Principles and methods of analysis of a literary work. What will we do with the received material?

Syntax as a science 1. The subject of syntax. 2. Syntactic units. 3. Syntactic relations. 4. Syntactic links.

Literature 1. Valgina N. S. Syntax of the modern Russian language. - M., 2003. 2. Modern Russian language. Ed. V. A. Beloshapkova - M., 1989. 3. Rosenthal D. E. Golub I. B. Modern Russian language. - M., 2003. 4. Modern Russian: A collection of exercises. - M., 1990. 5. Sirotinina O. B. Lectures on the syntax of the Russian language. - M., 2006. 6. Sannikov VZ Russian syntax in the semantic-pragmatic space. - M., 2008. 7. Zolotova G. A., Onipenko N. K., Sidorova M. Yu. Communicative grammar of the Russian language. - M., 1998. 8. Shmeleva TV Semantic syntax. - Krasnoyarsk, 1993. 9. Priyatkina A.F. Russian language. Complicated sentence syntax. - M., 1990. 10. Kustova G. I. Syntax of the modern Russian language. - M., 2007. 11. Vsevolodova M. V. Theory of functional-communicative syntax. - M., 2000. 12. Valgina N. S. . Text theory: tutorial. - M., 2003. 13. Filippov K. A. Linguistics of the text. - St. Petersburg, 2003.

1. The subject of syntax Syntax (from the Greek. Compilation, construction, structure) is a branch of the science of language - which studies, on the one hand, the rules for linking words and forms of words, and on the other hand, those unities in which these rules are implemented, t i.e. syntactic units. Syntax is the highest level of a language, which demonstrates the language in action; - the only section of the science of language that studies communication, the laws of communication between people.

1. The subject of syntax V. V. Vinogradov: A sentence is a grammatically designed according to the laws of a given language, an integral unit of speech, which is the main means of forming, expressing and communicating thoughts. There are the following aspects of the study of syntax: - formal (constructive); - semantic (semantic); - communicative (functional); - pragmatic (applied).

2. Syntactic units In Russian science, two main syntactic units are traditionally distinguished - a phrase and a simple sentence. Predicativity is the grammatical essence of a sentence, which consists in a complex of grammatical meanings, correlated with the act of speech and always having a formal expression. Students listen to a lecture (sentence). Listening to a lecture by students (phrase).

2. Syntactic units A phrase is a non-predicative syntactic unit, the components of which are a word and a form of a word or several forms of words connected by a syntactic link. The phrase performs a nominative function. A simple sentence is a predicative syntactic unit consisting of several word forms connected to each other by a syntactic link or from one word form. A complex sentence is a syntactic unit, the components of which are predicative units, interconnected by a syntactic link.

2. Syntactic units A syntaxeme is the smallest semantico-syntactic unit of the Russian language that is further indivisible, acting simultaneously as a carrier of an elementary meaning and a constructive component of more complex constructions. The syntaxeme has three main features: - semantic (meaning of the word); - morphological (grammatical form); - syntactic (the ability to take a syntactic position). I drink tea with my wife (addition) with jam (definition) with pleasure (circumstance)

2. Syntactic units Text is a complex complex syntactic unit, which is a sequence of linguistic units combined common sense. The main properties of the text are coherence and integrity. The syntax of a language deals with the study of patterns of sentences and phrases available in given language. The syntax of speech determines which of the possible language models are implemented in a particular context. The student is reading a book. The journalist wrote the article. N 1+ Vf + N 4 - block diagram.

3. Syntactic relations The components of syntactic units are with each other in certain semantic relationships - syntactic relationships that are formally identified, objectified by a syntactic relationship (composition or subordination). All syntactic relations are divided into predicative and non-predicative. Predicative relations arise only between the subject and the predicate. Winter came. Snow. Non-predicative relations can be realized at the level of phrases and sentences.

3. Syntactic relations Varieties of non-predicative relations: participle turnover) and the word they refer to: My heart, full of love ready to jump out of your chest. Looking at the article, I immediately guessed who the author was. 2) actually non-predicative relations are established - between words connected by a coordinating connection in a sentence: both you and me (connective relations), you, not me (adversative relations); - at the level of the phrase: write with a pen, run fast, white snow.

3. Syntactic relations Defining (attributive) relations - the dependent word determines the main thing in terms of the quality of the subject, a well-known journalist, Turkish coffee, a desire to learn. Circumstantial relationships - a dependent word denotes a sign of action (the main word) to run quickly, meet in the evening, forget due to absent-mindedness, go for treatment. Object relations - the dependent word denotes the subject of the application of the action or the sign denoted by the main word, the tool of action to paint a picture, read for students, serve dinner. Subject relations- the dependent word denotes the producer of the action or the bearer of the state, expressed by the main word the arrival of the father, painted by the artist, the blue of the sunset, the life of the language. Complementary (replenishing) relationships - the dependent word makes up for the informative insufficiency of the main word at home, to become sad, to be invisible, to admire in the evening.

syntactic relations predicative non-predicative (subject and predicate) (sentence and phrase) semi-predicative ( separate members and the main word) actually non-predicative at the level of the sentence (coordinative connection) at the level of the phrase definitive object adverbial subject complete

4. Syntactic links - formal-structure relations between the components of a syntactic unit, revealing semantic links (syntactic relations), and expressed by means of the language. Types of syntactic links: - writing; - submissive.

4. Syntactic links 1 When writing connection components are single-functional, i.e. they play the same role in creating a syntactic construction, with subordination- multifunctional (main and dependent) Room under the stairs, room and stairs. 2 Coordinating and subordinating connections differ in means of expression: - with a coordinating connection, they are the same at the level of phrases and sentences, with subordinating - different; - the coordinative connection is not expressed by word forms (only conjunctions or word order) rain and snow, rain with snow. 3. The coordinative connection can be - closed (with a single application, only two components are connected, not a sister, but a brother); - open (connected a large number of components Either dreaming, or imagining, or frost on the eyelashes ...). Subordinating relationship can only be closed.

4. Syntactic links The subordinating link is realized in a phrase and a sentence. A phrase always has a grammatically independent and a grammatically dependent component. The grammatical dependence of one word form on another lies in the ability of the word to formally obey the requirements emanating from the categorical properties of the main word. This relationship is also called subordinative. At the level of the phrase, there are three types of subordination: coordination, control, adjacency.

