From YourSITE.com

Theory of language
Basics of structured syntax
By Lucien Tenier
Sep 7, 2007, 00:29

Part 1.

Syntactic connection

Book A. Introduction

Syntactic connection

1. The subject of structural syntax is the study of sentences.<…>

2. A sentence is an organized whole, the elements of which are words.

3. Each word included in a sentence loses its isolation, which is always inherent in it in the dictionary. You can notice that each word of the sentence enters into certain relationships with neighboring words. communications<…>, the totality of which constitutes the backbone, or structure, of a sentence.<…>

5.<…>A sentence like Alfred parle "Alfred says" does not consist of two elements: 1) Alfred and 2) parle, and from three: 1) Alfred, 2) parle and 3) the connection that unites them and without which there would be no proposal. To say that a sentence like Alfred parle contains only two elements is to analyze it from a purely superficial, morphological point of view and ignore the most essential thing - the syntactic connection.<…>

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

8. It is the syntactic connection that makes the sentence living organism, and it is in it that his life force.

9. To construct a sentence means to breathe life into an amorphous mass of words, having installed the totality between them syntactic connections.

10. And vice versa, to understand a sentence means understand the totality of connections, which combine the words included in it.

11. The concept of syntactic connection is, therefore, basis all structural syntax.<…>

12. Strictly speaking, it is precisely what we call connection that is expressed by the word “syntax” itself, meaning in Greek “arrangement”, “establishment of order”.<…>

13. For clarity, we will depict connections between words graphically, using lines that we will call lines of syntactic communication. <…>

Hierarchy of syntactic connections.

1. Syntactic connections<…>establish relationships between words dependencies. Each connection unites some superior element with element inferior.

2. We will call the superior element manager, or subordinating, and the lower one – subordinates. Thus, in the sentence of Alfred parle (see Art. 1) parle is the control element, and Alfred is the slave element.

Stemma 1

3. When we are interested in an ascending syntactic connection, we will say that the subordinate element depends on the manager, and when we are talking about a downward connection, we will say that the control element controls the subordinate, or subordinates it.<…>

4. One and the same word can simultaneously depend on one word and subordinate another. Thus, in the sentence Mon ami parle “My friend says,” the word ami “friend” is simultaneously subordinate to the word parle “speaks” and subordinates the word mon “my” (see Art. 2).

Stemma 2

5. Thus, the totality of words that make up a sentence forms a real hierarchy.<…>

6. The study of a sentence, which, as mentioned above, is the goal of structural syntax, essentially comes down to the study of the structure of a sentence, which is nothing more than a hierarchy of syntactic connections.

7. It is natural to draw a line depicting a syntactic connection in a vertical direction, since it symbolizes the relationship between a higher element and a lower one.

Node and stemma.

1. In principle, no subordinate element can depend on more than one manager. A manager, on the other hand, can manage several subordinates, for example, Mon vieil ami chante cette jolie chanson “My old friend sings this beautiful song” (see. st . 3 ).

mon vieil cette jolie

Stemma3

2. Each control element, which has one or more subordinates, forms what we will call knot.

3. We define a node as a set consisting of a control word and all those words that - directly or indirectly - are subordinate to it and which it is in some way connects in one bundle.<…>

5. Just like syntactic connections<…>, nodes can be located one above the other. Thus, along with the hierarchy of connections between words, there is hierarchy of connections between nodes. <…>

6. A node formed by a word that subordinates - directly or indirectly - all the words of a sentence is called central hub. This node is at the center of the entire sentence. It ensures the structural unity of a sentence by tying all its elements into a single bundle. In a sense, he is identified with the entire sentence.

7. <…>The central node is usually formed by a verb.<…>

9. A set of lines depicting syntactic connections forms a stemma. Stemma visually represents the hierarchy of connections and schematically shows all the nodes and the bundles they form. Thus, a stemma is the structure of a sentence materialized in visual form.

10. So, a stemma is a visual representation of an abstract concept - a structural diagram of a sentence.<…>

12. Stemma allows you to solve a problem that, within the framework of traditional grammar, experienced teachers have always posed to their students. They asked them to describe structure sentences of the target language, be it Latin or any of the living languages. As everyone knows, if the structure of a sentence is not clear, then the sentence itself cannot be correctly understood.<…>

Structural order.

1. Structural word order is the order in which syntactic connections are established.

2. The order of establishing connections cannot be specified unambiguously, since each control element can have several subordinates. It follows that the structural order is multidimensional. <…>

Speech chain.

1. The material from which speech is built is a sequence of sounds<…>that we perceive with our hearing organs. We will call this sequence speech chain.

3. Speech chain one-dimensional. It appears before us in the form of a line. This is its essential property.

4. The linear nature of the speech chain is due to the fact that our speech unfolds in time, and time is fundamentally one-dimensional.<…>

11. The speech chain is not only one-dimensional, but is also directed only in one side. This is explained by the fact that it is a function of time, which moves only in one direction.

12. Consequently, the speech chain, as well as time, irreversible.<…>

Structural order and linear order.

1. The basis of all structural syntax is the relation between structural order and linear order.

2. To construct or establish a sentence pattern means to transform a linear order into a structural one.<…>

3. And vice versa: restore the sentence from the stemma, or translate the stemme into a sentence, means transforming the structural order into a linear one, extending the words forming the stem into a chain.<…>

4. <…>You can say: speak in this language means being able to transform a structural order into a linear one. Respectively understand language is to be able to transform linear order into structural order.<…>

Word.

1. Despite its apparent simplicity, define linguistically the concept of the word is extraordinary difficult. <…>

2. The point here, apparently, is that many are trying start from the concept of the word to define the concept of a sentence, instead of, on the contrary, starting from the concept of a sentence, define the concept of a word. You cannot define a sentence through a word, but only a word through a sentence. The concept of a sentence is logically primary in relation to the concept of a word. <…>

3. Since the sentence unfolds into a speech chain, the word can only be defined as segment this chain.<…>

Syntax and morphology.

1. When the structural diagram of a sentence is arranged in linear order in a speech chain, it is ready to acquire sound shell and thereby obtain its external form.<…>

3. Structural and semantic schemes, opposed to external form, constitute the true internal shape offers.<…>

4. Anyone who has studied a foreign language knows what demands its internal form imposes on a speaker of a given language. She represents a force that cannot be resisted - a kind of categorical imperative.

5. Study external form sentence constitutes an object morphology. Studying it internal form- an object syntax.

6. So the syntax is sharp separated from morphology and independent from her. He obeys his own laws - he autonomous.

7. The autonomy of syntax is far from universally recognized. After, under the influence of the ideas that dominated the 19th century, the approach of F. Bopp prevailed in the minds of linguists over the views of W. Humboldt, comparative grammar developed almost exclusively in the field of phonetics and morphology.<…>

8. As for syntax, since the time of F. Bopp it has always been in the position of a poor relative of morphology. On those rare occasions when he was not passed over in silence, he was put in a morphological straitjacket. Most of the descriptions of syntax that have been published in the last hundred years are only morphological syntax. <…>

Morphological marker

1. We will call the thought and the corresponding structural and linear diagrams expressible <…>, and the phonetic shell that gives them a form perceived by the senses will be called expressing. <…>

2. <…> Meaning<…>, or value,<…> element of the speech chain is the relationship of the expresser to the expressed. And this is true: what is expressed is the meaning of the expresser.

3. The concept of meaning allows us to define what is being expressed only in relation to the expresser. Thus, it assumes the primacy of the expresser in relation to the expressed, that is, the primacy of morphology in relation to syntax.

4. However, it would be wrong to admit such primacy. In reality, syntax precedes morphology. When we speak, we do not retroactively find meaning for a sequence of phonemes that has already been spoken. On the contrary, our task is to find a sound embodiment for a pre-given thought, which alone justifies its very existence.<…>

5. The primacy of syntax forces us to introduce a new term into our terminology, which would be the opposite of the term meaning. We propose the term “marker” (or “morphological marker”) as such a term.<…>

6. The marker no longer expresses the relation of the expresser to the expressed, but the relation of the expressed to the expressing. Now we can say that the expresser is a marker for the expressed.

7. From the above it follows that morphology is essentially the study of markers.<…>

12. Syntactic connection does not have markers, but this does not make it any less real.<…>

Structure and function.

2. Operation<…>structural unity is based on a meaningful combination of the functions of its elements. Without functions can't be structures. In other words, the syntactic hierarchy is structured in the same way as the military hierarchy, in which each soldier performs strictly defined functions.

3. From the above it follows that structure syntax- this is the same as functional syntax, and therefore functions, performed by various elements of the sentence and necessary for his life, are of primary interest to him.<…>

11. From this point of view, it can be argued that functional syntax can have significant help for learning modern languages, for active mastery of them and for their teaching.

12. It should be noted that there is a deep analogy between functional syntax and phonology The Prague school, which strives to see behind phenomena of a purely physical nature the actual linguistic functions that these phenomena are capable of performing.<…>

Full and incomplete words.

2. The first category includes words endowed with a certain semantic function, that is, those whose form is directly associated with a certain idea which it represents or evokes in the mind.<…>

3. The second category includes words that do not have a semantic function. It's essentially simple grammatical means, the function of which is only to indicate, clarify or modify the category of semantically filled words and establish relationships between them.<…>

6. There is a clear boundary between full and incomplete words only in some languages, in particular in Chinese.<…>

8. Many languages, and in particular European languages, which interest us to the greatest extent, often combine full-meaning and incomplete-meaning elements in the same word. We will call such words composites. <…>

13. As needed historical development full-meaning words have trend turn into incomplete ones, having only a grammatical function.<…>

14. Meanings expressed by full-valued words can only be perceived through a network of grammatical categories. Therefore, full-meaning words belong to the knowledge categorical syntax.

15. Incomplete words, on the contrary, belong to functional syntax, since, as auxiliary grammatical elements, they help connect full-meaning words into a structural unity.<…>

Chapter 32.

Types of full-meaning words.

1.<…>We will classify full-valued words according to their categorical content. Let us highlight two grounds for classification.

2. First of all, it is necessary to separate the ideas expressing items, from ideas expressing processes.

3. Objects are things perceived by the senses and noted by consciousness as having independent existence, for example, cheval “horse”, table “table”, quelqu “un “someone”. Full-meaning words expressing the idea of ​​objectivity are called nouns.

4. Processes represent state or actions, through which objects manifest their existence, for example, est “is”, dort “sleeps”, mange “eats”, fait “does”, etc. Full-valued words denoting processes are called verbs.

5. Most languages ​​do not have the ability to distinguish between the concepts of process and subject. They treat the process as a subject, and therefore a verb as a noun. In such languages, il aime "he loves" is no different from son amour "his love". In other words, the central node of the sentence here is the nominal node. It appears that verb concept in the proper sense of the word is found only in our European languages.<…>

10. Second division contrasts specific concepts, which in principle include the concepts of objects and processes, and abstract concepts, to which their attributes belong. This gives two new categories of full-valued words - one in the field of objects, and the second in the field of processes.

11. Full-valued words expressing abstract attributes of objects are called adjectives.

12. Full-valued words expressing abstract attributes of processes are called adverbs <…>

21. So, nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs constitute four classes of full-valued words lying at the very base of language <…>

Incomplete words.

1. We have already seen that incomplete words are special grammatical means, and as a result they belong to functional syntax. Therefore we will classify them according to the nature of their inherent functions.

2. The general function of incomplete words is to diversify the structure of a sentence by changing its structure. Some incomplete words are modified quantitative aspect of sentence structure, and others - its qualitative aspect.

3. The first of these functions, affecting the quantitative aspect of the structure of the sentence, is called Junctive <…>. It allows you to infinitely increase the number of elements of a sentence, adding to any core a theoretically unlimited number of cores of the same nature.

4. We will call the morphological markers of the junction junctive <…>.

5. Thus, the function of unctives is to unite complete words or the nodes they form with each other. Thus, in the French sentence Les hommes craignent la mis è re et la mort “People are afraid of poverty and death,” the junctive et “and” combines the full words mis è re “poverty” and mort “death” into a single whole.

6. Function changing qualitative aspect of sentence structure is called translational. It allows you to endlessly differentiate the elements of a sentence, translating any core into a theoretically infinite number of cores of a different nature (that is, belonging to other categories).

