A complex sentence as an independent semantic-syntactic unit of the language. Compound sentence as a syntactic unit. Types of complex sentences Compound sentence in the system of syntactic units

The main ways and means of expressing the grammatical meaning of a complex sentence. Elements of the structure of a complex sentence.

Structural-semantic model of a complex sentence as a certain set of elements necessary to express its main grammatical meaning when implementing the corresponding syntactic connection in it.

The concept of open and closed structure of a complex sentence; about its flexible and inflexible structure; on the structure of homogeneous and inhomogeneous composition. Free and non-free (phraseological) models of a complex sentence. Transitional constructions in the field of complex sentence syntax.

A complex sentence in a functional aspect: types of a complex sentence according to the purpose of the statement; mono- and polyfunctional complex sentences; a complex sentence in terms of the emotional coloring of its structure; the specificity of the actual articulation of the structure of a complex sentence.

Typology of a compound sentence: allied and non-union complex sentences; complex and complex sentences.

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

A complex sentence is a combination of two or more predicative parts, functioning as one communicative unit. Each of the predicative parts included in it is similar in structure to a simple sentence, however, as part of a complex structure, it loses such features of the sentence as intonation and semantic independence, and interacts with the other part, expressing a detailed message, integral in nature: We again without collusion ran into her 1: going downstairs, she held the key in her hand 2 (V. Nabokov); Everything burned down 1 that life gave me 2 (L. Alekseeva).

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

1) polypredicativity, which determines the presence of a complex mechanism of mutual adaptation of predicative parts and the use of special means for this: The three are waiting at the porch 1, in a rush. . . fast run 2 will take us away (P. Vyazemsky); Friendship is friendship 1, and service is service 2;

2) polypropositivity - the presence of two or more event or logical propositions and the combination in the semantic structure of the proposal of nominations of two or more events (situations): Darkness is deep in the sky 1 . . . , the dawn has risen 2 (A. Pushkin).

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

The asymmetry in the relations of predicativity and propositivity is manifested in the existence of simple sentences, which are characterized by polypropositivity.

These are sentences complicated by separate definitions, circumstances, applications, which are folded propositions, as well as sentences with names of propositive (event) semantics and sentences with secondary nominal predicates: A person who harms by virtue of conviction can be persuaded. A person who harms out of personal malice can be softened. Only those who harm out of fear are invulnerable and adamant (L. Ginzburg); The arrival of the guest woke up the little dogs sleeping in the sun (N. Gogol); From that day on, Prince Andrei began to go to the Rostovs (L. N. Tolstoy) as a groom.

In turn, not all complex sentences are polypropositional. Consider, for example, the complex sentence It's good 1 that he did it 2 . The subordinate part in it expresses a proposition (reports a certain “state of affairs”), the main part expresses the subjective attitude of the speaker to the reported (i.e. modus). A complex sentence consisting of two predicative parts turns out to be monopropositional. Thus, polypredicativity can also correspond to monopropositivity.

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

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

The complex sentence model includes a set of basic and additional means of communication. The main means of communication include: a) composing and subordinating unions: My tired thoughts flight became low 1, and the world of the soul is waterless and poorer 2 (P. Vyazemsky); If my Russia is over 1 - I die 2 (Z. Gippius); b) allied words, or relatives (in a complex sentence): In the river 1, which we call life 2, and we are a mirror stream 1 (P. Vyazemsky); c) correlates (indicative words in the main part of a complex sentence, signaling its incompleteness): What is regret and hello to that 1 who dies in the color of years 2? (M. Lermontov); d) supporting words in complex sentences of an undivided structure - words directly distributed by the subordinate clause: You wander in the forest without thinking 1 that suddenly you will become an eyewitness of some secret 2 (M. Petrovykh); e) intonation.

