Tutorial. Book: “Modern Russian language. Syntax of a complex sentence. Study guide See also in other dictionaries

MODERN RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

In three parts

Introduction

Phraseology

Phonetics Graphics and spelling

Word formation

Morphology

Syntax

Punctuation

MOSCOW 1987

N.M. Shansky V.V. Ivanov

INTRODUCTION

PHRASEOLOGY

PHONETICS

GRAPHICS AND ^ SPELLING

Approved by the USSR Ministry of Education

V as a textbook for students

pedagogical		institutions
	specialty No. 2101
"Russian language		literature"

ISP£DVL E HNOjE J1		EXTRA
	Udmurt

428000, Izhavsk st. WITH -;.

EDUCATION

B B K 8 1 . 2P

C 56

REVIEWER

Department of Russian Language of the Order of the Badge of Honor of the Oryol State Pedagogical Institute

, Enlightenment, 1987. - 192 p.

This book is the first part of a textbook on the modern Russian language, intended for students of the faculties of Russian language and literature. In the second edition, the textbook is brought into line with the new program for the modern Russian language, 1985 edition.

s to /poch o*7 12 -87 BBK 81.2R

INTRODUCTION

§ 1. Modern Russian literary language as a subject of study.

The course of modern Russian literary language is directly related to the professional training of future teachers of Russian language and literature. Its content forms a generalized description of the system of the modern Russian literary language. At the same time, it is structured in such a way as to simultaneously help students master the norms of literary speech and the skills of linguistic analysis.

Unlike other linguistic disciplines, which cover the history of the Russian language, its stylistic varieties and dialects, Russian artistic speech, the course of modern Russian literary language provides only synchronic characteristics

spelling, 4) word formation, which describes morphemics and ways of forming words, and 5) grammar - the study of morphs o l o g i i n t a x i s e.

The title of the course requires clarification due to different interpretations of the words that form it. This course studies the language, and not the various speech forms of its manifestation. It studies the literary language, i.e. the highest form of the national language, which is distinguished from various dialects, argot and vernacular by its normativity and processing. It studies the Russian literary language, which is not only the language of the great Russian people, but also a means of interethnic communication of all peoples of the Soviet Union. Finally, it studies the modern Russian literary language, that is, the language spoken by Russians and non-Russians now, at the moment, at the present time.

The latter must be emphasized because the concept of “modern” often includes the Russian literary language within a fairly broad chronological framework - from Pushkin to the present day. It is obvious that the Russian language of the Pushkin era, as well as previous and subsequent ones, has entered the modern one in its significant part, but

At the same time, the language in which we speak and write at the present time cannot be identified either with Pushkin’s or even with the language of the early 10th century. The most common phrases for those who know the modern Russian literary language would be, for example, incomprehensible to Pushkin (compare, for example, newspaper headlines: “In the Central Committee of the CPSU”, “Loyalty to proletarian internationalism”, “Scientific potential of universities”, “Communists and the Five-Year Plan” and etc.).

Consequently, the modern Russian literary language should be understood as a truly modern language, the Russian language of our era (naturally, including all the best and necessary for it from its linguistic past, including, of course, the wonderful language of Pushkin).

The language of Russian fiction should be distinguished from the Russian literary language, which absorbs all the richness of Russian speech (both literary, dialectal and argotic) and performs not only communicative, but also aesthetic functions. That is why the latter does not belong to the system of functional

n y), but constitutes a special linguistic essence that arose as a creative fusion of functional styles in the individual figurative and expressive refraction of a particular writer.

Literary language exists in two forms: written and oral. In the latter, the literary norm is presented as a dynamic phenomenon to a greater extent: in it, deviations from the established language standard are often observed, and new words and phrases that have not yet been accepted by all native speakers often appear.

Thanks to fiction and especially the media, many of the non-standardized facts of oral speech become literary, normative, and correct.

§ 2. Russian language among related and other languages. The Russian language is part of a large family of Indo-European languages (from Icelandic to Pashto), closer to which of all the others are Ugro-Finnish Chinese languages. In this family, it belongs to the large group of Slavic languages, which consists of three subgroups: eastern, southern and western. East Slavic languages include Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian, South Slavic languages include Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian and Slovenian, and Western Slavic languages include Polish, Czech, Slovak, Upper Sorbian and Lower Sorbian.

The kinship of the Slavic languages is manifested in the closeness of their vocabulary, vocabulary, methods of word formation, syntactic systems, regular phonetic correspondences, etc. All this is explained by their origin from a single Proto-Slavic language, the collapse of which occurred in the 5th - 6th centuries. AD

The kinship of the Slavic languages is especially evident in the vocabulary. It is enough to give a few examples: Russian. gift, Ukrainian gift, white dar, Polish dar, Czech, dar, Slovak. dar, Bulgarian dar, Serbian Croatian gift; Polish dwa, Czech, dva, Slovak. dva, Bulgarian two, maked. two, Serbian Croatian two, Slovenian dva; Russian gray, Ukrainian

blue, white Sіvіu Serbian Croats. siv, bulg. siv, slovenian siv, Czech, sivySlovak. sivy, Polish siwy, upper meadow siwy; Russian beat, Ukrainian beat in white b/tsb, Polish Біс, Czech, biti, Slovak. bit", Bulgarian bija, Serbian Croatian bita, Slovenian biti, etc.

