A complex sentence in the system of syntactic units. Compound sentence as a unit of syntax

A complex sentence is a structural, semantic and intonational combination of predicative units that are grammatically similar to a simple sentence. A complex sentence has its own grammatical meaning and grammatical form, its own structural indicators. A complex sentence is a syntactic communicative unit of a higher order than a simple sentence.
Similarities Between Simple Sentence and Compound Sentence:

1. Each part of a complex sentence is built on the model of a simple sentence.
2. In each part of a complex sentence there is a composition of main members, minor members, and complicating components are possible.

The difference between a simple sentence and a complex sentence:

1. Structural: a simple sentence contains one predicative unit (a simple sentence is a monopredicative unit), a complex sentence contains two (or more) predicative units (a complex sentence is a polypredicative unit). A simple sentence is built from words and phrases, and a complex one is built from simple sentences, which in some cases remain unchanged, while in others they undergo structural changes, entering the complex as its components.
2. Semantic: parts of a complex sentence are deprived of independence - semantic completeness; intonation completeness; components of the “dependence” of parts of a complex sentence that are not characteristic of a simple sentence may appear: unions, allied words, demonstrative words, functional equivalents.

What are the parts of a complex sentence?
According to school grammar, "A compound sentence is a sentence consisting of two or more simple sentences."
“Sentences that have in their composition two or more predicative units that form a semantic, structural and intonational unity are called complex” (N.S. Valgina).
So, the components of a complex sentence were called and called differently: simple sentences (school), predicative units (university textbooks).
Indeed, a complex sentence consists of parts that are similar to simple sentences. Experiment: take simple sentences and make complex sentences out of them.
Nr, Father spent the whole evening reading a new story. The story was fantastic. Her father liked her.
When constructing a complex sentence from simple sentences, the latter cease to have the most important features of the sentence - semantic and intonational independence. A complex sentence in meaning and structure is never an "arithmetic sum" of simple sentences. The content of the parts of a complex sentence becomes clear only as part of a complex sentence (as morphemes in a word).
A complex sentence is a fact of saving language resources. Certain relationships are established between the parts of a complex sentence, which deprive the parts of semantic, intonational, and sometimes structural completeness.
A simple sentence undergoes a whole system of changes, becoming a component of a complex sentence. Thus, despite the fact that there is some commonality between a simple and a complex sentence (predicativity), when entering a complex sentence, these predicative units acquire features that significantly distinguish them from simple sentences. Simple sentences lose their semantic and intonational completeness, and therefore it is more expedient to call parts of a complex sentence predicative units.
The grammatical features of a complex sentence are determined by two points: 1) each of its parts is built according to one or another scheme of a simple sentence; 2) the combination of parts of a complex sentence constitutes a structural-semantic unity (V.A. Beloshapkova).
This duality of the complex sentence has led to a different understanding of its syntactic essence:

1. A.M. Peshkovsky, A. A. Shakhmatov, who understood a complex sentence as a chain of simple sentences, abandoned the term complex sentence. A.M. Peshkovsky called a complex sentence a “complex whole”, A.A. Shakhmatov called it a “combination of sentences”.
2. V.A. Bogoroditsky described a complex sentence as a single and integral structure. This idea was deepened by N.S. Pospelov, V.A. Beloshapkova,

S.E. Kryuchkov, L.Yu., Maksimov, for whom a complex sentence is a structural-semantic unity of predicative parts.
Features of a complex sentence.

1. Structural features of a complex sentence:

1. Polypredicativity;

1. The presence of lexical and grammatical means of communication: conjunctions, allied words, correlative words (indicative words), particles, intonation.

N-r, You are many years late, but still I am glad for you.
Know how to live even when life becomes unbearable.
3. The presence of common members of the proposal.

1. Structural incompleteness of any predicative part of a compound sentence (usually the second).

1. Semantic features of a complex sentence:

1. Polypropositivity.
2. The lexico-thematic unity of the parts of a complex sentence, which entails their logical compatibility.
3. Between the predicative parts of a complex sentence, certain relationships are established that are associated with certain communicative premises, i.e. for each type of complex sentence, a certain grammatical meaning is characteristic.

The independence of a complex sentence is manifested in the following:

1. single complex semantics;
2. single intonation pattern;
3. availability of specific means of communication.

A complex sentence is a combination of predicative units built according to one or another structural scheme and intended to function as an integral unit of a message.

1.1. The concept of a complex sentence

1.2. Compound sentence and simple sentence: opposition and convergence

1.3. General classification of complex sentences

1.4. Means of expressing syntactic relations between parts of a complex sentence

Literature

1. Beloshapkova, V. A. Modern Russian language: Syntax / V. A. Beloshapkova, V. N. Belousov, E. A. Bryzgunov. - M.: Azbukovnik, 2002. - 295 p.

2. Valgina N.S Syntax of the modern Russian language: [Textbook. for universities on special "Journalism"] / N.S. Valgin. - M.: Higher School, 1991. - 431 p.

3. Vostokov A.Kh. Russian grammar / A.Kh. Vostokov. - St. Petersburg: Printing house of I. Glazunov, 1831. - 408 p.

4. Peshkovsky A.M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. – 8th ed. - M.: Editorial URSS, 2001. - S. 427 - 443.

5. Pospelov N.S. Complex sentence and its structural types / N.S. Pospelov // Questions of linguistics. - 1959. - No. 2. – pp. 19-27

1.1. THE CONCEPT OF A COMPLEX SENTENCE

A sentence that has in its composition two or more predicative units that form a semantic, structural and intonational unity is called difficult . A complex sentence is an integral syntactic structure that acts as a single communicative unit 1 . A complex sentence, like a simple one, performs a communicative function in the language, but, unlike a simple sentence, it reports two or more situations and the relationship between them.