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

The set of means of communication - the structural elements of a complex sentence - forms its model (scheme), which can be both typical and private. A typical model is a general model by which all complex sentences of the same structural-semantic type are built, a particular model is a model of a specific complex sentence. It includes the means of predicative links that are inherent in a particular syntactic construction and are relevant for its construction. The complex sentence model is graphically transmitted in the form of a block diagram. For example, the sentence Evil exists 1 in order to fight it 2 (I. Brodsky) is built according to the scheme , (p. what). Models of a complex sentence are divided into free and phraseologized (phrase models). The latter include stably reproducible additional means of connecting predicative parts (particles, special lexemes, repetition of words or their forms): Let's take a closer look at the sentence of the phraseologized structure. It is worth reading this poem more carefully 1, as we will understand its entire depth 2. It is built according to a non-free model, which includes, as its constant component, such additional means of communication as the word stands (cost) and the adjoining perfective infinitive in the first part. The general model of complex sentences of this variety has the form:

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

Such sentences of a phraseologized structure name two events that are connected by the relations of condition and direct consequence, cf. : As soon as we carefully read this poem, we will understand its meaning. If we carefully read this poem, we will understand its meaning. In addition, in sentences built on this phrase model, the presence of a characteristic property in a person or object, which determines the possibility of what is called the second part, is emphasized. As a result, additional causal relationships may arise between the two predicative parts: As soon as he gets sick 1, everything stops 2 . Thus, this sentence of a phraseologized structure, like many others built on non-free models, is ambiguous. The model of a complex sentence is an indicator of its grammatical meaning; the structural mechanism of a sentence determines its syntactic semantics.

In the semantic aspect, a complex sentence is a unit characterized by semantic integrity. Its meaning is not the sum of the meanings of its constituent predicative parts. “The grammatical meaning of a complex sentence is usually understood as the semantic relations between its parts, and one or another grammatical meaning is characteristic not only of one particular sentence, but of all sentences that have the same structure (structure), built on the same model” . He did not accept Gift Offers 1 because there was nothing to give 2 (I. Goncharov); The dogs climbed far into the kennels 1, since there was no one to bark at 2 (I. Goncharov); One day Varyusha woke up because Sidor. . . pounded his beak on the glass 2 (K. Paustovsky), despite the difference in specific unions, are built according to a common model model:, (causal subordinating union). A causal relationship is established between the events of the first and second predicative parts. Thus, the syntactic meanings of these constructions are the meanings of the cause.

There are general and particular syntactic meanings. General meanings are the meanings inherent in typical models of complex sentences and based mainly on the main means of communication; private syntactic meanings are determined taking into account the lexical content and additional means of communication and characterize the subtypes of complex sentences or their varieties (within the subtype). Let's compare the complex sentences: a) The lamps were burning brightly 1, and everyone sang and sang his simple song the disabled samovar 2 (K. Paustovsky); b) It was getting hot 1, and I hurried home 2 (M. Lermontov); c) The youthful fever of Stolz infected Oblomov 1 , and he burned with a thirst for work 2 . . . (I. Goncharov). All of them are built according to a common standard model, and, the main means of communication in it is the connecting union and. The common syntactic meaning of these constructions is the meaning of the connection. Their lexical content, the features of the paradigm and the order of their parts make it possible to single out particular syntactic meanings: a) enumerative meaning; b) effective value; c) connective-distributive meaning.

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

A particular meaning can be specified as a result of the use of syntactically specialized elements. These are adverbs, particles (and their combinations), introductory words that perform the functions of concretizers of a certain particular meaning in a complex sentence. So, in the sentence Already, almost in front of the pillbox, there were forward arrows 1, but it was still impossible to walk along the road 2 (N. Tikhonov), the words already and still express a concessive meaning. The role of such elements is especially great in compound and non-union complex sentences.

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

There are two types of such lexical elements: 1) typological-constructive elements necessary to implement the main syntactic meaning of a complex sentence. So, antonyms express a comparative meaning, the main one for compound and non-union sentences with comparative relations: Young - for service 1, old - for advice 2 (proverb); 2) private-constructive elements that cause an additional grammatical meaning that does not coincide with the main meaning of the sentence; so, the use of modal words in complex sentences with subordinate clauses modifies the main syntactic meaning: True, the bullet hit him in the shoulder 1, because he suddenly lowered his arm 2 (M. Lermontov). The subordinate clause expresses not a causal, but an investigative meaning, since its rationale is given in the main part.