4. Syntactic links Agreement is such a subordinating link, in which the dependent word is likened to the main one in all grammatical forms common with it (gender, number, case). The main features of the connection are the agreement: - weak, since the dependent component can be omitted without compromising the meaning; - predictive, because the main word determines the form of the dependent; - optional, since the word being defined is self-sufficient and can do without a definition. The agreement can be complete or incomplete: winter day (agreement in gender, number and case) old trees (agreement in number and case) by nine students (agreement in case)

4. Syntactic connections Management is such a subordinating connection, in which the main thing requires a certain form of case from the dependent with or without a preposition. 1. According to the morphological characteristics of the main word: - verb to respect the enemy; - substantive sport, attention to others; - adjective ready to work; - number two comrades; - adverbial is akin to art, furtively from neighbors. 2. By the presence / absence of a preposition: - prepositional to see a friend; - An impromptu talk with a friend. 3. If possible, manage various grammatical forms: - variable management talked about the university (about the university, about the university); - non-variable control move away from the window, swim to the shore.

4. Syntactic links Management is a multifaceted phenomenon. This is the most controversial type of connection. 1. Strong and weak management. With strong control, the presence of a dependent word form is predetermined by the lexicogrammatic properties of the control word to write a letter, move away from the window, five students. With weak control, the dependent word is used in a specific form, regardless of the lexical and grammatical properties of the main one to talk in the room (behind the wall, near the office). 2. V. A. Beloshapkova proposed to present management as a set of differential features: 1) predictability / unpredictability; 2) mandatory / optional; 3) the nature of the syntactic relations between the components. Predictable - this is such a connection in which the main component, with its lexicogrammatic properties, predicts the form of the dependent above the mountains, to feel pain. Unpredictable - go with a friend. Mandatory - this is a connection that manifests itself regularly, that is, the main word necessarily requires the addict to live in Tomsk, become an engineer. Optional house by the road.

4. Syntactic connections Adjacency is such a subordinating connection that exists between the main and dependent word in the event that the dependent word does not change morphologically and the connection between words is expressed lexically turn right, go limping, the habit of smoking. Adjacency is weak, unpredictable, optional. Cases of obligatory adjacency: - the infinitive adjoins the verbs of will, desire, opportunity, phase verbs wanted to learn, dared to object, I can help, began to suffer; - adverbs are adjacent to a number of informatively insufficient words to look decent, behave well, be friendly; - adverbs of place adjoin the verbs of location to find yourself far away, to be near. Nominal adjunction (N. S. Valgina): - creative assimilation of a bow tie; - parental dates to arrive the fifth of August; - accusative quantity to go twice; - accusative time to be absent for a year; - creative quantities to read for hours; - set expressions to be in bad standing.

syntactic links coordinative connection subordinating connection at the level of a sentence at the level of a phrase agreement control adjunction

The term "syntax" (goes back to Greek word syntaxis - ‘construction, arrangement, structure’) is defined as the science of language, which explores and formulates the rules of speech formation; Thus, at the syntactic level, the relationship between language (system) and speech (realization of the language system) is most clearly manifested.

The history of syntax as a science goes back to the teachings ancient Greek philosophers(the term "syntax" was first used by the Stoics in the 3rd century BC when describing the logical content of statements), whose focus was on the study of speech-thinking processes, therefore, the concepts they used reflected different sides one phenomenon: logical, morphological and syntactic.

The writings of Apollonius Discolus (2nd century AD), in which a description was given of the relationships between words and word forms in a sentence, laid the foundation for the interpretation of linguistic phenomena proper, although its syntax had a morphological basis and Apollonius Discolus did not offer a special system of syntactic concepts. In the XIII-XVI centuries. in universal (philosophical) grammars and in the "Grammar of Port-Royal" (XVII century), the categories of syntax were called universal (A. Arno and C. Lanslo), since the syntax itself was defined as a content area of ​​grammar, while phonetics and morphology were relegated to the plane of expression, not content. Syntax was considered as a doctrine of ways of expressing thoughts and contained a description of sentences and their parts (sentence members).

This direction was also reflected in Russian grammatical science, the beginning of which V.V. Vinogradov traces back to the grammarians of Lavrenty Zizania (1596) and Melety Smotritsky (1619) and the development of which we find in the works of M.V. Lomonosov, then I.I. Davydov , K.S. Aksakova, F.I. Buslaeva. They considered the sentence as a linguistic expression of a judgment, the subject as a linguistic expression of the subject, the predicate as a predicate, and the complex sentence as a conclusion. M.V. Lomonosov in "Russian Grammar" (1755) defined the sentence as follows: "The addition of significant parts of a word, or sayings ... produces speeches that make up a complete mind in itself through the demolition of different concepts." An indication of the connection between syntax and thinking was included in the definition of syntax until the beginning of the 20th century.

In the 2nd half of the XIX century. a psychological trend in linguistics was formed, represented in Russia by A.A. Potebney. A.A. Shakhmatov in "The Syntax of the Russian Language" wrote: "Syntax is that part of grammar that considers ways to detect thinking in a word." He noted that “in language, being received first sentences; later, by dividing sentences based on their mutual comparison and influence, word combinations and words for independent ... being and use were separated from them ... ". This interpretation led to the understanding of syntax as a section of grammar in which the phenomena of language are analyzed in the direction from meaning (function) to form.

However, at the end of the XIX century. with the awakening of interest among linguists in the national specifics of morphology, syntax began to be defined as the doctrine of the functions of classes of words in a sentence. This point of view was held by F.F. Fortunatov, who considered the main task of syntax to be the study of the ability of words to spread, defined the phrase as the main unit of syntax, and the sentence as a type of phrase. Such an understanding of the subject and tasks of syntax determined the development of this section of grammar in the 20s. 20th century

The result of a turbulent period in the development of syntax in the middle of the 20th century. is a classic grammatical description - "Grammar of the Russian language" (AG-54), in the introduction to the 2nd volume of which Acad. V.V. Vinogradov formulated the problem facing the syntaxists: whether to include a phrase in the syntactic description, whether to expand the repertoire of units to a superphrasal unity (SPU), paragraph, text, while the traditional description of syntactic units has been preserved in the grammar itself. The works of V.V. Vinogradov determined the development of the main aspects of the description of syntax in the 2nd half of the 20th century: along with the traditional structural, semantic, functional and communicative syntax was formed.