It is important to note that a complex sentence as a special syntactic unit was recognized by scientists relatively recently, already in the 20th century. In the most significant syntactic descriptions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it is not represented as a syntactic unit. An intensive study of the complex sentence began in the second half of the 20th century, primarily in the works of V.V. Vinogradova, N.S. Pospelov, then in the works of L.Yu. Maksimova, V.A. Beloshapkova, M.I. Cheremisina and other researchers, whose works we will refer to in the course of presenting this topic. A complex sentence as a syntactic unit is opposed to a simple one, however, the definitions of a complex sentence, even the most modern ones, contain the traditional contradiction. It lies in the fact that the sentence is called both the whole complex formation and its constituent components. Let's look at these definitions. In the "Russian Grammar" of 1980 we read: "A complex sentence is a combination of two or more simple sentences, grammatically designed." In a school textbook: "A complex sentence is one that consists of two or more simple sentences." Similar definitions can be continued. The contradiction inherent in such definitions can be eliminated if the syntactic aspect to which this unit refers is established. This was first noticed by V.A. Beloshapkova. A complex sentence is opposed to a simple one in terms of syntactic structure, that is, in the formal grammatical (constructive) aspect. The most important feature of a simple sentence is predicativity, while a complex sentence consists of two or more predicative units. Hence, a complex sentence is opposed to a simple sentence as a polypredicative unit to a monopredicative unit. Thus, a complex sentence is a syntactic unit, the components of which are predicative units, united by a syntactic connection and syntactic relations.

1.2. Compound sentence and simple sentence: opposition and convergence

The difference between a simple and a complex sentence is thus based on the structure of syntactic units: a simple sentence is monopredicative, a complex sentence is polypredicative, i.e. a structurally complex sentence differs from a simple one primarily in the presence of two or more predicative centers, while in a simple sentence there is always only one predicative center. In addition, if a simple sentence is included in a complex one, becoming part of it, it can change its structure. Most often this is due to a change in the structure of the part that becomes dependent: 1) Pinocchio could not solve the problem proposed by Malvina. He has never been to school. – Pinocchio could not solve the problem proposed by Malvina, since he had never been to school(the dependent part has become an incomplete sentence). 2) Malvina decided to settle in a house lost in the deep forest. She no longer wanted to play in the Barabas Theater. ‑ Malvina decided to settle in a house lost in the deep forest so that she would no longer play in the Barabas Theater(the dependent part has become a one-part impersonal sentence). There are also types of complex sentences in which the order of the parts is strictly defined, and, entering into such SPs (complex sentences), individual sentences obey this rule. Pinocchio could not eat. He didn't have a penny in his pocket. - Pinocchio did not have a penny in his pocket, so he could not eat.

Parts of a complex sentence do not have intonational completeness, unlike a separate simple sentence. The recognition of a complex sentence as "a holistic syntactic expression of a single complex thought" 1 leads to the identification of its grammatical specificity - the absence of a mechanical combination of simple sentences.

Simple and complex sentences also differ in their main grammatical meaning: in a simple sentence it is predicativity, in a complex sentence it is semantic-syntactic relations between its parts, based on the interaction of the modal-temporal plans of these individual parts. To characterize a complex sentence, determine its typology, it is necessary to take into account the following aspects of its semantic-structural organization: syntactic connection between parts and means of its expression; the potential number of components, since this is due to the semantic-structural nature of the complex sentence; the order of the parts is strictly fixed or relatively free; some features of the lexical content of the parts.

Simple and complex sentences, on the one hand, are opposed as monopredicative and polypredicative units. But, on the other hand, there are linguistic facts that can be interpreted in different ways, since they combine the features of a simple and complex sentence.

First of all, this sentences with two or more predicates with one subject. Let's compare two sentences: 1) He was very worried and could not sleep for a long time. 2) He was so worried that he could not sleep for a long time. In traditional grammar, these sentences are interpreted in different ways: the first - as a simple one with homogeneous predicates, the second - as a complex one. In other words, it turns out that a coordinating connection is a sign of a simple sentence, and a subordinating one is a sign of a complex one. At the same time, from the point of view of their relation to predicativity, these sentences are the same: in both cases there are two predicates and one subject.

The Russian Grammar takes a different point of view: sentences with several predicates with one subject are considered as complex both in the subordinating and in the coordinating connection - on the basis of their polypredicativity. The explanation of such structures is given by M.I. Cheremisina: she considers them as a special polypredicative construction in the conditions of monosubjectivity (in short, a monosubjective construction).

There are a number of constructions in which the signs of a simple and complex sentence are manifested.

Monosubject sentences with the union "to". For example: I have come to talk to you. Such sentences have both a complex sign (polypredicativity) and a simple sign (mono-subjectivity and the connection of the infinitive with the verb of motion, which is preserved even without a union: I came to talk to you).

Offers with comparative turnover. For example: Gone are the youthful amusements, like a dream, like a morning mist. The comparative turnover does not contain a verbalized predicate, but can be considered as an incomplete sentence with a non-repeating (missing) predicate “disappeared” (Young fun disappeared, like a dream disappears ...).

1.3. GENERAL CLASSIFICATION OF COMPLEX PROPOSALS

The classification of complex sentences can be based on various features.

1. Presence / absence of an allied means: alliance - non-union.

2. Type of syntactic connection: composition - submission.

3. The nature of the components between which there is a connection: dismemberment - non-dismemberment.

4. The number of PUs, the nature of the connection and the relationship between them.

1. Parts of a complex sentence can be combined: 1) with the help of unions and allied words, 2) without unions and allied words, using only intonation and the ratio of predicate forms. In this regard, complex sentences are divided into two big groups: allied complex sentences and unionless complex sentences. For example: 1) Blue eyes the girls opened wide with fright, and a tear flashed in them(Kor.); Frost understood. What conversation is over(Fad.); 2) Believe in your eyes- measure crookedly(M. G); It was five o'clock in the afternoon, the owners were not at home(Past.); The lower stones turned out to be wet: a puddle of clean water flowed to the bottom of the pool(Paust.).

2. Allied sentences, in turn, are divided into two groups depending on the type of unions and allied words: sentences compound - with coordinating unions; offers complex subordinate - with subordinating conjunctions and allied (or relative) words.