In the semantic aspect, a complex sentence acts as a polypropitive unit: it is focused on reporting two or more situations, each of which receives a predicate expression, and may contain several dictum meanings. This feature does not apply, however, to all types of complex sentences. Monopropositive are: 1) complex sentences with substantive-attributive (defining) clauses, in which the clause is used not to name a separate situation, but to establish the reference of a name: There are words 1 that only seem banal 2 ; 2) explanatory-objective complex sentences, in which one part may contain a mode of expression (give a modal and / or evaluative interpretation of the message), and the second - a dictum (main message): . Vyazemsky); It is good 1 that autumn has already passed 2 ; 3) complex sentences with pronominal-correlative clauses, in which the clause in combination with the correlate gives a detailed name of a person or object: This is all 1 that I heard 2 (M. Bulgakov) - cf. : all overheard.

The meaning of a complex sentence can also be organized in such a way that the propositions contained in its parts "correlate with the same situation". So, in divisive compound sentences with unions, it’s not the same. . . not that, or. . . whether different propositions serve to inaccurate nomination of the same situation, not clearly identified by the speaker: Either he [Rudin] envied Natalia 1 , or he regretted her 2 (I. Turgenev).

rheme theme rheme theme

cf. : (Freezing). It's cold, / / the snow crunches underfoot. Wed : (Freezing). The snow crunches underfoot, / / it's cold. In the last utterance, a change in the order of the parts actualizes the rheme, the first part is distinguished by intonation (raising the pitch on the stressed word and increasing its duration). The theme-rhematic division of a complex sentence reflects the allocation of less and more significant information for the speaker: the most important information is the rheme of the statement.

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

rheme theme

Wed: Since the classes were over, / / I went home (the boundaries of the components of the actual articulation coincided

rheme theme

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

When expressing the purpose of the statement in a complex sentence, not only single-functional, but also multi-functional parts can be combined, for example, narrative and interrogative: He worked all his life 1, and what did you do 2? Thus, in comparison with a simple sentence, a complex one is characterized by the possibility of combining different goals, different functional plans. It has not only a modal, temporal, but also a communicative perspective.

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

1) Binomial / polynomial sentences are distinguished by the number of predicative parts: It was raining 1, and trees were rustling from a strong wind 2 (A. Chekhov); For some time he stood at the window 1: the sky was curdled 2 ; occasionally, in the place 3 where the blind sun 4 floated, opal pits 3 appeared (V. Nabokov);

2) by the presence of allied means of communication, allied / non-union complex sentences are opposed: in allied constructions, predicative parts are connected by unions (composing or subordinating) or allied words, allied sentences are characterized by the absence of allied means of communication: You sing me that song 1 that the old one used to sing to us mother 2 (S. Yesenin); There will be, there will be time 1: the sun will come again 2 (K. Sluchevsky).

3) according to the nature of the model (scheme), sentences built according to free models and sentences built according to non-free (phraseological) models (sentences of a phraseological structure) are distinguished. Sentences of a phraseologized structure are built according to special non-free models, which are characterized by the presence of additional stably reproduced means of communication (particles, special lexemes, repetitions). Their features are: a) modeling based on the stability of the phrase scheme and its reproducibility; b) especially close connection of predicative parts; c) often a fixed order of parts; d) tendency to idiomatic meaning; e) the presence of a variety of expressive and evaluative meanings: The more flame in my long-experienced 1, the less ahead of the fire in me tired 2 (I. Severyanin); Be brave, don't be brave 1, but you won't be braver than the world 2 (N. Leskov).

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

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

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

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

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

So, the negative particle not and the restrictive particle are only used in complex sentences with the union as, expressing the relationship of temporal interdependence, for example: 1) The peasant did not have time to gasp, as the bear settled on him (I. Krylov); 2) As soon as we had time to rest and dine, we heard gun shots (A. Pushkin). The first part in such sentences denotes an action interrupted by another action, which is mentioned in the second part (a sentence with a particle not), or an action that ended just when the action indicated in the second part of the sentence began (a sentence with a particle only). Thus, the difference in meaning between the first and second sentences depends on the use of different particles in these sentences. Both particles are necessary in the organization of such proposals. Without them, such sentences cannot be constructed at all (one cannot say: “We managed to dine, how ...”, “I managed to gasp, how ...”, etc.).

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

In sentences with a double union than ... those in which facts interconnected in their development are compared, forms of the comparative degree of adjectives or qualitative adverbs are an obligatory element of the structure, for example: 1) The sooner the fire burned out, the more visible the moonlit night became (A. Chekhov); 2) The more he spoke, the more he blushed (Saltykov-Shchedrin).