7. We will call morphological markers of translation translatives <…>.

8. Thus, the function of translatives is changing categories full meaning words. For example, in the substantive node le bleu de Prusse "Prussian blue", letters"Prussian blue (paint)" article le is a translative that turns the adjective bleu "blue" into a noun meaning "blue paint", and the preposition de– a translative that turns the noun Prusse “Prussia” into an adjective, since the group de Prusse essentially has the function of an adjective.<…>

Junctives.

2. <…>Junctives are a kind of cement, holding together nuclei of the same nature.

3. It follows that, just as cement mortar is placed between bricks, the junctives are structurally located between the cores without penetrating into them themselves. Unctives can be called internuclear elements. <…>

4. The junctive function is also recognized by traditional grammar, which designates junctives with the term “coordinating conjunctions.”<…>

Translatives.

1. Translatives, as we saw above, are incomplete words whose function is change categories of full-meaning words.

2. It follows that their action is directed directly at full-meaning words and, therefore, is localized inside the nuclei formed by these words. We can say that, unlike unctives, which are internuclear elements, translatives are elements intranuclear <…>

3. The translational function was not noticed by traditional grammar, which opposed coordinating conjunctions only subordinating conjunctions.

4. In fact, not only subordinating conjunctions, but also relative pronouns, prepositions, articles And auxiliary verbs traditional grammar, as well as verb prefixes And grammatical endings, which are nothing more than agglutinated translatives.<…>

Types of offers.

1. Each full-valued word is capable of forming a node. We will differentiate so much node types, how many types of full-valued words there are, namely four: verb node, substantive node, adjectival node and adverbial node.

2. Verb node is a node whose center is a verb, for example, Alfred frappe Bernard “Alfred beats Bernard.”

3. Substantive node is a node whose center is a noun, for example, six forts chevaux “six strong horses.”

4. Adjectival node– this is a node whose center is an adjective, for example, extr ê mement jeune “extremely young”.

5. Adverbial knot– this is a node whose center is an adverb, for example, relativement vite “relatively quickly”.

6. As we have seen, any proposal is an organized collection of nodes. We call the node that subordinates all other nodes of the sentence central.

7. It is proposed to classify sentences in accordance with the nature of their central node. We will differentiate as much types of sentences, how many types of nodes there are, namely four: verb clause, substantive clause, adjective clause and adverbial clause.

8. Verb clause is a sentence whose central node is verbal, for example: Le signal vert indique la voie libre “The green signal indicates that the path is open.”<…>

10. Substantive sentence- this is a sentence whose central node is substantive, for example: Le stupide XIX si é cle "Stupid XIX century"<…>or lat. Vae victis "Woe to the vanquished."

11. Adjective sentence is a sentence whose central node is adjectival. However, instead of an adjective, a participle can appear, which does not change the structure of the sentence, for example: Ouvert la nuit “Open at night.”<…>

12. Adverbial clause is a sentence whose central node is adverbial. The place of an adverb can be taken by an adverbial expression, which does not change the structure of the sentence, for example: A la recherche du temps perdu “In search of lost time.”<…>

13. In languages ​​that distinguish between verb and noun, particularly European languages<…>, greatest distribution have verb sentences. They are followed, in order of decreasing frequency, by substantive, adjectival and adverbial clauses. The last three types, as we have seen, are often found in book titles, stage directions, and the like.<…>

14. In languages ​​where the distinction between verb and noun is not clearly made, there cannot be verb clauses. In them the most common offers - substantive<…>.

15. Basis any proposal is one or the other organization of nodes.

16. Other phenomena may be superimposed on this general basis, as a result of which complication sentence structures and the variety of possible structures increases. There are two such phenomena: junction <…>And broadcast<…>.

17. Let's agree to call a simple sentence any sentence in which the normal organization of nodes is nowhere complicated by a junction or translation.

18. Accordingly complex sentence <…>we will call one in which the junction or translation is represented.<…>

Book B. Structure of a simple sentence.

Verb node.

1. The verb node, which is the center of the sentence in most European languages<…>, expresses a kind of a little drama. Indeed, like any drama, there is always action, and most often also characters And circumstances.

2. If we move from the plane of dramatic reality to the plane of structural syntax, then the action, actors and circumstances become respectively verb, actants And circonstants.

3. The verb expresses process<…>

4. Actants- these are living beings or objects that participate in the process<…>

5. Thus, in the sentence Alfred donne le livre à Charles “Alfred gives the book to Charles” (see Art. 77), Charles and even livre, although not acting themselves, are nevertheless actants to the same extent as Alfred.

Alfred le livre à Charles

Stemma 77

7. Sirconstants express the circumstances (time, place, method, etc.) in which the process unfolds.<…>

8. Sirconstants- it's always adverbs(time, place, method, etc.) or their equivalents. And on the contrary, it is adverbs that, as a rule, always take on the function of constants.

9. We have seen that the verb is the center of the verbal nucleus and, therefore, of the verbal sentence.<…>It thus acts as the controlling element of the entire verbal sentence.

11. <…>In a simple sentence, the central node does not have to be a verb. But if there is a verb in a sentence, it is always the center of this sentence.<…>

13. As for actants and circonstants, these are elements directly subordinate to the verb. <…>

Chapter 49.

Subject and predicate.

2. <…>Traditional grammar, based on brain teaser principles, seeks to reveal in a sentence logical opposition of subject and predicate: subject is what something is communicated about, predicate is what is communicated about the subject<…>

6. As for purely linguistic observations of the facts of language, they allow us to draw a conclusion of a completely different nature: in no language does not a single purely linguistic fact lead to the opposition of the subject to the predicate.

7. So, for example, in the Latin sentence Filius amat patrem “The son loves the father” (see Art. 80), the word amat is the result of an agglutination of the predicative element ama- and the subject element –t. Gap between subject and predicate, thus, is not indicated by a word break. On the contrary, there is a gap between the constituent elements of the subject filius ... - t and the predicate ama - ... patrem.

Stemma 80

8. Weave the elements of the subject and the predicate are poorly consistent with the position of the opposition of these two concepts, while no difficulties arise if we accept the hypothesis about the central position of the verb node.

10. <…>The predicate sometimes contains elements nature and internal structure of which completely comparable to the nature and structure of the elements of the subject.

11. Take, for example, the sentence Votre jeune ami connaît mon jeune cousin “Your young friend knows my young cousin” (see Art.81). Here the element mon jeune cousin forms a substantive node, completely analogous to the node votre jeune ami, as evidenced by the identity of their stems<…>. Consequently, there is no reason to place them at different levels, which is inevitable if we allow the opposition of subject and predicate.

votre jeune cousin

Stemma 81

12. This inconvenience disappears if we proceed from the hypothesis of the verb node as central in the sentence and construct stemmes accordingly. In this case, the parallelism between two substantive nodes is restored (see. Art. 83).

votre jeune mon jeune

Stemma 83

13. The opposition of the subject to the predicate thus prevents us from seeing the structural balance in the sentence, since it leads to the isolation of one of the actants as a subject and to the exclusion of other actants, which, together with the verb and all constants, are assigned to the predicate. This approach means that one of the members of the sentence is given disproportionate importance, not justified by any strictly linguistic fact.

14. The opposition of the subject to the predicate hides, in particular, ability of actants to be interchanged, which underlies collateral transformations.

15. Thus, the active Latin sentence Filius amat patrem “The son loves the father”, by simple interchange of actants, turns into the passive Pater amatur a filio “The father is loved by the son”: the first actant becomes pater instead of filius, the second - and filio instead of patrem, and each remains on its level (see Art. 85 and 86).

filius patrem pater a filio

Stemma 85 Stemma 86

16. On the contrary, the opposition of the subject to the predicate leads to dissymmetry, since each actant changes its level depending on whether it is a subject or not (see. Art. 87 and 88).

filius amat pater amatur

Stemma87 Stemma88

17. Hiding the collateral mechanism, the opposition of the subject to the predicate simultaneously obscures the entire theory actants And valency verbs.

18. It also makes it impossible to discover the facts functions And broadcasts, which, when approaching the verb node as the central one, are so easily explained.<…>

Actants.

1. We saw that actants- these are persons or objects who, to one degree or another, participate in the process.

2. On the other hand, we have also seen that actants are usually expressed nouns <…>and what they directly subordinate to the verb. <…>

3. Actants differ in their nature, which in turn is related to their number in the verb node. The question of the number of actants is thus decisive in the entire structure of the verb node.

4. Verbs have different numbers of actants. Moreover, the same verb does not always have the same number of actants.

5. There are verbs without actants, verbs with one, With two or three actants.

6. Verbs without actants express a process that unfolds on its own and in which there are no participants. This applies primarily to verbs denoting atmospheric phenomena. Thus, in the Latin sentence Pluit “It is raining,” the verb pluit describes an action (rain) without actants. The stemma in such a case is reduced to a simple kernel,<…>since, due to the absence of actants, the connections between these latter and the verb cannot be reflected in it.<…>

7. A refutation of the above cannot be found in French sentences such as Il pleut “It is raining”, Il neige “It is snowing”, where il seems to act as an actant, for il in reality is only indicator 3rd person verb and does not express either a person or an object that in any way can participate in this atmospheric phenomenon. Il pleut forms the nucleus, and the stemma here is identical to the previous one.<…>Traditional grammar recognized this fact, calling il in this case pseudo-subject. <…>

8. Returning to our comparison of a sentence with a little drama,<…>we would say that in the case of an actless verb, the rising curtain reveals a scene on which it is raining or snowing, but no actors.

9. Verbs with one actant express an action in which only one person or thing is involved. Thus, in the sentence Alfred tombe “Alfred falls” (see Art. 91) Alfred is the only participant in the action of falling, and for this action to take place, there is no need for anyone other than Alfred to participate in it.

Stemma91

10. According to the definition above, one would think that in a sentence like Alfred et Antoine tombent “Alfred and Antoine fall” the verb tomber includes two actants (see Art. 92). Nothing happened. This is the same actant repeated twice. It's the same role played by different people. In other words, Alfred et Antoine tombent = Alfred tombe + Antoine tombe (see. Art. 93). What we have here is simple bifurcation. And the phenomenon of bifurcation is not taken into account when determining the number of actants.

tombe tombe tombe tombe

Alfred et Antoine Alfred Antoine Alfred et Antoine

Stemma92 Stemma 93

11. Verbs with two actants express a process in which two persons or objects participate (of course, without duplicating each other). Thus, in the sentence Alfred frappe Bernard “Alfred hits Bernard” there are two actants: 1 – Alfred, who delivers the blows, and 2 – Bernard, who receives them. An action with two actants could not take place if both actants, each for their part, did not take part in it.

12. Verbs with three actants express an action in which three persons or objects participate (naturally, without duplicating each other). Thus, in the sentence Alfred donne le livre à Charles “Alfred gives the book to Charles” there are three actants: 1 – Alfred, who gives the book, 2 – le livre “the book”, which is given to Charles, and 3 – Charles, the one who receives the book . An action with three actants could not take place if all three actants, each in their own role, did not take part in it.

13. In the case of verbs with three actants, the first and third actants, as a rule, faces(Alfred, Charles), second – item(book).

14. The introduction of an auxiliary verb (in mood or tense forms) does not change anything in the organization of the actant structure: the actant structure of the sentence Alfred peut donner le livre à Charles “Alfred can give the book to Charles” (see. Art. 94) is no different from the sentence structure of Alfred donne le livre à Charles (see Art. 77)

le livre a Charle

Stemma 94

Types of actants.

1. Different actants perform different functions in relation to the verb being obeyed.<…>

6. C semantic point of view, the first actant is the one who takes action.

7. Therefore, the first actant in traditional grammar is called subject, we will leave this term.<…>

9. From a semantic point of view, the second actant is the one that experiences the effect.

10. The second actant has long been called direct object, later – the addition of an object. We will simply call it an object.

11. It should be noted that if semantically there is a contrast between the subject and the object, then structurally there is no difference between the first and second actants opposition, and simple difference.

12. Indeed, from a structural point of view, no matter what is in front of us, the first or second actant, the subordinate element is always addition, anyway complementary subjugating word<…>and in any case, the noun, be it subject or object, controls all the subordinate elements united in a node of which it acts as the center.