"Grammar of the Modern Russian Literary Language" (AG-70) and "Russian Grammar" (RG-80), in which an attempt is made to consistently describe the structural-formal aspect of syntactic units, are fundamentally different from AG-54, but these descriptions cannot be considered indisputable. and comprehensive. In many ways, a different understanding of the syntactic structure of the language, including Russian, is presented in the 6-volume "Theory of Functional Grammar" and in the "Communicative Grammar of the Russian Language" by G.A. Zolotova, N.K. Onipenko, M.Yu. Sidorova.

The diachronic description of syntax, the study of the dynamics of the development of syntactic phenomena, makes it possible to highlight controversial and new phenomena in modern syntax and interpret syntactic structures in the context ethnic culture and philosophy.

Currently, different interpretations of the same syntactic units and phenomena coexist, and the goal of a university course in syntax is to acquaint students with them.

Syntax of the modern Russian language / Ed. S. V. Vyatkina - M., 2009

The complex Russian language is studied by many branches of science: spelling, orthoepy, morphology and many others. This article will help you understand what syntax is and what it learns.

What is syntax?

Syntax is a branch of the science of language that studies the structure and relationships between parts of speech in phrases and sentences.

Topics covered in syntax include:

• Construction and composition of sentences and phrases
• Types of word links within syntactic units
• Different types of syntactic units and their role in the language
• Main and secondary members of the sentence, grammatical basis

The science of syntax appeared only in the 19th century, although the prerequisites for development were in ancient times. IN different times there were different concepts of the main syntactic unit. It was once believed that this was a sentence or a phrase, and at other times the entire text was taken for it.

Syntax units

There are three main syntactic units:

1. A phrase is two or more words linked by a subordinating relationship. It is used for the purpose of describing or naming something, and not as a means of narration. It does not express a complete and complete thought. Phrases are not those words that are subject and predicate or have a coordinating connection. For example, "It's raining" or "smart and beautiful."
2. A sentence is an integral unit of a language that has semantic load and serve to form and express thoughts. In Russian, simple and complex sentences are distinguished. Simple ones consist only of a subject and a predicate, and in complex ones there are also secondary members of the sentence: definitions, additions, circumstances.
3. Offer members. Syntax studies the members of sentences and their role in the text, so they can also be considered a syntactic unit. One word can be a different member in different proposals depending on the form of words and phrases. Sentences may contain main and secondary members.

Links in Syntax

In phrases and sentences, all words and parts of complex sentences are related to each other. There are two types of syntactic links:

Writing. It connects equal units. With such a connection, parts of the sentence can be separated or removed without affecting the meaning of the sentence. For example, the sentence "The snow swirled slowly and smoothly" can be easily divided into two independent ones. Snow swirled slowly. The snow swirled smoothly.

Subordinating. Links parts of sentences, one of which is the main one, and the other is dependent on it. From the independent part, you can always ask a question to the dependent. For example, "The sun, which was already setting, continued to illuminate the shore." What sun?

Thus, syntax is one of the most important parts of learning the Russian language, because it determines the connections between words and sentences.

Subject and fundamental concepts of syntax. The term "syntax" (from the Greek syntaxis "composition", "construction", "order", "system") is used in two meanings: 1) syntactic structure, a special tier of the language, including a set of syntactic phenomena; 2) a section of grammar that studies the laws and rules for constructing coherent speech in its individual fragments.

Syntax in the sense of "syntactic structure, a special tier of language" corresponds to "objectively existing system syntactic means and rules for their use, which is at the disposal of the speaking collective", "directly correlates with the process of thinking and the process of communication : units of other levels of the language system participate in the formation of thought and its communicative expression only through syntax. This is the specificity of syntax as a real phenomenon and as a scientific object.

As a section of grammar, syntax is focused on the scientific comprehension of the syntactic structure of the language, the rules for constructing speech. The object of study in syntax is communicative language means of varying complexity and their constituent parts through relation to the whole. Syntax is characterized as "the organizing center of grammar".

The term "syntax" in Lately they also name the subsections distinguished within the “Syntax” section (for example, they talk about the syntax of a phrase, the syntax of a sentence, etc.), and the directions in syntactic science (structural syntax, semantic syntax, functional syntax, etc.).

The fundamental concepts of syntax as a science about the syntactic structure of a language, about the laws and rules for constructing coherent speech are: “syntactic connection”, “syntactic units”, “syntactic meaning”, “syntactic function”, “syntactic form”, “syntactic category”.

The above six concepts - "syntactic connection", "syntactic units", "syntactic function", "syntactic meaning", "syntactic form", "syntactic category" - are initial, cross-cutting for syntax, without them it is hardly possible scientific description and understanding the syntactic structure of the language. These concepts are closely related to each other, so any of them can be characterized only using correlative concepts.

In this introduction, the concepts of "syntactic connection", "syntactic units", "syntactic function", "syntactic meaning", "syntactic form", "syntactic category" are given the most preliminary, very abstract characteristic. The specific content of these concepts, in other words, a kind of “ascent from the abstract to the concrete” in their interpretation, will be carried out in the course of presenting the content of individual sections of the syntax.

Syntactic link- these are various kinds of formal and meaningful relationships between the components of individual fragments of speech (see the section "The doctrine of syntactic connection"). So, for example, in the phrase copper samovar words find a connection between themselves as meaningful (adjective copper denotes an attribute of a noun samovar), and formal (dependent adjective copper formally consistent with the reference name samovar V masculine, singular, nominative).

Syntactic unit- this is a certain fragment of coherent speech, characterized by a different volume and possessing to varying degrees the signs of the whole, i.e. connected speech. Syntactic units differ from each other in structural, structural, meaningful and functional features.

The indisputable syntactic units are the phrase and the simple sentence. In various university textbooks, along with the named syntactic units, other syntactic units are distinguished more high level- a complex sentence and a complex syntactic whole. This book also discusses a lower-level unit called the syntaxeme.