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

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

4) if it is possible to change the order of predicative parts in complex sentences, flexible and inflexible structures are distinguished. Flexible structures allow different options for the order of parts: If you have to choose a fate 1 - I will not be deceived by another 2 (N. Krandievskaya). Inflexible structures are structures in which permutations of predicative parts and the insertion of one of the parts into another are impossible: The train departed at seven o'clock in the evening 1, so that Mikhail Ivanovich could have time to have lunch ... before departure 2 (L. Tolstoy);

5) on the basis of “correspondence / inconsistency in the number of propositions and predicative parts of the sentence”, symmetrical and asymmetric constructions are distinguished. In symmetrical constructions, the number of propositions is equal to the number of predicative parts: If you need help 1 call 2 . In asymmetric constructions, the number of propositions does not correspond to the number of predicative parts, and individual links of the semantic structure of the statement are not expressed using linguistic means (implicit): If you want to buy bread 1, then the bakery is to the right 2 . In this statement, two predicative parts correspond to three components of the semantic structure: If you want to buy bread 1, then (keep in mind, know 2) (that) a bakery to the right 3 . The second component is omitted, which causes the asymmetry of the complex sentence.

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

1) functionally homogeneous sentences - sentences, all the predicative parts of which coincide in goal setting: a) narrative: I walked slowly 1: I was sad 2 (M. Lermontov); b) interrogative: Why ... others can do everything 1 , but I can't 2 ? (L. Tolstoy); c) incentive: Give everything earthly to the earth 1, and, like blue smoke, ascend to us in blue, pure and unharmed 2 (F. Sologub).

2) syncretic, uniting functionally heterogeneous parts: a) narrative-interrogative: Without a doubt, he was in a miserable position 1 , but what was there to do 2 ? (L. Tolstoy); b) narrative-motivating: ... You won’t find better 1: turn a gentle look, girls, to the infantry 2 (A. Tvardovsky); c) motivating-interrogative: Yes, run to the officer 1 - why is he chilling there 2? (A. Chekhov); d) incentive-narrative: Understand 1: lack of freedom from lies leads to atrocities 2 (V Kornilov).

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

It is traditional to divide sentences into exclamatory and non-exclamatory sentences. These types of sentences differ in the presence / absence of emotional coloring in the syntactic construction and, thus, are associated with the reflection of the position of the speaker (the author of the statement), with the transfer of his emotions and assessments. First of all, exclamatory intonation, as well as particles, interjections and expressive vocabulary serve as a means of expressing emotions: How vividly unpretentious pictures of marching movements arise in my head 1, and what a modest charm they acquire in memories 2! (A. Kuprin). Non-exclamatory and exclamatory sentences are unevenly distributed in the system of complex structures. Non-exclamatory sentences predominate, while exclamatory ones are used, as a rule, in the sphere of binary constructions, and they are closely related to the functional types of the sentence: it is the question or motivation that often expresses the speaker's emotions.

With all the variety of structural, semantic and functional characteristics in modern Russian studies, there are three main features that serve as the basis for a consistent multi-level classification of complex sentences: 1) the presence / absence of means of communication that combine predicative parts. On this basis, the classes of allied and non-union proposals are distinguished; 2) contrasting the composition / subordination of predicative parts in the field of allied constructions: allied sentences are divided into compound and complex; 3) the assignment of one predicative part to one word of another part or to the entire part as a whole (non-segmentation/segmentation). The last division applies only to complex sentences. As a result, a rather harmonious classification arises: each division in it makes it possible to reveal the semantic originality of a distinguished class or subclass of sentences, due to the structural features underlying the classification. So, non-union sentences differ from allied ones by the diffuseness of semantics, the non-differentiation of relations between parts. Compound and complex sentences differ in the degree of autonomy of the parts and the nature of the expressed relations between them. The division of complex sentences into undivided and dissected corresponds not only to a set of structural features that delimit them, but also to significant differences in the nature of the relationship between the parts, which is reflected in the establishment of an analogy with the phrase for the first, for the second (dissected) - with a simple sentence with an adverbial determinant .