13. From this point of view and using traditional terms, it can be stated without hesitation that the subject is the same complement as all the others. Although at first glance such a statement seems paradoxical, it is easily provable if we clarify that we are talking not about a semantic, but about a structural point of view.

14. Thus, in the sentence Alfred frappe Bernard “Alfred beats Bernard”<…>Bernard is structurally the second actant and semantically the object of the verb frappe.

15. In defining the second actant, we always turned to the most common facts, namely active diathesis. <…>Let us now turn to passive diathesis when the action is viewed from the opposite side.<…>

16. While the second actant of the verb in active diathesis experiences action,<…> second actant of a verb in passive diathesis this action is carried out by: Bernard est frapp è par Alfred “Bernard is beaten by Alfred.”

17. Thus, from a structural point of view, we will distinguish the second actant of the asset, for which we will retain the name simply the second actant and second passive actant.

18. From a semantic point of view, the second actant of the passive in traditional grammar is usually called complement of the passive, or agential complement. We will call it the countersubject,<…>because it is opposed to the subject, just as the passive is opposed to the active.

19. The third actant - from a semantic point of view - is actant for whose benefit or detriment an action is performed.

20. Therefore, the third actant in traditional grammar was once called indirect object, or attributive.

21. On the third actant presence of other actants, as well as the transition from asset to liability, has no effect. In both active and passive diathesis, it remains the third actant: Alfred donne le livre à Charles “Alfred gives the book to Charles,” as does Le livre est donn é par Alfred à Charles “The book is given by Alfred to Charles.”<…>

Chapter 52.

Types of actants in different languages ​​of the world.

1. To understand the meaning of a sentence, it is necessary that different actants be designated special signals, making it easy to distinguish between these actants.

2. Such signals can be either special indicators, more or less agglutinative (prepositions and postpositions, prefixes, suffixes and endings), or position actant in the speech chain.

3. Different languages ​​resort to a wide variety of means to designate each actant.

4. In languages ​​without declension, the first actant is considered as typical actant; therefore, it is devoid of any special distinctive features. These are the English and French languages, cf. French Alfred parle or English. Alfred is speaking “Alfred speaks.”<…>

5. In languages ​​that use declension, the first actant takes the form nominative. This is the case in Latin and Greek,<…>Wed lat. Aulus loquitur "Aul speaks."

6. Finally, in some languages ​​of the archaic type, such as Basque and the languages ​​of the Caucasus, in particular Georgian, active character the first actant is clearly indicated by the ending.

7. Thus, in Basque, the subject of action verbs has a special ending, emphasizing its activity, while the subject of state verbs does not have such an ending, and we see respectively the forms gizona in the sentence Gizona ona da “A good man” and gizonak in the sentence Gizonak erraiten du "The man speaks"<…>.

8. In the Georgian language, such differentiation occurs only with a verb in the perfect, and then the first actant, instead of the nominative, is used in the special case, ergative <…>or an asset whose name clearly indicates its function.<…>

9. Second actant. In languages ​​without declension, the first and second actants are usually not distinguished. It is necessary to resort to a fixed position of actants, namely to assign to each of them a permanent place with which the function of the subject or object should be associated. This is exactly the case in French and English, where the position before the verb is the subject position, the position after the verb is for the object.<…>

10. Similarly, in Chinese, a simple inversion of the first and second actants is sufficient to reverse the content of a sentence: ni ta wo “You hit me”; wo ta ni "I hit you."

11. In some languages ​​that do not have a declension, they use pretext. For example, in Hebrew, Romanian, often in Spanish:<…>room Petru love ş te pe Ion “Petru is struck by Ion.”

12. In languages ​​that have declension (such as Greek, Latin, German, Russian), the second actant has an accusative form.<…>

16. Second actant of the passive<…>most often accompanied by a preposition, even in languages ​​with declension:<…>fr. Bernard est frappé par Alfred.

17. Some languages ​​that have a developed case system simply use a specific case. So, in Russian this is the instrumental case: The coffin was carried by comrades.

18. In Latin, the countersubject is denoted by an ablative with the preposition ab, if the name is animate, or only by an ablative if it is an object, for example, Pater amatur a filio “The father is loved by the son”<…>, but Homines cupiditate ducuntur letters"People are driven by passion."<…>

20. Third actant. In languages ​​without declension, the third actant is indicated by a preposition: fr. Alfred donne le livre à Charles “Alfred gives the book to Charles.<…>

21. In languages ​​that have a case system, the third actant is expressed by a name in dative, for example, lat. Aulus dat librum Caio "Aul gives the book to Caius."<…>

Book G. Valence and pledge.

Valence and pledge.

1. We already know<…>that there are verbs that do not have a single actant, verbs with one actant, verbs with two actants and verbs with three actants.

2. Just as there are different types of actants: first actant, second actant and third actant<…>, and the properties of the verbs that control these actants differ depending on whether they control one, two or three actants. After all, it is quite obvious that the subject cannot perceive in the same way a verb capable of controlling one actant, a verb capable of controlling two or three actants, and a verb deprived of the possibility of having any actant at all.

3. Thus, the verb can be imagined as a kind of atom with hooks, which can attract to itself a greater or lesser number of actants, depending on the greater or lesser number of hooks which it possesses to keep these actants to itself. The number of such hooks a verb has, and therefore the number of actants it can control, constitutes the essence of what we will call valence verb.

4. The speaker's way of representing a verb in terms of its valency in relation to possible actants is what is called in grammar collateral. Consequently, the voice properties of a verb depend mainly on the number of actants it can have.

5. It should be noted that it is not at all necessary that all the valences of a verb be occupied by the corresponding actants, so that they are always, so to speak, saturated. Some valences may be unoccupied, or free. For example, the bivalent verb chanter "to sing" can be used without a second actant. You can say Alfred chante "Alfred sings", cf. Alfred chante une chanson "Alfred sings a song."<…>

Valentless verbs.

1. Verbs that cannot have actants, or valentless verbs, that is, verbs devoid of any valence, are known in traditional grammar as impersonal. However, the last term was considered unsuccessful, since the so-called impersonal verbs are used both in the personal moods<…>, and in impersonal ones (in the form of an infinitive or participle, for example, pleuvoir “to rain”).<…>

3. The absence of actants in valenceless verbs is easily explained if we consider that they denote events that occur without the participation of any actants. The sentence Il neige “It is snowing” denotes only a process occurring in nature, and we cannot imagine the existence of an actant that would be the root cause of this process.<…>

Chapter 99.

Monovalent verbs.

1. Verbs with one actant, otherwise monovalent verbs, in traditional grammar are known as<…>name intransitive verbs. For example, the verbs sommeiller “to doze”, voyager “to travel”, and jaillir “to gush” are intransitive.

2. Indeed, one can say Alfred dort “Alfred sleeps” or Alfred tombe “Alfred falls,” but one cannot say, or rather cannot imagine, that this process affects any other actant besides Alfred. Impossible doze, travel or gushing someone or anything.

3. Single-actant verbs often turn out to be state verbs<…>, but action verbs can also be one-actant.<…>

5. In the case of single-actant verbs, it is sometimes very difficult to determine whether their only actant is the first or second actant.<…>

6. Verbs denoting also pose great difficulties for analysis. meteorological phenomena, when they are used as single-actant. The expression Il pleut des hallebardes “The rain is pouring like buckets” (lit. “pouring halberds”) is sometimes analyzed as Des hallebardes pleuvent lit. "Halberds are falling like rain." But the halberds should rather be understood as the object of the rain, rather than the subject, who in turn appears rather in the image of the Greek god throwing down streams of rain. Additionally, the plural form hallebardes cannot be treated grammatically as the subject of the verb pleut, which retains the singular form. This suggests that the only actant des hallebardes is the second actant, and not the first.<…>

9. It is also very likely that there are verbs with one single actant, which is the third actant. In particular, such verbs are found in expressions like German. es ist mir warm “I’m warm”; here the actant expressed by the dative is the person to whom the feeling of warmth expressed by the verb is attributed.

Transitive verbs.

1. Two-actant verbs in traditional grammar are called transitional verbs, because in a sentence like Alfred frappe Bernard "Alfred beats Bernard" the action goes over from Alfred to Bernard.

3. <…>In traditional grammar, there is good reason to distinguish four types of transitive voice, something like subpledges, which we will call diathesis, borrowing this term from the Greek grammarians (διάθεσις).

4. Indeed, if an action involves two actants, we can consider it differently, depending on the direction in which it is carried out, or, to use the traditional term, depending on the direction in which it passes from one actant to another.

5. Take for example the transitive verb frapper “to hit” and two actants: A (Alfred) who strikes, and B (Bernard) who receives it, and make the following sentence: Alfred frappe Bernard “Alfred hits Bernard.” In this case, we can say that the verb frapper "to hit" is used in active diathesis, since the action of “strike” is performed by the first actant, who is thus an active participant in the action.

6. But the same idea can be expressed by the sentence Bernadr est frapp é par Alfred lit. "Bernard hits Alfred." In this case, the verb frapper "to hit" is in passive diathesis, since the first actant only experiences the action, his participation in the action turns out to be completely passive.

7. Active and passive are the main diathesis of the transitive voice, but these are not the only diathesis, since they can be combine.

8. For example, it may happen that the same person (or thing) strikes and receives them. It is both active and passive, in other words, both the first and second actant. Such a case is represented by the phrase Alfred se tue "Alfred kills himself." Here the verb is recurrent diathesis, because the action, coming from Alfred, returns to him, as if reflected by a mirror. In a similar way one can say Alfred se mire or Alfred se regarde dans un miroir "Alfred looks in the mirror."

9. Finally, there are times when two actions turn out to be parallel, But oppositely directed, each of the two actants plays an active role in one action and at the same time a passive role in the other. A similar case is presented in the sentence Alfred et Bernard s "entretuent" Alfred and Bernard kill each other. Here the verb in mutual diathesis, because the action is reciprocal.

10. The four diathesis of the transitive voice can be summarized using the following diagram:

Active diathesis (active)

Passive diathesis (passive)

Recurrent diathesis (reflexive)

Mutual diathesis (reciprocal).<…>

Variability in the number of actants.

1. It can often be observed that the meaning of two verbs differs only in the number of actants it implies. Thus, the verb renverser “to knock down”, “to capsize” differs from the verb tomber “to fall” by the presence of an additional actant. Indeed, if we take the sentence Afred tombe “Alfred falls,” then the fall that Alfred makes is also entirely contained in the meaning of the sentence Bernard renverse Alfred “Bernard knocks Alfred down.” The difference between the two sentences is only in the number of actants, since the verb tomber has only one actant - Alfred, while the verb renverser has two: Bernard and Alfred.

6. <…>Regular semantic correspondence, found in verbs that differ only in the number of actants, determines the existence in many languages ​​of some mechanism, which ensures a change in the number of actants using a special morphological marker. This marker, inherent in an unchanged form to a large number of verbs, allows you to establish a harmonious system of grammatical connections between verbs with the same meaning, but with different valence.

7. Such a marker is very useful in language because it allows, when committing a certain kind of correction operations use verbs with a given valence with a greater or lesser number of actants by one unit. Thus, it turns out that it is possible to raise a two-actant verb to the “rank” of a three-actant one or, conversely, reduce it to a one-actant one.

8. The operation, which consists in increasing the number of actants by one unit, is the essence of what is called causative diathesis. <…>

9. The inverse operation, which consists in decreasing the number of actants by one unit, is the essence of what we will call recessive diathesis.

Causative diathesis. Additional actant.

1. If the number of actants is increased by one unit, then the new verb will be causative in relation to the original one. Thus, it can be argued that the verb renverser “to overturn” in its meaning is a causative of the verb tomber “to fall”, and the verb monter “to show” is a causative of the verb voir “to see”.

2. It can be stated that in this case the new actant is not a direct agent of the process, although it always has an indirect, but often more effective, more real impact on the process, being its initiator . <…>

Analytical marker of new valency.

1. The presence of a new valence can be marked as analytical way (using a causative auxiliary verb), and synthetic way (using a special form of the verb) or maybe even not marked by morphological means.<…>

Recessive diathesis and marker of reflexivity.