The similarity of the Slavic languages in the field of vocabulary and phraseology, word formation, syntax and stylistics is explained not only by their common origin, but also by close linguistic contacts, constant processes of interaction and mutual enrichment. After October and especially after the end of the Great Patriotic War, the role of the Russian language increased, becoming for other Slavic languages a source of new socio-political and scientific vocabulary and phraseology, a stimulator of new ways of word production and figurative means of expression.

§ 3. Russian language - the language of interethnic communication of peoples

THE USSR. After the October Revolution, the Russian language has come a long way in development and enrichment and has experienced renewal. The changes affected both its external, i.e. social, aspects (functions, social significance, sphere of use), and its linguistic essence - the internal structure of a certain sign system.

The most important event concerning the Russian language as a social phenomenon and a semiotic system is its transformation in the process of development of our multinational socialist state into a means of interethnic communication between peoples

USSR The victory of Lenin's national policy, the voluntary study of the Russian language, along with the native language, naturally led to the fact that the Russian language became the language of interethnic communication and cooperation of all peoples of the USSR

The Russian language has become a powerful instrument of international unity of the Soviet peoples, has become the most effective means of introducing them to the best achievements of domestic and world culture, and has become, as V.I. Lenin foresaw, the language of “fraternal unity” 1 of Soviet people, regardless of their nationality. As V.V. Vinogradov wrote, in the Soviet era the nature of the influence of the Russian language on other languages of the peoples of the USSR became fundamentally different: “Similarities and correspondences in the languages of the Land of the Soviets, due to the influence of the Russian language, are manifested: 1) in expanding the sphere of influence of Russians, especially new ones , Soviet expressions, in tracing them; 2) in the rapid spread of Sovietisms, in their movement from one language to another; 3) in mastering the main fund of international vocabulary through the Russian language; 4) in general, in the increasing tendency towards language internationalization, especially towards Soviet language internationalization” 2.

As a result of the interaction of native languages with Russian, a common lexical and phraseological fund of the languages of the peoples of the USSR is formed,

including international vocabulary and phraseology, and Russian

Sovietisms, and innovations of 1 national languages that have become all-Union, i.e. words that primarily reflect the international content of our socialist culture. The process of forming a common lexical and phraseological fund in the languages of the peoples of the USSR

entailed changes in semantic and word-formation systems, in the principles of nomination and imagery, and - moreover - even in grammar and phonetics. The transformation of the Russian language into the language of interethnic communication between the peoples of the USSR dramatically changed both the linguistic situation in our country and the languages themselves. In conditions of fraternal friendship and mutual trust of peoples, national languages develop on the basis of equality and mutual enrichment, and the Russian language, which has always been distinguished by its reciprocity and linguistically “open soul,” in turn absorbs from others everything with which it can improve itself. In the linguistic life of the Soviet Union, the dialectical unity of national-Russian bilingualism was established.

The role of the Russian language as a language of interethnic communication became especially important in connection with the transformation of the economy of the Soviet Union into a single national economic complex and the emergence of a new historical community of people - the Soviet people. According to the 1979 census, Russian is the means of communication for more than 214 million Soviet people. In schools of all union and autonomous republics, non-Russian youth, along with their native language, study with great interest and diligence the Russian language, the language of the great Russian people, the language of modern science, technology and culture, the language of peace and friendship.

“And in the future, the free development and equal use of native languages by all citizens of the USSR will be ensured. At the same time, mastering, along with the language of one’s nationality, the Russian language, voluntarily adopted by Soviet people as a means of interethnic communication, expands access to the achievements of science, technology, national and world culture”?

§ 4. Russian is one of the world languages of our time. The modern Russian literary language is not only the national language of the Russian people and a means of interethnic communication between peoples

USSR It is also one of the main international languages.

The global significance of the Russian language (one of the richest, most powerful and expressive languages in the world) was already foreseen by K. Marx and F. Engels.

The advancement of the Russian language into the family of world languages began with the Great October Socialist Revolution. In connection with the growing international authority of the Soviet Union (especially after the Second World War), the enormous achievements that marked the work of our people in the field of building socialism,

With the development of science and technology, literature and education, the Russian language has now become one of the world languages.

Cardinal changes in the political and economic spheres, the rapid development of socialist production, the flourishing of science and technology, culture and art, the world-historical victory of our people in the Great Patriotic War and heroic deeds in peacetime, fundamental shifts in public consciousness led not only to great changes in the vocabulary and phraseology of the Russian language, but also to the enrichment of the languages of many peoples of our planet with Sovietisms, new words and phrases reflecting the new way of life and worldview of the Soviet people, in other words - words born of October. This process was already noted by V.I. Lenin

in 1920 1 .

IN The vocabulary of many languages (both in the form of borrowings and words) contains many Russian words such asOctober, Soviet, subbotnik, collective farm, shock worker, Leninism, wall newspaper, five-year plan,

pioneer, satellite, agricultural industry, etc.

The desire to learn the Russian language is enormous. Today it is taught in more than 90 countries. More than half a billion people study it in secondary schools and higher educational institutions, in various courses, on radio and television. More than 120 thousand Russian language teachers work outside our country. Since 1967, the International Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature (MAPRYAL) has been doing a lot to spread the Russian language around the world and improve its teaching to foreigners. The Russian language is studied especially fruitfully and actively in the CMEA countries.

The importance of the Russian language in international life is enormous. Together with English, French, Spanish, Arabic and Chinese, the Russian language is recognized by the UN as one of its six official languages. It serves as one of the working languages in many international organizations, at many international congresses, conventions and meetings. According to UNESCO, about half of all scientific and technical literature and documentation and 20% of all world book production are published in Russian.