At essay parts of a complex sentence are combined as syntactically equal, with subordination - one of the parts (or several) is syntactically subordinate to the other, depends on it. Wed: The sun is at its zenith and all the shadows are burned by it(M. G.).- ... She knew well where her son's heart beats(M. G.); Rivers are easy to cross for those who were born and raised by the sea(M. G.). In the first sentence, the parts are connected as equals, they retain their relative independence, although lexically the second part is affected by the first: the form of the pronoun them in the second part indicates the subject Sun in the first part. In the second and third sentences, the dependent parts where the son's heart beats And who was born and raised by the sea completely devoid of the ability to function independently, they are completely subordinate to the first parts. In addition, the first parts of these sentences are not independent enough, that is, they cannot exist without dependent parts: in the sentence She knew well reveals a clear semantic insufficiency, since the verb knew needs an explanation; offer Rivers are easy to cross also turns out to be incomplete, since the indication to that needs to be specified. This semantic and grammatical insufficiency of the first parts of the sentence is made up for by the dependent parts in the complex sentence. Thus, we can talk not only about the dependence of one of the parts of a complex sentence, but also about the interdependence of its constituent parts.

Composition and submission are not always clearly distinguished, and therefore there are transitional types allied compound sentence. This transitivity is manifested in the fact that in a number of complex sentences subordinating conjunctions are used, however, the semantic relations between the parts clearly resemble the relations in a compound sentence, and the role of the subordinating conjunction turns out to be so formal that it is not assigned to a specific part of the sentence, but can be equally included in one part to another. This is typical, for example, of complex sentences with comparative parts in which there are conjunctions while, meanwhile; if...then than...those and etc.: The closer to old age, the more often Levitan's thoughts stopped in the fall(Paust.); If Yashvili was all in an external centrifugal manifestation, Titian Tabidze was directed inward(Past.) - pass That in the second part.

The dual nature of the syntactic connection can also be seen in sentences in which the connection between parts is expressed not so much by conjunctions and allied words, but by other structural means, in particular, forms of moods of verbs, the order of parts. Such structurally related, non-free syntactic constructions are characteristic of the colloquial style. The connection in them is expressed only morphologically or by morphological means in combination with unions that have lost their subordinating character. For example: We did not have time to calm down from such an event, or rather, from such a turn of events, as Nyushka appeared on our doorstep(Sol.); Before the lava of the volcano had cooled down, oil scientists rushed to the scene(gas.); As soon as you turn your head, as a bizarre sensation would disappear without a trace.(Greene); If Mitrasha came here hungry and without a basket, what would he be doing here?(Prishv.). The transitional type is formed by such related structures as: Would come to me like a good one, I would give you both lard and bread(Chuk.); Don't run the boy on time- no one would know that the mobile shop is already here(Aitm.); And look from the side- we have hundreds of qualified sociologists(gas.). In all these sentences, the main constructive role is played by the verb form, and if a union appears, it clearly loses its subordinating meaning, especially since it is located in the conditionally called main part.

Structurally related to fuzzy syntactic relations are sentences with turnover as for ... then: As for Tolik and me, we ourselves did not do important things. We made boxes for these things.(War.). Such designs can be represented by even more reduced stylistically options: As for Aleksey Kuzmich, he is just a fine fellow and you owe him a lot(Ephr.); As for the protective role of fat, it does not need to be proven.(journal).

The dual nature of the syntactic connection also distinguishes sentences with double conjunctions of the type: true ... but, although ... but, let ... but, no matter how ... but (however) and others, in which the first part has a subordinating union, and the second - a coordinating one. These are sentences with a generalized concessive meaning: Even though you have new skin, but your heart is still the same(Cr.); True, his dinner consisted of two or three dishes prepared by a retired soldier, but champagne flowed like a river.(P.). Closer to compound sentences are sentences with the same meaning, but without the subordinating part of the union, the place of which is occupied by the particle union And, For example: And it's a pity for the father, yes, take him to the churchyard(last); And dashing trouble, but she is forgetful(last). Wed: Although it’s a pity for the father, yes, take him to the churchyard.

3. Dismemberment - non-dismemberment. This sign is typical for complex sentences (SPP) and non-union complex sentences (BSP) close to them in semantics. Undivided are sentences in which the subordinate part has a supporting component inside the main part in the form of a verb, noun, pronoun, adjective, comparative or adverb: 1. [ There will be People], (who will understand me): People (what?), which ... . The subordinate clause refers to the noun "people", which is determined by this clause, the sign of which the clause denotes (cf .: There will be people who understand me. There will be people who understand me).

2. I don't I doubt that he is a decent person. The subordinate clause refers to the word "doubt", making up for its informative insufficiency (cf .: I don't doubt his decency).

Dissected sentences include sentences in which the subordinate part does not have the position of a sentence member in the main part and distributes the content of the entire main part as a whole: The house was empty until they came from the city- two situations are correlated as a whole, the second relates to the first as its time reference, the limit to which the first situation existed.

4. Complex sentences can consist of two predicative parts - these are typical constructions: The shot is short - and the ball is in the goal. They are called elementary. At the same time, there are structures consisting of three or more units. Compound sentences consisting of more than two predicative units are distinguished by the nature of the syntactic connection between the parts: sentences with the same type of syntactic connection are usually called polynomial complex sentences, sentences with heterogeneous syntactic connection - complex syntactic structures.

And the steering wheel fidgets, / and the casing cracks, / and the canvases are taken into the reefs. This polynomial compound sentence is an open chain of three absolutely identical predicative units.

Depending on various combinations of types of connection between parts, the following types of complex syntactic constructions are possible:

1) with composition and submission: Lopatin began to feel sleepy, and he was delighted when the driver appeared at the door and reported that the car was ready.(Sim.);

2) with an essay and an allied connection: My direction is to another unit, but I lagged behind the train: let me, I think, I’ll look at my platoon and at my lieutenant(Cossack.);

3) with subordination and unionless communication: On a walk in the woods, sometimes, while thinking about my work, I am seized by a philosophical delight: it seems as if you are deciding the conceivable fate of all mankind.(Shv.);

4) with composition, subordination and non-union connection: But the river majestically carries its water, and what does it care about these bindweeds: spinning, they swim along with the water, as ice floes recently floated(Prishv.).