1. In contrast to causative diathesis, in recessive diathesis the number of actants decreases by one.<…>

3. The marker of recessive diathesis in French, as in many other languages, is identical to the marker of recurrent diathesis.

4. The use of a reflexive in the recessive function is easily explained. Since the recessive does not have a synthetic or any other specialized form, the language naturally resorts to such a form, thanks to which two-actant verbs are most similar to one-actant verbs. Obviously, this form is a form of recurrent diathesis; although the verb in it has two actants, nevertheless these two actants correspond to the same person, or, better to say, the same person simultaneously plays the role of the first and second actant. From this it is clear that from the idea of ​​two actants corresponding to the same person, one can easily make the transition to the idea of ​​one single actant.<…>

PartII

Junction

Complicating a simple sentence.

1. In the first part of the book, we described the scheme of a simple sentence, which can always be obtained by eliminating the elements that complicate it; we now need to examine these complicating elements themselves.

2. They come down to two phenomena of a completely different order: functions and translations. Syntactic connection, junction and translation are thus the three main categories between which all facts of structural syntax are distributed.

3. A junction is a connection of a number of homogeneous nodes, as a result of which the sentence is enriched with new elements, becomes more expanded and, consequently, its length increases.

4. Translation consists of transforming some constitutive elements of a sentence into others, while the sentence does not become more detailed, but its structure becomes more diverse. As with the juncture, sentence length increases, but as a result of completely different mechanisms.

5. <…>We will call the words that mark the junction junctive, and the words that mark the broadcast are translatives.

6. Junctives and translatives are not part of sentence structure and do not belong to any of the four main categories of words. These are empty words, that is, words that have only a grammatical function. Junctives and translatives are two large classes between which all words with a grammatical function are distributed.<…>

9. In traditional grammar, junctive and translative are often confused under the general, very vague name of conjunctions (coordinating and subordinating conjunctions); neither the true nature of these words, nor the characteristic features of each of them were properly understood.<…>

10. Junction is a phenomenon quantitative; it can be compared to the operations of addition and multiplication in arithmetic. The changes that a junction leads to in a simple sentence are relatively few; as a result of expansion, the size of the proposal increases significantly, but the juncture does not allow it to be expanded indefinitely.

11. On the contrary, broadcast is a phenomenon quality. Its results are incomparably more varied, it allows the size of a simple sentence to be increased indefinitely and does not impose any restrictions on its deployment.<…>

Bifurcation and junction.

9. <…>Junction is carried out between two homogeneous nodes, whatever their nature. Junction can be observed between two actants (Les hommes craignent la mis è re et la mort “People are afraid of poverty and death”), between two circonstants (Alfred travaille vite et bien “Alfred works quickly and well”), between two verb nodes (Passe - moi la rhubarbe et je te passerai le s é n é “Give in to me, then I’ll give in to you” letters“Give me rhubarb, and I’ll give you an Alexandrian leaf”) or between two adjectival nodes (... un saint homme de chat, bien fourr é, gros et gras ( LaFontaine.Fables, VII, 16) lit. "pious cat, fluffy, big and fat").<…>

PartIII

Broadcast

Book A. Introduction.

Translation theory.

1. Broadcast, like junction,<…>refers to phenomena that add complications to a simple sentence.

2. Take, for example, the French combination le livre de Pierre “the book of Peter.” Traditional grammar studies its structure in the section on the syntax of prepositions, since the relation of membership between the words Pierre and livre is expressed by the preposition de. Taking the corresponding Latin expression liber Petri, we see that the Latin grammar describes it in the section on case syntax, since Petri is in the genitive. Finally, the structure of the English combination Peter's book is discussed in connection with the Saxon genitive s. Thus, the study of this phrase falls under the purview of three different sections of grammar, depending on what language we are talking about - Latin, French or English.

3. Meanwhile, in all three cases we are dealing with the same syntactic relation.<…>Syntax should strive to accurately establish the nature of this phenomenon, to concentrate its study in one place, and not to scatter it across three different chapters of morphology.<…>

5. <…>The convergence of those phenomena that under the variety of morphological guises hide the identity of syntactic nature would facilitate the creation general syntax. Such a rapprochement would make it possible to place these phenomena on a truly syntactic basis, and not to wrongfully elevate them to morphology, which only interferes with their correct understanding and classification.<…>

7. To better understand this program, let's start with an analysis of the French turnover that interests us. Consider the expression le livre de Pierre "the book of Peter." Grammarians usually describe it (or think they describe it) as follows. It is proposed to consider that the preposition de here denotes the relation of possession between the book and Peter, or, in other words, the relation of belonging between the possessed object (book) and the owner (Peter). There is some truth in such a description, since, indeed, when we talk about a dog belonging to its owner, we use the phrase le chien du ma î tre "the owner's dog."

8. However, we will quickly see that this explanation is too superficial as soon as we take the trouble to change the direction of the syntactic connection in this expression: the combination le ma î tre du chien “the owner of the dog” in no way means that the owner belongs to the dog. Obviously, we tried to squeeze this phenomenon into too narrow a framework, from which syntactic reality was not slow to break out.<…>

15. They persistently try to give a certain meaning to this pretext. semantic meaning, while in reality he only has structural meaning, and, moreover, of a much more general nature. Indeed, it can be argued that in all the examples given<…>the element introduced by the preposition de is subordinate to the controlling noun (or substantivized adjective).

16. As we know, the most common element of a sentence dependent on a noun is a definition, and the adjective most often serves as a definition.

17. It should be recognized that de Pierre combinations<…>etc., depending on the noun, act as an adjective. Although they are not adjectives in the strict sense of the word, syntactically they behave as such.

18. On the other hand, to understand the nature of the preposition de, it is important to pay attention to the fact that it is followed by a noun in the examples discussed. If the wordPierre is a noun and a groupdePierre functions as an adjective, which means that the preposition de has changed the syntactic nature of the word to which it is attached. He syntactically turned the noun into an adjective.

19. It is this change in syntactic nature that we call translation.

Translation mechanism.

1. The essence of translation is that it translates full-valued words from one categories into another, that is, transforms one class of words into another.

2. In the combination le livre de Pierre “the book of Peter”, the noun Pierre acquires a defining function, exactly the same as that characteristic of the adjective in the combination le livre rouge “the red book”. Although morphologically the word Pierre is not an adjective, it acquires the syntactic properties of the latter, that is, an adjective function.<…>

5. Thus, due to the fact that de Pierre's expression<…>underwent translation into an adjective, the noun Pierre acquired the ability to play the role of a definition of another noun - as if it itself had turned into an adjective. This noun no longer behaves as an actant, but as a definition.

6. However, this structural property is not a distinctive feature of translation. It is just its consequence, albeit a direct one, since the translation is of a categorical, not structural nature.

7. Thus, a strict distinction must be made between the two operations. The first one is change category, which constitutes the essence of translation. It calls a second operation, which is change function. And this, in turn, determines all the structural potentialities of the word.

8. Translation serves as a necessary prerequisite for certain structural connections, but is not the direct cause of these connections. Structural connection is the basic element underlying the structure of a simple sentence. It is installed automatically between certain categories of words and is not marked in any way.<…>

10. To properly understand the nature of broadcasting, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that it is a phenomenon syntactic and, therefore, does not fit into the morphological framework in which we, unfortunately, are accustomed to conduct syntactic reasoning.<…>

The role and significance of broadcasting.

2. The role and benefit of broadcasting is that it compensates categorical differences. It makes it possible to correctly construct any sentence, due to the fact that it allows you to transform any class of words into any other.<…>

5. Thus, translation is a phenomenon that allows you to implement any sentence structure using basic categories, that is, the main classes of words.<…>

13. From this we can see the significance of the phenomenon of translation, which is generously scattered in our speech and, for this reason alone, appears as one of the most essential properties of human language.<…>

Tenier L., Fundamentals of structural syntax. M., “Progress”, 1988.

Translation from French by I.M. Boguslavsky, L.I. Lukht, B.P. Narumov, S.L. Sakhno.

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

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

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

a) Sentence and phrase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

composition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern theories
general syntax - school

Definition of the basic concepts of syntactic theory

1. Morphology and syntax.

According to ancient linguistic tradition, grammar is divided into two disciplines: morphology and syntax. The term “morphology” means “the study of the form” of a word. Back in the 19th century. The central section of formal grammar was precisely morphology, because the most obvious was the change in word forms in Indo-European languages: the declension of nouns and the conjugation of verbs.

The term “syntax” was borrowed from military vocabulary and meant “co-arrangement of parts, construction” (the word tactics– “sequence of actions” – has the same root). The term itself indicates that this section of grammar deals with units that are combinations of words. Thus, the word is the central unit of European grammar (“parts of speech”, “members of a sentence”, etc.). The word distinguishes two main disciplines - morphology and syntax. Everything that is smaller than a word (within a word) is a subject of morphology, everything that is larger than a word (a combination of words) is a subject of syntax. That is, it is the concept of the word that is key to distinguishing between morphology and syntax. But the word is structured differently in different languages ​​of the world, so different languages ​​will differ in morphology and syntax. Synthetic languages ​​(for example, Russian) are languages ​​with rich morphology. Analytical languages ​​(for example, English) are languages ​​with developed syntax. Russian word, for example good, will, in addition to the lexical meaning, contain indications of gender, number and case. And the English word round can be a different part of speech depending on the context (there is no indication of grammatical class within the word itself).

So, syntax is the part of grammar that deals with units that are longer than a word. Traditionally, the units of syntax are the phrase and the sentence. However, not any combination of words is a phrase, but only those words that are connected to each other by a syntactic connection. A sentence can even consist of one word if it performs a communicative function and is a predicative unit, that is, it is updated by indicating tense and mood. This is what makes the word different spring as a nominative unit from a communicative unit - sentences Spring!. The linking verb is omitted from the present tense sentence There is, which, pointing to the present tense and the indicative mood, fits the statement into the context of the speech situation and actualizes it. Some linguists said that a word is a unit of a language system, and a sentence goes beyond the boundaries of the language system into speech, into the area of ​​linguistic creativity.

Word and sentence have different structures. A word is a rigid complex of morphemes: morphemes cannot be swapped (you cannot put an inflection before the root and a prefix after it), you cannot remove and endlessly add new morphemes to the word. A.A. Reformatsky, for example, tried to come up with a word that would consist of a large number of postfixes; he came up with a somewhat artificial word malicious– you cannot add even more postfixes to this word. On the contrary, a sentence is a relatively free complex of units. Words in a sentence can be interchanged (in languages ​​with free word order). For example, in Latin it was customary to place words connected by a syntactic connection far from each other: “ First he was considered among the Romans poet" However, the sentence has a more complex hierarchical structure; in addition, sentences are capable of unlimited complication - they can be extended by adding subordinate clauses, adverbs, participial phrases, etc.

Many linguists of the 20th century, for example L. Tenier, said that the entire modern grammatical theory is structured in such a way that morphology is in the center, and syntax is given a secondary role. However, modern linguistics is trying to rethink the general theory by presenting syntax as the “organizational center of grammar.”

2. Syntax and vocabulary.

So, the word is not only the central unit that allows us to distinguish between two grammatical disciplines: morphology and syntax. The concept of a word combines grammar and vocabulary. As we have already said, in Russian words often contain lexical and grammatical meanings. However, some syntactic theories proposed considering abstract syntactic structures devoid of lexical content, that is, without connection with vocabulary. Linguists said that vocabulary deals with specific meanings, and grammar serves only to classify, categorize words, indicates the relationship of words to each other, that is, it does not operate with meanings. The concept of “pure grammar” was formulated. In this context, L.V.’s phrase is interesting. Shcherby The glok kuzdra shteko has sprouted the bokr and curls the bokrenka, which is devoid of lexical meanings, but is grammatically correct. Shcherba asked students to think about this phrase and answer the question: is it true that we do not understand anything that is conveyed by this phrase? Can we say that there is an indication of the connection of words with each other, of the morphological features of words, but the meaning, meaning is completely absent. The students responded that they understood the situation described: a certain creature performed a single action in the past on a probably adult animal and continues to perform an action in the present on a baby of this animal. The grammar reported this. All that remains is to name the characters and say what exactly kuzdra did with sideways And bokrenkom, that is, turn to vocabulary. Thus, grammar also conveys part of the meaning; it is inextricably linked with vocabulary.