			LITERATURE
	V.I. On the right of nations to self-determination // Complete. collection op.- T. 25.
V i n o g r a d o v			V.V. The Great Russian Language. - M., 1945.
G o r b a c h e v i c h			K. S. Norms of the modern Russian literary language.-
2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Education, 1981.
K o s t o m a r o v			V. G. Russian language among other languages of the world. - M.: Rus-
chinese language,			modern world. - M.: Nauka, 1974.

		as a means of interethnic communication. - M.: Nauka, 1977.

The Russian language is the language of friendship and cooperation of the peoples of the USSR // Materials of the All-Union Scientific and Theoretical Conference “Russian Language is the language of friendship and cooperation of the peoples of the USSR”. - M.: Prosveshchenie, 1980.

The Russian language is the language of interethnic communication between the peoples of the USSR. - M.: Education, 1976.

1 See: Lenin V.I. Complete. collection op.- T. 40.- P. 204-205.

L E K S I K A

varny composition in its current state and historical development. The department of lexicology in the course of modern Russian language covers the modern vocabulary system of our speech, the historical lexicology of the Russian language - its formation and enrichment in connection with the history of the Russian language.

The object of study in lexicology is primarily words. Words, as is known, are also studied in morphology and word formation. However, if in morphology and word formation words turn out to be a means for studying grammatical structure and word-formation models and rules, then in lexicology words are studied from the point of view of 1) their semantic meaning, 2) place in the general system of vocabulary, 3) origin, 4) usage, 5 ) scope of application in the process of communication and 6) their expressive and stylistic

fusions of parts, lexical composition and structure are subject to the study of phraseological units.

Since vocabulary in a particular language is not a simple sum of words, but a certain system of interrelated facts, lexicology appears to us as a science not about individual words, but about the lexical system of the language as a whole.

The study of lexicology greatly contributes to mastering the norms of literary usage. The latter is of great practical importance: knowledge of literary norms of word usage allows you to avoid various mistakes encountered in speech practice, makes it possible to correctly and clearly, clearly and intelligibly express your thoughts.

In recent years, lexicology has been developing rapidly and has undoubted achievements. The study of vocabulary and phraseology goes in a variety of directions, but the most important thing that characterizes the corresponding works is the study of vocabulary as a dynamic nominative system in which words always act as certain times connected with each other -

Books"/>

This textbook is one of a series of textbooks on the course Modern Russian language, published by the publishing house for philological faculties of pedagogical institutes. The book examines various types of complex sentences, focusing on the structure and semantics of the models. The manual also includes sections: Complex forms of organization of monologue and dialogic speech, Methods of transmitting someone else's speech, Russian punctuation. General information. A brief history of the development of Russian punctuation. (The most difficult cases of using punctuation marks are explained when considering certain types of complex sentences.

Publisher: " " (1969)

Description	Year	Price	Book type
The main objective of the textbook is to develop linguistic competence in the field of syntax of complex sentences. By focusing on the functional orientation of this linguistic unit, its... - Flint,	2016	524	paper book
- FLINT, e-book	2013	160	eBook
The main objective of the textbook is to form linguistic competence in the field of syntax of a complex sentence, focusing special attention on the functional orientation of this linguistic unit, its... - Flint, (format: 60x88/16, 232 pages)	2013	671	paper book
The book represents the second part of a theoretical university course on the syntax of the modern Russian language. In addition to characterizing all the main types of complex sentences, the manual includes sections... - FLINTA, e-book	2018	160	eBook

More on the topic LITERATURE:

Introduction. Paths to the formation of Russian literature of the 18th century and the formation of its national identity
Conclusion. Literary traditions of the 18th century and Russian literature of the 19th century
Soviet literature has always been the arena of intense ideological struggle, the object of fierce attacks by anti-communists. What areas of this struggle are most relevant today?

So, complex sentences with prenominal clauses are characterized by specific features of formal organization and perform the function of revealing and specifying the content of the correlative word. These sentences form a special type of SPP of an undivided structure, which serves to express various qualitative-definitive and relative semantic relations due to the peculiar interaction of means of syntactic communication in them, which must be taken into account when classifying them and structural-semantic characteristics.

LITERATURE

1. Vabaytseva, V.V., Chesnokova, L.D. Russian language: Theory: textbook. for 5-9 grades. general education textbook establishments. – M.: Education, 1992. – P. 222-223; Russian language: textbook. for 9th grade. general education institutions / , . – M.: Enlightenment. – 2000. – P. 30-36; Russian language. textbook for 9th grade. general education institutions / ,: ed. , . – M.: Bustard, 1999. – P. 100-104.

2. Beloshapkova, V. A. Complex sentence in modern Russian: Some theoretical issues /. – M.: Enlightenment. 1967. – P. 123; She's the same. Modern Russian language: textbook. for philol. specialist. un-tov / Ed. . – M.: Higher. school, 1989. – P. 758-763; Kryuchkov, S. E., Maksimov, Russian language. Syntax of a complex sentence: textbook. manual for pedagogical students. Inst. – M.: Enlightenment. 1977. – P. 39-44: 71-84: Babaytseva, V.V., Maksimov, . op. – P: 197-202.

3. Beloshapkova, V. A. Types of pronominal correlative sentences // Modern Russian language: textbook. for philol. specialist. univ. – P. 761.