1.4. MEANS OF EXPRESSING SYNTACTICAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PARTS OF A COMPLEX SENTENCE

Recall that the constructive basis of a simple sentence is the predicative core , represented by a block diagram. The components of the block diagram are word forms. For example: N1 - Vf, Inf - N1, Vf 3pl, etc. The components of a complex sentence are predicative units (PU). But the mere presence of two or more predicative units does not yet indicate that this is a complex sentence. In order to form a complex sentence, it is necessary syntactic connection expressed by a special indicator or a set of formal indicators(unions, allied words, etc.). Let's give examples. Evening came,But it was still warm. Structural diagram: PE - But PE. I'll come back,When finish work: PE - When PE. I don'tremember , When It was: specific means of communication - informatively insufficient verb "remember" in the main part, requiring mandatory distribution, and a union word (K-word) in the subordinate part. Thus, exactly formal indicators of syntactic communication are the main structural elements of a complex sentence, its constructive basis .

Semantic and syntactic relations between the parts of a complex sentence are expressed using unions, allied words, correlates, intonation and order of parts, morphological and lexical means..

1. Unions connect parts of compound and complex sentences. In a compound sentence, conjunctions serve as the main means of communication, for example: There was no light in the room And everything outside the windows merged into one green mess(quiet); That Cold, That very hot, That the sun will hide That shining too bright(Cr.); The old woman lay down on the stove A Daria, a young widow, went to visit the children(N.).

Subordinating conjunctions connect parts of a complex sentence, for example: Frost understood. What conversation is over(Fad.); Must go, If he advises(Gonch.); The deck of the Hispaniola was lower than the embankment, So it was possible to descend on it without a gangway(Greene).

2. The role of a connecting element in a complex sentence can be performed by relative (union) word, which is a member of the proposal: The shepherd looked up at the sky where drizzling rain(Ch.); Dibich guessed in impenetrable darkness, to whom own the votes(Fed.). Always allied words are lexemes which, which, whose, how much, where, where, from where, what in prepositional-case forms. Lexemes act as a union and a union word what, how, when.

3. Correlates, or correlative pairs, are used in a complex sentence of a pronominal-correlative type, for example: 1) Who looking for, 2) That will always find(V.I. Lebedev-Kumach). In the main part, a demonstrative pronoun or a pronominal adverb is used that, that, there, there, so, so much, such etc., the meaning of which is revealed with the help of the subordinate part.

4. The way to express the relationship between the parts of a complex sentence is also order of parts . In offers It got stuffy, I left the room And I left the room: it became stuffy the sequence of cause-and-effect relationships is expressed in different ways. Many complex sentences have a certain specific arrangement of parts. There are structures with a strictly fixed order of parts. Others, although they allow variants in the arrangement of parts, however, change the semantic-syntactic relations between them, for example: Since in the forest was already dark, we decided to leave our search.- We decided to leave our search because it was already dark in the forest- the causal relationship in the first sentence is transformed into a causal justification relationship in the second. The semantic differences that are created here by the order of the parts are inherent in the given sentence as a certain structure and are not related to the context 1 . The order of words within the parts of a complex sentence, especially in the dependent part, is by no means an arbitrary phenomenon, but is determined by the structure of the entire sentence as an integral unit.

5.Intonation in a complex sentence, it is a means of combining parts into a whole. A separate part of a complex sentence does not have intonational completeness. The intonation of the end is characteristic only of the final part of a complex sentence. The role of intonation in a non-union complex sentence is especially important, since here it is an indicator of the semantic relations between the parts, for example: Morning will come, let's go to the field- enumerative intonation; Morning will come- let's go to the field- intonation of conditionality, conveying conditional-temporal meanings.

6. Morphological means.

A) The formal elements of the structure of a complex sentence can be words related to a certain part of speech: a noun, a comparative. For example: I came to city where I spent my childhood(the second, subordinate part of the sentence refers to a noun); He turned out better than we thought of him(for the structure of this sentence, a comparative is needed: it is its meaning that is extended by the subordinate clause).

B) Correlation of morphological forms. For example: Vf of the perfect form in the past tense in relation to the same forms in other components of the complex Bell rang, wagon flew (A. Pushkin). Vf in the form of the imperative in relation to Vf in the form subjunctive mood creates a conditional-investigative relationship: turn out next to a friend, troubles would not happen.

C) The use of certain verb forms with certain conjunctions: “to” + Inf, “to” + Vf with the suffix “l”: Came to talk, I'll come early so we can talk.

7. Lexical means:

A) Semantic function: correlation of situations. The lexical content of the components of a complex sentence predetermines certain syntactic relations of these components.

B) Design function:

Synsemantic words: words with the meaning of speech and thought activity, perception, expression of will ( I know, I understand, I know, clearly, understandably, surprisingly, I see, I hear, it seemed, I ask, I demand and many others) are formal indicators of the structure of complex explanatory sentences. For example: I know that you are my friend, It's amazing how you guessed it, Father demanded that I go with him;

Lexical Relationships: Relationships between the lexical meanings of individual words can be a means of expressing syntactic relationships between the components of a complex sentence. For example, antonyms (including contextual ones) are involved in the expression of opposition: You are rich - I am very poor; you are a prose writer - I am a poet;

Phrase diagrams with significant vocabulary: “it’s worth it”, “it didn’t have time - how”, “it’s enough to”. For example: cost open his mouthHow everyone started laughing. The phraseological scheme "cost - how" expresses temporal relationships: the second situation occurs simultaneously with the first. Oftenenough it was emptyto Chaliapin fell into a violent rage. The phraseological scheme "enough - to" expresses the relationship of conditionality: the second situation is a consequence of such a condition, which should not lead to such a consequence

SELF-CHECK QUESTIONS

1. What contradiction is contained in the definitions of a complex sentence, even the most modern ones?

2. What is the essence of opposing a simple sentence to a complex one? What are the similarities and differences between simple and complex sentences?