The constitutive syntactic features of each of these syntactic units are reflected in a specific trinity peculiar only to it "meaning - function - form". The dialectical trinity "meaning - function - form" can be represented as a set of questions "what? - For what? - How?".

syntactic meaning is an abstract content expressed in syntactic units. The essence of the concept of “syntactic meaning” can be expressed in the question “what?”: WHAT does this or that syntactic unit mean, WHAT expresses, WHAT reflects?

Syntactic units can express various syntactic meanings: definitive (attributive), circumstantial of various types (causal, spatial, target, temporal, conditional, etc.), object of various types (direct object, instrumental object, addressable object, etc.). ), the meaning of predicativity, etc. So, for example, in the phrase copper samovar defining relations are expressed in the phrase read a book - direct object relations, etc.

The most abstract syntactic meaning inherent in any sentence is predicativity, which characterizes the content of the sentence through its relation to reality - either as real fact, which has time definiteness ( Children play bast shoes; The children were playing bast shoes; Children will play bast shoes), or as an unreal fact outside of temporal certainty ( Children would play bast shoes; Let the kids play lapta).

Others are used to denote syntactic meaning. synonymous terms- “syntactic relations”, “semantic (meaningful) relations”, “syntactic meaning”.

syntax function- purpose, the role of a syntactic unit, syntactic means and categories in speech, in a communicative act, in the construction of a communicative unit. The essence of the concept of "function" can be expressed by the question "what for?": WHAT are syntactic units, syntactic means and categories in speech for? Yes, the phrase copper samovar is intended to be material for building communicative units (cf.: There was a copper samovar on the table; We drank tea from a copper samovar; Mother went out into the yard with a copper samovar in her hands etc.). As part of a sentence, each of the constituent components of this phrase performs the function of an independent member of the sentence, i.e. fit into the positional structure of the sentence. The importance of the concept of function for syntax has been noted by many modern scholars.

The concepts of "syntactic meaning" and "syntactic function" are quite close in content. Syntactic meaning can be created through functioning, so we can talk about the functional semantics of language units. On the other hand, the function of a linguistic unit can be determined by its syntactic semantics, in such cases one can speak of a semantic function.

The difference between the concepts of "syntactic meaning" and "syntactic function" is as follows. : the concept of "syntactic meaning" is aimed at the internal content of the syntactic unit, considered in isolation, without relation to the inclusive structure; the concept of "syntactic function" is focused on identifying the role of a syntactic unit in the composition of units of a higher level.

Function and meaning in some cases can overlap and be isosemic, in other cases they clearly diverge. For example: the syntactic meaning of the syntaxeme at school – adverbial place; in a sentence, it can perform different syntactic functions - as an isosemic function, i.e. the function of the circumstance of place ( At school there is a garden), as well as a non-isosemic function, for example, a function of inconsistent definition ( Garden at school very well maintained). It should be noted that in the second case the syntaxeme at school, being an inconsistent definition, still retains its internal spatial semantics.

Syntactic form- this is a concept that generalizes the structural features of syntactic units. The essence of this concept is expressed by the generalizing question “how?”: HOW is the syntactic unit constructed, HOW is it organized in a constructive way? The structural characteristics of syntactic units depend on the complexity of the structure of the latter. The more complex the syntactic unit, the greater the set of structural features it has.

The formal, structural characteristics of syntactic units include, in particular, the means of communication presented in a syntactic unit, syntactically significant ways of morphological or syntactic expression of its components, block diagrams (models) for constructing syntactic units, etc.

For example, the structural features of the phrase copper samovar can be characterized as follows: it is a two-component (binary) compound of words, consisting of a supporting noun samovar male, having the form of the nominative case, singular, and the adjective dependent on it copper, which is consistent with the reference word in the masculine, singular, nominative case; the connection of components is expressed using the ending of the adjective. This phrase is built according to the typical structural scheme AN, where A is the sign-symbol of the adjective (and other adjectival words), N is the sign-symbol of the noun. The syntactic form acts as a carrier of the syntactic meaning and syntactic function of a particular language unit.

To characterize the various aspects of the formal structure of syntactic units, the concepts of "syntactic structure", "syntactic construction", "structural scheme" can also be used.

The concepts of "syntactic meaning", "syntactic function", "syntactic form" together constitute the dialectical trinity "meaning - function - form", reflecting the relationship and interaction of meaningful, functional and structural features of syntactic units.

Syntactic category- this is a concept denoting the unity of a certain syntactic meaning and the totality of the many different forms of its expression. If we proceed from the fact that a language category is “any group of linguistic elements distinguished on the basis of some common property”, then a syntactic category can be defined as any group of syntactic elements distinguished on the basis of the commonality of any of their syntactically significant properties. And any commonality (uniformity) also implies the presence of distinctive properties in the combined elements. So, for example, the syntactic category of modality is the unity of the syntactic meaning of reality/irreality and the totality of forms of expression of this meaning (shapes of mood, intonation, particles, etc.); the syntactic category of subjectivity is the unity of the syntactic meaning of the carrier of the predicative feature and the many different ways of expressing it: Nominative case (I feel chills), dative or accusative subject ( To me Cold; Me shivering), creative subject ( The house is worth carpenters ), personal verb endings( Loved Yu wander through the autumn forest).

Comparative characteristic syntactic units. It should be noted that the question of the number of syntactic units has not received an unambiguous solution either in the scientific or in educational literature. In different university textbooks and manuals, the number of syntactic units ranges from two to five. At the same time, it is possible to identify a different degree of recognition of the distinguished syntactic units. If only two syntactic units are distinguished, then this must be a phrase and a sentence. If we are talking about three syntactic units, then, as a rule, this is a phrase, a simple sentence and a complex sentence. If we are talking about four syntactic units, then, of course, a phrase, a simple sentence, a complex sentence and a complex syntactic whole are recognized as such.

The logic of the movement of thought in the selection of syntactic units also involves the identification of an elementary syntactic unit from which phrases are built, and also, in part, simple sentences. Such an elementary syntactic unit received a terminological designation through the concept of “syntaxeme” (or “syntactic form of a word”) and is described in detail in the works of G.A. Golden.