4. Decree. op. – pp. 321-323.

5. Grammar modern Russian literary language, - M.: Nauka, 1970. – P. 683-694: Modern Russian language: textbook. for philol. specialist. un-tov / , etc.: ed. . – M.: Higher. school.. 1989. – S, 758-763.

6. Maksimov, L. Yu. Complex sentences with a prenominal part // Modern Russian language: Textbook. – Part 3. – P. 197.

7. Russian grammar. – M.: Nauka, 1980. – T. 2. Syntax. – P. 501.

8. Russian language: textbook for 9th grade. general education institutions / S. G. Barkudarov, . . – P. 15.

9. Modern Russian literary language: Textbook / , etc.: ed. . – M.: Higher. Shchk., 2001. – P. 395.

10. Modern Russian literary language: textbook / Ed. , – L.: Enlightenment. 1981. – pp. 533-535.

11. Modern Russian language/ Ed. – M.: Higher. school.. – P. 629: Valgina N. S., Syntax of the modern Russian language / . – M.: Agar, 2000 . – P. 323.

12. Modern Russian language: Textbook: Ch.Z. - Syntax. Punctuation / , – M.: Education, 1987. – P. 200-202; Modern Russian language: Textbook: Phonetics. Lexicology. Word formation. Morphology. Syntax /, etc.; under general ed. . – St. Petersburg: Lan Publishing House, 2001. – P. 787-789.

UNION-LESS COMPLEXOFFER
IN THE COURSE OF MODERN RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

1. The question of the status of a non-union complex sentence as a special type of complex sentence.

2. Principles of classification of non-union complex sentences (BSP).

3. The role of intonation in the formal organization of the BSP.

4. Types of non-union complex sentences and their structural and semantic characteristics.

The severity of the problem of a non-union complex sentence (BSP) is currently quite obvious. Its “grammatical passport” has not yet been written down; there are many ambiguities and contradictions in the coverage of its inherent syntactic categories. It is no coincidence that in the latest academic “Russian Grammar” he was even denied “registration” in the system of complex sentences. Non-union complex sentences are “extracted” beyond its limits. Instead of them, the “Russian Grammar” considers the so-called non-union compounds (combinations) of sentences as “special syntactic formations, more or less correlative with complex sentences, but differing from them in the absence of a conjunction and pronominal connection between the parts” (1).

Even those linguists who recognize the non-union complex sentence as a special unit of the syntactic level of language describe its nature differently. Moreover, they qualify the same non-union constructions in very different ways. So, for example, a sentence like The enemy could strike from the flank, it was clear to everyone(Yu. Bondarev) defines as a BSP of a closed typified structure with an anaphoric element, - a BSP with structurally determined parts, - with a distributive-connective meaning, - a proposal of connection-distribution, - a BSP with relations of collapsed identity (2-6).

Philology students have to talk about all this at the very first lecture on this topic, pursuing, however, several didactic goals: firstly, the undeveloped problem of the non-union complex sentence in Russian studies encourages students to listen more carefully in the future to the conceptual position set forth by the teacher himself; secondly, for stronger, inquisitive students (they are in any classroom) this can serve as a push, an impulse for independent creative searches for ways and means of solving this problem; thirdly, it is precisely by focusing the attention of listeners at the beginning of the presentation of lecture material on controversial issues in the analysis of specific linguistic facts that one can truly interest them in the topic being studied. It is advisable and useful, in particular, to ask students how they would analyze and characterize the above example. Experience shows that most of them find it difficult to immediately give the correct answer to the question posed, because they lack the knowledge to do so. But the problematic situation created in this way inclines students to search for ways to correctly solve a linguistic problem. Over time, having studied the literature on the topic, they will be able to find out that the above phrase is nothing more than a BSP with an adjunct meaning: it is synonymous, for example, with a complex sentence with an adjunct predicative part ( My enemy will attack from the flank, which was clear to everyone).

There is one more circumstance that helps to increase the interest of students - future teachers of Russian studies - in the topic being studied. We are talking about the peculiarities of its teaching in secondary schools. The authors of current textbooks on the Russian language, obviously believing that in modern linguistics there is no concept of a non-union complex sentence that can be reliably relied upon in school teaching, replace, in fact, its study with work on the rules for placing certain punctuation marks in it (comma, semicolons, colons and dashes). How justified is this approach to teaching non-union constructions? Can we seriously expect that, without knowing the formal grammatical structure of these constructions, without essentially distinguishing the nature and role of intonation in them, and without clearly representing the semantics between their parts, schoolchildren will learn the correct choice of punctuation marks? Naturally, these questions remain open at the first lecture, but they should be addressed at least at the final stage of studying the topic (7).

A brief excursion into the history of the issue may be of interest to students if the students’ attention is focused on those criteria for systematizing non-conjunctive complex sentences that linguists have chosen when grouping them, and discovering the “rational grain” in each of the syntactic theories to improve practical skills in the analysis of polypredicative structures and skills use them in your own speech.

The problem of classifying non-union complex sentences in Russian studies was solved depending on a certain understanding of the nature of these constructions. Until the mid-twentieth century, these sentences were not considered as a special communicative syntactic unit. They were considered only speech realizations of conjunction sentences. Therefore, in fact, the question of their classification did not arise and there was no need for a special study of the structure of non-union complex sentences. They were likened to either compound sentences or complex sentences. Syntacticists were mainly concerned with substituting into them a conjunction suitable in meaning - either coordinating or subordinating, cf: 1) I was angry, he was sullen() – I was angry and he was sullen. 2) Ah, it’s not difficult to deceive me: I’m happy to be deceived myself() – Ah, it’s not difficult to deceive me: since I myself am happy to be deceived.