Later, linguists noticed that the lexical content of syntactic structures (that is, the choice of words for a sentence) is very important. Noam Chomsky, for example, said that sincerity can scare a boy, but the reverse is not true: the boy cannot be intimidated by sincerity. This allows us to conclude that meaning has a serious, one might say decisive, influence on syntactic structures.

The syntactic structure of a sentence is determined by the grammatical properties of the words included in it. Interest in categorical semantics made it possible to construct a new syntactic theory in the light of the close interaction between syntax and vocabulary.

Description of some syntactic theories

1. Formal syntax.

The simplest and most obvious theory of syntax is a list of all the correct sentences of a language. Even the ancient grammatical tradition proposed listing schemes and sentence patterns as a way of describing syntactic structures. Each sentence can be presented in the form of a diagram - a list of sentence members and their connections. The sentences themselves are classified depending on their form: one-part and two-part sentences, simple and complex, complex and complex, etc. Complex sentences, for example, were grouped according to the nature of conjunctions and allied words without consistent and strict consideration of content. Formal syntax in the Russian linguistic tradition was presented in the works of scientists of the Fortunat school: M.N. Peterson, A.M. Peshkovsky, A.A. Shakhmatova. In school textbooks up to our time, a logical-grammatical classification of sentences is presented, which is usually associated with the name F.I. Buslaeva.

2. Structural syntax.

In the first half of the 19th century. in linguistics, the structural approach to the study of language triumphed. The desire to bring linguistics closer to the exact sciences contributed to the emergence of theories that could objectively describe the complex, multi-level structure of language and explain the interconnection of linguistic units. The triumph of the structural approach was the creation of a special science - phonology, which explained the structure and functioning of the phonetic system of the language. Morphology and vocabulary also used the structural method to a greater or lesser extent. The situation with syntax was more complicated. Firstly, syntactic units were an open list, that is, all possible sentences cannot be counted and described. Secondly, many linguists did not consider syntax within the framework of a structural description of the language system, since syntax already represented linguistic creativity, the use of ready-made language units in speech. Emile Benveniste, for example, excluding the syntactic level from the language system, paid attention to the main property of the sentence - the ability to perform a communicative function, to the actualization of the syntactic structure in the context of the speech situation.

Structuralists fundamentally distinguished between “internal” and “external” linguistics. The first represents the structure of the language system, and the external represents the influence of various external factors on the language. The subject of close study by structuralists was precisely “internal” linguistics. But syntax is very closely connected with the process of thinking and speech formation, with psychology and logic. So, the structuralists did not pay enough attention to syntax, and the very method they used could not provide an adequate syntactic theory.

However, attention should be paid to one interesting attempt to describe syntax within the framework of the structural direction, presented in the work of the French scientist Lucien Tenier. Unlike other structuralists, he spoke about the importance and primacy of syntax in language. The basis of structural syntax is the syntactic connection of elements. To construct a sentence means to breathe life into an amorphous mass of words by establishing a set, a hierarchy of syntactic connections. Tenier was a teacher of foreign languages ​​and wrote teaching aids for his students. He said that along with linear syntax, that is, the order of units in a sentence, there is structural syntax, that is, a hierarchy of units. The structural order is multidimensional, because Each control element can have several subordinates. The center of any sentence is the verb. The verb describes action, that is, it expresses a little drama. With a verb there can be characters (actants) and circumstances - places, time, method, etc., in which the process unfolds (circonstants). Verbs have different numbers of actants. The verb may not have any active persons; it is an actantless (impersonal verb - evening) verb. A verb can only have one actor; it is a one-actant verb (intransitive - Alfred falls). A verb can have two characters; it is a two-actant verb (transitive - Alfred hits Charles). A verb can have three characters; it is a three-actant verb ( Alfred gives Charles a book). The ability to attach actants is called the valence of a verb.

3. Communicative syntax.

The main function of language - communicative - is realized through syntax. This is the stage of the grammatical structure of a language at which coherent speech is formed. Communicative syntax proposes to describe syntactic structures based on their meaning, rather than their formal structure.

Syntax is associated with thinking, the process of communication and the designated surrounding reality. The communicative functions of syntactic structures are the same in the languages ​​of the world, which makes syntax the most universal part of the structure of a language. At the same time, the ways of expressing syntactic relations in each language represent linguistic specificity. Functional syntax allows you to describe the structures that are used in the language to express a request, order, admiration, etc.

Within the framework of the communicative approach to syntactic units, it was formulated theory of actual division of a sentence. Depending on the relevance, importance of a particular content, and significance for communication, the proposal can be divided into two parts. One part - the most important, obligatory for the existence of a sentence - is called rhema. Without it, the sentence loses its meaning. Rema– a component of the communicative structure that constructs a speech act. The other part of the sentence is optional, representing, as it were, the background of the rheme, is subject.

This theory was first formulated in the works of the Czech scientist V. Mathesius, the leader of the Prague linguistic circle. The actual division of a sentence is contrasted with its formal division. Offer Karl is going to Berlin tomorrow formally divided into major and minor members; such division does not imply options. However, from the point of view of the importance and relevance of the message in a given communicative situation, the main member of the sentence (rheme) can become any word, for example, Tomorrow or to Berlin.

It is obvious that in colloquial speech and dialogue, syntactic structures consisting only of rheme - the main part of the sentence - are often used. In this regard, the problem of ellipsis began to be developed, that is, the possibility of removing parts from a sentence that were irrelevant for a given communicative situation began to be discussed. Thus, the theory of actual division made it possible to develop issues of the syntax of colloquial speech, features of the syntactic structures of dialogue, problems of ellipsis, etc.

LITERATURE

1. Peshkovsky A.M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. M., 2001.

2. Benveniste E. Levels of linguistic analysis // Benveniste E. General linguistics. BGK im. I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay. 1998. pp. 129–140.

3. Tenier L. Basics of structural syntax. M.: Progress, 1988.

4. Mathesius V. About the so-called actual division of a sentence. // Prague Linguistic Circle. M.: Progress, 1967.

O.A. VOLOSHIN,
Ph.D. Phil. sciences,
MSU,
Moscow

The concept of a proposal. Structural and functional syntax. Basic concepts of generative grammar.

Offer

The moment of message, communication arises precisely in syntax. That is why, for syntax, the communicative component, and not the formal structure, is often the relevant feature.

Based on this principle, Reformatsky defines a sentence:

A sentence is a statement containing a predicative syntagm. A small retrospective - a syntagma in this context - is a minimal syntactic unit. Reformatsky calls it the “grain of communication.”

Normally in speech, a sentence is pronounced with a closed intonation, but this is not a mandatory feature.

Further, Reformatsky writes about the members of the sentence (main and secondary) and about their types (simple or compound) - I think that there is no point in going on about this, since there are no tricks here, we seem to have to remember this.

Sentences are divided into types according to the presence of syntagmas:

Only predicative syntagma - a simple unextended sentence

Predicative and relative - simple common sentence

Sentences with the presence of isolated phrases are considered an intermediate type between simple and complex sentences (since phrases are carriers of potential predicativity)

In general, you can tell everything about a sentence that you know about sentences from syntax.

Structural syntax

Lucien Tenier - Basics of Structural Syntax

Tenier's idea

Linear syntax - structured syntax

The diagram conveys the hierarchical structure of the sentence, and the syntax is the hierarchy

Tenier introduces a sentence scheme - stemma - which depicts the structure

According to T, the main thing is verb

Moreover, the form of the verb dictates the form of the entire sentence

Tenier divided verbs into the following:

The dummy octant \it rains may appear in European languages

2) One-octant verb (trad lingu - intransitive verb)\alfred falls, gets sick

And a little dry theory:

1. The subject of structural syntax is the study of sentences.<…>

2. A sentence is an organized whole, the elements of which are words.

3. Each word included in a sentence loses its isolation, which is always inherent in it in the dictionary. You can notice that each word of the sentence enters into certain relationships with neighboring words. communications<…>, the totality of which constitutes the backbone, or structure, of a sentence.<…>

5.<…>A sentence like Alfred parle "Alfred says" does not consist of two elements: 1) Alfred and 2) parle, and from three: 1) Alfred, 2) parle and 3) the connection that unites them and without which there would be no proposal. To say that a sentence like Alfred parle contains only two elements is to analyze it from a purely superficial, morphological point of view and ignore the most essential thing - the syntactic connection.<…>

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

8. It is the syntactic connection that makes the sentence living organism, and it is in it that his life force.

9. To construct a sentence means to breathe life into an amorphous mass of words, having installed the totality between them syntactic connections.

10. And vice versa, to understand a sentence means understand the totality of connections, which combine the words included in it.

11. The concept of syntactic connection is, therefore, basis all structural syntax.<…>

12. Strictly speaking, it is precisely what we call connection that is expressed by the word “syntax” itself, meaning in Greek “arrangement”, “establishment of order”.<…>

13. For clarity, we will depict connections between words graphically, using lines that we will call lines of syntactic communication. <…>

Functional syntax

This is communicative syntax. It is based on Humboldt's doctrine that everything has semantics.

The object of studying the functions of syntax is to clarify the role (function) of all syntactic means (units, constructions) in the construction of coherent speech.

This is exactly the syntax that was taught to us - especially for Onipenko groups.

If you adhere to Zolotova’s direction, then the key points are:

"Functional-communicative

1) recognition of the minimum syntactic unit (syntaxeme)

2) construction of a typology of syntactic

connections from the typology of syntaxes

3) recognition of the priority of semantics in the triad - form, meaning, function

4) sign of isosemicity as characterizing

relationship between form and meaning

5) the concept of a sentence model and

typology of sentence models based on the Russian parts of speech system

6) presentation of the Russian syntactic system as a system of syntactic

7) correlation of the paradigmatic capabilities of the sentence model with its

functional-text capabilities

8) text interpretation

Generative grammar

Generative grammar is associated primarily with the name of Chomsky. Appears in the 50s, due to the fact that the formal approach, which does not take into account the semantics of linguistic units, began to become obsolete. We can say that this was a crisis for the descriptivists, because, using the distributive method, they successfully solved a number of problems in the field of phonetics and morphology. But distributional analysis didn’t really work with syntax.

A new, transformational method of analysis was proposed by Noam Chomsky. With his book “Syntactic Structures” (57d), the development of generative grammar begins.

When using the transformation method, the main unit should be considered the sentence. Sentences are divided into initial (elementary) and derivative.

The syntactic system of any language can be represented in the form of elementary sentences, which are called nuclear sentences. They are the most stable and primary (those, for example, appear earlier in a child’s speech). From the simplest nuclear sentences, various derivative sentences can be constructed through transformations.

Chomsky described 24 types of transformations, including

Substitution - replacing one element with another

Permutation - rearrangement of elements

Adjunction - adding elements

Ellipsis - element exclusion

The main problem is to separate grammatically correct sequences from grammatically incorrect ones.

The greatest interest for a linguist, according to Chomsky, should be the process of generating sentences. Under the influence of this approach, Chomsky even abandoned the perception of linguistic levels as static and mutually impenetrable layers - for Chomsky these are successive stages of generation.

In the concept of generative grammar, the main figure is the speaking person, and it is with him that the most important concepts of generative grammar are associated:

Competence is real knowledge of your language;

Usage is the actual use of language in specific situations.

The modern period in the development of Russian linguistics is characterized by the rapid 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 a 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 and, above all, sentences. Some aspects are related to the semantics of sentences, others - to their structure (structure). It is difficult to establish a system of aspects (their hierarchy), but there is no doubt that the main aspects are structural and semantic, reflecting the structure and meaning of syntactic units. Moreover, the most accessible to observation are the structural properties of syntactic units, while the semantic (semantic) properties that are expressed in the means of constructing syntactic units are deep. In modern syntactic theories, these aspects served as the basis for the formation of directions in which any one side (sometimes two or more) of syntactic units is selectively considered. A large number of aspects has led to the fact that the modern period of development of syntactic theory is characterized by an unprecedented abundance of systems and concepts.