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

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

More on the topic The concept of a complex sentence. The place of a complex sentence in the system of syntactic units of the language. The grammatical meaning of a complex sentence as its main distinguishing feature. A complex sentence as a structural-semantic union of predicative parts and as a special independent unit of syntax. Differential features of a complex sentence.:

The concept of a complex sentence. The place of a complex sentence in the system of syntactic units of the language. The grammatical meaning of a complex sentence as its main distinguishing feature. A complex sentence as a structural-semantic union of predicative parts and as a special independent unit of syntax. Differential features of a complex sentence.

Compound sentence 1. Compound sentence as a syntactic unit. Semantic, structural and intonational unity of the parts of the joint venture. 2. Means of expressing syntactic relations in a complex sentence. 3. Allied and non-union complex sentences.

The definition of a complex sentence SP is a structural, semantic and intonational union of predicative units that are grammatically similar to a simple sentence. The difference between a joint venture and a simple one is not quantitative, but qualitative. SP has its own grammatical meaning (typified syntactic relations between parts), grammatical form, structural indicators.

Parts of SP are similar to simple sentences. The predicative units included in the SP are called constituent parts. Like simple sentences, they have: their own predicative center; can be one-part and two-part, common and non-common; their members are connected according to the type of agreement, control and adjacency.

Parts of the SP - elements of the whole The predicative parts that make up the SP do not have independence and completeness and are interrelated and complementary elements of the whole.

The degree of loss of semantic independence of SP expresses a variety of semantic relationships between parts. Depending on the nature of these relations, there are differences in the degree of loss of the semantic independence of the parts.

The degree of cohesion of parts of a complex sentence Parts of a complex sentence can be characterized by such close semantic cohesion that the main thing without a subordinate clause often conveys a completely different idea or is characterized by semantic incompleteness. The semantic center, as a rule, is the subordinate part. I understand that the material is difficult.

Parts of a compound sentence are more independent Within a compound sentence, the semantic independence of the parts is usually great. However, the meaning of the SSP is by no means reducible to the meanings of the parts, since typified syntactic relations arise between the parts.

Independence of parts in some types of complex sentences. Separate types of NGN are also characterized by relatively greater independence of parts (for example, with a subordinate clause). In the first lesson, she learned to stand and walk on her hind legs, which she really liked (Chekhov).

The structural unity of the parts is manifested in the fact that: 1. The parts are structurally dependent on each other, and often one of them receives completeness only as part of a complex composition. . and he's down. When everyone left. . . 2. The number of parts forms either closed, closed, two-part structures, or open, open. 3. One of the parts may be incomplete, due to their close connection. 4. A minor term common to parts is possible. 5. Structural parallelism can be observed: the same aspectual-temporal forms of verbs-predicates; the same word order, conjunctions, syntactic turns.

Structural unity is manifested in the structural parallelism of parts. Structural parallelism is one of the features of the structure of the joint venture: the second part can be built, as it were, on the model of the first. Structural parallelism is created by many components, sometimes in combination: 1) the same aspectual-temporal forms of the verbs of the predicate, for example, The wind was noisy, the bare trees were winding on the street outside the window, and dim shadows were moving randomly on the chalk wall above my head (Paustovsky)

Structural unity is manifested in the structural parallelism of parts 2) The same morphological means of expressing the members of a sentence, for example, Nevsky has become more accessible, simpler, more fun. Trams ring louder, cabbies rumble louder, women smile wider, newspapermen shout louder (Bitter) as in poetry (Paustovsky)

Structural unity is manifested in the structural parallelism of parts 4) the same word order in parts, for example, There were technical councils, there were meetings and meetings, commissions worked. 5) the use of the same, similar, synonymous or antonymous lexical elements, for example, My father had a strange influence on me, and our relationship was strange. 6) repetition of identical unions, for example, And ostrich feathers bowed in my brain sway, and blue, bottomless eyes bloom on the far shore (Block)

Intonation completeness As a communicative unit, a complex sentence is characterized by the presence of intonation of completeness, which forms the closing part. Each previous part, except for the closing part, does not have the intonation of the end, and each subsequent, except for the first, has the intonation of the beginning, characteristic of a simple sentence. This feature is the most important means of linking the parts into a single whole at the intonational level.

Intonation of different types in a complex sentence A distinctive feature of the intonation of a complex sentence is the possibility of combining intonations of different types in one sentence, for example, declarative and interrogative. Fashion, of course, is not bad, but what does the casters have to do with it?