The distribution of non-union complex sentences under the same classification headings as allied ones, in accordance with their division into complex and compound sentences, was not fruitful, since this did not contribute to the disclosure of the essential characteristics of non-union constructions. Only after the works, which considered the non-union complex sentence to be a special subclass of the complex sentence, opposed to the union one, largely isolated from the latter, did the need arise for a different solution to the problem of classifying the BSP (8).

Instead of the opposition of the coordinating / subordinating connection, another opposition is introduced between non-union complex sentences - homogeneous and heterogeneous composition, established on logical-semantic grounds. The syntactic meaning of homogeneity is “the same attitude to the whole that the parts of a sentence express,” for example, in constructions with listed and comparative semantic relations: Rollingkernels, bullets whistle, cold bayonets hang(). You are rich, I am very poor, you are a prose writer, I am a poet() “Unionless complex sentences of heterogeneous composition express one or another dependence of their constituent sentences on each other” (9). This includes, in particular, BSP with conditioning relations (Do not want– Not go) and explanations (I'm n e I'll go: no time; I see: the forest is over).

The classification proposed is internally consistent and covers almost the entire range of linguistic facts. Since it is based on semantic criteria, researchers subsequently focused on clarifying the features of the formal-grammatical structure of non-conjunctive complex sentences and clarifying the semantic relationships between their parts: the difference between open and closed structure BSP (), determining the syntactic form of the BSP and the role of intonation, activating semantic relationships , embedded in the lexical-semantic content of predicative constructions (), study of the structural, semantic and communicative side of the BSP, taking into account the formal and / or semantic completeness of one of the parts () (10-12).

The role of intonation in the formal grammatical organization of non-union complex sentences is extremely important. He also noted that in them intonation takes on the same functions that in conjunctive sentences are performed by conjunctive means. Therefore, it is possible to establish “a number of intonations that are absolutely identical with individual groups of conjunctions” (13). Among such intonations he includes, for example, explanatory intonations in sentences like I'm angry with myself: it's my own fault(), completely identical in meaning to causal conjunctions (because, since, etc.) and which is, in essence, their substitute. At the same time, being a subtle connoisseur of the language, I could not help but notice that the intonation does not fully correlate with this or that conjunction. There are non-union constructions with undifferentiated relations, having the same intonation structure, but correlating with different conjunctions.

Let's look at one example: The wind blew and it became cold. In the construction of this non-union complex sentence, a significant role is played by the intonation of conditionality, characterized by a strong rise of the voice on the logically stressed word of the first part, a significant pause between the parts and an even pronunciation of the second part. It can correlate with several conjunctions, cf.: As the wind blew, it became cold; The wind blew so it became cold– cause-and-effect meaning; When the wind blew, it became cold - temporary meaning; The wind blew and it became cold - the meaning of effectiveness or causation.

It is precisely the uncertainty and diffuseness of semantic relations between the parts of such non-union constructions that prompted some researchers to abandon intonation as a criterion for systematizing BSP. In our opinion, we cannot agree with this. And here's why: firstly, when classifying conjunction complex sentences, the nature of conjunctions (coordinating, subordinating) is taken into account first of all as the main means of uniting their parts, but along with other means of syntactic communication (intonation, correlative words, order of parts, relationships of forms predicates, structural parallelism, typified lexical elements), so when grouping non-union complex sentences, you also need to take as a basis one, the main means of combining their parts, namely intonation, which not by itself, but in combination with other means of syntactic communication is capable of expressing those or other semantic relationships. For example, in the sentence: I know: in your the heart is both pride and direct honor(A. Pushkin) the leading means of expressing its grammatical meaning (object-explanatory semantic relations) is, in addition to the presence of a reference word with explanatory semantics in the first part, the order of simple sentences as part of a complex one (inflexible structure), the relationship of predicate forms, warning-explanatory intonation, characterized by the behavior of the tone at the end of the first part, the clarifying part, which is pronounced in a calm, slightly lower tone .

Secondly, intonation as a multidimensional phenomenon performs several functions. Thus, phrasal intonation, for which melody, stress, and pause are essential, “has three linguistic functions: the function of division (through design), the function of connection, and the function of conveying semantic relations” (15). Moreover, like conjunctions, intonation of one or an ionic type can participate in the formal organization of non-union constructions that have several meanings depending on the lexical-semantic content of their parts. Students encounter this phenomenon already when analyzing complex sentences with a conjunction and which, expressing the “pure idea of a connection” (), is used in structures of different meanings, cf.: Her eyes sparkled and her cheeks glowed(A. Chekhov) – relations of simultaneity of occurring phenomena; He took off the cloth and the harp made a false sound(L. Tolstoy) – relations of time sequence; Fir cones contain a lot of resin, and therefore they weigh much more than pine cones.(K. Paustovsky) – cause-and-effect relationships; Speak briefly, simply, like Chekhov or Bunin in his latest works, and you will achieve the desired impression(M. Gorky) – conditional-consequence relationships, etc. The same can be said about this or that type of intonation BSP. Thus, enumerative intonation embodies a complex whole that expresses the relationship of simultaneity or sequence of occurring phenomena: The sea sings, the city hums, the sun shines brightly(M. Gorky); Rostepel held out until Michaelmas, then frost set in and snow fell...(M. Sholokhov). Consequently, the ability of conjunctions or intonation structures to be used in sentences with different meanings does not mean that they cannot form the basis for the classification of polypredicative constructions.
The uncertainty and vagueness of the semantics of some non-conjunctive complex sentences can be removed in three ways: either by transformation, transformation of the internal form of the sentence (inclusion of grammatical means, clearer intonation), or by selecting synonymous conjunction constructions, or by identifying the features of the verbal environment and context. Thus, when determining the acquiescent-adversive relations characteristic of non-union complex sentences like Mikhaila’s nostrils fluttered with offense - he still broke himself, humbly began to thank him for the science() it is useful to compare them with double conjunction constructions although... but (Although Mikhaila’s nostrils fluttered from resentment, he still broke himself and humbly began to thank him for the science). The inclusion of non-union complex sentences with undifferentiated relations in a broader context allows us to clarify these relations, cf.: TOIt seems like we're cold. The wind blew and it became cold(causality of the events described). Or: When did we start feeling cold? The wind blew and it became cold(temporal relations).