3. What is the constructive basis of a simple sentence? What about complex?

4. Can a predicative unit acting as part of a complex sentence change its structure? Give examples.

5. Name four features by which complex sentences are classified.

6. Name seven indicators of a formal syntactic connection in a complex sentence.

7. How do unions differ from allied words?

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

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

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

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

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

The asymmetry in the relations of predicativity and propositivity is manifested in the existence of simple sentences, which are characterized by polypropositivity. These are sentences complicated by separate definitions, circumstances, applications, which are folded propositions, as well as sentences with names of propositive (event) semantics and sentences with secondary nominal predicates: Person, harmful V force beliefs, can be persuaded. Human harmful By personal malice, can be softened. Only those who harm out of fear are invulnerable and adamant (L. Ginzburg); Arrival the guests woke the dogs, sleeping on Sun(N. Gogol); From that day on, Prince Andrei fiance began to go to the Rostovs (L.N. Tolstoy).

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

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

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

The complex sentence model includes a set of basic and additional funds connections. The main means of communication include: a) coordinating and subordinating unions: My tired thoughts flight has become low, And the world of the soul is waterless and poorer (P. Vyazemsky); If my Russia is over - I'm dying (Z. Gippius); b) allied words, or relatives (in a complex sentence): In the river, What we call life, and we are a mirror stream (P. Vyazemsky); c) correlates (indicative words in the main part of a complex sentence, signaling its incompleteness): What a regret and hello to that who perishes in the color of years? (M. Lermontov); d) supporting words in complex sentences of an undivided structure - words directly distributed by the subordinate clause: You wander in the forest, Not thinking that suddenly you will become an eyewitness to some secret (M. Petrov); e) intonation.

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

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

The set of means of communication - the structural elements of a complex sentence - forms its model (scheme), which can be both typical and private. A typical model is a general model by which all complex sentences of the same structural-semantic type are built, a particular model is a model of a specific complex sentence. It includes the means of predicative links that are inherent in a particular syntactic construction and are relevant for its construction. The complex sentence model is graphically transmitted in the form of a block diagram. For example, the sentence Evil exists in order to fight it (I. Brodsky) is built according to the scheme, (p. what). Models of a complex sentence are divided into free and phraseologized (phrase models). The latter include stably reproduced additional means of connecting predicative parts (particles, special lexemes, repetition of words or their forms): Connections connections, but you also need to have a conscience (E. Schwartz). Let us consider in more detail the sentence of the phraseologized structure. It is worth reading this poem more carefully, as we will understand its full depth. It is built according to a non-free model, which includes, as its constant component, such additional means of communication as the word stands (cost) and the adjoining perfective infinitive in the first part. General Model complex sentences of this variety has the form:

[worth (cost) + infinitive], (with. how).

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

In the semantic aspect, a complex sentence is a unit characterized by semantic integrity. Its meaning is not the sum of the meanings of its constituent predicative parts. "The grammatical meaning of a complex sentence is usually understood as the semantic relations between its parts, and one or another grammatical meaning is characteristic not only of one particular sentence, but of all sentences that have the same structure (structure), built on the same model." He did not accept offers of gifts, because there was nothing to give away (I. Goncharov); The dogs climbed far into the kennels, since there was no one to bark at (I. Goncharov); Once Varyusha woke up because Sidor. knocked on the glass with his beak (K. Paustovsky), despite the difference in specific unions, they are built according to a common model model:, (causal subordinating union). A causal relationship is established between the events of the first and second predicative parts. Thus, the syntactic meanings of these constructions are the meanings of the cause.

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

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

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

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

There are two types of such lexical items:

1) typological-constructive elements necessary for the implementation of the main syntactic meaning of a complex sentence. So, antonyms express a comparative meaning, the main one for compound and non-union sentences with comparative relations: Young- to the service old- for advice (proverb);

complex sentence grammatical connection

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

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

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

The meaning of a complex sentence can also be organized in such a way that the propositions contained in its parts "correlate with the same situation." So, in divisive compound sentences with unions, it’s not the same. not that, or. whether different propositions serve for an inaccurate nomination of the same situation, not clearly identified by the speaker: Either he [Rudin] envied Natalya, or he regretted her (I. Turgenev).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among the most important and regular elements of the structure of a complex sentence are the main means of communication (unions and allied words), the ratio of aspectual-temporal and modal forms of predicates, the relative position of parts, and in complex sentences, in addition, the presence or absence of correlative (indicative) words and the ratio of the subordinate part to the main part (the subordinate part refers to the entire main part or to any word or phrase in it). As already mentioned, quantitatively and qualitatively different combinations of these structural elements form models of complex sentences of various types (of course, taking into account known lexical restrictions), each of which is characterized by its wide grammatical meaning.

Most complex sentences are built on such models, they are the most productive and stylistically neutral. They are called free.

However, there are also complex proposals that are built on more complex models. In addition to the basic elements of the structure indicated above, they include other, more specific elements that make the connection between the predicative parts especially close and cause more specific and complex grammatical meanings. Complex sentences built according to such models are limited in their use (usually typical for living colloquial speech). Such models are called non-free.

Such, for example, is the complex sentence What else, but there are enough swamps in Meshchera (K. Paustovsky). The structural model of this sentence, in addition to the comparative union a and the present tense (suffices) with a timeless meaning, also includes the pronominal combination of something else, which forms the first part. This also determines the more complex grammatical meaning of this sentence - it expresses not comparative relations, but excretory-comparative ones. According to the same non-free model, such sentences are built: Who else, but he knows; Where else, but in Moscow you will find everything, etc. Cf. free model proposal: There is little arable land in Meshchera, but there are plenty of swamps.

Individual particles are especially often used as additional elements of the structure, but these can also be various morphological forms of words and even fully significant words.