2 in. Means of expressing syntactic relations intonation; unions; allied words; correlative pronominal words; strand of parts; the use of tenses and moods; lexical and phraseological elements.

1) Intonation performs a dual role: 1) indicates the unification of individual parts; 2) indicates different relationships between the parts. The Russian language has several types of intonation, as a rule, these include: enumeration intonation; opposition intonation; explanation intonation; intonation of explanation. The role of intonation is especially clearly manifested when sentences of the same composition of words can be pronounced either with one or another intonation. In summer it is dry and hot here, in winter it is frosty (intonation of enumeration and opposition)

2) Unions and 3) allied words Unions serve as a typical means of combining parts. They indicate the nature of the connection between the parts. Unions belong to different categories depending on the nature of the relationship that they express. Allied words perform a dual function: 1) connect parts; 2) are members of the subordinate clause. This feature is clearly found in the allied word which, it has a double dependence: it agrees in gender and number with the supporting word in the main part, and its case depends on which member of the sentence it is in the subordinate clause. A book that my friend was delighted with, I did not like. With the external coincidence of unions and allied words, it should be remembered that they differ in meaning, and often in pronunciation (the allied word has an accent, the union is deprived of it).

4) Correlative words Pronominal correlative words are used in the main part, indicating that what they denote only in a generalized form is disclosed in another part. Correlative words serve as evidence of the obligatory presence of the subordinate clause. He spoke confidently and in such a tone as if I were arguing with him (Chekhov)

5) The order of the parts In some cases, a change in the order of the parts leads to a violation of the connection between them and to the meaninglessness of the whole sentence; in these cases the order of the parts is fixed. Such structures are called inflexible. A firm order is especially common in non-union complex sentences, for example, Here a very entertaining picture opened up: a wide hut, the roof of which rested on two pillars, was full of people (Lermontov)

5) The sequence of parts in the joint venture Sometimes the sequence of parts is determined not so much by relations and meaning as by the unions used in them, so the union because it cannot begin 1 part of a complex sentence, but the synonymous union because it can. In other cases, the order of parts is free and their rearrangement does not violate syntactic relationships, but creates more or less noticeable stylistic shades, for example, It smelled of burning, and the air turned blue from smoke. The choice of the order of the parts is largely dependent on the context, and in a certain context it is often undesirable or even unacceptable to change this order.

6) Type and tense of verbs An important role in establishing relationships between parts is played by the aspect and tense of the verb. The simultaneity of actions is expressed by the forms of the same tense of imperfective verbs, and the sequence is expressed by the perfective. Examples: It was quiet, dark, and only high on the peaks a bright golden light trembled somewhere and shimmered like a rainbow in the webs of a spider (Chekhov). The whole sky was covered with clouds, and a rare, fine rain began to drip (Chekhov).

7) Lexical elements Sometimes lexical elements act as indicators of the connection of parts, as well as exponents of this connection, which in this case, as a rule, turn into phraseological turns, for example, As for the audience, they spoke favorably about the picture. Impersonal verb Art. Oit with an infinitive that depends on it indicates a condition, the appearance of which immediately causes the appearance of a certain consequence, for example, It is worth leaving the outskirts, as the steppe opens.

3 in. Allied and non-union complex sentences We can talk about two main ways of connecting parts Using allied means and intonation; With the help of intonation (without unions). Allied sentences, depending on the nature of the allied means, are divided into compound and complex. A sentence, the parts of which are combined only through intonation, are called non-union.

Semantic differences between a compound and a complex sentence The differences lie in the fact that, expressing grammatical meanings, coordinating conjunctions do not indicate the dependent, subordinate nature of one of the parts, but subordinating conjunctions and allied words indicate.

The boundaries between SSP and SPP The boundaries between compound and complex sentences are not always obvious, So, in the BSC with the union And when listing successive events, the last parts are thought of as a consequence, the result of the previous one, for example, We were sitting in the front row, and everything was fine with us audible (cf .: We sat in the front row, so we could hear everything well)

The boundaries between SSP and SPP Some complex sentences in their grammatical meaning can be close to compound sentences, for example, If heavy rains are expected in the first decade of July, then clear weather will set in the second (cf .: Heavy rains are expected in the first decade of July, and in the second the weather will be clear)

Contradictions between the form of a complex sentence and the content Between the form of a complex sentence (the main means of communication) and the meaning, contradictions can be observed in a number of cases (with a certain specific content of the predicative parts). Usually, in such cases, a complex sentence is qualified by means of communication, since it is they that express the most general meaning.