So, intonation should be taken as a criterion for classifying non-union complex sentences. At least five types of intonation are easily distinguished by ear: enumerative (Gondolas glide across the waters, sparks splash under the oar, the sounds of a gentle barcarolle blow in a light breeze)(I. Kozlov); comparative (You can’t live without the sun, you can’t live without your sweetheart(last); warning and explanatory(Wealth is water: came and went)(last); P reconnective (The guy is unlucky - however, that’s not what we’re talking about)(M. Alekseev).

When studying the listed, comparative, explanatory, conditional, connecting BSPs, it is very important to compare them with synonymous conjunction constructions (16), which helps students not only more clearly identify the relationships they express, but use them in different types of coherent statements. Moreover, the ability to select syntactic synonyms for BSP helps to improve students' spelling skills. Having mastered the structural and semantic features of non-union complex sentences of the indicated types, they will look with different eyes at the rules for placing punctuation marks in them, memorized by students in the practical course of the Russian language, especially since these rules are in university and school textbooks, and even in reference books on punctuation , are not formulated so correctly. So, for example, it is noted that a colon in a non-union complex sentence is placed in four cases if (I) the second part explains, clarifies the first, i.e. reveals its content (you can insert a conjunction between the parts namely): The trees seemed to be crying: large drops were constantly falling from the branches to the ground:(V. Arsentiev) (2) the second part of the BSP indicates the basis, the reason for what is said in its first part (you can insert conjunctions between the parts since, because): The birds were not heard: they do not sing in the hot hours(I. Turgenev); (3) the second part complements the meaning of the first, extending one of its members (usually a predicate) (you can insert conjunctions what, to): Suddenly I feel: someone takes me by the shoulder and pushes me(I. Turgenev); (4) the second part is a direct question: (V. Panova).

Experience shows that students cope with the punctuation of the BSP in the first two cases without any particular difficulties. But they have a hard time understanding the last two conditions for placing a colon in non-union constructions. The fact is that the rule, which focuses on the addition or extension of the predicate verb of the first simple sentence of the BSP, does not cover all linguistic facts. Not only verbs, but also nouns need additional clarification ( There was a rumor: his wedding was scheduled for Easter) adjectives ( We are glad: ours won), state category words, (It’s a pity: the guests are late). The anaphoric pronominal words of the first part of the BSP also require disclosure and specification of their content. (The surprising thing is: I don't feel any anxiety)(Yu. Trifonov). Summarizing all these cases, we can say that a colon is placed in a non-union complex sentence of a typified structure, in the first part of which there are words that need to be necessarily expanded and specified in their content.

As for the fourth condition, under which the norm of placing a colon in the BSP is observed, it requires special consideration in accordance with the methodological principle of an integrated approach to the punctuation design of syntactic structures that we put forward. We are talking about the interactions of punctuation marks when they function in combination: the choice of one of them determines the appearance of the other in the letter.

Let's look at the example above: Seryozha thought: when will this be? The content of this statement can be conveyed differently, namely in a complex sentence with a subordinate, explanatory, denoting an indirect question: Seryozha wondered when this would be. There is a third option for punctuation of this statement - in the form of a sentence with direct speech: Seryozha thought: “When will this be?” Punctuation marks in the indicated syntactic constructions play their role depending on their types: in a non-union complex sentence, a colon is used after the first part, a question mark after the second; in a complex sentence, the main part is separated from the subordinate comma, and the sentence itself as a whole is separated by a period; in a sentence with direct speech, three punctuation marks are used in conjunction: a colon, a question mark and quotation marks.

In conclusion, we note: despite the fact that the theory of the non-union complex sentence in modern Russian studies is not sufficiently developed, it undoubtedly seems to be a very attractive and beneficial material for the development of linguistic and speech-thinking abilities of students.

LITERATURE

1. Russian grammar: In 2 volumes - Vol. 2. Syntax. – M.: Nauka, 1980. – P.6Z4.

2. Beloshapkova, V.A. Non-union sentences // Grammar of the modern Russian literary language. – M.: Nauka, 1970. – P.7З6-737; Modern Russian language: textbook. for philol. specialist. un-tov/, etc.; edited by ; 2nd ed., rev. and additional M.: Higher. school, 1989. – P.766-768.

3. Valgina,N.S. Syntax of the modern Russian language: 2nd edition: textbook for universities /. – M.: Higher. school P.364-365.