In the works of representatives of different directions there is not yet an established system of terms: the same term can denote different concepts and, conversely, the same concept is often denoted by different terms. Therefore, in some cases we will indicate different terms as synonymous, although often differences in their interpretation are hidden behind different designations of phenomena.

The highlighted aspects do not exhaust the entire variety of existing approaches to the study of syntactic units. It is also possible to identify new aspects that will allow us to analyze some properties of syntax units from new positions.

The logical aspect of learning syntax.

The logical aspect of the study of syntactic units is associated with the best traditions of Russian linguistics, since in logical terms the classics of Russian linguistics considered the problem of the relationship between language, thinking and being.

In Soviet linguistics, this problem became one of the objects of research and description of a special section of the science of language - general linguistics, into the scope of which the logical-grammatical aspect flows (and as its variations - the psycholinguistic concepts of A. D. Potebnya, A. A. Shakhmatova, etc. .).

In works on general linguistics, language is considered as a means of forming, expressing and communicating thought. However, in modern syntactic theories, the basic provisions of general linguistics are not always taken into account consistently and sufficiently fully. Thus, many linguists consider the main function of language to be the communicative function, forgetting that language is capable of being a means of communication only because thinking is carried out with its help.

The most essential feature of a sentence is its ability to form and express a thought. Philosophers and linguists who share this position distinguish three types of thought: “thought-message”, “thought-question”, “thought-impulse”. The differences between these types of thought determine the special structural and semantic properties of sentences, 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 persistently sought and are seeking those forms of thought that underlie a sentence; They study the structure (structure) of thought, which determines the syntactic division of a sentence. The thought expressed in a sentence among linguists of the 19th and 20th centuries. receives different interpretations and names: by F. I. Buslaev - judgment, by A. A. Potebnya - apperception, by A. A. Shakhmatov - psychological communication, etc.

It is very important to note that most scientists note the two-part nature of the thought expressed in any sentence, since there is always what is said (the subject of thought - speech), and what is said, although the subject of thought (speech) does not always receive verbal expression (especially in oral speech), and the thought itself is not always clearly enough divided into two components.

In modern grammatical literature, the terms of logic are widely used: subject, predicate, etc., and these terms are not unambiguous in linguistics. In logic, subject and predicate are components of the structure of thought. Scheme of logical judgment B - P, where B is the subject of the judgment, that in relation to which something is affirmed or denied. It is in the subject of judgment that the object of thought (speech), the attribute of which is expressed in the predicate, most often finds verbal expression.

In linguistic literature, the word “subject” is used not in a strict terminological sense, but as a synonym for the following words and phrases: “doer”, “producer of action”, “person”, “speaker”, “object of thought”, “carrier of attribute” and etc.

Sometimes the logical term “predicate” is used as a synonym for the term “predicate”. Associated with the logical term “predicate” is the syntactic concept of “predicativity,” which is the main property of a sentence, etc.

The logical aspect of studying a sentence is important not in itself, but primarily because thoughts are “cast” into certain structural schemes of a sentence, the degree of articulation of a thought determines the degree of syntactic articulation of a sentence, and is the basis for identifying structural and semantic types of a simple sentence: two-part, monocomponent and indivisible.

The structural aspect of learning syntax.

Attention to the structure of syntactic units has led to the emergence of a number of directions in modern linguistics: constructive syntax, structural syntax, static syntax, passive syntax, etc. The specificity of these variations is attention to the structure of syntactic units, to the identification of their structural schemes. Structural diagrams are those typical patterns (stereotypes) according to which units of different levels of the syntactic system are built in speech.

According to the scheme (model) of the phrase “adj. + noun.” phrases can be formed: spaceship, altitude sickness, X X rainy day, etc., according to the scheme “noun. + in + noun in wine P." - a flight into space, a trip to the mountains, entering an auditorium, etc. The structural diagram of a sentence is considered in constructive syntax as “the first essential feature of a sentence”

The structural diagrams of a simple sentence include only those structural elements that reflect the logical structure of thought that determines the syntactic positions of the members of the sentence. As a result, the focus was on the main members of the sentence: the subject and predicate, their structure, and the secondary members of the sentence, as in the formal grammatical direction, moved from the syntax of the sentence to the syntax of the phrase.

One of the tasks of constructive syntax is to compile a complete (“final”) list of structural schemes of syntactic units, although there is still no unity in linguistics on the issue of the composition of structural schemes, on the principles of identifying structural elements.

Different opinions on the issue of the composition of the components of structural diagrams can be reduced to two points of view: 1) The structural diagram includes only a predicative minimum; 2) the structural diagram includes a semantic-structural minimum. The first point of view allows us to identify more objective components of the structural diagram, the second gives scope for a broader interpretation of the concept of “components of the structural diagram.”

So, within the framework of the structural aspect, criteria for determining the components of the structural schemes of a sentence were not (and could not be) found. Ultimately, the structural diagrams of a simple sentence were reduced to the main members, and, as the “living language” - speech shows, the main members of a sentence in their scope do not always coincide with the components of the structural diagrams. For example: She had big blue eyes (Yakovlev); The history of poetry is the history of gradual improvement of the medium of poetry (Bryusov); .A person can never waste his desire to improve his life(Chernyshevsky).

With such a selection of the main terms, which coincide in volume with the components of structural diagrams, there is no semantic completeness of the main terms, although the underlined words are sufficient to express the linguistic semantics. There is no informative (speech) completeness expressed by lexical means. In fact, the communicative purpose of these sentences is not messages: there were eyes, history is history, a person can. The main members require semantic instantiators. In teaching practice, semantic concretizers are usually taken into account when determining the composition of the predicate, since usually the predicate contains “new”, therefore in the last sentence the infinitive lose and the negative particle not are included in the predicate.

It is also becoming more and more obvious that some minor members can also be included in the structural schemes of sentences (for example, one-part sentences).

Analysis of specific sentences shows that secondary members that are not included in the structural scheme may also have their own structural core, supplemented by semantic concretizers. For example: - Goodbye... go! - he suddenly said. - Go! - he shouted in an angry and loud voice, opening the door of the office (L. Tolstoy); The huge port, one of the largest commercial ports in the world, was always overcrowded

Thus, the question is whether or not to include semantic instantiators in structural diagrams. If you include it, the list of structural diagrams will increase sharply and will no longer be “finite”.

In the works of most Soviet linguists, the structural description of syntactic units is accompanied by an indication of their semantics and functional features (use in speech), and the conditions for filling the schemes with lexical material are noted.

A relatively short period in the development of structural trends, whose representatives sharply negatively assessed the semantic aspect of the study of syntactic units and extolled the scientific rigor of structural descriptions, showed that this “rigor” was achieved by simplifying and schematizing the living language. However, it is also obvious that the isolation of structural schemes also played a positive role, as it forced us to consider in more detail the mechanism of constructing utterances and to increase attention to the means that serve the grammatical meanings of syntactic units and their components.

Communicative aspect of learning syntax.

The most essential property of a sentence for representatives of communicative syntax is the ability of a sentence to act as a means of communication (communication). The communicative aspect of a sentence is manifested in the so-called actual division, in the presence of which the “given” (topic, basis of the utterance) and the “new” (rheme, predicated part) are distinguished in the sentence. “Given” and “new” are especially clearly distinguished in question- response form of dialogue. For example: Where did you work in the summer? - I worked in the summer | on virgin soil. The speaker poses the question based on a known (“given”) fact: he knows that the interlocutor worked in the summer, but does not know where. This is exactly what the question asks. In the answer “given” - I worked in the summer, “new” - in the virgin lands. What was “new” in the previous sentence usually becomes “given” in the subsequent sentence. Life is action, and action is struggle (Belinsky).

The actual division is usually superimposed on the structural-semantic one, which includes a logical basis, complements it without affecting the nature of the members of the sentence, if the members of the sentence are of a morphologized nature. Yes, in a sentence In the summer I worked in the virgin lands for any question - answer (When did you work in the virgin lands? Who worked in the virgin lands in the summer? What did you do in the virgin lands?) the different nature of the actual division does not change the qualifications of the members of the sentence, since they are expressed in forms typical for them.

There is no communicative task of a sentence necessary for the syntactic qualification of non-morphologized main members.

Let us illustrate this by comparing the following structures: Forests are Siberia's greatest treasure; The greatest treasure of Siberia is its forests. Their structural diagram is the same: it consists of two nouns, and the lexical composition is the same, however, the information that these sentences contain is different. The division of the first sentence into the composition of subject and predicate is beyond doubt. When parsing the second sentence, taken out of context, difficulties arise: which of the nouns serves as the subject? The structure suggests: treasure is the subject, forests is the predicate, since usually the first component of the structural diagram is the subject of the sentence. However, such qualification is hampered by the logical-semantic meaning of the components of the structural diagram: the word forest is an exponent of the subject of a logical judgment, expresses the particular, is the bearer of the attribute, and the word treasure is a predicate, general, attribute, qualification. Indeed, according to the lexical-semantic nature of the nouns treasure and forest, forest is more suitable for the role of the subject (due to its subject-specific meaning), and treasure is more suitable for the role of the predicate, since it is qualitatively evaluative, but the inversion of the subject and predicate is alarming. Out of context, the communicative (actual) division of this sentence is unknown and it can be analyzed in two ways: The greatest treasure of Siberia is forests and The greatest treasure of Siberia is forests. The possibility of double parsing can be argued using lexical and grammatical means. Wed: Siberia's greatest treasure is its forests; The greatest treasure of Siberia is its forests. Only in context do such sentences (without lexico-grammatical specifiers) receive an unambiguous characterization, since the context clarifies the communicative task of the sentence: Siberia is famous for its many natural resources: gold, diamonds, all kinds of ores, oil, river energy... But, perhaps, the greatest treasure of Siberia is its forests(Kuksov).

The communicative aspect also influences the solution of the question: to include or not to include the words largest and Siberia in the main member in the above sentence? What to include: both words or just one? What is the main message? In this sentence, the noun treasure is enough for the lexical-semantic characterization of the subject of thought (speech), but what about sentences such as The art of writing is the art of abbreviating (Chekhov). The communicative aspect suggests that the highlighted words are insufficient for the semantic distinction between the subject and the predicate. (Both parsing options can be accepted; the one noted, based on the structural aspect, is preferable.)

The communicative aspect in the study of sentences made it possible to resolve the issue of sentences like: 1 . These are linden trees. 2. It smells like linden. 3. This linden tree smells like honey. In the second and third sentences, this has partially lost the properties of the subject; in it, the importance of a means of connecting parts of the text, a means of indicating objective reality, has increased. In the communicative aspect, this is the first component of the actual division (“given”), the linden smells and the linden smells of honey - the second (“new”) The presence of this weakens the meaning of predicativity in one-part and two-part sentences, strengthens the meaning of nomination in them (designating a phenomenon of reality). Thus, from the point of view of the communicative aspect, in such sentences there are two components - this is the second part (in the first sentence the second part is a predicate, in the second and third - sentences that can be further parsed according to the members of the sentence).

Understanding the features of the grammatical (syntactic) structure and meaning of such constructions allows us to distinguish between communicative and structural divisions. Wed. Also: Someone's steps and groans were heard outside: they were carrying the wounded (Chakovsky); “It’s our guns hitting,” he asserted. “Can’t you hear?” It's us who hit, we!(Chakovsky).

Analysis of sentences of such a structure shows the possibility of including visual-sensory images in the semantics of a sentence as a whole, and the functional proximity in some cases of words and sentences. In the first years of the passion for actual division there was a tendency to look for “given” and “new” in every sentence. Currently, the existence of undivided statements is also recognized. As a rule, such sentences contain a message about the existence, the presence of phenomena of reality, for example: There was severe frost. It is difficult to isolate “given” and “new” in sentences taken out of context, for example: Lush leaves whispered joyfully and calmly in the tops (L. Tolstoy).

Ways to actualize the communicative center of an utterance. The communicative aspect of the study of syntactic units has enriched syntactic science with theoretical awareness of ways to actualize (strengthen, highlight) the semantic center of a sentence.

Let's consider the main ways to highlight the communicative center of an utterance:

1. Logical (or “phrase”) stress allows you to highlight the informative center of a sentence in any word order. For example, in the sentence The flowers bloomed in our garden, the semantic center can be different members of the sentence.