SP with a mixed (contaminated form) There are complex sentences with a mixed form, for example, Although the new forms of the exam have been introduced for a long time, not all students have mastered them. The sentence contains not only a subordinating conjunction although, but also a coordinating adversative conjunction but. Relations are characterized as concessive-opposite.

Associative Compound Sentences In modern linguistic literature, the idea that BSPs are an independent type is consistently defended, despite the proximity of some BSPs in intonation and meaning to compound sentences, and others to complex sentences. The fact is that some non-union complex sentences are close to both compound and complex sentences, for example, I am dying - I have nothing to lie (Turgenev). Wed : I'm dying, and I have nothing to lie. I'm dying, so I don't need to lie.

Allied compound sentences Among the non-union sentences there are such sentences that cannot be correlated with either complex or complex sentences, for example, We drove past a pond: ice edges were still visible on the dirty and sloping banks (Aksakov).

Non-union complex sentences (outcome) The absence of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions (the main indicators of composition and subordination), the impossibility of accurately distinguishing intonations of a coordinating and subordinating nature, the presence of union-free complex sentences with an undifferentiated meaning - all this determines the allocation of BSP into a special structural-semantic group, which in some then the degree is opposed to complex sentences with allied and relative connection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are two types of such lexical elements:

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

complex sentence grammatical connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question about sentences with several predicates with one subject

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

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

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

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

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

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

The proximity to monosubjective complex sentences is especially pronounced:

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

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

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

Basic literature for the electronic version of the lecture course

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

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

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

The difference between a simple sentence and a complex sentence:

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

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

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

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

Structural features of a complex sentence:

1. Polypredicativity;

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

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

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

Semantic features of a complex sentence:

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

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

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

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

DIFFICULT SENTENCE

COMPLEX SENTENCE AS A UNIT OF SYNTAX. PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION OF COMPLEX OFFERS….….…….3

COMPOUND SENTENCE……………………………..6

COMPLEX SUBDIVISION……………………………..10

UNION-FREE COMPLEX OFFER…………………………….19

Classifications of non-union complex sentences…………………...21

COMPLICATED COMPLEX SENTENCES……………………...24

COMPLEX SENTENCE AS A UNIT OF SYNTAX. PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION OF COMPLEX SENTENCES

Difficult sentence- a special semantic-structural unit of syntax; it is a syntactic unit that is complete in meaning and intonation, consisting of two predicative parts, similar in structure to a simple sentence. A complex sentence (hereinafter - SP) acts as a single communicative unit.

When qualifying a joint venture, the following points should be considered:

1. Parts of the joint venture have an external structural similarity with simple sentences, but do not have intonational and semantic completeness.

2. In some structural parts of the joint venture there are structural components that are not characteristic of a simple sentence - demonstrative-correlative words (antecedents) and subordinating conjunctions.

3. The main part of the SP may be informatively incomplete.

4. In certain types of joint ventures, there are specific patterns of word order in constituent parts.

In some cases, simple and complex sentences converge and form transitional types. These are constructs that express:

a) comparison: Below, like a mirror, the lake turns blue;

b) purpose: People went to the construction site to work;

c) sentences with homogeneous predicates related to one subject: The leaf falls and spins.

Parts of the joint venture can be combined with the help of unions, allied words and without unions. These two methods of communication determine the division of the joint venture into allied complex and non-union complex. Allied sentences, depending on the means of communication, are divided into compound and complex. When composing, parts of the joint venture are combined as syntactically equal, and when subordinating, one part is syntactically dependent on the other.

Compound and complex sentences differ in the following:

1. In a compound sentence (hereinafter referred to as CSP), the means of communication are coordinating conjunctions (they also connect homogeneous members in a simple sentence), and in a complex subordinating sentence (hereinafter referred to as CSP), subordinating conjunctions that do not occur in other constructions.

2. In SSP, coordinating conjunctions are a purely connecting means; in SSP, subordinating conjunctions are a structural element of the subordinate clause.

3. In NGN, interposition of the subordinate part is possible.

4. The main part of the NGN is characterized by informative incompleteness (moreover, this main part is in the preposition).