So, the negative particle not and the restrictive particle are only used in complex sentences with the union as, expressing the relationship of temporal interdependence, for example:

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

In the structure of these complex sentences, the verb managed also takes part, which, in combination with particles, not only directly indicates by its lexical meaning the nature of the relations expressed in the complex sentence (did not have time ... only managed ...).

In sentences with a double union than ... those in which facts interconnected in their development are compared, forms are an obligatory element of the structure comparative degree adjectives or qualitative adverbs, for example:

• 1) How quicker the fire burned out topics more visible the moonlit night was becoming (A. Chekhov);
• 2) How more he said, topics more blushed (Saltykov-Shchedrin).

In the sentences analyzed above with elements, I did not have time ..., how ...; only managed ..., how ... and in sentences with the union than ... the, in addition to the main elements of the structure, several more private elements, characteristic only for these sentences, are distinguished. This leads to the fact that the connection between the parts of a complex sentence turns out to be so close that it even seems difficult to decide which part is main and which is subordinate. In such cases, we can talk about the subordination of parts of a complex sentence.

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

• 4) if it is possible to change the order of predicative parts in complex sentences, flexible and inflexible structures are distinguished. Flexible structures allow different options for the order of parts: If you have to choose your fate, I will not be deceived by another (N. Krandievskaya). Inflexible structures are structures in which permutations of predicative parts and the insertion of one of the parts into another are impossible: The train departed at seven o'clock in the evening, so that Mikhail Ivanovich could have time to have dinner ... before departure (L. Tolstoy);
• 5) on the basis of "correspondence / inconsistency of the number of propositions and predicative parts of the sentence", symmetrical and asymmetric constructions are distinguished. In symmetrical constructions, the number of propositions is equal to the number of predicative parts: If you need help, call. In asymmetric constructions, the number of propositions does not correspond to the number of predicative parts, and individual links of the semantic structure of the statement are not expressed using linguistic means (implicit): If you want to buy bread, then the bakery is on the right. In this statement, the two predicative parts correspond to three components of the semantic structure: If you want to buy bread, then (keep in mind, know) (that) the bakery is on the right. The second component is omitted, which causes the asymmetry of the complex sentence.

According to the function (the nature of the goal setting), the functional types of the complex sentence are distinguished. At the same time, they differ:

• 1) functionally homogeneous sentences - sentences, all the predicative parts of which coincide in goal setting: a) narrative: I walked slowly: I was sad (M. Lermontov); b) interrogative: Why ... others can do everything, but I can’t? (L. Tolstoy); c) incentive: Give everything earthly to the earth, and, like blue smoke, ascend to us in blue, pure and unharmed (F. Sologub).
• 2) syncretic, uniting functionally heterogeneous parts: a) narrative-interrogative: Without a doubt, he was in a pitiful position, but what was to be done? (L. Tolstoy); b) narrative-incentive: ... You won’t find better: pay attention gentle look, girls, to the infantry (A. Tvardovsky); c) motivating-interrogative: Yes, run to the police officer - why is he chilling there? (A. Chekhov); d) incentive-narrative: Understand: lack of freedom from lies leads to atrocities (V Kornilov).

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

It is traditional to divide sentences into exclamatory and non-exclamatory sentences. These types of sentences differ in the presence / absence of emotional coloring in the syntactic construction and, thus, are associated with the reflection of the position of the speaker (the author of the statement), with the transfer of his emotions and assessments. The means of expressing emotions is primarily exclamatory intonation, as well as particles, interjections and expressive vocabulary: How vividly unpretentious pictures of marching movements arise in my head, and what modest charm they acquire in memories! (A. Kuprin). Non-exclamatory and exclamatory sentences are unevenly distributed in the system complex structures. Non-exclamatory sentences predominate, while exclamatory ones are used, as a rule, in the sphere of binary constructions, and they are closely related to the functional types of the sentence: it is the question or motivation that often expresses the speaker's emotions.

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

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

So, non-union sentences differ from allied ones by the diffuseness of semantics, the non-differentiation of relations between parts. Compound and complex sentences differ in the degree of autonomy of the parts and the nature of the expressed relations between them.

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

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

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

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

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

The most important stage in the development of the doctrine of the types of communication in a complex sentence was the discussion on the issue of composition and subordination in the 20s of our century. It was opened by M.N. Peterson, who convincingly showed the indefiniteness and fragility of the concept of dependence - the independence of the parts of a complex sentence, and with great sharpness and categoricalness expressed the idea that "objective criteria ... do not make it possible to distinguish the main sentence from the subordinate clause and the essay from subordination" and that, therefore, in the concepts of composition and subordination have no linguistic content.

The most interesting response to this criticism of the doctrine of composition and subordination was the article by A.M. Peshkovsky "Does the composition and subordination of sentences exist in the Russian language?". Defending composition and subordination as syntactic concepts, behind which there is a certain linguistic content, Peshkovsky pointed out a number of formal features that distinguish complex sentences from complex ones. He finds these features in allied complex sentences. Peshkovsky considers the most important formal difference between composition and subordination to be the difference between the coordinating and subordinating unions, which consists in the fact that when subordinating, the indicator of the relation is located only in one of the connected parts - in the subordinate clause, and the subordinating union "does not rhythmically only adjoin its sentence, but constitutes it organic formal affiliation"; when composing, "the indicators of the relationship stand either with each of the correlatives (in some cases of connective and divisive composition), or between the correlatives, without internally merging with any of them." Therefore, a coordinating union, expressing the relationship between parts of a complex sentence, cannot stand before its first part (except when the union is repeated in open structures).

With the properties of coordinating and subordinating unions, Peshkovsky connects the difference in the arrangement of parts of a complex sentence during composition and subordination: the subordinate part, to which the indicator of the relationship is "soldered" - the subordinating union, can stand before or after the main part or be included in it; in a compound sentence, the parts cannot be included one into the other, since the indicator of the relationship - the composing union - does not organically merge with any of them.