2. The most important means of highlighting the communicative center of a sentence in oral and written speech is word order.

The functions of word order in Russian are varied. Of these, the most significant are structural (grammatical), communicative and stylistic. Direct (ordinary) word order is often not paid attention to: it is familiar, and yet word order can be a means of expressing communicative, stylistic and other functions only against the background of direct word order, identified in the structural aspect. The members of the sentence are arranged in a certain sequence: The branches of living trees moved slowly, majestically above (Tolstoy); Golden sparks of sunlight flash and go out in full drops (Yesenin). The subject usually precedes the predicate. The order of minor members, as a rule, is associated with the rules for the arrangement of words in phrases. The agreed definition comes before the word being defined, and the inconsistent definition comes after it. The predicate is preceded by an adverbial manner of action if after the predicate there are other members of the sentence (but: The sun set slowly,_reluctantly (Vogel). The adverbs of time and place are at the beginning of the sentence if they determine the content of the sentence as a whole. The remaining members of the sentence are usually postpositive. A change in the direct order of words (inversion) occurs if the speaker (writer) wants to draw attention to inverted words, as well as when constructing more complex syntactic units, when the parts in their structure adapt to each other. Thus, the term “. free word order" in relation to the Russian language is conditional, imaginary. The inverted member stands out as the most significant, important in the message, as the communicative center of the sentence.

The actualizing positions are the beginning and the end of the sentence: in written speech - most often the end of the sentence, in oral speech - the beginning. For example: And to the right, deep below, the Volga flowed powerfully (Paustovsky); You can only hate life as a result of apathy and laziness... (L. Tolstoy); We owe all the greatest works of art to the creative imagination (Paustovsky); For the first time I saw those forests that are called dense, reserved and ship forests only in my youth (Paustovsky); Have you seen the Arpshlerists from the artillery regiment? (Bondarev).

By inversion, not one member of a sentence, but several can be actualized (especially in poetic speech): The forest drops its crimson headdress (Pushkin); A red rowan fire is burning in the garden... (Yesenin); There are no uninteresting people in the world (Yevtushenko).

The desire to strengthen the informative significance of words in poetic speech led to the appearance of the so-called broken structure of a poetic line among V. Mayakovsky and other poets:

the vastness of years will break through

like these days

the water supply came in,

worked out

still slaves of Rome (Mayakovsky).

The broken structure of a poetic line especially clearly shows that in one sentence there can be more than one communicative center. There is no doubt that a single word is more “visible” and “weighty” than when it is in the midst of other words. The initial and final words in a poetic line are more significant.

3. One of the actualizers of the communicative center of an utterance is also lexical repetition. Against the background of repeated words, antonyms and words of other lexical-semantic groups of words sound brighter. For example : With a word you can unite people, with a word you can separate them; a word can serve love, but a word can serve enmity and hatred. Beware of words that divide people or serve enmity and hatred.(L. Tolstoy).

The repetition in the following text is psychologically motivated: Anna was charming... her full arms with bracelets were charming, her firm neck with a string of pearls was charming, her curly hair in a disordered hairstyle was lovely, her graceful light movements of her little legs and arms were lovely, this beautiful face was lovely in its animation; but there was something terrible and cruel in her charm... “Yes, there is something alien, demonic and charming in her,” Kitty said to herself(L. Tolstoy).

4. One of the means of updating the communicative center of an utterance can be particles: ... only his deeds remain of a person (Gorky). The writer must know everything about even the most episodic character (Paustovsky); Naples and Sorrento are only good for a short time. And it is there that Russia is especially vividly remembered, and it is the village (L. Tolstoy).

5. The need to update the components of the semantic structure of a sentence led to the emergence and existence of some syntactic constructions, the main function of which is to highlight and enhance the informative significance of those phenomena of reality in question. These include incomplete sentences, interrogative sentences in monologue speech, many varieties of one-part sentences, addition, inserted constructions; revolutions constructed according to the scheme “As for... then...”, etc. For example: What gives me strength? Poetry. And my people. ...I love my country like a simple peasant - I love its forests, its sky, the smoke of its villages and every plantain crushed by a cart wheel... As for poetry, I cannot talk about it. Every word I say will seem insignificant or dark to you. How can I convey to you the essence of that feeling that makes me at times the happiest person on earth? Life is essentially beautiful - beautiful in its purity, in its very core.(Paustovsky). From the combination of a question and a response, sentences like: What life does not tolerate is vanity (Ananyev); What he did not tolerate were indisputable truths, certainties, and categorical judgments.(Granin). Not all methods of updating the communicative center of an utterance are listed here, but those indicated are sufficient to show that communicative syntax has made it possible to understand the reasons for the appearance and existence of many syntactic constructions, their semantic-stylistic and structural properties.

Notes:

1. Actualizers can perform several functions. In terms of communicative syntax, they formalize the actual division between “given” and “new”, if there is one, and highlight the communicative center of the sentence, which coincides with the “new”.

2. Often the communicative center of an utterance is updated not by one, but by several means simultaneously. Yes, in sentences Love is stronger than death and fear of death. Only by her, only by love does life hold and move.(Turgenev) semantic significance of the word Love actualized by repetition, by the particle only, and by the order of words.

3. With inverted word order, a direct object, an infinitive that is part of the predicate, etc. may appear at the beginning of the sentence (in the actualizing position), etc. They should not be confused with the subject. For example: Grief, no matter how small, is difficult to experience(Turgenev); You can even comprehend and feel correctly at once, but you cannot become a person at once, but you have to stand out as a person(Dostoevsky).

4. Changing the order of words can change their syntactic functions. Wed: The frost was severe (The frost was severe.") - There was severe frost; The winter was long(Martynov) (It was a long winter!) - It was a long winter.

Methodological note. In the practice of school teaching, the communicative center of the statement is called descriptively: “the most important thing,” “the most important thing in the message.” Attention to actualizers creates the linguistic foundations for the development of coherent speech and contributes to the formation of the ability to read and speak correctly and expressively.

Interrelationships between aspects of learning syntax.

Differentiation of aspects of the study of the syntactic structure of a language made it possible to realize and deeply study its different aspects and clearly showed the limitations of a single-aspect approach to such a multi-aspect object as language and especially its syntactic units, the combination of properties of which is not a mechanical coupling of elements, but an organic alloy, where it is difficult distinguish one property from another. The famous Russian linguist and methodologist L. V. Shcherba wrote: ... In language in general, and especially in literary language, which is a complex system, everything is so connected that nothing can be touched without setting in motion a whole series of other wheels.”

This close fusion of aspects and properties of syntactic units explains the inconsistency of individual concepts. Thus, the logical (linguo-philosophical) aspect often dissolves into the constructive or communicative. In the works of I. I. Kovtunova, the definition of the components of the actual division - theme and rheme - is a paraphrase of the definition of the components of the judgment: “The initial part of the statement is usually called the theme, since this part contains what is reported in the sentence. The topic represents the subject of the message. The second part of the statement, containing what is communicated about the topic, is called the rheme (the word “rheme” means “predicate”). The rheme contains the main content of the message and is the communicative center of the utterance.” It is easy to notice that the definitions of theme and rheme coincide almost word for word with the traditional definitions of the subject and predicate, which for more than a hundred years have been assessed as logical: the subject denotes about whom or about what the sentence says; The predicate denotes what is being said about the subject.

The difficulties associated with a clear differentiation of aspects in the study of syntactic units are due to objective factors, namely: the close connection between different aspects of the language itself, the syntactic units themselves. Therefore, the same grammatical and lexico-grammatical means serve different aspects. Perhaps we can say that the main function of word order is to highlight the communicative center of the utterance, but it is also obvious that word order serves logical, structural, and other aspects, acting as a “servant” of several masters.

Structural-semantic direction.

The structural-semantic direction in our time is represented by several varieties: in some cases more attention is paid to structure, in others - to semantics. There is also no doubt that science strives for the harmony of these principles.

The structural-semantic direction is the next stage in the evolution of traditional linguistics, which has not stopped in its development, but has become the fundamental basis for synthesizing the achievements of various aspects in the study and description of language and speech. That is why all existing directions “grew” and “grow” on the fertile soil of traditions, “split off” from the main trunk - the main direction of development of Russian linguistics, which are the syntactic concepts of M. V. Lomonosov, F. I. Buslaev, A. A. Potebnya, A. M. Peshkovsky, A. A. Shakhmatov, V. V. Vinogradov and others, who considered syntactic phenomena in the unity of form and content.

In traditional syntax, aspects of the study of syntactic units were not clearly differentiated, but were somehow taken into account when describing syntactic units and their classification.

In the works of representatives of the structural-semantic direction, the best traditions of Russian syntactic theory are carefully preserved and developed, enriched with new fruitful ideas developed during the single-aspect study of syntactic units.

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

Supporters of the structural-semantic direction rely on the following theoretical principles when studying and classifying (describing) syntactic units:

1. Language, thinking and being (objective reality) are interconnected and interdependent.

2. Language is a historical phenomenon, constantly developing and improving.

3. Language and speech are interconnected and interdependent, therefore a functional approach to the study of syntactic units - an analysis of their functioning in speech - is fundamentally important.

5. The linguistic system is a system of systems (subsystems, levels). Syntax is one of the levels of the general language system. Syntactic units form a level subsystem.

6. Syntactic units are multidimensional.

7 The properties of syntactic units are manifested in syntactic connections and relationships.

8. Many linguistic and speech syntactic phenomena are syncretic.

Many of these provisions are fundamental for all levels of the language system, therefore they are discussed in the courses “Introduction to Linguistics”, “General Linguistics”, “Historical Grammar of the Russian Language”, etc. However, they cannot be ignored when analyzing and describing the syntactic system. Let us explain those provisions that are especially important for describing units of syntax. One of them is the principle of systematic linguistic structure. All modern linguistics is permeated with the idea of ​​systematic linguistic and speech facts. It follows from this: a) language as a system is a whole consisting of interconnected and interacting elements; b) there are not and cannot be phenomena that fall outside the system of language, phenomena outside the system.

The classics of Russian linguistics studied language as a multi-level system, noted inter-level connections and interactions. In modern linguistics, much attention is paid to the delineation of levels and their differentiation.

In the structural-semantic direction, after realizing the differentiation of levels, trends are emerging: a) to explore and describe the complex interaction of levels, their interweaving. In syntactic works, this is manifested in identifying connections between vocabulary and syntax, morphology and syntax (see the corresponding sections); b)" in syntactic works, establish a hierarchy of syntactic units: phrase, simple sentence, complex sentence, complex syntactic whole. Two approaches to the description of syntactic units are outlined: from lower to higher (the “bottom” approach), from higher to lower (the “top” approach "). Depending on the approach, the researcher discovers different aspects of syntactic units and their different properties.

A specific feature of the structural-semantic direction is the multidimensional study and description of language, and in particular syntactic units.

If in traditional linguistics the extensive study of syntactic units relied heavily on the intuition of researchers, then in the structural-semantic direction the most essential features of phenomena noted within the framework of any one-aspect direction are deliberately combined. However, it is obvious that it is difficult to take into account all single-aspect characteristics (there are too many of them!), and in many cases it is not necessary if a small number of characteristics is sufficient to determine the place of a syntactic fact in the system of others (for classification and qualification).

For linguistic and methodological purposes, the main features of syntactic units are structural and semantic.

The main criterion for the classification of syntactic units at the present stage of development of syntactic theory is recognized as structural.

Based on the dialectical unity of form and content, in which the determining factor is the content, semantics is more important, because there is not and cannot be a meaningless, “empty” form. However, only those “meanings” that are expressed (formulated) by grammatical or lexico-grammatical means are accessible to observations, generalizations, etc. Therefore, not only in structuralist directions, but also in the structural-semantic analysis of the phenomena of language and speech, the primary is the structural approach, attention to the structure, to the form of syntactic phenomena. Let us explain this with the following examples.

The distinction between two-part and one-part sentences in many cases is based only on a structural criterion (the number of main members and their morphological properties - the method of expression) is taken into account. Wed: I love music.- I love music; Someone is knocking on the window. - There is a knock on the window; Everything is quiet around. - Quiet around etc. The semantic differences between two-part and one-part sentences are insignificant.