Given the above, in our book a five-component system of syntactic units is adopted : syntaxeme, phrase, simple sentence, complex sentence, complex syntactic whole. Let's imagine the preliminary general characteristics five listed syntactic units.

syntaxeme(or syntactic form) refers to the primary, elementary units of syntax, from which syntactic units of a higher order are formed and divided into - phrases and simple sentences: in the closet, out of fear, according to the law, out of clay, read, run, man, books etc. Syntaxemes are carriers of elementary syntactic meanings - subjective, objective, attributive, spatial, causal, target and other types of relations. The systematized repertoire of syntaxemes as elementary syntactic units received a lexicographic representation in the Syntactic Dictionary of G.A. Golden.

A syntaxeme is a unit that links morphology and syntax : it is a morphological form considered from a syntactic perspective, i.e. as an element of syntactic constructions. For example, the word form due to illness when viewed through the prism of syntax, a causal meaning is attributed. In accordance with this meaning, this word form can function as part of a sentence as a circumstance of a cause ( He didn't come to class due to illness.), How inconsistent definition with additional causal meaning ( Absence due to illness is not punished.). As a syntactic unit, the syntaxeme has its own formal features, syntactic meaning (it is the carrier of elementary meaning), and functional properties.

phrase- this is the minimum syntactic unit in which the signs of coherent speech are presented explicitly. A phrase is a combination of two or more significant words, grammatically formed by means of a subordinating connection, resulting from the spread of some key word: blue scarf, laughing merrily, river bank. In their form and syntactic meaning, syntaxemes and phrases cannot perform a communicative function, they participate in the construction of communicative units and only within their framework participate in the communication process. Therefore, the syntaxeme and the phrase are syntactic units up to the communion and to the -t and in the n about the level. Within the framework of syntax, they perform a nominative function, being the names of individual fragments of situations designated in sentences.

Communicative units (or units of the communicative level of syntax) include a simple sentence, a complex sentence, and a complex syntactic whole. It is these units that, in their meaning and structure, are intended to perform a communicative function.

Simple sentence- this is a minimal, monopredicative communicative unit, which has in its composition one grammatical core, in which a single relation of the entire content of the sentence to reality is expressed. For example: Flying lime haze hovered over the lowland(L. Leonov); Silence in the stuffy air(F. Tyutchev); I'm tired of waiting(N.V. Gogol); The forest was quiet and damp(V. Nabokov).

Difficult sentence is a communicative polypredicative syntactic unit, the components of which are simple sentences connected to each other by one or another type of syntactic connection. Polypredicativity complex sentence is due to the fact that each of the simple sentences in its composition has its own predicativity, represented in its predicative core by the categories of time and mood, and the entire complex sentence as a whole expresses multiple reference to reality. For example: The sun rose higher and higher, the city was evenly illuminated, and the street came to life ...(V. Nabokov); The silence of the taiga and mountains would have crushed people, if not for the river - it alone roared for the whole district(V. Shukshin).

Complex syntactic integer- this is a minimal fragment of the text, consisting of simple and complex sentences, interconnected by means of interphrase communication and united by a common micro-theme. For example: The dispute of generations is the law of life. Each new generation begins by challenging the experience of the previous one. This law is valid not only on a wide social scale.(K.Ya. Vanshenkin).

Between the named five syntactic units - syntaxemes, phrases, simple sentences, complex sentences, complex syntactic wholes - hierarchical relations are established for sequential entry into each other (when viewed from below) and sequential division of more complex syntactic units into simple ones until the limit of their division is obtained ( when viewed from above).

In the five-component system of syntactic units, a simple sentence occupies a central place. This is determined primarily by the fact that a simple sentence is the minimum communicative syntactic unit intended to convey relatively complete information. In addition, a simple sentence is a kind of starting point for a complex sentence and a complex syntactic whole (since a simple sentence is involved in their formation) and an end point for a phrase and syntaxe (since it is in its composition that the named units find their application). Position centrality simple sentence in the system of syntactic units is also due to the fact that it is on the material of a simple sentence that many theoretical concepts of the sentence are built, developed within the framework of the vast majority of scientific directions in syntax.

The structure of syntax as a branch of the science of language. Syntax as a section of grammar has its own internal structure. In this book, the syntax is presented as a complex of eight sections, each of which is united by the unity of the subject of description:

1. The doctrine of syntactic connection.

2. The syntax of the syntaxeme.

3. Syntax of the phrase.

4. Syntax of a simple sentence.

5. Syntax of a complicated sentence.

6. Syntax of a complex sentence.

7. Syntax of a sentence with direct speech.

8. Syntax of a complex syntactic whole.

The first section of the syntax is devoted to the description of the syntactic relationship. The doctrine of syntactic connection is highlighted in the first section, since the subject of syntax is connected speech and the initial concept of syntax is the concept of connection.

The sections "Syntax of a syntax", "Syntax of a phrase", "Syntax of a simple sentence", "Syntax of a complex sentence", "Syntax of a complex syntactic whole" are allocated in accordance with the types of syntactic units.

Separate section composes the "Syntax of a Complicated Sentence". It should be noted that the complicated sentence is not qualified as a special syntactic unit in any of the known textbooks on syntax. However, a complicated sentence has its own theory, its own system of terms, its structural, semantic and functional features, which allows us to raise the question of the possibility of isolating the corresponding type of sentence as a special syntactic unit.

The selection of the section “Sentence syntax with direct speech” is due to the fact that this type of sentences, due to its specific content, constructive, functional properties, cannot be unconditionally included either in the system of complex sentences or in the system of a complex syntactic whole. Due to the fact that sentences with direct speech are in a transformational relationship with sentences with indirect speech, this section is supposed to describe the general rules for transforming sentences with direct speech into complex sentences with indirect speech.

It adjoins "Syntax" as a section of the science of language "Punctuation", which, along with "Spelling" and "Graphics", is included in the "Theory of Written Speech".

Syntax in the language system. In the sphere of syntax, those linguistic means are concentrated that directly serve for communication and without the use of which communication cannot be carried out. To formulate a thought, it is not enough to know only words, their forms, it is necessary to establish connections between them, to correlate what is reported with reality.

The direct connection of syntax with thinking, communication determines the place of syntax in the system of tiers of the language. The language is divided into tiers phonetic, lexical, derivational, morphological, syntactic. Syntax is the highest tier, "crowning the multi-story building of the language."

