the same time controls it, requiring its placement in the “absolute” case for an intransitive verb and in the “ergative” 2 case for a transitive verb (and the subject of an intransitive verb is framed by the same case as the transitive complement). Here are examples from the Georgian language, in which, however, the picture is further complicated by the fact that the subject of a transitive verb appears not in one ergative, but in three different cases, depending on the tense form in which the verb is used.

1. The subject of structural syntax is the study of sentences(phrase). No wonder that when German linguists needed to translate the word “syntax” into their language, they chose the term"Satzlehre" "the doctrine of supply."

2. Sentence 1 is an organized whole whose elements are words 2.

3. Each word that is part of a sentence loses its isolation, which is always inherent in it in the dictionary 3. You can notice that each word of the sentence enters into certain connections with neighboring words(connexions), the totality of which constitutes the backbone, or structure, of a sentence.

4. These connections are not expressed in any way. But they are necessarily revealed by the consciousness of the speakers, without which not a single sentence would be intelligible. When I say a sentence Alfred parle "Alfred says" (see art.* 1), I do not mean to say two separate things: on the one hand, “there is a man named Alfred,” and on the other hand, “someone is speaking.” In my mind these messages are combined: "Alfred performs the action of speaking," or "he who speaks"This is Alfred."

5. It follows that a sentence like Alfred parle does not consist of

1 Grammarians have repeatedly tried to make the concept of a sentence (phrase)more clear, reducing it to the term proposition borrowed from logic (proposition)(cf. ch.20, § 18).It cannot be said that these attempts were crowned with complete success. Wed. statement by O. Blok: “Among different authors there is no consensus even on what should be understood by the term proposition” (Bloch 1936, 90).

In other words, we do not share the point of view of A. Sauvageau, who, despairing of defining the concept of a sentence, notes: “The definition of a sentence is of no interest from the point of view of syntax. At best, this concept can be considered the final goal of research, but not its starting point " (Sauvageot 1936,162).

3 However, an isolated word - this is pure abstraction, since the sentence - it is a natural environment in which words live, just as fish live in water. When creating a dictionary, we take elements of linguistic reality and artificially extract them from the natural environment in which they live. So the dictionary inevitably turns out to be a collection of fossils.

* Art. - abbreviation for "stemma" (stemme). - Note ed.

two elements: 1) Aflred and 2) parle, and of three: 1) Alfred, 2) parle, 3) the connection that unites them and without which there would be no proposal. Saying that a sentence like Alfred parle contains only two elements, - means to analyze it from a purely superficial, morphological point of view and ignore the most essential - syntactic connection.

6. The same is true in the world of chemicals: as a result of the sodium compound(Na) and chlorine (C1) a complex substance is formed - table salt or sodium chloride(NaCl) , - having completely different properties than its constituents sodium and chlorine.

7. Syntactic connection is necessary to express thoughts. Without it we could not convey any coherent content. Our speech would be a simple sequence of isolated images and ideas, unrelated to each other.

8. It is the syntactic connection that makes a sentence a living organism, and it is in it that its vitality lies.

9. Build a sentence - means breathing life into an amorphous mass of words by establishing a set of syntactic connections between them.

10. And back, understand the sentence - means to understand the totality of connections that unite the words included in it.

11. The concept of syntactic connection is thus the basis of all structural syntax. The importance of this concept should be strongly emphasized.

12. As a matter of fact, it is precisely what we call connection that is expressed by the word “syntax” itself, meaning in Greek “arrangement”, “establishment of order”. In addition, this concept, reflecting the internal nature of a sentence, corresponds to inner Sprachform "internal form of language" by W. Humboldt 5.

13. For clarity, we will depict connections between words graphically, using lines that we will call lines of syntactic connection (see Art. 1).

4 Fruitful concept inner Sprachform,introduced more than a century ago, has still not taken its rightful place in linguistics. This was prevented by the axiom imposed by “morphologists”, according to which only directly perceived, material facts of language, that is, facts related to the external sphere, belong to the jurisdiction of linguistics. Thus a prioriself-denied inner Sprachform,which, by definition, belongs to the internal sphere.

5 Wilhelm Humboldt - a linguist of the highest class, with a brilliant intuition, to whom modern linguistics is still far from doing justice, while Bopp, the founder of comparative grammar, is extolled to the skies. Meillet considered this state of affairs fair, which is at least paradoxical if we take into account the comparative importance of the works of these two scientists. In the history of thought, Humboldt, the friend of Schiller and Goethe, undoubtedly stands much higher than Bopp, who never rose above the level of a good specialist. Anyone who has any idea of ​​the development of German thought in the 19th century will rightly be surprised to learn that such a comprehensive thinker as Humboldt, possessing deep knowledge in various fields, a scientist of high scientific culture, is placed on the hierarchical ladder below Bopp, a simple a specialist in comparative grammar, who is almost invisible in the history of German thought. In the end, linguists will inevitably give full justice to Humboldt, a man whom Goethe allowed into the circle of people intellectually close to him, and who was a thinker on a completely different scale than Bopp.