The selection of incomplete sentences like Father - to the window is also based on a structural criterion, since in semantic terms this sentence is complete.

The preference for a structural criterion over a semantic one when determining the volume of sentence members was shown on p. 18.

In some cases, participial and adjectival phrases and even subordinate clauses can act as semantic concretizers. For example: A life spent without serving the broad interests and objectives of society has no justification(Leskov).

And if we consistently carry out the semantic criterion for the classification of syntactic units, if we take the requirement of semantic completeness to the extreme, then the division of sentences in such cases can be presented in the form of two components, that is, the mechanism for constructing such sentences will practically not be clarified. However, in the structural-semantic direction, the structural criterion of classification is not always consistently observed. If the structural indicators are not clear, semantics plays a decisive role. Such cases have already been considered when clarifying the connections between vocabulary, morphology and syntax. Semantics can be critical in distinguishing between direct object and subject (The cedar was broken by a hurricane), when determining the syntactic function of the infinitive (cf.: I want to write a review. - I ask you to write a review) etc. A more rigorous, accurate and complete definition of the nature of a syntactic phenomenon is possible only taking into account structural and semantic differences.

Methodological note. In the theoretical and practical parts of the school textbook, either structure or semantics comes to the fore. Thus, when distinguishing between two-part and one-part sentences, the main criterion is structural, and when distinguishing between varieties of one-part verbal sentences, the main criterion is semantic; when distinguishing between varieties of conjunctive complex sentences, the main criterion is structural, and when classifying non-conjunctive sentences, it is semantic. In general, the textbook is characterized by flexibility in the relationship between structural and semantic indicators in the qualification and classification of linguistic material, justified by the language and speech material.

The next feature of the structural-semantic direction is taking into account the meanings of the elements (components) of syntactic units and the relationships between them when qualifying syntactic phenomena. In traditional linguistics, the focus is on the essence of the syntactic unit itself, its properties; in structural directions the focus is on the relationships between syntactic units.

In the structural-semantic direction, both the meaning of elements and the meaning of relationships are taken into account. In the most general form, they can be defined as follows: the meaning of elements is their lexico-grammatical semantics, the meaning of relations is the meaning that is found in one element of the system in relation to another.

The elements (components) of phrases are the main and dependent words, of simple sentences - members of the sentence (word forms), of complex sentences - their parts (simple sentences), of a complex syntactic whole - simple and complex sentences.

Let us show the difference between the meaning of relations and the meaning of elements by comparing the semantics of the following phrases: sawing wood and sawing wood. In the structural approach, the meaning of these phrases is considered to be object relations. With a structural-semantic approach, the meanings of these phrases differ: sawing wood - “the action and the object to which the action is transferred”; sawing wood- “objectified action and the object to which the action passes.”

Synthesis of the meaning of elements and the meaning of relationships makes it possible to more accurately determine the semantics of the phrase as a whole than with a structural characteristic, when only the meaning of the second element is noted, which is interpreted as the meaning of the phrase.

The distinction between the meanings of relations and the meanings of elements explains the reasons for the dual qualification of the semantics of phrases, which is observed in modern works on syntax: cloudy day - attributive relations and “an object and its attribute”; to chop with an ax - object relations and “action and instrument of action,” etc. The first definitions of meaning are more typical for modern syntactic theories of the structural direction, the second - for the structural-semantic direction.

The meaning of relations can correspond to the meaning of elements (golden autumn, snowy winter, etc.), can introduce additional “meanings” into the semantics of elements: the meaning of an object, place, etc. (rain with snow, a road in the forest, etc.), can change the meaning of elements ( seashore, birch leaves, etc.).

The semantic relationships between sentences in a complex sentence are determined not only by the grammatical, but also by the lexical semantics of the combined sentences. Yes, in sentences I'm sad: I don't have a friend with me(Pushkin) and I am cheerful: my friend is with me the very possibility of temporal and cause-and-effect relationships is determined by both lexical and grammatical semantics. Here, for example, goal values ​​are impossible, since the typical meaning of the first sentence (state) does not allow combination with a sentence having a goal value. Between sentences I love tea and it will rain soon it is impossible to establish semantic connections due to the incompatibility of the lexical semantics of these sentences.

It is obvious that the grammatical semantics of complex sentences is not necessary in itself, but as the background that allows sentences to be “collised” in such a way as to complicate their lexical semantics with additional meanings and to reveal their content reserves. For example: Teacher, raise a student so that he has someone to learn from later (Vinokurov). The semantics of this complex sentence as a whole is not a simple sum of the “meanings” of individual sentences. The message of the first part becomes deeper and more acute when it is supplemented with an indication of the purpose, revealed by a subordinate clause. The informative content of this complex sentence undoubtedly includes the lexical and grammatical meanings of the elements (main and subordinate clauses) and the meaning of the relationships between them. Analysis of the semantics of phrases and complex sentences, taking into account the meanings of elements and relationships, shows that the specificity of the elements of syntactic units is most fully and accurately revealed in the connections and relationships between them.

The next feature of the structural-semantic direction, organically connected with the first two, is attention to the phenomena of transition (syncretism), which are found at all levels of language and speech, when studying language in any aspect.

Syntactic units have a complex of differential features, among which the main ones are structural and semantic. For convenience of description, syntactic units are systematized (classified), and types, subtypes, varieties, groups, etc. of syntactic phenomena are identified, which in turn have a set of differential features.

The orderliness of classifications is disrupted by syntactic phenomena that combine the properties of different classes in the synchronous system of language. They qualify as transitional (syncretistic). Interacting syntactic phenomena can be represented in the form of intersecting, partially overlapping circles, each of which has its own center (core) and periphery (see the diagram below).

The center (core) includes syntactic phenomena typical for a particular classification rubric, which have a maximum concentration of differential features and a complete set of them. On the periphery there are syntactic phenomena that lack or are not clearly expressed any differential features characteristic of the center. The shaded segment is the area of ​​intermediate formations, which are characterized by a balance of combined differential features. The different relationships between the properties of compared syntactic phenomena can be shown using a transitivity scale, placing it in intersecting circles. The end points of the scale A and B indicate comparable syntactic units and their varieties, between which in the synchronous system of language, especially speech, there is an infinite number of transitional (syncretic) links that “flow” into one another. For ease of presentation, we reduce the number of transition links to three, highlighting them as key points and milestones.

Ab, AB, aB are transitional connecting stages, or links, reflecting the interaction between correlative syntactic phenomena. Transitional links include facts of language and speech that synthesize differential features A and B.

Syncretic phenomena are heterogeneous in the proportion of combining properties: in some cases there are more characteristics of type A, in others properties of type B predominate, in others there is an approximate balance of combining properties (AB). Therefore, syncretic phenomena are divided into two groups: peripheral (Ab and aB) and intermediate (AB). The boundary between typical syntactic phenomena passes in the AB zone. The transitivity scale allows you to clearly show fluctuations in the proportion of combined differential characteristics. The presence of a transition zone between typical units (A and B) connects the units of syntax, and especially their varieties, into a system and makes the boundaries between them fuzzy and unclear. L.V. Shcherba wrote: ...we must remember that only extreme cases are clear. Intermediate ones in the original source itself - in the minds of the speakers - turn out to be hesitant and indefinite. However, this is something unclear and wavering and should most of all attract the attention of linguists."

A complete understanding of the system of syntactic structure of the Russian language cannot be given by studying only typical cases characterized by a “bundle” of differential features. It is necessary to study the interaction and mutual influence of syntactic units, taking into account transitional (syncretic) links that reflect in the synchronous system of a language the richness of its capabilities and the dynamics of its development. To ignore syncretic phenomena means to reduce and impoverish the object of study. Without taking into account syncretic formations, a deep and comprehensive classification of syntax units is impossible. Transitions (overflows) without sharp dividing lines are observed between all units of syntax and their varieties.

Transitional phenomena not only take place in one system (subsystem, etc.) of a language, but also connect its different levels, reflecting the interaction between them. As a result, even with level differentiation, syncretic facts (intermediate and peripheral) are discovered, which are interpreted as interlevel.

Thus, both levels and aspects are interpenetrable.

Among the many factors that determine the phenomena of transitivity, we note three: 1) the combination of features characterizing various syntactic units due to their level nature; 2) the combination of features characterizing syntactic phenomena due to their multifaceted nature; 3) combination of features due to the overlap (synthesis) of element values ​​and relationship values. We illustrate the points made. We illustrate the synthesis of differential properties of basic syntactic units belonging to different levels of the syntactic subsystem with the following examples, among which Ab, AB and aB are the zone of transitional cases between a complex sentence and a simple, complicated introductory word:

A - Everyone knows that he is a young man.

Ab - It is known that he is a young man.

AB - It is known: he is a young man.

aB - It is known that he is a young man.

B - He is known to be a young man.

We will show the discrepancy between the semantic and formal structure as a consequence of the multidimensional nature of syntactic units using the following example: I love the storm in early May...(Tyutchev). Some scientists consider such proposals as one-part definitely-personal, while others consider them two-part with incomplete implementation of the structural scheme. The dual qualification of such proposals is due to the multi-aspect approach to their analysis. If we take semantic properties alone as the basis for the classification (there is an agent - a logical subject and an action - a predicate), then this sentence must be qualified as two-part; if we take into account only the structural properties, then this proposal must be qualified as one-component; If both are taken into account, then such a proposal should be interpreted as transitional (intermediate) between two-part and one-part ones. On the transitivity scale, such a sentence falls into the shaded segment.

We will show the synthesis of differential features due to the superposition of element values ​​and relationship values ​​using the following example: Path in the woods- these are kilometers of silence, calmness (Paustovsky). In the phrase path in the forests, the lexical and grammatical meaning of the place of the word form in the forests is complicated by the meaning of the definition (cf. forest path).

From all that has been said, the conclusion follows: it is necessary to distinguish between typical syntactic units and their varieties, which have a full set of differential features, and transitional (syncretic) phenomena with a combination of features. Both for syntactic research and for teaching practice, it is extremely important not to strive to “squeeze” syncretic phenomena into the Procrustean bed of typical cases, but to allow variations in their qualification and classification, and to note combining properties. This will allow us to overcome dogmatism in teaching practice, and in theoretical research it will lead to a freer, more flexible and deeper interpretation of syntactic phenomena.

Methodological note. In school syntax, the possibility of asking several questions to the same member of a sentence is noted (see note on pp. 64, 72, etc.). Attention to ambiguous members of a sentence not only expands the range of students’ knowledge, but also contributes to the development of their linguistic sense, cognitive activity, thinking and speech. However, at school, polysemous members of a sentence should not be the focus of study, although the teacher should know about their existence so as not to demand an unambiguous answer where a double interpretation is possible.

Literature:

1. Grammar of the modern Russian literary language. - M., 1970. - P. 541. Further in the text this book will be called “Grammar-70”.

2. See: Raspopov I.P. The structure of a simple sentence in modern Russian. - M., 1970; Kovtunova I.I. Modern Russian language: Word order and actual division of sentences. - M., 1976; Krushelnitskaya K. G. Essays on the comparative grammar of the German and Russian languages. - M., 1961.

3 In linguistic works, the communicative center of a sentence-statement (“new”) is also called informative, semantic, semantic.

4 See: Kovtunova I.I. Modern Russian language: Word order, actual division of sentences. - M., 1976; Sirotinina O. B. Word order in Russian, - Saratov, 1

5. Shcherba L.V. Modern Russian literary language // Izbr. works on the Russian language. - M., 1957. - pp. 126-127

6. Kovtunova I. I. Modern Russian language: Word order and actual division of sentences. - M., 1976. - P. 7

7. “Different scientists have different ways, but in all our domestic classical grammatical works there is an understanding of the linguistic system as a multi-level system, within which inter-level, intra-system connections and interactions are constantly and variedly carried out.” (Shvedova N. Yu. Russian scientific descriptive grammar at the Academy of Sciences // Issues of linguistics. - 1974. - No. 6. - P. 12.)

8. See: Babaytseva V.V. Sentence as a multi-aspect unit of syntax // Rus. language at school.- 1984.- No. 3.

9. Shcherba L.V. Selected works on linguistics and phonetics. - L., 1958. - T. I. - P. 35-36.