Like the top tier of a language, syntax builds on the lower tiers. As we move from the lower tiers of the language towards syntax, the syntactically significant characteristics of language units, categories, phenomena studied in Phonetics, Vocabulary, Word Formation, and Morphology are accumulated.

The syntactic side of the language begins to be studied in phonetics. The syntactically oriented element of the phonetic structure of a language is intonation. The intonation pattern is necessary sign any communication unit. Through intonation, communicatively significant components of statements are also distinguished.

The syntax detects links to vocabulary. The syntactic features of lexical units are taken into account in their communicatively oriented semantic classification. The typical meanings of lexical units predetermine the most frequent types of their functioning within a sentence. So, for example, words with a temporal meaning often function as adverbs of time: summer, winter, hour, year, minute and etc.: In a year he goes to the army; They came to us last winter; After a minute the bell will ring. Words with a spatial meaning are oriented towards frequency functioning as an adverb of place: On the way to a winter, boring trio of greyhounds runs; Near the forest there is a small village; in the meadow horses graze. The lexical factor also determines the different functioning of the same morphological forms. Wed: come up to the table (the circumstance of the place) and come up By the evening (time circumstance) , speak with excitement (mode circumstance) and speak with a friend (addition) .

The nature of the lexical meanings of words determines their syntactic activity or passivity. Syntactically active words have strong syntactic connections, or valences. Without the implementation of a strong connection, syntactically active words cannot function in speech. For example, in the phrase nail a picture to the wall support verb nail requires mandatory compatibility with word forms that answer the question what? and why? Words with strong connections are called relative. The number of relative words in the vocabulary of the language is large. The distribution of relative words by dependent word forms in a sentence is thus determined by two factors: a) the need to implement their strong connections and b) the need to present information in the most complete way.

Syntactically passive words do not require mandatory distribution ( be silent, table and etc.). They can be used as part of a proposal without distributors, i.e. absolute (cf. Everyone was silent; There was a table in the corner of the room). Such words are called absolute. Absolute words used in a sentence can be extended to expand information (cf.: In the corner of the room stood a large table with a vase).

Syntax detects links and word formation. Syntactically significant derivational features of words are prefixes in verbs; they dictate the prepositional case form of dependent names: in go V house, before drive before villages, You go from rooms, at beat To wall etc. Syntactically oriented is transpositive word formation, or the so-called syntactic derivation: bold - courage, walk - walking, walking. This type of word formation carries out, for example, a formal translation of an indicative concept into a noun and gives this concept the opportunity to function like an objective concept; compare: brave hunter And I am amazed at the courage of the hunter.

The closest connection is between syntax and morphology. Morphology, which studies the parts of speech, their categories and forms, essentially serves the syntax, all morphological means and categories are designed to function in a sentence. So, the categories of gender, number, case serve to establish a connection between words in a phrase and a sentence. The verb categories of person and voice are involved in constructive organization sentences (the person of the verb forms the predicative core of a two-part or one-part sentence; pledge forms active and passive constructions); mood and tense form the category of predicativity as the main, constitutive feature of the sentence. Service parts of speech (conjunctions, prepositions, particles), interjections and modal words reveal their true existence only in the sphere of syntax.

Thus, the syntactic properties of language units begin to be studied long before the Syntax section.

The term "syntax" is used to designate both the object of study and the section of the science of language.

The syntax of a language is its syntactic structure, a set of laws operating in the language that regulate the construction of syntactic units.

Syntax as a science is a section of grammar that illuminates the syntactic structure of the language, the structure and meaning of syntactic units (4, p. 5).

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

Morphology studies the meanings and forms of words as elements of intra-word opposition; the meanings of verbal forms that arise in combination with other verbal forms, the meanings determined by the laws of word compatibility and sentence construction, are the subject of syntax (8, p. 7).

Syntax as a science of the syntactic structure of a language allows you to build and show a system of syntactic units, connections and relationships between them, from what and how they are composed, by what means the components (elements) are connected into syntactic units.

The fundamental concepts of syntax are the concept of syntactic units, syntactic relations, syntactic links (and means of communication) and grammatical (syntactic) semantics (4, p. 5).

Syntactic units are constructions in which their elements (components) are united by syntactic links and relations.

As part of syntactic units, modified words are used in one of their forms (word forms), which together form the morphological paradigm of the word. However, word forms are studied both in morphology and syntax, but they look different.

Wed: By morning, frost will stick to pine branches (Kedrin).

The sentence contains 7 words, 5 word forms, 5 members of the sentence.

Strong evening dew was supposed to lie on the grass (A. Tolstoy).

The sentence contains 8 words, 7 word forms, 5 members of the sentence.

Thus, word forms are building elements of syntactic units: phrases, simple sentences, complex sentences, complex syntactic wholes, which are the main syntactic units (4, p. 6).

The question of the composition of syntactic units (how many and what they are) has not yet been unambiguously resolved in linguistics, however, in most university textbooks (see the list of references), all the above syntactic units are considered.

"Syntactic links and relations between elements (components) of syntactic units are the main feature of syntactic constructions" (Chesnokova L.D., p. 6).

A syntactic link is an expression of the relationship of elements in a syntactic unit, that is, it serves to express syntactic relations between words, secondly, it creates the syntactic structure of a sentence and a phrase, and thirdly, it creates conditions for the realization of the lexical meaning of a word.

The main types (types) of syntactic communication are composition and subordination (4, p. 6).

Composition and subordination are structural, proper linguistic relations, designed to structurally formalize objective relations.

Subordination conveys the relationship between the facts of the objective world in the form of such a combination of two words, in which one acts as the main thing, the second - as dependent.

The composition conveys the relationship between the facts of the objective world in the form of such a combination of words in which all words act as equal in relation to each other.

On the basis of the main types of communication in linguistic literature, the following are distinguished:

• 1) explanatory link;
• 2) bidirectional communication;
• 3) determinant relationship.

Let's consider them in more detail.

The explanatory link is typical only for word forms in the composition of the sentence. I.P. Raspopov in "The Structure of a Simple Sentence" (7, pp. 40-41) calls this connection an application, in "Grammar-80" it is noted that the explanatory connection is characterized as a kind of composing connection (§ 2084).