5. In the main part of the NGN, there may be antecedents that are not found in the NGN.

6. If in SSP verbs-predicates are characterized by the absolute use of the category of time, then in SSP the relative use of tenses of verbs-predicates is possible.

Most of these differences are not formulated categorically, it can be assumed transitional types, in which signs of both composition and submission are found:

1. Joint venture with comparative parts, with unions while, than and etc.

2. SP, parts of which are connected not so much by conjunctions and allied words, but by other structural means: forms of mood of verbs, the order of parts, etc. The connection between parts is expressed here only morphologically or in combination with unions that have lost their subordinating character.

3. SP with fuzzy syntactic relations
(with structures like with regards to).

4. JV with double alliances although - but, true - but, no matter how - however, in which the subordinating component is located in the first part, and the coordinating component of the union is in the second. V.V. Babaitseva calls such constructions “complex sentences with a mixed (contaminated) form.

The doctrine of subordination and composition as two types of connection between parts of a complex sentence in syntactic science originated in the 19th century. It is based on the idea of semantic dependence / independence of the parts of a complex sentence. Composing and subordinating in SP are similar to the relationship between homogeneous and heterogeneous members in a simple sentence, but in SP these relationships are less clearly expressed and more contradictory. The most important stage in the development of the doctrine of composition and subordination was the discussion in the 20s of the twentieth century. It was opened by Professor M.N. Peterson, who showed all the indefiniteness of the concepts of "composition" and "subordination" and argued that these concepts themselves have no linguistic content and are mechanically borrowed from logic. The basis of the traditional understanding of composition and subordination was the work of A.M. Peshkovsky "Are there coordinating and subordinating sentences in Russian?" (1959). Here Peshkovsky proved that composition and subordination are the most important syntactic concepts on which the classification of all joint ventures is based. The most successful teaching
A.M. Peshkovsky was continued by V.A. Beloshapkova. In her opinion, the compositional connection is equal to the connection in the compositional phrase. It is characterized by the fact that the components connected by it perform the same syntactic function with respect to the whole they form. The means of communication in composing are composing unions. The subordinating connection, according to Beloshapkova, is similar to different types of subordinating connection in a phrase and a simple sentence. The combined elements here differ in their syntactic function, and each of them takes its place. The means of communication are subordinating conjunctions and allied words. According to V.A. Beloshapkova, in the non-union complex sentence, the opposition between composition and subordination is removed. Some linguists, on the basis of semantic relations between parts and on the basis of intonation, divide non-union complex sentences into non-union composed and non-union subordinates.

In the concepts of individual scientists outside the joint venture there remains an "union-free combination of proposals." An argument in favor of such an understanding of the nature of non-union constructions is the non-grammatical character, at its core, the nature of the non-union connection, the universal means of expression of which is intonation. But, signaling that several sentences have entered into a certain combination, intonation does not indicate either the nature of this connection, or the relationships that are created on its basis. Therefore, an objective distinction between composition and subordination is impossible under conditions of an allied connection. Relations that develop within non-union constructions can be identified and differentiated based on stable elements of its structure, schemes for constructing parts, the order of their arrangement, the ratio of verbs-predicates, various lexical indicators, however, none of these has no funds. Some modern syntaxists regard non-union complex sentences as a simple combination of sentences. But non-union complex sentences are a special unit. Among them there are those that can correlate with a complex or compound sentence, but there are also constructions that do not correlate with them. The absence of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions, the impossibility of accurately distinguishing intonation of a coordinating or subordinating nature, the presence of union-free constructions with an undifferentiated meaning distinguishes BSP into a special group.

The means of expressing a syntactic connection in a joint venture can be unions, allied words, the order of parts, intonation.

The connection between the parts of the joint venture may be more or less close. With a less close connection, the content of the second part is an additional message that arose along the way in connection with the content of the first part.
In such constructions, the connection of the second part is qualified as connecting.

SP, in which only one specific type of value is revealed and which, as a rule, consist of two predicative units, is called minimal designs. Structures that are the result of a combination of minimal constructions are called complex complex sentences.

A complex sentence as an independent semantic-syntactic unit of the language. Compound sentence as a syntactic unit. Types of complex sentences Compound sentence in the system of syntactic units

Related Articles