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

The named article by Peshkovsky, on the basis of which the chapter on composition and subordination was later written in the book "Russian syntax in scientific coverage", was, in essence, the first attempt in Russian science to show the linguistic essence of composition and subordination in a complex sentence. Prior to this, for almost a hundred years, the concepts of composition and subordination were used without revealing them and without showing what linguistic facts underlie their opposition. Strong point Peshkovsky's works were observations on the formal differences between composition and subordination, and the very striving to look for differences precisely in structure, in form, without breaking away from linguistic matter.

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

Peshkovsky's idea that intonations are identical to certain groups of unions in non-union complex sentences is erroneous: intonation is a phenomenon of a completely different nature than unions, and can in no way be considered as language tool, which has the same purpose as conjunctions. According to the observations of researchers, there is no complete correspondence between intonational structures and types of non-union complex sentences. The same non-union structure with the same meaning in different speech conditions can have different intonation design, and therefore, in the language system there is no mandatory assignment of certain intonational structures to the corresponding structures of the non-union complex sentence.

In accordance with what has been said, there are grounds for accepting the following definitions of a syntactic connection in a complex sentence. The compositional connection between the components of a complex sentence is similar to the connection between the forms of words in open and closed compositional phrases. It is characterized by the fact that the components it connects (word forms in a phrase and predicative units in a complex sentence) perform the same syntactic function relative to each other and the whole they form. The main means of expressing a coordinating connection are coordinating conjunctions. In complex sentences with a coordinative link, there are no differences in the function of the part introduced by the union and the part that does not contain the union, and none of the connected predicative units occupies a syntactic Place of the word form in the composition of the other part.

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

The coordinating and subordinating connection is clearly differentiated in complex allied-type sentences. In non-union complex sentences, there is no opposition between the coordinating and the subordinating connection. Thus, the connection in non-union complex sentences must be qualified as undifferentiated. The exception is non-union complex sentences of an open structure: The stove is heated, the lamp is burning brightly, the old clock is knocking. In them, the potential quantitative composition itself characterizes the connection as a coordinating one, since the subordinating connection is a relationship necessarily between two components.

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

Question about sentences with several predicates with one subject

A compound sentence, like other classes of complex sentences, is opposed to a simple one on the basis of the sign of polypredicativity. However, there are syntactic constructions, the classification of which is controversial. These are sentences with homogeneous predicates. The solution of the question of the boundaries of complex (and union-free complex) sentences depends on the solution of questions about their status.

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

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

Monosubjective compound sentences are polypredicative constructions, which are messages about several situations characterized by the unity of the subject: I accepted your challenge, and I can’t go back (S. Solovyov); Princess. she looked once more at the roofs and turrets of Krutoyar, at the river, showing blue-blue water from under the fog, and went back into the sleepy, warm room (A.N. Tolstoy).

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

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

The proximity to monosubjective complex sentences is especially pronounced:

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

However, not all constructions, including a number of verbal word forms, belong to monosubjective complex sentences. Simple sentences are:

• 1) sentences with repetition of lexically identical verb forms different types: Sit and sit; Read and read;
• 2) sentences with repeating (lexically identical) predicates in the same grammatical form: Autumn leaves rustle, rustle, rustle (V. Bryusov); The summer evening goes out, the summer evening goes out (A. Solodovnikov);
• 3) sentences that include converse predicates: Some people enter and exit; He sells and buys furniture. "Conversives serve to express differences that are of a semantic nature, these differences are associated exclusively with the way the speaker comprehends a certain situation; the situation itself remains unchanged";
• 4) sentences, including combinations of verbal predicates, which denote different phases of one action, dissected in time: He got up and stands;
• 5) sentences in which a number of verbal predicates have a modal or phase modifier common to them (an auxiliary part of the predicate with modal meaning or the meaning of the beginning, end and continuation of the action): And people began to settle in this land, build houses, grow bread; She wanted to scream, to call someone for help;
• 6) sentences with composed unities, which are an inseparable combination: I took it and jumped out of the window;
• 7) sentences in which one verbal predicate is syntactically functional and indicates the position of the person at the moment of action, and the other indicates his action, state or the appearance of any sign: She sits and cries; They stand and laugh; He lies and is silent. These combinations are characterized by a strictly fixed sequence of the components of the series. So, combinations are impossible, for example: * The child cries and lies; *She thinks and sits;
• 8) sentences in which verb-predicates have common semes form a synonymous chain, clarify, concretize each other: Martha and her husband moved past him, left (V. Nabokov);
• 9) sentences in which one of the predicates completely repeats the seme composition of the other: She cried and sobbed. The verb to cry means `to shed tears, usually making mournful inarticulate vocal sounds, crying', the verb to sob - `to cry loudly, convulsively'; thus, the last verb-predicate has semes in common with the first; in addition, it includes hyposemes of the intensification of the process `loudly, convulsively.'
• 10) sentences in which nominal components are combined by a coordinative link with one bundle: He was reddish-Russian, bearded and so taller than ordinary people that he could be shown. (I. Bunin).

Basic literature for the electronic version of the lecture course

• 1. Kryuchkov S.E. and Maksimov L.Yu. Modern Russian language. The syntax of a complex sentence. Proc. allowance for students ped. in-tov ... - M .: Education, 1977. - 191 p.
• 2. Modern Russian: Theory. Analysis of language units: Proc. for stud. higher textbook institutions: At 2 hours - Part 2: Morphology, Syntax / Ed. E.I. Dibrova. - M.: Publishing center "Academy", 2001. - 704 p.
• 3. Modern Russian language: Proc. for philology. specialist. higher educational institutions / Under the editorship of V.A. Beloshapkova. - M.: Azbukovnik, 1999. - 928 p.
• 4. Modern Russian: Textbook / Under the general editorship of L.A. Novikov. - St. Petersburg: publishing house "Lan", 2001. - 864 p.