An explanatory connection is a connection of word forms, in which the second component is, as it were, “superimposed” on the first and, due to this, is likened to it in syntactic relations with other components of the sentence. The explanatory connection reveals the actual explanatory syntactic relations expressing different names for the same phenomenon. An explanatory connection can be seen in cases that are usually interpreted as a separation of applications (in a broad sense, including not only adjectival, but also adjectival, adverbial components), it is characteristic of a sentence (I.P. Chirkina, part 4, p. 25) .

Wed: She went out into the street in an old, very shabby dress. To the left, by the road, stood a lone tree.

A bidirectional connection is characteristic only for a sentence, it is a simultaneous connection of a dependent word form with two other word forms that are core for it, expresses attributive and adverbial, attributive and object syntactic relations. (See: Grammar-80, § 2003, Chesnokova L.D., pp. 66-72, Raspopov I.P., pp. 37-40).

Example: Burying his face in a towel, he wept bitterly, as he wept in this room, when his little father (Fedin) unfairly and cruelly punished him.

The word form of the little one expresses at the same time an attributive attitude to the word form of him (what is he?) and a tense adverbial to the word form punished (when?).

Has the war made you superstitious? (Simonov).

The superstitious word form simultaneously expresses attributive and object syntactic relations.

Determinant connection - the connection of the free attachment of a word form to the sentence as a whole, expresses object and adverbial syntactic relations (see the works of Shvedova N.Yu., Malashchenko V.P. and others).

Examples: A writer must be a thinker, an artist and a critic at the same time. It is not enough for a great writer to know his native language.

The selected units are the object determinant.

The room smelled fresh from the balcony. A warm wind blew through the open windows - an example of a circumstantial determinant.

Since syntactic links serve to express syntactic relations, the latter should be defined.

“Syntactic relations,” writes L.D. Chesnokova, “are those semantic relations that are qualified in school syntax as grammatical meanings phrases, these are the relations that determine the specifics of the syntactic structure of the sentence, make up the meaning of the members of the sentence, the meaning subordinate clauses, the meaning of compound and unionless proposals etc.

Relations between objects and phenomena real world are concretized and appear in the language as relations between an object and an object, between a sign and an object, between a sign and a sign, between an action and an object, between an action and a sign, between an action and an action" (6, p. 9).

Structural, specifically linguistic, relations are called upon to formalize in a certain way, to represent objective relations in the language (ibid.).

The division of syntactic relations into predicative and non-predicative should be recognized as the main one. Predicative syntactic relations are characteristic of grammatical basis sentences: subject and predicate.

Non-predicative syntactic relations are divided into coordinating and subordinating (attributive, object, adverbial). They can occur between the components of all syntactic units.

To build syntactic units, word forms, auxiliary words, typed lexical elements, intonation, word order, etc. are used. All these means also serve to formalize syntactic links and express syntactic relations.

Word forms are minimal syntactic constructions that serve the semantic side of syntactic constructions, and the elements of word forms are endings and prepositions.

Unions are linked homogeneous members sentences, parts of a complex sentence and components of a complex syntactic whole, express their grammatical meanings. Less bright signaling of grammatical meanings are composing conjunctions, but they also reveal the semantic relationships between the composed components.

Particles and their combinations can form inseparable sentences, shape the syntactic meanings of sentences, members of a sentence, highlight the semantic center of an utterance, etc. Particles are not included in the members of the sentence if they form the grammatical meaning of the entire sentence.

Is it possible that room conditions will remain in the cabin at thousand-degree temperatures?

In other cases, particles, like prepositions, are part of the members of the sentence.

An important role in the construction of syntactic constructions is played by typed lexical elements. These include pronominal words (interrogative, relative, demonstrative - who, what, which, where, where, this, that, such, there, there, therefore, etc.), lexico-semantic groupings of significant parts of speech.

Word order is determined by semantic and structural factors. There are two types of word order in Russian: direct (fixed) and inversion (free).

One of the means of expressing syntactic meanings and emotionally expressive coloring of syntactic units is intonation. The constituent elements of intonation are the melody of speech, rhythm, tempo, logical stress, which highlights the informative center in the sentence. In addition, intonation is an essential feature of a sentence, since it is one of the indicators of completeness, the integrity of sentences in oral speech; intonation forms the types of simple sentences distinguished by the purpose of the statement, gives them an emotional coloring, expresses syntactic connections and relations between the members of the sentence, between the parts of the complex sentence, etc.

Several means are usually involved in the construction of syntactic constructions (4, § 4, pp. 8-10).

In morphology, parts of speech distinguish between lexical and grammatical (categorical) meanings. It's the same with syntax. All syntactic units have lexical (speech, individual) and grammatical (linguistic, syntactic, categorical, etc.) meanings.

The lexical meaning of phrases is determined by the lexical meanings of the words included in these phrases.

Grammatical meaning is a more general, abstract meaning, the meaning of syntactic relations.

The question of the semantics of sentences is more complex and does not have an unambiguous solution. On the one hand, this concept includes the grammatical meaning of a question, statement, motivation, on the other hand, it also includes the grammatical meaning of the phrases that make up the sentence.

Thus, grammatical (linguistic, syntactic) semantics is the common meaning of syntactic units of the same structure. Lexical semantics is the speech, concrete, individual meaning of one or another syntactic unit, associated with the lexical meaning of words and word forms (4, p. 11).

The syntactic and lexical semantics of syntactic units and their components differ from each other by varying degrees of abstraction: syntactic semantics is the highest level of generalization of lexical semantics. Syntactic and lexical semantics can be represented as different poles, between which lies a zone of transitional phenomena, reflecting different levels of abstraction. In this zone of interaction between grammar and vocabulary, structural-semantic types of sentences, phrases, etc. are formed.

The syntactic semantics of the varieties of these sentences, phrases, etc. is called typical semantics (this problem is reflected in the works of G.A. Zolotova).

So, for example, the general grammatical meaning of the impersonal sentence In the room is cold is a message, and its typical meaning is the state of the environment.

In school textbooks, the grammatical meanings of phrases and sentences are considered: the grammatical meaning of a phrase is associated with its structure, and sentences are related to the meaning of the moods of the verb-predicate (4, § 5).