4. Kryuchkov, S. E., Maksimov, Russian language. Syntax of a complex sentence: textbook. aid for students ped. Inst. Ed. 2nd, revised – M.: Education, 1977. – P.137-1Z8; Modern Russian language: textbook. for students ped. Institute: In 3 parts. Part 3. Syntax. Punctuation / , . 2nd ed., revised. – M.: Education, 1987. – P.224-228.

5. Kholodov, N. N. Complex sentence // Modern Russian literary language: textbook. for philol. specialist. ped. in-tov /, etc.; edited by . 2nd ed., rev.
M.: Higher. school, 1988. – P.387.

6. Shiryaev, E. N. Non-union complex sentence in modern Russian /. – M.: Nauka, – 1986. – P.82 et seq.

7. Grouping educational material by punctuation marks, as experience shows, is not so flawless and creates a number of inconveniences: with this approach, the structural and semantic properties of the structures being studied are often lost sight of, as a result of which students do not grasp the dependence of the punctuation of a complex sentence without conjunctions on its grammatical meaning and the corresponding rhythmic and melodic pattern of the phrase. See more about this in our work: Anisimov of the syntax of the Russian language in the Chuvash school: method. manual for teachers. – Cheboksary: Chuvash. book publishing house, 1981. – P.219-222.

8. Pospelov, N. S. On the grammatical nature and principles of classification of non-union complex sentences // Questions of modern syntax.

Typical mistakes of philology students

in the analysis of complicated and mixed polynomials

1. From the experience of conducting a special seminar “Difficult cases of analysis of polynomial complex sentences at universities and schools.”

2. The most common and persistent mistakes of students in the analysis of polypredicative constructions.

Thirty-five years of experience in conducting special seminars at the Faculty of Russian Philology of the Chuvash State Pedagogical University named after “Difficult cases of grammatical parsing in universities and schools”, “Comprehensive text analysis” shows that future literature teachers experience significant difficulties in drawing up graphic diagrams and syntactic characteristics of polynomials, i.e. . e. complex sentences consisting of three or more predicative parts.

These difficulties are due to many factors. One of the reasons is that in school too little attention is paid to the syntactic analysis of various types of complex sentences. This type of grammatical analysis is practiced, in fact, only at the final stage of studying the topic “Complex sentence” in grade 9.

It is with disappointment that we have to admit that the current stable Russian language program for Russian schools does not provide for the study of the syntax of complex sentences in grades 10–11. This circumstance leads to the fact that students’ skills in analyzing both complex sentences with several subordinate clauses and complex sentences with various types of connections between parts, acquired in the 9th grade, weaken or completely disappear.

As for non-Russian (including Chuvash) schools, the curriculum for them in this subject provides for the study of the syntax of a complex sentence in the 11th grade, but with a focus on stylistics, i.e., taking into account the peculiarities of the functioning of polypredicative constructions in different styles of speech. This fact naturally favors the assimilation by bilingual students of the patterns of use of two-part and multi-part complex sentences. However, as evidenced by the results of a sociolinguistic and methodological survey of rural schools in the republic, the majority of graduates of these schools (93%) do not know how to draw up diagrams of such syntactic constructions, because in Russian language lessons they do not attach due importance to this type of grammatical analysis.

Weak school preparation, unfortunately, affects the entire duration of students’ education at the university, especially since during the Russian language workshop and when studying sections of the modern Russian language course (“Phonetics. Phonology. Orthoepy. Graphics. Spelling”, “Vocabulary and Phraseology” ", "Morphemics and word formation", "Morphology", "Syntax of a simple sentence") they do not practice enough in the analysis of polynomials. Consequently, there is a contradiction between the need for future teachers to develop strong and flexible skills in the analysis of complex sentences (CSS) of a complex type with sequential, homogeneous, heterogeneous and parallel subordination of subordinate and polynomial complex sentences (MCSP) of mixed construction (with non-conjunction and composition, non-conjunction and subordination, composition and subordination, etc.), on the one hand, and the lack of development of this problem in linguistic methods, on the other. This contradiction can be resolved by implementing a systematic approach to teaching polypredicative constructions, which involves developing cycles of exercises aimed at developing students’ skills in parsing multi-part complex sentences of various configurations at all stages of teaching the Russian language at school and university, and for graduates of a pedagogical university - introducing the above mentioned into the curriculum above special seminars.

The clear organization of these seminars is facilitated by identifying the main difficulties of students in the analysis of polynomials, determining the regularity, frequency and stability of identified syntactic errors, and justifying ways and means of preventing and overcoming these errors.

The problem of classifying students' errors in the analysis of polynomials has still not been solved either in school or university methods of teaching the Russian language. Our typology of errors in the analysis of polynomials is constructed mainly taking into account the degree of their prevalence and stability during the syntactic parsing of such constructions.