Compound sentence, its types

1. Compound sentence as a syntactic unit.

2. Types of complex sentences.

3. Compound sentence, its types.

1. A complex sentence is a unit of syntax that consists of two or more predicative parts combined into a single whole in a semantic, structural and intonational sense.

2. According to their structure, according to the main means of communication, complex sentences are divided into two types:

1) allied (parts are connected using unions or allied words);

2) non-union (parts are connected without the help of unions, intonation is an aspen means of communication).

Allied sentences, depending on the type of unions, are divided into two types: compound and complex.

In a complex sentence, in addition, different types of communication can be used: coordinating, subordinating, non-union. Such a sentence is called a complex syntactic construction (CCS), or a polynomial complex sentence with different types connections.

3. SSP is such a complex sentence, the predicative parts of which are connected with the help of coordinating conjunctions. Parts of the SSP are syntactically relatively equal.

The type of connection in the SSP is a coordinative connection, the main means of communication are coordinating unions.

Depending on the nature of the coordinating conjunctions and the semantic relations expressed by them, the following types of BSC are distinguished.

A) connecting BSC. The main means of communication in these sentences are connecting unions.

B) Opposite SSP. These sentences link two parts that are opposed to each other. Adversarial conjunctions are used.

B) Separating SSP. Separating conjunctions are used.

D) Connecting SSP. The essence of adjunctive relations is that the speaker, after the logical formulation of the thought, adds, attaches to it some detail, an additional message about the first thought (additionality of information). Special connecting unions are used: yes and, but that, and not that, moreover, and that.

E) Explanatory SSP. These sentences express relations of explanation: the 2nd part explains the meaning of the first. Explanatory conjunctions are used that is, namely.

Complex sentence

1. The concept of a complex sentence. Means of communication of parts of the NGN.

2. Types of complex sentences:

3. SPP undivided structure;

4. SPP of a dissected structure.

1. Complicated A compound sentence is called, the predicative parts of which are interconnected by subordinating conjunctions or allied words.

One part is grammatically independent (the main part), the other is grammatically dependent (the subordinate part).

The type of communication in NGN is a subordinating relationship.

The main means of communication between parts are subordinating conjunctions or allied words.

2. Complex sentences are divided into two types: undivided (one-membered), divided (two-membered).

In undivided sentences, the subordinate part explains any one word or phrase of the main part, supplementing and concretizing it in one direction or another. In dissected sentences, the subordinate clause is attached to the entire main clause as a whole. Undivided and dissected SPP, in turn, are divided according to the type of clause.

§1. Difficult sentence. General concepts

Difficult sentence is a unit of syntax.

complex are called sentences consisting of two or more grammatical bases, connected into a single whole in meaning, grammatically and intonationally.
A complex sentence differs from a simple sentence in that in a simple sentence there is one grammatical basis, and in a complex sentence there is more than one. A complex sentence, therefore, consists of parts, each of which is framed as a simple sentence.
But a complex sentence is not a random collection of simple sentences. In a complex sentence, parts are interconnected in meaning and syntactically, with the help of syntactic links. Each part, being framed as a sentence, does not have semantic and intonational completeness. These features are characteristic of the entire complex sentence as a whole.

Complex sentences, like simple ones, are characterized by the purpose of the utterance. They can be non-exclamatory and exclamatory.

Unlike a simple sentence, a complex one requires determining how many parts it consists of and what connection its parts are connected by.

§2. Types of syntactic connection of parts of a complex sentence

The syntactic relationship between parts of a complex sentence can be:

• allied
• unionless

Allied connection- this is a kind of syntactic connection expressed with the help of unions.

Allied connection can be:

• writing
• subordinating

Coordinating syntactic connection- this is a type of syntactic connection with an equal relationship of parts. A coordinating syntactic connection is expressed with the help of special means: coordinating unions.

The storm passed and the sun came out.

Subordinating syntactic connection- this is a type of syntactic connection with an unequal relationship of parts. The parts of a complex sentence with a subordinating link are different: one is the main sentence, the other is a subordinate sentence. The subordinating syntactic connection is expressed with the help of special means: subordinating conjunctions and allied words.

We didn't go for a walk because a thunderstorm started.

(We didn't go for a walk- main proposition because the storm has begun- subordinate clause.)

Associative syntactic relationship is a meaningful connection. Parts of a complex sentence are connected only by punctuation. Neither conjunctions nor allied words are used to express an allied syntactic connection. Example:

The coach got sick, the class was rescheduled for next week.

The nature of the syntactic connection between parts of a complex sentence- this is the most important classification feature of complex sentences.

§3. Classification of complex sentences

The classification of complex sentences is a classification according to the syntactic relationship between its parts. Complex sentences are divided into:

into 1) allied and 2) non-union, and allied, in turn - into 1) compound and 2) compound.

Therefore, there are three types of complex sentences:

• compound
• complex subordinate
• unionless

Each of these types is subject to further classification by meaning.

test of strength

Find out how you understood the contents of this chapter.

Final test

1. How many grammatical bases are in a complex sentence?

   • two or more

2. How are parts of a complex sentence related?

   • within the meaning of

3. Does a part of a complex sentence have a completeness?

   • yes, each part is a separate independent proposal

4. Are complex sentences characterized by the purpose of the utterance?

5. Can complex sentences be exclamatory?

6. Is it correct to assume that the syntactic connection between the parts of a complex sentence is only allied?

7. What can be an allied connection between parts of a complex sentence?

   • main
   • adnexal

8. Is it possible to have a syntactic connection between parts of a complex sentence without conjunctions?

9. What type of allied syntactic connection is characterized by an equal relationship of parts of a complex sentence?

   • an equal relationship characterizes a subordinating relationship

10. What type of allied syntactic connection is characterized by an unequal relationship of parts of a complex sentence?

    • unequal attitude characterizes the coordinative connection

Right answers:

1. two or more
2. in meaning and syntactically (using a syntactic link)
3. no, only all the parts together are an independent offer
4. coordinating and subordinating
5. equal relationship characterizes the coordinative connection
6. unequal attitude characterizes a subordinating relationship