The history of the study of Russian syntax originates from the "Russian Grammar" by M.V. Lomonosov (1755). The heyday of Russian syntactic science comes in the 19th - early 20th century, when the main directions of Russian linguistics are developing: logical and grammatical (F.I. Buslaev, N.I. Grech, K.S. Aksakov), psychological (A.A. Potebnya, D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky), formal grammatical (F.F. Fortunatov, A.M. Peshkovsky).

All these directions have made a significant contribution to the development of linguistic problems, but differ in a one-sided approach to syntax.

The modern period in the development of Russian linguistics is characterized by the flourishing of linguistic theories in general and syntactic theories in particular. Many topical issues of syntax were considered earlier, but unlike traditional linguistics, the modern period is characterized by the process of integration and differentiation that distinguishes the development of all science in the modern era. One of the achievements of modern syntax is the identification and differentiation of aspects of the study of syntactic units. Some aspects are related to the semantics of sentences, others - to their structure. It is difficult to say which aspect is more important, no doubt that both the structural and the semantic aspects are the main ones, and this is reflected in modern syntactic theories. The selected aspects do not exhaust the whole variety of existing approaches to the study of syntactic units, it is also possible to identify new aspects that will allow us to analyze any properties of syntax units from new positions.

The logical aspect of the study of syntactic units is associated with the best traditions of Russian linguistics, since the classics of Russian linguistics considered the problem of the relationship between language, thinking and being. In Soviet linguistics, this problem has become the object of research and description of general linguistics.

In works on general linguistics, language is considered as a means of forming, expressing and communicating thoughts. The most essential feature of a sentence is its ability to form and express a thought. Philosophers and linguists who share this position distinguish 3 types of thought: "thought-message", "thought-question", "thought-urge". The differences between these types of thought determine the special structural and semantic properties of sentences that are usually distinguished only by the purpose of the statement: narrative, interrogative and incentive.

The history of the development of Russian linguistics shows that philosophers and linguists have been looking for and are looking for those forms of thought that underlie the proposal; explore the structure of thought that determines the syntactic articulation of the sentence.

The thought expressed in a sentence among linguists of the 19th and 20th centuries. receives different interpretations and names: F.I. Buslaev - judgment, A.A. Potebni - apperception, A.A. Shakhmatova - psychological communication, etc. It is important that most scientists note the two-term nature of the thought expressed in any sentence, since in any sentence there is an object of thought-speech, that is, what is being said and what is being said about the subject.

In modern linguistics, logical terms are widely used: subject, predicate, etc. The term subject is used as a synonym for the following words and phrases: doer, action producer, actor, the speaker, the subject of thought, the carrier of the sign. The logical term predicate is used as a synonym for the term predicate, and the concept of predicativity is also associated with it.

The logical aspect is important, first of all, because the degree of articulation of a thought determines the degree of articulation of a sentence, it is the basis for distinguishing structural and semantic types of a simple sentence: two-part, one-part, indivisible (4, pp. 16-17).

Structural aspect, or constructive syntax, structural syntax, passive syntax, etc. The specifics of this linguistic direction in the fact that scientists, when studying syntactic units, pay special attention to their models, structural diagrams, that is, stereotyped patterns, according to which units are built in speech different levels syntax system.

The structural schemes of a simple sentence include only those structural elements that reflect the logical structure of the thought that determines the syntactic positions of the members of the sentence. As a result, only the subject and the predicate were in the center of attention, and the secondary members moved into the syntax of the phrase. Studying the structure of syntactic units has many pluses and minuses.

On the one hand, it is impossible to reflect the entire semantic diversity of syntactic constructions in a block diagram, and on the other hand, block diagrams reflect the main mechanisms for constructing statements and demonstrate the means that serve the grammatical meanings of syntactic units and their components (4, pp. 17-19).

The communicative aspect is associated primarily with the ability of the proposal to act as a means of communication (communication). The communicative aspect of the sentence is manifested in the so-called actual articulation, in the presence of which the given (theme, the basis of the statement) and the new (rheme) are distinguished in the sentence. (See the works of I.P. Raspopov and I.I. Kovtunova for the actual division).

The communicative aspect also influences the solution of the issue of the volume of a sentence member (cf.: The art of writing is the art of shortening). Ways to update the informative center of the statement - logical stress, word order, lexical repetition, particles, etc. (see more: 4, p. 21 and on).

All of these aspects are closely related.

The structural-semantic direction is the next stage in the evolution of traditional linguistics. It carefully preserves and develops the best traditions of Russian syntactic theory, enriching itself with new ideas.

The development of the structural-semantic direction is stimulated by the needs of teaching the Russian language, where a multidimensional, voluminous consideration of speech and language means is necessary.

One of the main principles of the structural-semantic direction is the principle of the systematic nature of the language system. Language as a system is a whole, consisting of interconnected and interacting elements; there cannot be phenomena that fall out of the system of language, phenomena outside the system. Hence, the most important and essential feature of modern syntax is a multidimensional approach to the study of syntactic units, as well as other units of the language (see the references for more details).

Bibliography

• 1. Grammar of the Russian language. M., 1954, 1960 - Vol. 2, parts 1 and 2.
• 2. Russian grammar. M., 1980, v. 2.
• 3. Modern Russian language / Under. edited by V.A. Beloshapkova. M., 1981.
• 4. Modern Russian language in three parts / V.V. Babaitseva, L.Yu. Maksimov. M, 1987.
• 5. Modern Russian language / Ed. N.M. Shansky. M., 1981.
• 6. Chesnokova L.D. Connections of words in modern Russian. M., 1980.
• 7. Raspopov I.P. The structure of a simple sentence in the modern Russian language. M., 1970.
• 8. Valgina N.S. Syntax of the modern Russian language. M., 1978.
• 9. Lekant P.A. The syntax of a simple sentence in modern Russian. M., 1974.
• 10. Modern Russian language / R.N. Popov, D.P. Valkova, L.Ya. Malovitsky, A.K. Fedorov. M., 1978.
• 11. Modern Russian language / Ed. D.E. Rosenthal. Part 2. Syntax. M., 1979.
• 12. Kovtunova I.I. Modern Russian language. Word order and actual division of the sentence. M., 1976.