As practice shows, the most common mistake is made by students in delimiting predicative parts. This is primarily due to the imperfection of the methodology for teaching the syntax of a simple sentence both at school and at university. We see the disadvantage of this technique, in particular, in the fact that even from the elementary grades, schoolchildren are taught to determine the grammatical basis of a two-part sentence by first finding the subject (what is said in the sentence), and not the predicate. Methodologically, another way of determining the main members of a sentence seems more acceptable and expedient: first you need to find the predicate, then put the question of the subject to it What? or Who? and name the grammatical basis of the sentence. The traditional approach to determining the main members of a two-part simple sentence is determined by the two-part theory of the sentence, transferred from linguistics to the methodology of language teaching. According to this theory, the main, independent member of a sentence is the subject (what is the sentence talking about?), and not the predicate. Meanwhile, as the practice of syntactic analysis of polynomials in school and university convinces us, another theory has greater explanatory power - verbocentric, which defends the idea that the core, organizing center of a sentence is the verb-predicate. It is the predicate that arranges around itself in a line the members of the sentence dependent on it and determines the syntactic position of the subject itself, which coordinates with it and agrees in number, person, singular - and gender. Compare: The road left the forest and entered a field. Invisible larks immediately began to sing over the rye.(K. Paustovsky.) In the first sentence there is a simple verbal predicate came out; what happened? the road is out- these are the main members of the sentence; where did you come from? from the forest; went where? in field. In the second simple sentence the predicate started singing; who started singing? the larks began to sing– this is the grammatical basis of the sentence; when did you start singing? immediately; sang where? over rye…

Errors in determining the boundaries of simple sentences within a complex sentence are also caused by the fact that students find it difficult to recognize the elements that complicate these sentences: homogeneous and isolated members, introductory and inserted constructions. Students especially often make mistakes in distinguishing predicative parts complicated by homogeneous predicates located at a distance. They assume that they are dealing with contextually incomplete sentences: “the subject is omitted, but it can be reconstructed from the context.” For example, the majority of 5th year students (93%) made a mistake in identifying the first predicative part in the following polynomial: Feeling a sense of lightness and happiness that Aunt Aglaya was alive and that he would see her, Volodya even closed his eyes to concentrate on exactly how this would happen, and when he precisely imagined Aglaya, with her blush on her cheekbones, with the dimmed shine of her black , slightly slanted eyes, when he almost heard her voice and he looked again at the street in front of him, he suddenly recognized Postnikov: very shaven, fit, in old breeches and chrome boots polished to a shine, in a military cut jacket, Ivan Dmitrievich with his icy, With coldly penetrating eyes he examined the building of the military registration and enlistment office, the trucks with bags of documents.(Yu. German.)

Students considered that the predicate verb found out in the second main part of the mixed polynomial it forms a separate semantic block, starting with the words and when exactly did I imagine Aglaya, while the comparative-adversative conjunction A connects homogeneous predicates in the main clause with the connecting meaning closed (eyes), recognized (Postnikova). If students were to ask: who recognized Postnikov?, then they would probably answer correctly: Vodya found out. This technique is quite suitable when homogeneous predicates are spaced apart and students have doubts about identifying parts of a complex sentence.

Another typical mistake made by students in the analysis of polynomials appears at the junction of multifunctional connecting devices - conjunctions or allied words. There are two types of such polynomials: 1) MChSP of mixed construction, where coordinating and subordinating conjunctions are located side by side: The planes were already buzzing somewhere overhead, and although they were not visible, it was as if a black shadow from their wings passed across the girls’ faces.(A. Fadeev.); 2) SPP of a complicated type with sequential subordination of subordinate clauses of two degrees: I know that if people did not help each other, humanity would have disappeared long ago.(I. Skvortsov.)

The mechanism for the manifestation of this error is that the student does not know how to distinguish one conjunction from another and thinks that the conjunctions combined in a complex sentence perform one connecting function, especially when there is no comma between them in writing. To prevent and eliminate this error, it is necessary to implement the “matryoshka” principle in practice. In accordance with this principle, it is important to highlight, first of all, the predicative part that is served by the conjunction in front - this is the first “matryoshka”: it is presented in a broken form, that is, the conjunction is indicated first, and the substantive part attached to it is located at a distance. In order not to make a mistake in identifying parts of a complex sentence when conjunctions are combined, it is necessary to follow a certain procedure: first, you need to highlight the conjunction in front with a wavy line and write above it the number of the predicative part that it serves, then you need to find this very part and underline it, too, with a wavy line line - this is how the first “matryoshka” is discovered. And what is inside it is the second “matryoshka”, which is usually a dissected structure: I've been reading so much What 2 when I heard the bell ring on the front porch3, didn't understand right away2 who is calling and why4.(M. Gorky.)

In distinguishing the parts of a polynomial, students are helped by the ability to “read” punctuation marks: a comma is placed between adjacent conjunctions in a complex sentence if the second conjunction is single, unary; a comma is not placed if the second conjunction is double or paired (see examples above).

The third group of errors in the analysis of polynomials concerns the characteristics of a complex type of dictionary with a homogeneous subordination of subordinate clauses, when, due to the law of economy of linguistic means, the author omits a conjunction or a conjunction word with the help of which these subordinate clauses are attached to the main part, but the connecting means certainly takes place in front standing clause. For example: Shere took out a crumpled notebook and quietly reported that, on the contrary, everything was neglected, there was an abyss of any work, and that if he gave two detachments for the court, it was only because he fully recognized the need for such work, otherwise he would never have given , but would put these detachments to sort wheat or repair greenhouses.(A. Makarenko.) In this SPP of a complicated type with a homogeneous subordination of subordinate clauses (explanatory) and sequential subordination of subordinate clauses of two degrees (conditions with a double conjunction if so and reasons with a dismembered compound union because) asemantic conjunction is not used What to connect the subordinate clauses, counting the third and seventh, with the main sentence, meanwhile, this union is clearly included in other homogeneous subordinate clauses, counting the second and fourth.

Did you like the article? Share it

Print this article

Tutorial. Book: “Modern Russian language. Syntax of a complex sentence. Study guide See also in other dictionaries

Other books on similar topics:

See also in other dictionaries:

More on the topic LITERATURE: